ROOSEVELT'S MESSAGE

The President's message to Congress, although it contained a few pregnant sentences calculated to sound the radical horn, did not answer the basic radical question of public ownership Much of the radical criticism of President Roosevelt, from the beginning of his administration, has been directed at his refusal to answer this question. Much of the conservative criticism has been directed at his obvious intention to carry out legislative reform which would be meaningless, because unsanctioned, unless he answered it in the affirmative. The tragedy of the President's position is that both of these criticisms are perfectly sound.

Depression psychology, and the reaction to Mr. Hoover which it engendered, were sufficient to elect Mr. Roosevelt. With the strength of his personal charm, and the vast panorama of bustle which he conjured up, Mr. Roosevelt has been able to withhold the answer. We do not know whether he plans a reformed capitalism, a government purgation, as it were, of the excesses of capitalistic society, or a gradual accession to government ownership. The first would imply that the evils of capitalism are confined to its excesses; the second would imply that the evils of capitalism are in its essence. The first rests on the assumption that the producers can submit to control by the consumers, whose interest in a low price is exactly opposed to the producers' interest in a high price; the second rests on the elimination of the profit motive from production. The first overlooks the fact of technological unemployment, and postulates that machine growth which makes total and paid employment an impossibility, can run parallel to government control which makes total and paid employment an ideal; the second is based on technological unemployment, and on the gradual reduction of labor which machine development will bring.

There can be small question which of these ideals is most in accord with the facts of a modern industrial society. But there is a very large question which faces all of us, whether the government ownership which we need for survival can come through the mechanism of elective and parliamentary government. In the United States, the answer to that question must be very clear, and the fact that we have a President who is, as many think, operating on the assumption that the parliamentary mechanism is sufficient does not change the situation, nor abridge the limits which his position imposes. What are the sanctions for a government control of industry that will destroy the private producer constitutionally? The answer is none, and no pretension to emergency power can change it.

Some have said that the N. R. A. was unconstitutional, and this may well be so, although the charge is vitiated by the fact that the Supreme Court can make it constitutional in a moment. But others have said that the N. R. A. was unenforceable, and this is the real point. The attempt to enforce it may be an interesting one, and may serve to clarify to our people the issues which the machine has created. But that attempt will mean a degree of control that converges, in practice, with ownership. The end is a great one, but parliamentarism is not the means for its attainment, for parliamentary government does not have the power and sanction to enforce this ban to conclusion. The conservative need not fear Mr. Roosevelt for they can check him at the final point: for the same reason the real radicals are unable to feel that his experiment can be a direct, or ultimately a successful, one.