We must revive the courage of men and women and their faith in American liberty. We must recover these spiritual heritages of America. All this clatter of class and class hate should end. Thieves will get into high places as well as low places and they should both be given economic security — in jail. But they are not a class.
This is a classless country. If we hold to our unique American ideal of equal opportunity there can never be classes or masses in our country. To preach these class ideas from the White House is new in American life.
There is no employing class, no working class, no farming class. You may pigeonhole a man or woman as a farmer or a worker or a professional man or an employer or even a banker. But the son of the farmer will be a doctor or a worker or even a banker, and his daughter a teacher. The son of a worker will be an employer — or maybe President. And certainly the sons of even economic royalists have a bad time holding the title of nobility.
The glory of our country has been that every mother could look at the babe in her arms with confidence that the highest position in the world was open to it. The transcendent issue before us today is free men and women. How do we test freedom? It is not a catalogue of political rights. It is a thing of the spirit. Men must be free to worship, to think, to hold opinions, to speak without fear. They must be free to challenge wrong and oppression with surety of justice.
Freedom conceives that the mind and spirit of man can be free only if he be free to pattern his own life, to develop his own talents, free to earn, to spend, to save, to acquire property as the security of his old age and his family. Freedom demands that these rights and ideals shall be protected from infringement by others, whether men or groups, corporations or governments.
The conviction of our fathers was that all these freedoms come from the Creator and that they can be denied by no man or no government or no New Deal. They were spiritual rights of men. The prime purpose of liberal government is to enlarge and not to destroy these freedoms. It was for that purpose that the Constitution of the United States was enacted. For that reason we demand that the safeguards of freedom shall be upheld.
It is for this reason that we demand that this country should turn its direction from a system of personal centralized government to the ideals of liberty. It is a contest between two philosophies of government. Whatever the outcome of this election that issue is set.
We shall battle it out until the soul of America is saved. The Great Depression and the New Deal. That Noble Dream. Excerpts from Liberalism and Social Action. Commercial Republic. Chapter What Caused the Great Depression? Statement on the Share Our Wealth Society. Speech on Social Security. Fireside Chat on the New Deal. Statement announcing a Series of Conferences with Statement on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill. Speech on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
State of the Union Address Veto of the Muscle Shoals Resolution. Special Message to the Congress on the Economic Re The Norris-La Guardia Act.
The Forgotten Man. Acceptance Speech at the Democratic Convention Veto of the Emergency Relief and Construction Bill. Statement on the Dispersal of the Bonus Army. Letter from Bonus Army leader to President Hoover. Commonwealth Club Address. Campaign Speech. First Inaugural Address Call for Legislation to Create the Tennessee Valle Fireside Chat on the Recovery Program.
Address to the National Conference of Catholic Cha Speech to Congress on Foreign Trade. Speech to Congress on Social Security. Speech on the National Labor Relations Act. Black Cotton Farmers and the Agricultural Adjustme Schechter Poultry Corp. United States. Annual Message to Congress United States v.
The New Deal was thus rooted in the idea proposed already in the 19th century that the government not only could but simply should regulate and reform the economy.
Poverty, unemployment, dangerous labor conditions, and the struggling agricultural sector were now to be addressed through government reforms and relief programs. Not surprisingly, the idea did not gain much popularity among those who promoted limited government intervention, laissez — faire, and individualism. The so-called Roosevelt Recession that began in provided fresh fuel for business and political opponents of the New Deal.
Extreme stock market decline coupled with growing unemployment and decreasing GDP served as apparent evidence that the New Deal regulations and reforms, in fact, hurt the economy. It also established the Public Works Administration, an agency responsible for creating jobs through public works projects. Critics argued that the NIRA endorsed monopolies and cartels, which in turn contributed to higher prices. As the codes regulated such matters as wages, working hours, production quotas, and prices, many businesses, particularly those smaller and newer ones, refused to endorse NIRA.
The Blue Eagle logo became the symbol of businesses that signed up for NRA and, in the aftermath of an effective public campaign, businesses that did not display the logo were often boycotted.
Consequently, some business owners argued that the NRA membership was not really voluntary but necessary for survival. Business leaders and conservative politicians were also critical of the power that NIRA invested in organized labor and workers generally. As NIRA included no provisions on how to dissolve labor disputes, the National Labor Board was established under the auspices of the NRA to handle conflicts between labor and employers. On May 27, , in Schechter Poultry Corp.
The court ruled that the act delegated legislative powers to the executive and regulated commerce that was not interstate in character. It now promoted industrial cooperation and produced economic studies.
It offered many of the labor protection provisions that were earlier included in NIRA. NLRA provided basic rights of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining for better terms and conditions at work, and take collective action, including strike. The act also created the National Labor Relations Board not to be confused with the National Labor Board created under NRA , which was to guarantee the rights included in NLRA as opposed to merely negotiating labor disputes and organized labor unions representation elections.
Business leaders overwhelmingly criticized NLRA. The increasing power of labor unions and the rights of all workers, both unionized and non-unionized, to negotiate their terms of employment caused rather expected anxiety among employers.
Some voiced the opinion that NLRA would significantly contribute to the higher costs of production most notably through increasing wages and thus trigger higher prices and limited profits. Politicians affiliated with the business also opposed NLRA, most notably members of the American Liberty League, a non-partisan organization that gathered Republicans, Democrats, and business leaders opposing the New Deal.
Criticism of the Roosevelt administration ranged from arguments that its policies would harm business and economic recovery to charges that it was subverting democracy. Others saw the New Deal as a manifestation of socialism or communism. FDR and his vision attracted critics from all sides of the political spectrum who often labeled the New Deal using the same terms but meaning very different things.
The League engaged in campaigns aimed to educate the public about the legislative process. Its strong links with business elites and the pro-business agenda discouraged popular support, but the League remained one of the most vocal conservative voices opposing the New Deal in the mids.
Political observers in the early s were of decidedly mixed opinion about the possible presidential candidacy of Franklin D. Many leaders of the Democratic Party saw in Roosevelt an attractive mixture of experience as governor of New York and as a former vice presidential candidate and appeal the Roosevelt name itself, which immediately associated FDR with his remote cousin, former President Theodore Roosevelt.
FDR's record as governor of New York—and specifically his laudable, if initially conservative, efforts to combat the effects of the depression in his own state—only reinforced his place as the leading Democratic contender for the presidential nomination. Under the watchful eyes of his political advisers Louis Howe and James Farley, FDR patiently garnered support from Democrats around the country, but especially in the South and the West. In preparation for his presidential bid, Roosevelt consulted a group of college professors, dubbed the "Brains Trust" later shortened to the "Brain Trust" , for policy advice.
Other observers, however, were not so sanguine about his abilities or chances. Walter Lippmann, the dean of political commentators and a shaper of public opinion, observed acidly of Roosevelt: "He is a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be president.
Several other candidates sought the nomination, including Speaker of the House John Nance Garner of Texas who found support in the west and the party's candidate, Alfred Smith who ran strong in the urban northeast.
The party further split on two key social issues: Catholicism and prohibition. Smith was a Catholic and wanted to end prohibition, which pleased Democrats in the Northeast, but angered those in the South and West.
In , though, the key issue was the Great Depression, not Catholicism or prohibition, which gave Democrats a great opportunity to take the White House back from the Republicans. While FDR did not enter the Democratic convention in Chicago with the necessary two-thirds of the delegates, he managed to secure them after promising Garner the vice-presidential nomination. FDR then broke with tradition and flew to Chicago by airplane to accept the nomination in person, promising delegates "a new deal for the American people.
Roosevelt's campaign for president was necessarily cautious. His opponent, President Herbert Hoover, was so unpopular that FDR's main strategy was not to commit any gaffes that might take the public's attention away from Hoover's inadequacies and the nation's troubles.
FDR traveled around the country attacking Hoover and promising better days ahead, but often without referring to any specific programs or policies. Roosevelt was so genial—and his prescriptions for the country so bland—that some commentators questioned his capabilities and his grasp of the serious challenges confronting the United States.
FDR told Americans that only by working together could the nation overcome the economic crisis, a sharp contrast to Hoover's paeans to American individualism in the face of the depression.
In a speech in San Francisco, FDR outlined the expansive role that the federal government should play in resuscitating the economy, in easing the burden of the suffering, and in insuring that all Americans had an opportunity to lead successful and rewarding lives. The outcome of the presidential contest between Roosevelt and Hoover was never greatly in doubt. Dispirited Americans swept the fifty-year-old FDR into office in a landslide in both the popular and electoral college votes.
Voters also extended their approval of FDR to his party, giving Democrats substantial majorities in both houses of Congress. These congressional majorities would prove vital in Roosevelt's first year in office. FDR entered the election with a strong, but not invincible, hand. The economy remained sluggish and eight million Americans still were without jobs.
Mounting debts and increasing taxes constitute a threat to all of these aims. They absorb the funds that might be used to create new things or to reduce the cost of present goods. Taxes, both visible and invisible, add to the price of everything. By taking more and more out of the family purse, they leave less for the family security.
Let us not be misled by those who tell us that others will be made to carry the burden for us. A simple inquiry into the facts and figures will show that our growing debts and taxes are so enormous that, even if we tax to the utmost limits those who are best able to pay, the average taxpayer will still have to bear the major part.
While spending billions of dollars of borrowed money may create a temporary appearance of prosperity we and our children, as taxpayers, have yet to pay the bill. For every single dollar spent we will pay back two dollars! Crushing debts and taxes are usually incurred, as they are being incurred today, under the guise of helping people—the same people who must finally pay them.
They invariably retard prosperity and they sometimes lead to situations in which the rights of the people are destroyed. This is the lesson of history, and we have seen it occur in the modern world. Our party holds nothing to be of more urgent importance than putting our financial house in order.
For the good of all of us, we must re-establish responsibility in the handling of Government finances. We must recognize that a government does not have an unlimited supply of money to spend. It must husband its resources just as truly as does the head of a family.
Unless it follows such a course it cannot afford the services which the people themselves expect. No sound national policy looking to the national welfare will neglect the farmer. This is not because the farmer needs or wishes to be coddled, or that he asks for undue help. It is necessary because the needs of a great nation require that its food producers shall always stand upon a social and economic plane in keeping with the national importance of their service.
The present Administration's efforts to produce this result have not been successful. Payments under the Triple-A did help to tide farmers over a difficult period.
But, even before it was ruled out by the Supreme Court, the Triple-A was rapidly disorganizing American agriculture.
Some of its worst effects continue. By its policies the Administration has taken the American farmer out of foreign markets and put the foreign farmer into the American market. The loss of markets, both at home and abroad, far outweighs the value of all the benefits paid to farmers.
Worse than this, from the standpoint of the public, is the fact that the Administration, through its program of scarcity, has gambled with the needed food and feed supplies of the country. It overlooked the fact that Mother Nature cannot be regimented. The time has now come when we must replace this futile program with one that is economically and socially right.
The wealth of our soil must be preserved. We shall establish effective soil conservation and erosion control policies in connection with a national land use and flood prevention program—and keep it all out of politics. Our farmers are entitled to all of the home market they can supply without injustice to the consumer. We propose a policy that protects them in this right. Some of our farmers, dependent in part upon foreign markets, suffer from disadvantages arising from world disorder.
Until these disadvantages are eliminated we propose to pay cash benefits in order to cushion our farm families against the disastrous effects of price fluctuations and to protect their standard of living. The American people, now as always, are responsive to distress caused by disasters, such as the present drouth.
Our platform reflects that spirit. We shall fulfill its pledge to give every reasonable assistance to producers in areas suffering from such temporary afflictions, so that they may again get on a self-supporting basis.
The family type of farm has long constituted one of the cherished foundations of our social strength. It represents human values that we must not lose. Widespread ownership of moderate-sized tracts of land was the aim of the Republican Homestead Act. This conception of agriculture is one phase of the general principle that we stand for—preserving freedom of opportunity in all walks of life.
The benefits which will be paid under our program will go no higher than the production level of the family type of farm. Another matter of deep concern is the welfare of American labor. The general well being of our country requires that labor shall have the position and rewards of prosperity to which it is entitled. I firmly believe that labor has the right to protect this position and to achieve those rewards by organizing in labor unions.
Surely the history of labor in the United States has demonstrated that working conditions, wages and hours have been improved through self-organization. The right of labor to organize means to me the right of employees to join any type of union they prefer, whether it covers their plant, their craft or their industry.
It means that, in the absence of a union contract, an employee has an equal right to join a union or to refuse to join a union. Under all circumstances, so states the Republican platform, employees are to be free from interference from any source, which means, as I read it, entire freedom from coercion or intimidation by the employer, any fellow employee or any other person. The Government must maintain itself in the position of an umpire: First, to protect the public interest, and second, to act as a mediator between conflicting groups.
One of the greatest problems of this country is to develop effective methods of conciliation. Taking a dispute, after it gets into a tangle, and rushing it to the doorstep of the President is a bad way to handle a labor situation or any other situation. In international affairs, also, the Republican Party has always worked for the advancement of justice and peace.
Following the early tradition of our country, it has consistently urged the adjustment of international disputes in accordance with law, equity, and justice. We have now again declared our continual loyalty to this principle. Republican presidents sent delegates to the Hague conferences and one of them took the leading part in the termination of the Russo-Japanese war. Another Republican President called a conference which, for the first time, produced a reduction and limitation of arms on a wide scale.
Still another led in securing the treaty outlawing wars. In purpose and achievement, our party has a record which points the way to further helpful service in creating international understanding, in removing the causes of war, and in reducing and limiting arms. We shall take every opportunity to promote among the nations a peace based upon justice and human rights.
0コメント