Eleanor Roosevelt: My Day (1946)

221

September 14, 1946

HYDE PARK, Friday – It certainly must have been a very great relief to many people to read in the papers this morning that our ships were likely to be able to move again, and that the striking AFL seafaring unions were apparently set to accept Stabilization Director John R. Steelman’s proposals. There remains the threat of a new tie-up on Sept. 30th, involving two CIO unions, but it is to be hoped that, with the serious results of the present tie-up in mind, everyone concerned will make a great effort to reach a fair settlement before that date.

In reading of the plan for ending the strike, I could not help wondering why this could not have been reached much sooner. It seems to me that where the government is engaged in an industry, it should take immediate interest in any negotiations going on between labor and private management in that industry, and should be prepared to make its decisions when private industry and the workers reach theirs.

It was also encouraging to read that the workers in the truckmen’s local unions on strike in New York City were showing signs of a willingness to negotiate.

In reading of one union membership’s rebellious action, one could not help feeling that they had chosen leaders for whom they did not have much respect. I saw an article by someone who seemed to think it was foolish to expect the rank and file to agree with anything their leaders proposed. But that seems to me a rather strange argument. If you elect people to negotiate for you, I should think you would throw them out if you thought they had done a bad job, and would put in new ones whom you trusted. If your union is run democratically, you should be free to do this.

The same thing, I suppose, is the case where men are appointed to represent management. But I can’t see how, on either side, satisfactory agreements can be reached unless the men selected are trusted by those back of them. Naturally, their decisions should not be final. They should go back to those they represent for ratifications. But unwillingness to listen to what the leaders suggest and to their reasons for these suggestions, would seem to indicate a complete lack of proper trust in the chosen leaders.

One can only hope that the news this morning means that, on both sides, the responsibility which is theirs at the present time is beginning to give both labor and management a realization of the necessity of coming to an agreement which will be fair to all concerned. At the present moment, as a result of the truck strike, the public in New York City is paying pretty heavily, including the families of all the men concerned – and they will continue to do so until an agreement is reached.

222

September 16, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – The American Public Health Association sent out a statement a few days ago giving some extraordinarily interesting facts which I think should be underlined for us all.

Each year, about $27,000,000 is spent in this country for industrial research. This is spent because it pays business to spend it. Yet for medical research, which is the only way of saving more human lives, comparatively little money is spent.

The association’s statement tells us, for example, that the diseases which took the greatest toll in 1944 were those of the heart and arteries. Next came cancer. One out of every average family of three will probably die from a disease of the heart and arteries. One out of every eight Americans will probably die of cancer, if the present death rate is allowed to continue.

Only through research can we change this, and yet the American Heart Association estimates that only $615,000 was spent in 1944 on research of the heart and arteries. In addition, the life insurance companies have guaranteed $588,000 for this year and for the next four years. This brings the total expended on these diseases, which cause our highest death rate, up to $1,115,000.

The same thing happens, apparently, in many other diseases. So the American Health Association, through Dr. George Baehr, its chairman of the committee on awards, is emphasizing the fact that three awards of $1000 each are going to be offered through the generosity of the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation. The awards will be for outstanding contributions to research related to diseases which are the most frequent causes of death and disability – such as heart and arteries, arthritis and rheumatism. Another $1000 is offered for an outstanding contribution in the field of public health administration, and a special award of $2500 will be made for an especially important contribution in either field. A little bronze statuette of the Winged Victory will be presented to each winner as a symbol of the contribution which he had made in the fight against disease.

Everyone should be deeply grateful for the awakening of public interest in research which will come through these awards and which will, of course, spur the whole medical profession to emphasize further research and help those who are interested in seeing government also assist research.

A book came out not long ago by Roland Berg, called “The Challenge of Polio.” It is in the nature of a report to the people on the research which has been done in this field, in large part through the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and I think the public would find it interesting.

223

September 17, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – To the average person on the outside, like myself, the whole situation regarding Secretary of Commerce Wallace’s speech and Secretary of State Byrnes, reaction is very confusing. As I read Mr. Wallace’s speech, it seems to me he tried to make clear that we neither approved of British imperialism nor of Soviet aggression. He stated that we wanted to be friendly with Russia, that we wanted to meet her halfway, but that she also had to meet us halfway.

It is perfectly obvious that we desire no European territory, but we have a distinct interest in keeping Europe at peace since, when war comes there, we invariably find ourselves involved.

In the Atlantic Charter and later statements, the great nations pledged themselves to no annexation of territory. We do ask for strategic air and fleet bases which we think will form a defense for our shores in the future. As long as force remains the final way that nations settle their differences, such bases are essential. But they do not mean that we want to attack any nation.

As long as the atom bomb is in our possession alone, and is not controlled by the United Nations, it is perhaps natural that other nations should be hesitant to trust our motives. But our whole history points to two things – one, that fundamentally we have been stirred to help people who were oppressed in the past; and two, that aggression for the sake of territorial aggrandizement has never been a temptation for us.

We still have sufficient national resources and land to accommodate our people, and it looks as though that would continue to be the case for some time to come. Added to this, we have had a streak of inventive genius which has provided us with new resources which have benefitted not only ourselves but the rest of the world. If we ever get to thinking of atomic energy for the benefit of mankind and not for destructive purposes, we will again have provided the world with a new and helpful force.

The Soviet and British governments are seeking influence where they feel they need defense of their interests. Why any American audience should boo Mr. Wallace for saying what he did about Russia and the need for Russia to come halfway in her contacts with us, is beyond my understanding.

In daily contacts such as are going on at the Paris Conference, it is easy for the individuals involved to become so irritated by the little things that they lose sight of the big things. I have always disliked saying that we had assumed a “tough” policy towards Russia. We have followed the American line of wanting everyone to have a fair deal, and wanting no one to grab undue power, particularly when it entailed the forcible persuasion of other peoples. That, I am afraid we must say, has been part of the Soviet and British policy in certain countries which they consider essential to the defense of their interests.

Where the President’s attitude is concerned, one is forced to the conclusion that some secretary did not read Mr. Wallace’s speech with great care. Otherwise, the President would not have found himself in the position of not really knowing what Mr. Brynes’ reaction was going to be. The foreign policy of the United States must be formulated by the State Department and the Secretary of State, but the people of the country have a right to understand it and to express themselves. Fear of Russia has been built up in this country, but I think fear is unrealistic at the present moment. We should think calmly of what policy will bring the best chances for peace and insist on that policy.

224

September 18, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – I have just finished reading a novel called “Mr. Adam” by Pat Frank. It is inspired by our new ability to destroy, and deals with the numerous things that may develop from the power that we can now unleash. It is pure imagination, but there is just enough possibility that it might come true to make one read it with interest – and with the hope that it may make us realize what fearful responsibilities now rest upon us and what a very great people we must be if we are going to face up to these responsibilities.

We have the secret of the atom bomb. How long we alone will have it, nobody knows. But while we have it, the responsibility of what happens in the world is in our hands. Soon we may share it with others, and then we will have the uncomfortable feeling that, unless the other people of the world have goodwill and face up to their responsibilities toward humanity in general, we may have very little time left upon this planet.

One of the characteristics of human beings in the past has been never to face disagreeable realities until they were actually forced to do so. Fundamentally, that is the reason why we did not, after World War I, do much to prevent World War II. Sometimes I wonder if we intend to be so blind again!

There is a small pamphlet by Chancellor Williams called “And If I Were White,” which is a reply to a series of articles written by prominent writers on “If I Were A Negro.” I think it would be good for all of us to read and ponder some of the things which Mr. Williams writes.

He makes the very simple statement that, until we all realize that color, whatever it may be, is of no importance whatsoever and until we value people only for what they are, we will never solve the many racial problems which confront us throughout the world. He mentions a small circle of his friends in which several nationalities are represented and he says that each one makes his own contribution.

For a long time, I am afraid, the Anglo-Saxon race has taken it for granted that, by some peculiar dictum from on high, it was endowed with particular virtues. Our efforts must be bent in the future to giving all people an opportunity for development in the hope that, in that way, we can promote a safer and better world for all of us to live in.

225

September 19, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – I cannot help feeling that, when a Cabinet member has written a confidential letter to the President, the question of whether or not it should be published should not lie in the hands of a news commentator and columnist who has obtained a copy of it in any way whatsoever. The way he obtained the letter may have been entirely legitimate, but whether he has the right to publish it without the consent of both the writer and the recipient seems to me a question worth pondering. The subject matter of Secretary of Commerce Wallace’s letter to the President is so important that, since in the end it was released to the entire press, I hope everyone will read and ponder it. Tomorrow I shall write more about it.

As usual when I spend a day or two in New York City, every moment of my time has been scheduled for appointments. Yesterday afternoon, among numerous other people, I saw a charming Dutch girl, Miss H. J. Roosenberg, who has come over here from Holland to visit various colleges and speak on the needs of the schools of Europe.

I have long been familiar with the objectives of the World Student Fund, but she reiterated the point which seemed to her most important – namely, that students in countries where life is somewhat easier have been trying to help other students in areas where so much that makes education possible has been destroyed. We here in New York City, in the past week, have seen what a shortage of newsprint can do to our newspapers, but we have no conception of what it would be like if we were trying to obtain an education and most of the books needed had been destroyed! In many parts of Europe, even pencils and paper are practically impossible to obtain, and classrooms have vanished.

Contributions to this fund at the present time might well be made in kind, it seems to me, and would represent savings made in our educational institutions by our young people, who are somewhat wasteful of essential supplies.

Miss Roosenberg is leaving for the West Coast by air, but she will travel back slowly, making many stops along the way. I shall be interested to get her impressions before she returns to Holland. She is now excited at the mere feel of being in a free country. I only hope that our students are able to encourage her enthusiasms and her confidence in what this country can do for the less fortunate students of the world.

At noon yesterday, I went to a luncheon given by Miss Doris Byrne, vice chairman of the New York Democratic State Committee, for the women workers in the party. Many of them are of my ancient vintage, but I am glad to say many of them are far younger! Two women candidates from Nassau County were present – one is running for Congress, and the other for the State Assembly. Both of them seemed to me women of ability and determination, so the campaign should be active even if the chances for success remain unknown until the votes are counted on Election Day.

226

September 20, 1946

NEW YORK, Thursday – The “spheres of influence” section of Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace’s speech last week seems to me to have been written without proper explanation. Because Russia has gained a predominant military and political interest in certain countries along her borders, and because Great Britain has always shown the same type of interest in countries along what are known as her “life lines,” and because we in this Hemisphere find that we have similar interests with our neighbors, many people feel that we must of necessity accept the fact that there will be spheres of influence in the future. However, I really think this matter requires a little more thinking through.

Within its sphere of interest, each great power is required, by its acceptance of the principles laid down in the Atlantic Charter and in the United Nations Charter, to give freedom of action to the peoples of the various nations in that sphere. And if their interests should clash, the great power, under these agreements, would have to accept whatever differences a smaller nation might choose in religion, politics or economics. Spheres of interest, in other words, can only be held together by mutual agreement, and there is no reason why this concept should prevent our trying to keep the world “One World” and to achieve the basic principles which concern us all.

This can only be done through the United Nations and the organs established under the United Nations. To preserve peace in the future, I count as most important world cooperation through the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, through the U.N. health and labor organizations, and through UNESCO, which will develop cultural and scientific cooperation among the different nations. The Economic and Social Council, with its various commissions, is designed specifically to prevent friction. When questions reach the Security Council, we must have an organization to enforce its decisions.

Until a decision is made on control of the atomic bomb, our method of joint enforcement is held up. But as soon as possible, a method should be decided upon because, as long as force rules anywhere in the world, we have no choice but to make it a collective force if we do not wish to see the big nations enter into an armament race. And such a race, as Secretary Wallace pointed out in his letter to the President, would lead to war.

President Truman, some months ago, stated that the foreign policy of the United States was his foreign policy, and that Secretary of State Byrnes was negotiating and making the fight for peace treaties as a representative of the President of the United States. These negotiations are bound to develop friction.

The men concerned are representing their governments to the best of their abilities, and are trying to obtain the things which they feel their people, as represented by their home governments, really want. Our representatives are probably more conscious of the thinking of the people at home than are those of other nations. For that reason, we have able members of our Senate, representing both political parties, advising the Secretary of State.

227

September 21, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – To me, it seems unfortunate that the words “tough policy” were ever used in regard to Russia or any other nation, since I think that neither our representatives nor our people mean by those words anything more than that they want to adhere to the democratic principles in which we believe.

We want to see a world organization where economic conditions are improved for all people and where opportunity is given for continued improvement. We hope to see increased the freedom of people everywhere to choose their form of government and register their wishes. We hope to see freedom of religion for all people. We believe that free intercourse among nations and a free press are essential to a growth of mutual confidence. Better understanding will gradually lessen the need for the use of force, and will give the peoples of the world a greater opportunity for happiness and for security from fear of aggression and from fear of want.

Since the publication of Secretary of Commerce Wallace’s letter to the President, I have read it very carefully. I do not agree with it in every detail, but it is a good letter. Most of his analysis of the reasons why tensions exist is worth reading with care, for I think any fair-minded person will say that it is a fair analysis. The test of any situation is to put yourself in the other man’s place – and we have not done that very successfully in our attitude toward Russia.

The basic thing to be held in mind is that we want peace and that it cannot exist if the United States and Russia do not find a way to live together in one world. That is the basis of Secretary Wallace’s whole thesis, and also the basis of the President’s and of Secretary of State Byrnes’ policy.

It would be entirely futile to think that, by going out to destroy Russia now, we would insure peace in the future. In that I entirely agree with Secretary Wallace. And I think the majority of the people in the United States would agree that to set out deliberately to destroy another nation would be against all of our principles and could lead us only to disaster.

An armament race in an atomic world is unthinkable. On this subject, Secretary Wallace gives us a very excellent and true picture. The crux of the matter is that, in time, atomic bombs can be manufactured almost anywhere. The only advantage would be to that nation which used them first, so we would live in a neurotic, fear-ridden world.

Peace – and a peace which will lessen individual armaments throughout the world – must be our aim. Force, if it must be used, must be used only through the one organization which can use it collectively and function for us all.

I think that, on the whole, the debate which has taken place because of Secretary Wallace’s speech has not done anyone any real harm. It certainly will not hurt the peace negotiations for the Russians to know that in this country, while we do not want to be a tail to their kite, we do want to cooperate with them in order to give Russia and ourselves greater security – and to attain greater security, coupled with better economic conditions, throughout the world.

228

September 23, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – Into my hands recently has come the script of a radio program that was written for the personnel at an army airfield soon after the news of President Roosevelt’s death. The author, Paul Lovett, will forgive me, I am sure, if I quote a few words from his script.

In the fevered dreams of a wounded soldier who has come very near to death, Saint Peter speaks of the monument which the boy’s commander-in-chief, who has just arrived in heaven, would like to have on earth. Says St. Peter: “…But down deep it is not some pyramid or monument towering in the sky which he wants the most, but rather a living memorial. One that would live in the hearts of all Americans. A light of understanding of the ideals for which he lived and died. One that must be eternally cared for and cherished by each and every American.”

The Boy: “A living memorial, not just something to look at. It means a job for every one of us to keep that light burning. Well…We always did love a good job and he can depend that we’ll handle this one right.”

In the controversies, disappointments, shortcomings and achievements of human beings, to keep a light burning in the world is no easy job. I do not think there is any question today of being for one individual or another, though every one of us most form his own opinions as to the achievements of our public servants and their objectives by reading what they say and weighing their accomplishments.

The people of this world want peace. Sometimes I wonder whether the governments tell the people clearly enough what are their objectives and how they wish to accomplish them. It is therefore a good thing, I think, when men speak out their minds; and the nations of the world must know quite well by now that in this country of ours free speech is a cherished freedom. When policies are criticized by good men, it is done only because they want to see us, as a nation, achieve greater and better objectives.

Secretary Wallace’s statement on being retired from the Cabinet was a fine statement. But individuals matter little except as their characters emerge through their actions and give the people inspiration and standards by which to judge their own actions.

It will be well for us as a people to look over all that has happened during the year since the war came to an end. We cannot escape our responsibilities as citizens of a democracy. What have we, as a people, achieved at home and in the family of nations?

My own feeling is that we might have stood more firmly for the freedom of small peoples and for a more humanitarian attitude in the world as a whole. Every nation agreed to certain principles in the Atlantic Charter and we should all be held to our agreements, for they were the agreements made at a moment of high idealism.

We may have made mistakes. If so, there is only one remedy, and that is to wipe the slate clean and start over again. Perhaps the crisis in the world today requires the top people to meet together with new advisers. Our foreign policy must be strong, but it must be right. What is right must be a joint decision of the three great powers that won the war, for together they must go forward to create a world at peace. Otherwise we drift to war and death.

229

September 24, 1946

HYDE PARK, Monday – I have such an accumulation of things about which people have asked me to write that I am going to tell you about several of them today, even though they have no relation to each other.

I find in my mail an appeal for maternity clothes. Most of the relief agencies are asking for them, since there is a great lack of warm clothing of this type in all the devastated countries. Some of the shops in New York City which specialize in maternity clothes have constituted themselves as collection agencies where these clothes, if you have any, can be deposited. From there they will be distributed to the various relief agencies.

The Girl Scouts and the Camp Fire Girls are the two main organizations working with girls in this country on leisure-time activities. Word is sent to me that a membership march is being conducted by the Camp Fire Girls. This organization takes in girls from 7 to 18 years old. And in many places where there are no Girl Scout groups, there are Camp Fire Girls.

The work which these two organizations do is very similar, and both are very helpful in any community. I have always hoped that the two would merge, since I feel it would make for less overhead and more efficient planning, but this still seems to be in the future.

It certainly is necessary that leisure-time activities be planned for young girls in every community. There are very excellent people working on the program of the Camp Fire Girls and their work should be encouraged, because character building cannot be confined only to school hours. And what can be done in the home can be vastly aided if there is planned recreation and constructive occupation for leisure hours.

From October 6th to 12th, we will observe a week to be known as “National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week.” Public Law 176, passed by the 79th Congress, established the observance of this week. Last year, the U.S. Employment Service, because of the ceremonies and the public interest aroused, succeeded in placing 13,439 handicapped people. And it was estimated that private agencies placed at least as many more.

There is now established the Inter-Agency Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, composed of representatives of Federal agencies, as well as the Cooperating Committee on Employment of the Physically Handicapped, composed of leaders of industry and labor, veterans, women, and representatives of various farm, religious, educational, civic, fraternal, scientific and professional groups.

More than 3,000 cities have planned ceremonies to emphasize the need for employing as many handicapped people as possible. This public interest is vitally important to our wounded veterans, but the number of other handicapped people in many communities far outnumbers the veterans. We have 28,000,000 handicapped citizens, I am told, so it is hoped that the observance of this week will increase employment opportunities for them.

230

September 25, 1946

HYDE PARK, Tuesday – We are now in the midst of Dog Week, and I thought about it as I was walking through the woods this morning with Fala, who has the most wonderful time dashing after squirrels and rabbits, going through the swamps and coming in soaked but happy.

It seems to me that, during this week, those of us who really care about dogs should remind people that they can bring great companionship and pleasure but, in return, they must be well cared for. I have seen people move away from a house and just leave their dogs and cats to stray in the neighborhood and steal food. That seems to me an inhuman thing to do.

Dogs grow fond of their families, and so, if you have to separate from them, then find them a new family where they will be well cared for. People should not have dogs if they cannot feed them properly. A dog’s food costs comparatively little, but he should get it regularly and properly prepared. Puppies particularly need the right kind of food or they will get rickets, just like children.

A dog in a family has great educational value. Children can learn that you have to have consideration for a dog, just as you would for a person. That is a good lesson to learn early in life, because you get on better with others if you have consideration for them.

I differ with people who would not use dogs for scientific experiments because I think scientists are careful not to inflict pain. Through the use of animals, much has been learned which has been beneficial to mankind. While I would never want a dog used except by a real scientist, I would never prevent the development of knowledge in this way.

An organization called Youth United for Famine Relief has been formed. It is an auxiliary to the President’s Famine Committee and is sponsored by the National Social Welfare Assembly. The groups that have banded together to help other young people in the world through conservation of food, and through better understanding of how food can be provided, will obtain a liberal education through their contacts with young people in other nations.

The organizations cooperating are the American Junior Red Cross, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys’ Clubs of America, the youth department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, and a great many more. Their joint efforts can mean better education for young and old in this country and better conditions throughout the world.

231

September 26, 1946

HYDE PARK, Wednesday – The very brief excerpts given in the newspapers from the recent speech delivered by Anthony Eden certainly made me wish I could read it as a whole. The suggestion that all of us seem to have reached an impasse in our foreign affairs, and that it might be well to start all over again, makes me wonder whether the British are beginning to recall the fact that, in both our countries after World War I, we vigorously berated our representatives in Paris for not having written a peace at the end of three months.

Of course, the situation is very different now. After World War I, we did not occupy other countries so extensively. We had troops along the Rhine for a short time, a few of our troops had to return from Russian soil, and a number of the British who had spent quite a while in Archangel were finally brought home. But our men in France were brought back as soon as transportation was available. Also, though mixed populations made boundary questions equally difficult then, still there did not seem such a vast field to cover. Everything is harder today, and one can only hope that the long-drawn-out period of settlement will eventually bring more satisfactory results.

The number of men we have to keep in service to occupy different parts of the world seems in itself to make the writing of a peace hard, but I begin to think we should hurry, since none of the problems that bedevil us today will grow any easier as time drags on.

I do not like to think of what our armed forces are costing us, because I know that, until a peace is signed, no change can be made, but so much expenditure for men in uniform means less for the well-being of people at home.

One thing which used to haunt me after World War I is beginning to bother me again. I travel up and down the Hudson River very frequently. At one particular spot, there are rows upon rows of merchant ships tied up, one against the other. Such ships were there after the first World War – and here they are again.

Is there nothing these ships might do? It seems to me that, since so many merchant vessels were destroyed in the war, these could be sold to countries that need them. If nothing else can be done with them, they could be broken up, since materials are so hard to get these days. There must be any amount of good planking and trim of all kinds in every one of those ships.

I do not know to whom they belong. I do not know who put them there. But every time I go by, I feel the same resentment as I did after World War I at the waste which they represent.

232

September 27, 1946

HYDE PARK, Thursday – We accomplished miracles, or rather, some of our enterprising businessmen accomplished miracles in building ships during the war. I see that we now are beginning to take stock of what profits were made in the shipbuilding industry.

Will we also examine the profits in munitions, airplanes, coal and steel? All industries have made profits. Labor, too, was well paid during the war. Prices were controlled and some companies, such as the Kaiser companies, found that giving their labor certain services increased the efficiency of their plants.

Money invested was often borrowed from the government, but all enterprises took great risks. We needed men who would take great risks. I rather imagine that, even with high taxes, many of them made fortunes. But we were grateful to these men of enterprise and daring when we needed them, and I do not think we should cavil now.

Fortunes made out of munitions never appealed to me. But fortunes made out of ships or planes which saved our lives and the lives of many other people during the war, and the production of which must have cost the manufacturers many sleepless nights, do not seem so disquieting. Ships and planes can serve in peacetime and can increase our trade.

We had to make an atom bomb to win the war. Had Germany made it first, the whole course of history might have been changed. That does not mean, however, that one would enjoy making a fortune out of the atom bomb, and I hope that any future profits from atomic energy will be made out of peacetime uses to which this great new force can be turned.

What I really want to say is that, if labor has been well treated and if there has been no dishonesty, I do not feel any resentment over profits made by men who were willing to take great financial risks in order to save their country. They saved it and they won. They might have lost. Instead, some of them made fortunes. Why should we complain?

These fortunes seem to me more legitimate than if they had been made in enterprises such as those of some of the old international cartels which, in some cases, based their plans on the fact that there might be a war, somewhat of their own creating, in which money could be made. We hope that such cartels will never be allowed to flourish again.

All of us know that many projects were undertaken, some by the Government and some by private enterprise, which had to be undertaken solely because of the war. Under investigation now, even some of the government enterprises may be found not to have been necessary and to have cost us a great deal of money. But if the war had turned a little differently, these very enterprises might have been the only things which lay between us and defeat.

We risked much in making the atom bomb. Suppose we hadn’t won the race or suppose we hadn’t been successful? There are lots of “supposes” in life. And being human beings, all that can be expected of us is that we will use our best judgement.

233

September 28, 1946

HYDE PARK, Friday – The more I read the papers and look at the world situation, the more I realize that both labor and capital in this country have an equally great responsibility for the economic recovery of the world. If this country does not get on a stable economic footing, no other country is going to be able to recover.

The papers today state that our farm income has reached an all-time high. That is good news. But our farmers should not hold back meat or sell animals before they reach maturity in order to get a higher price, for that is undoubtedly one of the reasons for our present meat shortage.

We were warned last summer that we were eating meat which should not have been on the market until autumn. Prices were good, so the meat was sold. Now we are short. And we have to keep the price ceiling on meat, in spite of all the pleas which individual interests are making, because only those people who could pay very high prices would profit by the removal of the ceiling.

On the industrial side, Alfred P. Sloan, head of General Motors, has made a speech indicting workers for their indifferent attitude toward their work. I have heard this from several sources and, if it is true, I hope the workers will soon realize that they have a stake in the economy of the country and that it can only be saved by full production.

On the other hand, management has an equal obligation to correct the situations which cause the workers to be indifferent. It is not in human nature to enjoy doing a bad job. If your job is worth doing and if you feel that the conditions surrounding it are fair to you, you will want to work hard.

We talk about the need for cooperation among nations. But cooperation has to be begun among the people in each nation. And it seems to me that management in this country would do well to show its superior ability by finding ways and means to cooperate with labor. The workers can be shown how it pays to do a good job. And they need to be educated to the realization that they have an equal interest in the prosperity of the country, and an equal interest in seeing that the world does not go under because the United States can’t learn how to manage its own economy.

On a visit to New York City this week, I was conscious of the bad traffic situation! I thought perhaps the order for no parking between 23rd Street and 59th Street would mean greater speed in getting about, but the streets seem to have just as much parking as they did before! Someone with imagination must get to work on planning how motor vehicles can get around our big cities! I think it might be a good combination if we could put engineers, architects and artists together and tell them to produce a plan.

234

September 30, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – President Truman, addressing the cadets at West Point yesterday, spoke about peace and said not only that our objective in this country was to obtain permanent peace, but that he thought we could attain our objective.

Some people might wonder that he chose West Point to make an address of this kind. Here were boys being trained for the business of war, so why talk to them of peace? Yet it is highly significant, I think, that he felt they were the ones who should understand that in the future their job might not be to prepare for war, but to keep their nation at peace.

These boys may be called upon to keep the peace of the world under the United Nations. They will certainly form a nucleus of a well-disciplined group among the civilians of our nation, and they will serve as a constant reminder that each individual can either bring about war by his selfish actions or he can work for peace by taking an interest in the world as a whole.

I have been surprised and somewhat shocked to find how casually certain groups of people seem to take it for granted that another war is inevitable. These people, of course, must also take it for granted that the use of the atom bomb as a means of destruction will be outlawed.

But it cannot be outlawed unless we set up strength enough under the United Nations to keep peace in the world. As long as it is not outlawed, and as long as all other methods of waging war against one’s neighbors are not kept under joint control, to be used only against an aggressor, none of us will ever be really secure. We can, of course, live from day to day, resolutely putting out of our minds the disagreeable facts which any intelligent person faces and accepts today. If we choose not to face the facts of a new scientific and physical world, we can drift to our own destruction; but we will do it because of stupidity and lack of courage.

No one of the big powers and certainly none of the small powers is going to be really secure until collective force is an actual reality. When we once accept the fact that recourse to war is self-destruction, we will also accept the fact that all problems must be negotiated and that solutions must be found. If the majority makes a decision, the minority will have to abide by the decision which has been reached. The appeal to force by a minority group must be recognized as completely futile.

Keeping peace in the world is going to require great intelligence, because it is going to mean a real understanding of world economy and of the use of economic weapons to make peace so worthwhile that there will be no temptation to go to war. Many people say that all of this is useless unless human nature undergoes a radical change. That may be quite true, but becoming a better human being is an individual achievement and one which even governments can do little about! You and I will have to do that job, and probably we will have to keep on doing it day in and day out all of our lives.

235

October 1, 1946

HYDE PARK, Monday – Last Friday and Saturday were beautiful, blue-sky, early-autumn days, but yesterday, while the air was soft, the sky was gray. And during the night and this morning, rain has been falling intermittently. In fact, in the night, I was awakened by flashes of lightning and one great clap of thunder, which seemed a bit out of season.

Living opposite the Catskill Mountains as a child, I was brought up on the theory that all thunderstorms were just the result of a game of bowls played by Hendrik Hudson and his men – which isn’t such a bad theory with which to start life, for you don’t have any fear of nature’s hidden forces when you think of them as giant balls rolling around in the mountains!

These are the days when an open fire and a book are a joy. And incidentally, last evening, for the first time in many weeks, I enjoyed some of the phonograph records which I have been hoarding for leisure moments. Marian Anderson’s voice, singing some of her most beautiful songs, seemed to float into the room and to change the mood of nearly everyone there.

There is a quality about her voice which is very moving and, after several of her records had been played, I found myself looking for something entirely different. We turned to Irving Berlin’s “This Is the Army” songs, which sent us to bed in a reminiscent mood and with the thought that we were lucky not to have to send those shows around the country any more, no matter how good they were!

I read Rose Franken’s “Young Claudia” yesterday. Claudia has always been one of my favorite characters – a little brittle in spots and over-witty perhaps, since I am sure no one in real life is ever so constantly amusing, but nevertheless a real person and appealing.

In this new book, the story of the war is told, and Claudia is not quite so young, not quite so pat in all of her sayings. I like her better and I think many a young woman will relive her feelings as she reads this book. The post-war readjustment may vary a little, but probably every girl whose husband went away to war and came back will have some similar experiences to stack up against Claudia’s.

Claudia’s final decision that the theater world is not so much fun as real living won’t get through to many a young actress, unless they have had some of the same trials and tribulations. In some ways I think the picture of the theater world is painted rather too harshly. For instance, with all his peculiarities, Claudia’s producer must have had a touch of genius or he would not have been such a success – and genius does compensate for minor faults.

236

October 2, 1946

HYDE PARK, Tuesday – Anyone of my age, living in the country, should make friends with David Grayson through his “Adventures.” He wrote “Adventures in Contentment,” “Adventures in Friendship,” “Adventures in Solitude” and “Adventures in Understanding,” as well as many other books. You need to have a few years behind you, perhaps, really to enjoy these “Adventures,” but every now and then, there comes a quiet evening when I sit before the fire and reread just a few.

Last night it was “The Man Afraid” in the volume “Adventures in Understanding.” I enjoy the spirit that took Mr. Grayson to visit the man who had written him a letter – probably because, every now and then, I myself am moved to do something of the kind and have exactly the same sinking of the heart as Mr. Grayson had on entering the letter-writer’s office. The letter had conveyed to him the man’s fear of life, and he wanted to tell him that that fear was the first fear to be overcome.

One must be friends with oneself before one can achieve contentment and courage, and one must understand that living is an adventure – an adventure that can only be savored by the courageous. There is, of course, no such thing as real security for anyone in the world. There may be sorrow and suffering around the corner for anyone at any time. Nevertheless, life is worth living and it is worthwhile to love, even though that very love may bring you suffering. All of these things David Grayson said to the man who wrote him a letter.

Not long ago, a young man wrote me a letter and I sensed that life was getting him down. On impulse, I asked him to come and see me. I do not know that it did him any good, but I enjoyed meeting him. I had a deep admiration for the way in which he had met difficulties, and I felt that he and his wife must be a very gallant young couple. I hope that things began to break better for him after he left me, for when you trust life and face it four-square, there should be breaks in the clouds before it gets to be a bitter grind from which all hope has gone.

That is one of the things I dread for the young men back from the war. While away, they dreamed of a land of opportunity where everything would be easy, and they have come back to a land where there may be opportunity but where the mere business of living is made almost intolerably difficult for many of them. Hope must not be allowed to die within them. We, in our communities, are the keepers of that hope.

237

October 3, 1946

HYDE PARK, Wednesday – I have in the mail a letter which touches so closely the problem of many young couples that I am going to quote it here:

“I am the mother of two little boys and expect another baby in March. For over two weeks we have had no red meat, no sugar for puddings, applesauce, etc., and the cost of plain, ordinary foodstuffs is so out of this world that the whole situation is absurd.

“The American public has become complacent. We literally sit back and take any and all ‘orders’ issued to us. Maybe we discuss the situation with friends in our own home, but we do nothing. Letters to our Congressmen seem to have lost their value. What can we do?

“My question is: ‘What can the housewife do to exert her influence? You are a mother – if the health of your children was being threatened, what would you do?’

“As a matter of fact, the entire nation is in danger. Weaken the coming generation and we will be an easy prey for any future aggressor.

“I am only an ordinary housewife, but I’m sure every woman holds the same opinion I have. Taken collectively, we could be one of the most powerful forces the country ever knew.

“Too many of our women’s organizations and women in politics are held in ridicule, not only by newspapers and magazines, but by the public in general. Does this mean we have no way to get to the root of the problem and honestly try to do something about it?

“I hope you don’t think I’m some sort of a crank. I’m not. I’m just puzzled by America right now.”

She is quite right, I think. This is a problem for the housewives of the country and we should make ourselves heard by our government. If meat is not available, then a campaign should be put on so that every housewife would know how to feed her children and how to give them such things as will take the place of meat. Many people never eat red meat, but they do eat a great deal more of certain foods which we are apt to forget about.

This question of what to feed children when certain things are short is a question for which the national government should have planned with the state governments. And no locality in this country should be without a constant reminder of how children should be fed to keep them in good health.

The cost-of-living question is much more complicated. We, the public, could have supported OPA much more vocally. We could have supported such measures as the Administration proposed for preventing inflation a long while ago, instead of letting many of them die in Congress.

That would have prevented many of the strikes which are now being blamed for the rise in the cost of living. Strikes and higher wages do increase the cost of living, but the strikes were brought about in large part by the fact that men could no longer live on their wages – and every housewife knows that.

238

October 4, 1946

HYDE PARK, Thursday – The other evening, I attended a Democratic women’s club meeting in a nearby town, and I am beginning to think that the question uppermost in women’s minds is how they can make themselves heard. They feel that, through their organizations, they do not have as much influence as they should have.

Woman after woman asks me, “What shall I do to make it clear that I want peace?” They are not interested in controversies between government officials. They do not know a great deal about the difficulties of negotiating peace treaties, but they do know that they do not want their children to grow up with an atomic war hanging over their heads. They begin to feel that, if they could talk to the women of other countries, they might find some way to affect their governments.

When they get through talking about keeping the peace, then they begin talking about the home situation. And here again, the cry is: “How can we be effective in making our representatives know what we want and pay attention to us?” Though women have gone in for education on political questions, comparatively few of them have gone in for the kind of practical education which teaches them that there is only one way to influence a political party. That way is to work for their party and to become important enough in their own community so that, when they say they want something, the powers-that-be listen because, in return, they need the work the women can do.

A young woman with little children naturally feels that it is impossible for her to leave her home and children and do political work. But if she is half as ingenious in finding ways to make herself useful to her party as she is in finding ways to run her house in these complicated days, she will somehow become a cog in the wheel of citizenship – and that is the essential thing for every one of us.

Housekeeping in the government is not really much more complicated than housekeeping in the home, and the way to understand government problems is to think them through the way you think through your home problems. You’ll find that there is a great similarity between running a family of children and a home, and running a city and dealing with the city fathers.

I am glad to see women in this country asking at last, “How can we be effective?” If they really mean it and if we can arouse women in other countries, we are going to see some changes both at home and abroad.

239

October 5, 1946

HYDE PARK, Friday – There is one county in New Jersey – Monmouth – which I think does an exceptionally good job through its social services, and this is largely due to an outstanding citizen. Mrs. Lewis Thompson has had a hand in all the welfare organizations of the state, but as she lives in Monmouth County, that county’s organization for social service reflects her interest and personality.

She cares about people and this interest at home has taken her to her state capitol and to Washington, D.C. The servicemen of New Jersey can be grateful for the programs which she has helped to inaugurate for them. Mrs. Thompson, of course, could not do her work alone and she has had splendid cooperation. But she gives inspiration and energy and courage such as few citizens give to the welfare work of their communities.

Now the Monmouth County organization for social service is raising a fund for the erection of the Geraldine L. Thompson Building. This will be their headquarters, and its very name will inspire those who work in it to better citizenship.

In this county, they are never satisfied with the work they are doing, they always want to make it better and to increase the services which they render. In addition to the social service organization’s present activities, they are planning for night clinics to treat tuberculosis and venereal disease, and to do mental hygiene work. This will be a real service to wage earners who, unless acutely ill, cannot get away to attend day clinics. They even hope to do things for the two diseases which are responsible for the greatest number of deaths today – heart trouble and cancer.

This county is setting a good example. One of the things it brings home to us is that there must be some individual who furnishes the driving power and gets other people to feel concern for the well-being of the whole community.

Brooklyn has also started a new program. There, the Tuberculosis and Health Association and the Red Cross are pioneering together in a course of instruction for tuberculosis patients in the Kings County Hospital. The patients are taught proper diet and the best and quickest way to prepare their food, since many of them can’t spend a great deal of time on household work.

The course is conducted by Mrs. Jessie Jacobson of the Brooklyn Red Cross nutrition department staff, at the request of Mrs. Louise Heinze, the Brooklyn Tuberculosis and Health Association’s rehabilitation supervisor at the hospital. Not long ago, 18 patients received the Red Cross nutrition certificate.

The same sort of thing might well be done in hospitals all over the country. I mention both of these programs because they may serve as suggestions for improving other communities throughout our nation.

240

October 7, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – I noticed that Governor Dewey, in appealing to the voters the other night to elect him and the progressive Republican party, claimed all the things as Republican policies and Republican achievements which the Democrats also have stated were their policies and to which they feel they have contributed, in the past, immeasurably more than the Republicans.

The Democrats, in other words, are saying that on their record the people of the state can expect more consistent progress from them than from the Republicans. They are claiming that the Republicans are giving only lip service to certain policies; that, on the record, the Republicans have not given performance to the same extent that the Democrats have.

The voters themselves have to decide this, and they will decide it, I hope, by weighing the character and capacity of the candidates and their records.

Yet there is one point I think worth mentioning. When the Republican candidate, Mr. Dewey, claims that he and his party are the party of progress, they are soliciting the support of labor and the elements of progress within labor. In doing this, the Republicans do not expect to be accused of communism. Neither should the Democrats be accused of communism when they seek the same support. There are certain elements among the labor groups that are said to be either communistic or too much influenced by communist members. But the vast majority of labor is simply “progressive.”

Mr. Dewey and Mr. Ives both repudiated Gerald L. K. Smith’s support the other day. But they cannot get rid of his support, and the support of those who follow him, by repudiation, any more than either the Republicans or the Democrats can get rid of communist support by repudiation.

It strikes me that this hue and cry about communist support is raised largely as a red herring, since the number of Communists in this country is not very large. They are very vocal, they are very well organized and, when they get into positions of trust within a group, they are dangerous, because their methods of work are not entirely above board and they work so hard.

I acknowledge the challenge the American Communists present to those of us who believe that democracy is a better form of government than communism. We believe that it has been proved through the years that democracy is able to give a better standard of life to the people as a whole. The only way to convince the Communists, however, is to progress under our democratic form of government and, year by year, give our people more of the things which make life worth living. If we do this, communism can never be a menace to us. To do it, however, we must crusade for democracy and work as hard for our beliefs and our standards as the Communists do for theirs.