(1) It improved still further our agricultural laws to give the
farmer a fairer share of the national income, to preserve our soil,
to provide an all-weather granary, to help the farm tenant towards
independence, to find new uses for farm products, and to begin crop
insurance.
(2) After many requests on my part the Congress passed a Fair Labor
Standards Act, commonly called the Wages and Hours Bill. That act--
applying to products in interstate commerce--ends child labor, sets
a floor below wages and a ceiling over hours of labor.
Except perhaps for the Social Security Act, it is the most far-
reaching, the most far-sighted program for the benefit of workers
ever adopted here or in any other country. Without question it
starts us toward a better standard of living and increases
purchasing power to buy the products of farm and factory.
Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000
a day, who has been turning his employees over to the government
relief rolls in order to preserve his company's undistributed
reserves, tell you--using his stockholders' money to pay the
postage for his personal opinions--that a wage of $11 a week is
going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.
Fortunately for business as a whole, and therefore for the nation,
that type of executive is a rarity with whom most business
executives most heartily disagree.
(3) The Congress has provided a fact-finding Commission to find a
path through the jungle of contradictory theories about the wise
business practices--to find the necessary facts for any intelligent
legislation on monopoly, on price-fixing and on the relationship
between big business and medium-sized business and little business.
Different from a great part of the world, we in America persist in
our belief in individual enterprise and in the profit motive; but
we realize we must continually seek improved practices to insure
the continuance of reasonable profits, together with scientific
progress, individual initiative, opportunities for the little
fellow, fair prices, decent wages and continuing employment.
(4) The Congress has coordinated the supervision of commercial
aviation and air mail by establishing a new Civil Aeronautics
Authority; and it has placed all postmasters under the civil
service for the first time in our national history.
(5) The Congress set up the United States Housing Authority to help
finance large-scale slum clearance and provide low rent housing for
the low income groups in our cities. And by improving the Federal
Housing Act, the Congress made it easier for private capital to
build modest homes and low rental dwellings.
(6) The Congress has properly reduced taxes on small corporate
enterprises, and has made it easier for the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation to make credit available to all business. I think the
bankers of the country can fairly be expected to participate in
loans where the government, through the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, offers to take a fair portion of the risk.
(7) The Congress has provided additional funds for the Works
Progress Administration, the Public Works Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps and
other agencies, in order to take care of what we hope is a
temporary additional number of unemployed at this time and to
encourage production of every kind by private enterprise.
All these things together I call our program for the national
defense of our economic system. It is a program of balanced
action--of moving on all fronts at once in intelligent recognition
that all of our economic problems, of every group, and of every
section of the country are essentially one problem.
(8) Finally, because of increasing armaments in other nations and
an international situation which is definitely disturbing to all of
us, the Congress has authorized important additions to the national
armed defense of our shores and our people.
On another important subject the net result of a struggle in the
Congress has been an important victory for the people of the United
States--what might well be called a lost battle which won a war.
You will remember that on February 5, 1937, I sent a message to the
Congress dealing with the real need of federal court reforms of
several kinds. In one way or another, during the sessions of this
Congress, the ends--the real objectives--sought in that message,
have been substantially attained.
The attitude of the Supreme Court towards constitutional questions
is entirely changed. Its recent decisions are eloquent testimony of
a willingness to collaborate with the two other branches of
government to make democracy work. The government has been granted
the right to protect its interests in litigation between private
parties involving the constitutionality of federal, and to appeal
directly to the Supreme Court in all cases involving the
constitutionality of federal statutes; and no single judge is any
longer empowered to suspend a federal statute on his sole judgment
as to its constitutionality. Justices of the Supreme Court may now
retire at the age of seventy after ten years of service; a
substantial number of additional judgeships have been created in
order to expedite the trial of cases; and finally greater
flexibility has been added to the federal judicial system by
allowing judges to be assigned to congested districts.
Another indirect accomplishment of this Congress has been its
response to the devotion of the American people to a course of sane
and consistent liberalism. The Congress has understood that under
modern conditions government has a continuing responsibility to
meet continuing problems, and that government cannot take a holiday
of a year, or a month, or even a day just because a few people are
tired or frightened by the inescapable pace, fast pace, of this
modern world in which we live.
Some of my opponents and some of my associates have considered that
I have a mistakenly sentimental judgment as to the tenacity of
purpose and the general level of intelligence of the American
people.
I am still convinced that the American people, since 1932, continue
to insist on two requisites of private enterprise, and the
relationship of government to it. The first is a complete honesty
at the top in looking after the use of other people's money, and in
apportioning and paying individual and corporate taxes according to
ability to pay. The second is sincere respect for the need of all
people who are at the bottom, all people at the bottom who need to
get work--and through work to get a really fair share of the good
things of life, and a chance to save and rise.
After the election of 1936 I was told, and the Congress was told,
by an increasing number of politically--and worldly--wise people
that I should coast along, enjoy an easy Presidency for four years,
and not take the Democratic platform too seriously. They told me
that people were getting weary of reform through political effort
and would no longer oppose that small minority which, in spite of
its own disastrous leadership in 1929, is always eager to resume
its control over the government of the United States.
Never in our lifetime has such a concerted campaign of defeatism
been thrown at the heads of the President and the Senators and
Congressmen as in the case of this Seventy-Fifth Congress. Never
before have we had so many Copperheads--and you will remember that
it was the Copperheads who, in the days of the War between the
States, tried their best to make President Lincoln and his Congress
give up the fight, let the nation remain split in two and return to
peace--peace at any price.
This Congress has ended on the side of the people. My faith in the
American people--and their faith in themselves--have been
justified. I congratulate the Congress and the leadership thereof
and I congratulate the American people on their own staying power.
One word about our economic situation. It makes no difference to me
whether you call it a recession or a depression. In 1932 the total
national income of all the people in the country had reached the
low point of thirty-eight billion dollars in that year. With each
succeeding year it rose. Last year, 1937, it had risen to seventy
billion dollars--despite definitely worse business and agricultural
prices in the last four months of last year. This year, 1938, while
it is too early to do more than give an estimate, we hope that the
national income will not fall below sixty billion dollars. We
remember also that banking and business and farming are not falling
apart like the one-hoss shay, as they did in the terrible winter of
1932-1933.
Last year mistakes were made by the leaders of private enterprise,
by the leaders of labor and by the leaders of government--all
three.
Last year the leaders of private enterprise pleaded for a sudden
curtailment of public spending, and said they would take up the
slack. But they made the mistake of increasing their inventories
too fast and setting many of their prices too high for their goods
to sell.
Some labor leaders goaded by decades of oppression of labor made
the mistake of going too far. They were not wise in using methods
which frightened many well-wishing people. They asked employers not
only to bargain with them but to put up with jurisdictional
disputes at the same time.
Government too made mistakes--mistakes of optimism in assuming that
industry and labor would themselves make no mistakes--and
government made a mistake of timing in not passing a farm bill or a
wage and hour bill last year.
As a result of the lessons of all these mistakes we hope that in
the future private enterprise--capital and labor alike--will
operate more intelligently together, and operate in greater
cooperation with their own government than they have in the past.
Such cooperation on the part of both of them will be very welcome
to me. Certainly at this stage there should be a united stand on
the part of both of them to resist wage cuts which would further
reduce purchasing power.
Today a great steel company announced a reduction in prices with a
view to stimulating business recovery, and I was gratified to know
that this reduction involved no wage cut. Every encouragement ought
to be given to industry which accepts the large volume and high
wage policy.
If this is done, it ought to result in conditions which will
replace a great part of the government spending which the failure
of cooperation has made necessary this year.
From March 4, 1933 down, not a single week has passed without a cry
from the opposition, a small opposition, a cry "to do something, to
say something, to restore confidence." There is a very articulate
group of people in this country, with plenty of ability to procure
publicity for their views, who have consistently refused to
cooperate with the mass of the people, whether things were going
well or going badly, on the ground that they required more
concessions to their point of view before they would admit having
what they called "confidence."
These people demanded "restoration of confidence" when the banks
were closed--and demanded it again when the banks were reopened.
They demanded "restoration of confidence" when hungry people were
thronging the streets--and again when the hungry people were fed
and put to work.
They demanded "restoration of confidence" when droughts hit the
country--and again now when our fields are laden with bounteous
yields and excessive crops.
They demanded "restoration of confidence" last year when the
automobile industry was running three shifts and turning out more
cars than the country could buy--and again this year when the
industry is trying to get rid of an automobile surplus and has shut
down its factories as a result.
It is my belief that many of these people who have been crying
aloud for "confidence" are beginning today to realize that that
hand has been overplayed, and that they are now willing to talk
cooperation instead. It is my belief that the mass of the American
people do have confidence in themselves--have confidence in their
ability, with the aid of government, to solve their own problems.
It is because you are not satisfied, and I am not satisfied, with
the progress that we have made in finally solving our business and
agricultural and social problems that I believe the great majority
of you want your own government to keep on trying to solve them. In
simple frankness and in simple honesty, I need all the help I can
get--and I see signs of getting more help in the future from many
who have fought against progress with tooth and nail.
And now following out this line of thought, I want to say a few
words about the coming political primaries.
Fifty years ago party nominations were generally made in
conventions--a system typified in the public imagination by a
little group in a smoke-filled room who made out the party slates.
The direct primary was invented to make the nominating process a
more democratic one--to give the party voters themselves a chance
to pick their party candidates.
What I am going to say to you tonight does not relate to the
primaries of any particular political party, but to matters of
principle in all parties--Democratic, Republican, Farmer-Labor,
Progressive, Socialist or any other. Let that be clearly
understood.
It is my hope that everybody affiliated with any party will vote in
the primaries, and that every such voter will consider the
fundamental principles for which his or her party is on record.
That makes for a healthy choice between the candidates of the
opposing parties on Election Day in November.
An election cannot give the country a firm sense of direction if it
has two or more national parties which merely have different names
but are as alike in their principles and aims as peas in the same
pod.
In the coming primaries in all parties, there will be many clashes
between two schools of thought, generally classified as liberal and
conservative. Roughly speaking, the liberal school of thought
recognizes that the new conditions throughout the world call for
new remedies.
Those of us in America who hold to this school of thought, insist
that these new remedies can be adopted and successfully maintained
in this country under our present form of government if we use
government as an instrument of cooperation to provide these
remedies. We believe that we can solve our problems through
continuing effort, through democratic processes instead of Fascism
or Communism. We are opposed to the kind of moratorium on reform
which, in effect, is reaction itself.
Be it clearly understood, however, that when I use the word
"liberal," I mean the believer in progressive principles of
democratic, representative government and not the wild man who, in
effect, leans in the direction of Communism, for that is just as
dangerous as Fascism itself.
The opposing or conservative school of thought, as a general
proposition, does not recognize the need for government itself to
step in and take action to meet these new problems. It believes
that individual initiative and private philanthropy will solve
them--that we ought to repeal many of the things we have done and
go back, for instance, to the old gold standard, or stop all this
business of old age pensions and unemployment insurance, or repeal
the Securities and Exchange Act, or let monopolies thrive
unchecked--return, in effect, to the kind of government that we had
in the twenties.
Assuming the mental capacity of all the candidates, the important
question which it seems to me the primary voter must ask is this:
"To which of these general schools of thought does the candidate
belong?"
As President of the United States, I am not asking the voters of
the country to vote for Democrats next November as opposed to
Republicans or members of any other party. Nor am I, as President,
taking part in Democratic primaries.
As the head of the Democratic Party, however, charged with the
responsibility of carrying out the definitely liberal declaration
of principles set forth in the 1936 Democratic platform, I feel
that I have every right to speak in those few instances where there
may be a clear-cut issue between candidates for a Democratic
nomination involving these principles, or involving a clear misuse
of my own name.
Do not misunderstand me. I certainly would not indicate a
preference in a state primary merely because a candidate, otherwise
liberal in outlook, had conscientiously differed with me on any
single issue. I should be far more concerned about the general
attitude of a candidate towards present day problems and his own
inward desire to get practical needs attended to in a practical
way. We all know that progress may be blocked by outspoken
reactionaries, and also by those who say "yes" to a progressive
objective, but who always find some reason to oppose any special
specific proposal to gain that objective. I call that type of
candidate a "yes, but" fellow.
And I am concerned about the attitude of a candidate or his
sponsors with respect to the rights of American citizens to
assemble peaceably and to express publicly their views and opinions
on important social and economic issues. There can be no
constitutional democracy in any community which denies to the
individual his freedom to speak and worship as he wishes. The
American people will not be deceived by anyone who attempts to
suppress individual liberty under the pretense of patriotism.
This being a free country with freedom of expression--especially
with freedom of the press--there will be a lot of mean blows struck
between now and Election Day. By "blows" I mean misrepresentation,
personal attack and appeals to prejudice. It would be a lot better,
of course, if campaigns everywhere could be waged with arguments
instead of with blows.
I hope the liberal candidates will confine themselves to argument
and not resort to blows. In nine cases out of ten the speaker or
the writer who, seeking to influence public opinion, descends from
calm argument to unfair blows hurts himself more than his opponent.
The Chinese have a story on this--a story based on three or four
thousand years of civilization: Two Chinese coolies were arguing
heatedly in the midst of a crowd. A stranger expressed surprise
that no blows were being struck. His Chinese friend replied: "The
man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out."
I know that neither in the summer primaries nor in the November
elections will the American voters fail to spot the candidate whose
ideas have given out.
September 3, 1939.
My Fellow Americans and My Friends:
Tonight my single duty is to speak to the whole of America.
Until four-thirty this morning I had hoped against hope that some
miracle would prevent a devastating war in Europe and bring to an
end the invasion of Poland by Germany.
For four long years a succession of actual wars and constant crises
have shaken the entire world and have threatened in each case to
bring on the gigantic conflict which is today unhappily a fact.
It is right that I should recall to your minds the consistent and
at time successful efforts of your government in these crises to
throw the full weight of the United States into the cause of peace.
In spite of spreading wars I think that we have every right and
every reason to maintain as a national policy the fundamental
moralities, the teachings of religion and the continuation of
efforts to restore peace--for some day, though the time may be
distant, we can be of even greater help to a crippled humanity.
It is right, too, to point out that the unfortunate events of these
recent years have, without question, been based on the use of force
and the threat of force. And it seems to me clear, even at the
outbreak of this great war, that the influence of America should be
consistent in seeking for humanity a final peace which will
eliminate, as far as it is possible to do so, the continued use of
force between nations.
It is, of course, impossible to predict the future. I have my
constant stream of information from American representatives and
other sources throughout the world. You, the people of this
country, are receiving news through your radios and your newspapers
at every hour of the day.
You are, I believe, the most enlightened and the best informed
people in all the world at this moment. You are subjected to no
censorship of news, and I want to add that your government has no
information which it withholds or which it has any thought of
withholding from you.
At the same time, as I told my Press Conference on Friday, it is of
the highest importance that the press and the radio use the utmost
caution to discriminate between actual verified fact on the one
hand, and mere rumor on the other.
I can add to that by saying that I hope the people of this country
will also discriminate most carefully between news and rumor. Do
not believe of necessity everything you hear or read. Check up on
it first.
You must master at the outset a simple but unalterable fact in
modern foreign relations between nations. When peace has been
broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in
danger.
It is easy for you and for me to shrug our shoulders and to say
that conflicts taking place thousands of miles from the continental
United States, and, indeed, thousands of miles from the whole
American Hemisphere, do not seriously affect the Americas--and that
all the United States has to do is to ignore them and go about its
own business. Passionately though we may desire detachment, we are
forced to realize that every word that comes through the air, every
ship that sails the sea, every battle that is fought does affect
the American future.
Let no man or woman thoughtlessly or falsely talk of America
sending its armies to European fields. At this moment there is
being prepared a proclamation of American neutrality. This would
have been done even if there had been no neutrality statute on the
books, for this proclamation is in accordance with international
law and in accordance with American policy.
This will be followed by a Proclamation required by the existing
Neutrality Act. And I trust that in the days to come our neutrality
can be made a true neutrality.
It is of the utmost importance that the people of this country,
with the best information in the world, think things through. The
most dangerous enemies of American peace are those who, without
well-rounded information on the whole broad subject of the past,
the present and the future, undertake to speak with assumed
authority, to talk in terms of glittering generalities, to give to
the nation assurances or prophecies which are of little present or
future value.
I myself cannot and do not prophesy the course of events abroad--
and the reason is that because I have of necessity such a complete
picture of what is going on in every part of the world, that I do
not dare to do so. And the other reason is that I think it is
honest for me to be honest with the people of the United States.
I cannot prophesy the immediate economic effect of this new war on
our nation, but I do say that no American has the moral right to
profiteer at the expense either of his fellow citizens or of the
men, the women and the children who are living and dying in the
midst of war in Europe.
Some things we do know. Most of us in the United States believe in
spiritual values. Most of us, regardless of what church we belong
to, believe in the spirit of the New Testament--a great teaching
which opposes itself to the use of force, of armed force, of
marching armies and falling bombs. The overwhelming masses of our
people seek peace--peace at home, and the kind of peace in other
lands which will not jeopardize our peace at home.
We have certain ideas and certain ideals of national safety and we
must act to preserve that safety today and to preserve the safety
of our children in future years.
That safety is and will be bound up with the safety of the Western
Hemisphere and of the seas adjacent thereto. We seek to keep war
from our own firesides by keeping war from coming to the Americas.
For that we have historic precedent that goes back to the days of
the administration of President George Washington. It is serious
enough and tragic enough to every American family in every state in
the Union to live in a world that is torn by wars on other
continents. Those wars today affect every American home. It is our
national duty to use every effort to keep them out of the Americas.
And at this time let me make the simple plea that partisanship and
selfishness be adjourned; and that national unity be the thought
that underlies all others.
This nation will remain a neutral nation, but I cannot ask that
every American remain neutral in thought as well. Even a neutral
has a right to take account of facts. Even a neutral cannot be
asked to close his mind or his conscience.
I have said not once but many times that I have seen war and that I
hate war. I say that again and again.
I hope the United States will keep out of this war. I believe that
it will. And I give you assurance and reassurance that every effort
of your government will be directed toward that end.
As long as it remains within my power to prevent, there will be no
blackout of peace in the United States.
May 26, 1940.
My Friends:
At this moment of sadness throughout most of the world, I want to
talk with you about a number of subjects that directly affect the
future of the United States. We are shocked by the almost
incredible eyewitness stories that come to us, stories of what is
happening at this moment to the civilian populations of Norway and
Holland and Belgium and Luxembourg and France.
I think it is right on this Sabbath evening that I should say a
word in behalf of women and children and old men who need help--
immediate help in their present distress--help from us across the
seas, help from us who are still free to give it.
Tonight over the once peaceful roads of Belgium and France millions
are now moving, running from their homes to escape bombs and shells
and fire and machine gunning, without shelter, and almost wholly
without food. They stumble on, knowing not where the end of the
road will be. I speak to you of these people because each one of
you that is listening to me tonight has a way of helping them. The
American Red Cross, that represents each of us, is rushing food and
clothing and medical supplies to these destitute civilian millions.
Please--I beg you--please give according to your means to your
nearest Red Cross chapter, give as generously as you can. I ask
this in the name of our common humanity.
Let us sit down together again, you and I, to consider our own
pressing problems that confront us.
There are many among us who in the past closed their eyes to events
abroad--because they believed in utter good faith what some of
their fellow Americans told them--that what was taking place in
Europe was none of our business; that no matter what happened over
there, the United States could always pursue its peaceful and
unique course in the world.
There are many among us who closed their eyes, from lack of
interest or lack of knowledge; honestly and sincerely thinking that
the many hundreds of miles of salt water made the American
Hemisphere so remote that the people of North and Central and South
America could go on living in the midst of their vast resources
without reference to, or danger from, other Continents of the
world.
There are some among us who were persuaded by minority groups that
we could maintain our physical safety by retiring within our
continental boundaries--the Atlantic on the east, the Pacific on
the west, Canada on the north and Mexico on the south. I
illustrated the futility--the impossibility--of that idea in my
message to the Congress last week. Obviously, a defense policy
based on that is merely to invite future attack.
And, finally, there are a few among us who have deliberately and
consciously closed their eyes because they were determined to be
opposed to their government, its foreign policy and every other
policy, to be partisan, and to believe that anything that the
government did was wholly wrong.
To those who have closed their eyes for any of these many reasons,
to those who would not admit the possibility of the approaching
storm--to all of them the past two weeks have meant the shattering
of many illusions.
They have lost the illusion that we are remote and isolated and,
therefore, secure against the dangers from which no other land is
free.
In some quarters, with this rude awakening has come fear, fear
bordering on panic. It is said that we are defenseless. It is
whispered by some that, only by abandoning our freedom, our ideals,
our way of life, can we build our defenses adequately, can we match
the strength of the aggressors.