The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated. The Waikato Argus. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1928. THE PRESIDENT-ELECT.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17554, 8 November 1928, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated. The Waikato Argus. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1928. THE PRESIDENT-ELECT.

Once- again a strong man has been chosen for the Presidency of the United States. The last two occupants of the office were elected admittedly because Hie parties preferred pliability to strength. But in this campaign two of the most notable personalities in the country fought out the final issue. Between the two there - - is a remarkable contrast. Mr Hoover has none of the qualities that go to make the typical politician of to-day; Mr Smith has them all. -Mr Smith is a born public speaker, one who revels in the limelight and is never so happy as when appearing before an audience. Mr Hoover, until within the past eight years, could hardly speak in public at all, and even now his performance leaves nearly everything to be desired. He reads his speeches, in tones audible only a few feet away, and with an air of martyrdom which is irresistibly reminiscent of a small boy forced against his will to speak in a prize competition at F"hoo'. Mr Hoover has not much humour, and what he has is of the, quiet and personal kind, which does not deal in broad, slapdash effects of a sort a crowd can appreciate. If he were heckled in the course of a speech his native impulse undoubtedly would be to pick up his papers and leave the platform in offended silence. Smith, on the other hand, is famous for his spontaneous flashes of humour, and likes nothing better than a vigorous impromptu debate.

What has been the deciding factor | in the contest —party, personal policies, personality) or religion? 1L is ! very difficult to say. The religious ■ vote is specially in doubt.. Neither of I the great parties has ever before 1 dared to put a Roman Catholic forward j as its candidate. Mr Smith's Catho- | licism may have brought a heavy rej ligious vote to his side or to the other. ! In any case it is occasion for gralifica- ' tion that one party should have felt I that intolerance had become sufficiently • faint- to allow a member of the Roman Church to have a chance. Mr Hoover belongs to the Quaker Society and is the most Liberal of Protestants. The

fact that he was married by a Catholic priest (being in haste to have the ceremony performed before he left for China) was cited against him by those members of his party who opposed his nomination, but to the world at large it will be an indication of his liberality in religion. On the other hand he holds not at all with the Quaker tradi- ( lion of non-resistance. Despite his international outlook and his great service to Europe in relieving the distress of war, he opposes reduction of the war debts on the ground that "a contract is a contract." He believes in armaments. Probably most of the voters did not know what Quakerism implied; they knew that it was not Roman Catholicism; and fearful Protestants may have supported him as a means of defeating Mr Smith, i Party forces doubtless played a large part in the election. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who regard membership of the Republican or the Democratic party almost as an article of faith. The machinery of politics is very highlydeveloped. However, there is hardly more difference between the policies of the two great organisations than between two slabs of rusty iron. Within each party there is a conservative and a liberal section, and Mr Hoover has shown himself a thorough conservative. He has stood solid with the Coolidge administration, whose policy towards the Labour movement has been by no means encouraging. He apparently believes in a wellordered society in which men of wealth and ability have the largest say in important affairs. One of his books is a plea for laissez-faire, a subject on which he comes as close to eloquence as is possible for one of his temperament. This "individualism is sometimes amusingly in conflict with the engineering side of his mind, which moves instinctively toward a rather large degree of paternalism, and some day this conflict may become intense.

The measure of socialisation to which we have attained in New Zealand would be anathema to a man of Mr Hoover's mind. One of the big questions in the United States is that of hydro-electric development. It has been shown that the people are paying heavily for allowing' the waterpower resources to get into private hands, but Mr Hoover stands for private enterprise in this as in other undertakings. Mr Smith considered that these resources should be retained in the people's hands. He received, in consequence, surprising support from some Liberal papers which' heartily detested his association with the corrupt Democratic machine of Tammany Hall. On this question of political honesty much was said on both sides. Though both men were generally credited with thorough personal integrity, both were unfortunately associated with corrupt gangs, and Mr Hoover has been bitterly criticised by people otherwise friendly for having failed to dissociate himself from those concerned in the great oil scandal and for having given positive support to the corrupt Albert Fall, a member of the Harding Cabinet. One other issue was prominent in the campaign—that of liquor versus prohibition. Mr Smith came out definitely for a departure from prohibition. Mr Hoover is well known to be a sincree and practsiing opponent of alcoholic drinking, thought he admits that there are evils associated with the present enforcement of the "dry" laws that must be remedied. However, the outstanding fact is that a man with a will, a man with confidence in his own judgment and powers, is in control of America's national affairs for the next four years. His -magnificent record in international relief work gives reason to hope that his power will, on the whole, be used for good.