Election 1944: Post-convention editorials

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (July 23, 1944)

Editorial: The picking of Truman

Candidate Roosevelt said:

I shall not campaign in the usual sense for the office. In these days of tragic sorrow, I do not consider it fitting. Besides, in these days of global warfare, I shall not be able to find the time.

Also, “I do not wish to appear in any way as dictating to the convention.”

But the record as developed in the Democratic Convention does not support Candidate Roosevelt’s words.

He arranged a military inspection trip, which conveniently took him through Chicago for a secret conference with convention leaders, and then proceeded to run the meeting by remote control.

The platform and vice-presidential choice were his own.

Before the convention, Mr. Roosevelt told his loyal friend and Vice President, Henry Wallace, to run – for the latter was unwilling to do so without his support. Mr. Wallace ran – and was killed off by a letter which damned him with faint praise.

Before the convention, Mr. Roosevelt also told his loyal friend and “deputy” president, Jimmy Byrnes, to run – and then nodded for his withdrawal after the convention was in session.

Backers of Mr. Wallace and Mr. Byrnes felt they had been double-crossed, and said so.

Another presidential letter was flashed approving Justice Douglas – but by that time the confused delegates looked on it as perhaps just a trick to divide the Wallace forces.

Another vice-presidential candidate, Senator Barkley, has also been given presidential approval in an open race – but also got the gate.

These various vice-presidential candidates, it developed, had all been mere scenery. Mr. Roosevelt’s handpicked national chairman, Hannegan, and the big-city bosses – Kelly of Chicago, Flynn of New York and Hague of New Jersey – had been told that the real choice was Senator Truman, and they put him over very neatly.

The record is that Mr. Roosevelt did dictate to the convention and did play partisan politics – despite his high-sounding assurances.

Regardless of the political hocus-pocus which led to Senator Truman’s nomination, he was the best available running mate.

On a statesmanship basis, Mr. Truman is “a first-rate second-rate man,” rather than a top flight potential successor in the White House – and, being an honest and modest person, he knows it. But he is excellent for the Roosevelt purpose, which is to pacify as many of the warring Democratic factions as possible.

Mr. Truman’s single asset was apparent but not real – his left-wing CIO support was in the fourth-term bag anyway. So, the same presidential hand that raised up the unpolitical Wallace in the unwilling convention of 1940, struck him down in 1944 because he was no longer useful.

But Mr. Truman is almost a complete campaign asset. Although originally sent to the Senate by the notorious Boss Pendergast, he has established an excellent Senate record. He has many political assets which will help pacify the smarting factions of a divided party.

Mr. Truman’s chief appeal to the public is his record as chairman of the Senate committee uncovering war contract frauds – “honesty in government,” and “the taxpayers and soldiers’ friend.” He has a good World War I record. He is not too old.

As an “average man,” he may be a campaign relief to many ordinary Democrats who are fed up with the unfailing cleverness and superior charm of the indispensable man. Also, Mr. Truman has no potent political enemies.

Maybe the humble but well-liked Truman can get more support for the Commander-in-Chief from his own political general staff and party field commanders, which he needs. Maybe that is the main reason that the best politician in the business – unless Mr. Dewey licks him – ditched half a dozen of his loyal friends in favor of Mr. Truman, who was not his friend and did not aspire to be Vice President or President.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (July 24, 1944)

Editorial: You can’t blame ‘em

Few voters pay any attention to party platforms, a nationwide Gallup Poll reports. Fewer than two in five persons claim to have read any part of the Republican platform – which was the only one that had been made public when the poll was taken. Readers of the Democratic platform may be more numerous due to the fact that it was so much shorter than the Republican.

Here is an issue on which an editorial writer should be properly outraged and aggrieved – a plain dereliction of duty, a disregard of the obligations of democracy, a callous indifference toward the responsibilities of citizenship.

But, somehow, we can’t. We are inclined to feel that three out of five persons have merely escaped the platitudes, straddling and doubletalk which go to make up party platforms.

Of course, that isn’t the right view – because if more people paid attention to platforms, the politicians might treat them with greater respect and care. But, things being what they are this year and have been in many previous campaign years, who are we to blame the poor citizen who escapes the boredom and insincerity of the party platform by the simple expedient of not reading it?

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Beware the tax promiser

Pre-election promises have been giving many people the impression that a tax holiday is just around the corner. This impression has been bolstered by the fact that several state legislatures have approved a proposed constitutional amendment limiting federal income, gift and estate taxes to 25 percent. A surge of optimism about the possibility of lower taxes has also followed the recent publicity given to post-war plans calling for dramatic slashes in tax rates.

Don’t be misled. Campaign statements on taxes are just that, whether they come from Republican or Democratic sources. There is about as much chance of taxation being held to a top limit of 25 percent as there is of a law forbidding the thermometer from going above 80 degrees.

Similarly, post-war plans calling for drastic tax reductions are just wishful thinking. Any reductions in general tax rates would undoubtedly force the government to use a general sales tax as a substitute source of revenue. But even most proponents of a sale tax during wartime would shy away from it in the post-war period when the emphasis probably will be on spending rather than saving.

Although no reduction in personal tax rates can be expected for some years, it is a safe bet that business taxes will be softened in the effort to shift American industry from war to peace with as little dislocation and unemployment as possible.

The present excess profit tax probably will be eliminated. And although industry in general has been able to show a substantial net profit even after this drastic tax, a major business complaint is that the tax laws have not allowed companies to set aside enough money as a reserve to meet the contingencies of the post-war period. For instance, owing to wartime conditions company may have had to put off necessary repairs to its factory buildings, or the job of replacing war machinery with the machines it uses for peacetime production may be very expensive.

The Treasury says that the present tax law does recognize this problem, if only indirectly. For instance, when a company has a bad year and shows a loss it can claim a refund from the Treasury of part or all of the taxes it paid in years when it showed a profit. Or, in certain cases, the company waits until the next year it shows a profit and then claims a deduction in its taxes for that year.

But these “carry backs and carry forwards,” as they are called, are limited to a two-year period. This means that no matter how much tax a company has paid in previous high-profit years, it cannot later claim a tax refund if the profit period is more than two years in the past. Similarly, it can claim no reduction of taxes in a good year unless its loss period occurred within two years of that time.

Probable elimination of the excess profits tax and existence of even the two-year carrying back privilege will be a financial boon to many companies. There is also a strong likelihood that corporate tax rates I general will be decreased in the government’s attempt to stimulate business activity after the war.

It is in line with this primary goal that various “incentive taxation” plans are being urged. The idea is to determine from the point of view of the national interest what overall goals the country deems desirable – for instance, maintaining as high a level of production as possible and providing as many jobs as possible. The tax structure would be so arranged that companies that best fit themselves into this national design would get certain tax advantages and benefits denied to other companies.

Reduction of corporation taxes and some “incentive plan” may give some post-war relief – but beyond that there’s little hope in sight for a real tax cut. Campaigners who promise it the coming year won’t be able to make good and will be misleading the voters.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (July 25, 1944)

Editorial: It depends on who and how

By order of the Federal Communications Commission, Western Union has forbidden the transmission of telegrams of congratulation.

The order was issued to keep the telegraph wires open for the great volume of war business. Which would seem to make sense. Most citizens have accepted this “sacrifice” gracefully.

But President Roosevelt, from that undisclosed naval base from which he delivered a radio speech to the Democratic Convention, telegraphed “heartiest congratulations” to Senator Harry S. Truman on Mr. Truman’s nomination for Vice President.

This, as the FCC admits, was a clear violation of the order. Since Mr. Roosevelt is Commander-in-Chief, you couldn’t expect Western Union to turn down his wire. No more than you can expect the FCC to do anything about it.

Of course, some private citizens have violated the order, too. But they had to be more subtle. Like a friend who sent a telegram to another: “So sorry can’t send telegram I’d like to send.”

But Mr. Roosevelt boldly used the forbidden word: “Congratulations.”

This is like it is with so many other things. The government makes the rules and the government breaks ‘em.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Party splits

Both parties are now trying to heal the wounds of their convention battles. In either case party unity may make the difference between victory and defeat in November. At the moment the Republicans are better off. They left fewer throats cut and hearts broken than Mr. Roosevelt’s remote-control sessions in Chicago last week.

Anti-Roosevelt Democrats in the South are talking third party, under some such name as “Jefferson Democrats.” In Texas, unless there is an unexpected last-minute deal between the present majority, anti-Roosevelt faction and the “rump” fourth-termers, there will be rival Democratic tickets in that state.

The two biggest convention fights last week were settled in favor of the restive South to prevent party revolt spreading beyond Texas. Mr. Wallace was ditched and Senator Truman nominated for the Vice Presidency to appease the South, though that was not the only reason. Likewise, the platform fight over the racial issue ended in a plank of evasion, and a complete defeat for Negro and Northern Democratic delegates who demanded something better even than the surprisingly strong Republican plank.

Candidate Roosevelt and his convention bosses had the unhappy choice of alienating Southern votes or Northern Negro votes in the election, and chose the latter as the lesser electoral risk. But Negro organizations claim they hold the November balance of power in at least eight Northern and border states, including New York, Ohio and Indiana.

There will be no Democratic split as a result of the bitter vice-presidential fight. Wallace supporters are FDR supporters first, and the CIO labor leaders who made the convention noise for Mr. Wallace had accepted Mr. Truman secretly in advance as their best compromise.

Republicans have been successful in turning a convention vice-presidential fight into a unity asset. The popular Governor Warren might have been a stronger candidate – he hopes to swing the Pacific Coast states anyway by campaigning – but his withdrawal enabled all factions to unite on Governor Bricker of Ohio, a key state. all, that is, except the Willkieites; and it is doubtful at the moment that Mr. Willkie will bolt.

So, at the start of the campaign, Mr. Dewey’s forces are more united than those of Mr. Roosevelt.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (July 26, 1944)

Editorial: Campaign corn

Right now is the time for the two national political chairmen to get together and take a stand against puns on the Republican challenger’s name and the Democratic titleholder’s terms in office. Otherwise, we shall be subjected to such bright items as “glorious Fourth,” “safe and sane Fourth,” “Dewey-eyed supporters,” “Dewey or don’t we,” and so on, ad nauseum.

So let’s have a nonpartisan embargo, quickly. Otherwise, the 1944 campaign may be remembered not as one of the most crucial campaigns in American history, but as the corniest.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (July 27, 1944)

Editorial: ‘Is this trip necessary?’

Maybe the ODT’s slogan writer will be interested in Democratic Chairman Hannegan’s announcement that a committee including one person from each of the 48 states and one from each territory and possession will call on President Roosevelt, soon after he returns to Washington, to notify him that he has been nominated for a fourth term. For our part, we can hardly wait to see how surprised Mr. Roosevelt will be.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Better Senators

“Cotton Ed” Smith’s defeat in the South Carolina Democratic primary and J. W. Fulbright’s lead in the four-way primary contest in Arkansas should raise the level of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. Smith represented the worst in the Senate, and thanks to his 36 years of seniority, the “Dean’s” power for evil had full rein. Governor Johnston, though taking the same white supremacy line as Mr. Smith, is better in most respects. Mr. Fulbright, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, made history with his international organization resolution. We hope this brilliant ex-president of the University of Arkansas will win the senatorial runoff primary if one is necessary.

As usual in state contests in a presidential campaign year, politicians and dopesters are trying to read national significance into these primary results. The voters apparently were fed up with two old officeholders and wanted a change – Senator Hattie Caraway of Arkansas, who was given her late husband’s office 12 years ago, ran a poor last in the field of four.

Using age and change as the test, these primaries might indicate a popular drift, but since the pro-Roosevelt Johnston beat the anti-Roosevelt Smith in South Carolina and FDR was not the issue in Arkansas, there doesn’t seem to be any clear evidence of a national trend.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (July 28, 1944)

Editorial: The CIO issue

In this year’s political campaign, the big news – and the issue – very probably will be the CIO and its Political Action Committee, alias National Citizens’ Political Action Committee.

The idea and the technique of this pressure bloc is not altogether new, but the scope and vigor of its program is unique, to say the least.

It poses one of the toughest problems Republican campaign leaders face. It also poses a problem for the Democrats who cling to the fancy that their party is still the party of their fathers – which it isn’t.

The Democratic Party has become the vehicle of a smart, zealous and capable coalition which has chosen to take over the country, or a large part if it, not by mere boring from within, but by direct seizure of the controls – a sort of putsch.

Like any other high-powered pressure organization, it is the purpose of this group to grasp the controls, and to hold them exclusively, so it may get what it wants for itself – and for nobody else.

The top leader is Sidney Hillman, whose record shows him to be a man whose favorite means of achieving his goals is to force his way by a demonstration of strength. At the recent Democratic National Convention, he didn’t ask, or recommend. He demanded. He assumed the attitude of an all highest from whom all biddings must flow.

“Politics,” says the PAC’s primer, “is the science of how who gets what, when and why.”

The PAC’s announced aim is to bring about the reelection of President Roosevelt.

But that is only the means to the ultimate aim – complete domination of the government at Washington. That means complete domination of law of taxes, of the courts, of the economy.

It may or may not mean a positive dictatorship. That word has been abused and its implications oversimplified.

But the Hillmans and the others who are bossing this movement are not the type who willingly and gracefully give and take. They make concessions, or drop their demands, only when they are compelled to. If they achieve the power they seek, who will compel them?

They are already well on the road to their goal. It is no small beginning – the organization of this PAC.

It is a powerful movement, backed by expert organization work an overflowing treasury, and plenty more where that came from; by brains and willing workers – a pressure group such as this country never before has seen in a presidential campaign.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (July 29, 1944)

Editorial: Nepotism in high places

Putting one’s kinfolk on the public payroll is a common practice among politicians.

It has been indulged since the Roman Empire and probably will go on until Doomsday.

Oh, it goes on in private business, too. And likewise rankles the other payrollers, especially if the favored son or brother or uncle happens to be averse to work and gets special breaks over the heads of the common slaves.

But the politicians seem to have an extra weakness for the practice. Every so often a political adversary or the newspapers will list the nepotic beneficiaries and their benefactors – and it creates a great one-day sensation. But the practice keeps going.

Some of the politicians do it to get their poor relatives off their back, some to keep peace in the family and some just because they can’t resist looking out for their kinfolk. Occasionally, of course, there is real merit in those appointments.

Senator Truman, the vice-presidential nominee, explains that his wife is on the Congressional payroll at $4,500 a year because “she is my chief adviser,” who also takes care of his personal mail and helps him with his speeches. It can be said in rebuttal, of course, that she needn’t be on the payroll to do all those things.

In any case, nepotism is one of those phenomena of political life which never fail to stir up interest but don’t amount to much, either.

The public seems to regard it as a sort of snide practice. For this reason, the politicians generally agree it is not smart politics – but even the smartest fall for it.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: ‘Dangerous’ documents

Congress has a law which says that books which contain political opinion must not be mailed to our fighting men overseas.

In attempting to enforce this law, the War Department has issued a prohibition against such “dangerous” works as Catherine Drinker Bowen’s biography of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles A. Beard’s The Republic and the Atlantic Monthly and Harper’s.

The War Department is doubtless acting in strict accordance with the law. But if it keeps on along this line, as it is presumed to do, it has its work cut out.

Potential political controversy can be found beneath the covers of many an innocent-looking book.

Here, for example, are a few bits of perilous propaganda that come immediately to mind. We pass them along to the War Department with best wishes:

• The Collected Works of Horatio Alger Jr. – These, of course, are out-and-out glorification of free enterprise, a strong Republican selling point in 1944.

• The Novels of Charles Dickens – Full of substantial wage scales, long hours with no overtime, and other examples of exploitation; many of these books attack capitalists as powerfully as anything Henry Wallace ever wrote.

• Robinson Crusoe – Unblushing argument for isolationism.

• Browning’s “Rabbi ben Ezra” – With its invitation to “Grow old along with me,” and its statement that “Youth shows but half,” this poem is clearly a pro-Roosevelt rebuttal to charges of an aging administration.

• “Jack and the Beanstalk” – A subtle allegory about the triumph of a smaller and younger adversary over a big, tough opponent, strictly pro-Dewey (David and Goliath will have to go too, of course). And that song, “Fe-fi-fo-fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman,” is fiercely anti-British.

• “Mother Goose” – These verses are particularly insidious, and must be thoroughly purged. “Old Mother Hubbard” plays up the food shortage; “Little Tommy Tucker,” who sang for his supper and fared so badly, is a thinly veiled prediction that a similar fate awaits Tommy Dewey, one-time baritone; “A Dillar, a Dollar” and “Little Boy Blue” emphasize absenteeism, are definitely anti-labor.

This list must be carried on and on if our servicemen are to be isolated completely from all printed political opinion. The only alternative is to change or repeal the law and treat the soldiers as if they were mature, thinking humans who did not lose all power of independent judgment when they put on a uniform.

[NormanStewart]

The Afro-American (July 29, 1944)

Editorial: The postcard Democratic plank

That’s all, brother

The Democratic National Convention in Chicago last week adopted a postcard plank of 41 words on the race question. This is it, and for the sake of comparison, beside it are printed the Democratic plank of 1940 and the plank adopted by the Republicans:

1944 Democratic plank – Roosevelt-Truman (41 words):

We believe that racial and religious minorities have the right to live, develop and vote equally with all citizens and share the rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution. Congress should exert its full constitutional powers to protect those rights.

1940 Democratic plank – Roosevelt-Wallace (103 words):

Negroes

Our Negro citizens have participated actively in the economic and social advances launched by this administration, including fair labor standards, social security benefits, health protection, work relief projects, decent housing, aid to education, and the rehabilitation of low-income farm families.

We have aided more than half a million Negro youths in vocational training, education and employment.

We shall continue to strive for complete legislative safeguards against discrimination in government service and benefits, and in the national defense forces.

We pledge to uphold due process and the equal protection of the laws for every citizen, regardless of race, creed or color.

1944 Republican plank – Dewey-Bricker (108 words):

Racial and Religious Intolerance

We unreservedly condemn the injection into American life of appeals to racial or religious prejudice.

We pledge an immediate Congressional inquiry to ascertain the extent to which mistreatment, segregation and discrimination against Negroes who are in our armed forces are impairing morale and efficiency, and the adoption of corrective legislation.

We pledge the establishment by federal legislation of a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission.

Anti-Poll Tax

The payment of any poll tax should not be a condition of voting in federal elections and we favor immediate submission of a Constitutional amendment for its abolition.

Anti-Lynching

We favor legislation against lynching and pledge our sincere efforts in behalf of its early enactment.

At first glance, it is evident that the 1944 Democratic plank is less than half as long as the other two.

In addition to its brevity, it is so general that it does not use the word Negro or colored. The party states its belief in equal rights and a vote for minorities as expressed in the Constitution, and adds that Congress should see that these rights are protected.

In 1940, the Democrats were far more specific in promising colored people (they used the word Negro then) legislation against discrimination in government service and in the Armed Forces. At that time, they also promised enforcement of all laws without regard to race, creed, or color.

By contrast, the 1944 Republican Convention plank, adopted in the same Chicago Stadium just a few weeks previously, not only condemned race and religious prejudice, but pledged (1) an investigation into mistreatment and segregation of colored people in the Armed Forced and legislation to remedy it; (2) a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission; (3) a constitutional amendment to abolish poll taxes, and (4) a federal anti-lynching law.

While the Democratic Convention substituted general and almost meaningless phrases on the color question, it was quite definite and specific on other matters.

For example, it favored (1) the opening of Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration and citizenship; (2) legislation guaranteeing women equal pay for equal work with men; (3) self-government for Alaska, Puerto Rico and Hawaii; (4) a vote for the citizens of the District of Columbia; (5) use of an international armed force to prevent future wars, and (6) a constitutional amendment on equal rights for women.

Why, then, was the Democratic Convention so definite and sure on those six issues mentioned above and so mealy-mouthed on the issues affecting the progress and welfare of colored people? Why did it say something in 1940 and little or nothing in 1944?

The answer is: the South. The Southern delegates who stand for segregation and white supremacy, came to the convention united upon the program of eliminating the “colored” plank altogether.

They did not succeed entirely but they did “cut and carve” the plank until it bears no relationship to the party’s stronger stand of 1940.

All told, the 1944 Democratic Convention plank is not only disappointing to colored Democrats, it is unsatisfactory to colored people.

Certain it is that the great Democratic Party which bid openly for the colored vote in 1940 has withdrawn the glad hand in just four years.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Roosevelt and Truman

Unable to prevent the renomination of President Roosevelt, the South ganged up on Vice President Wallace Friday night in Chicago so that the 1944 ticket is Roosevelt and Truman.

In the interest of party harmony, Mr. Roosevelt, who cast Garner aside in 1940, fed Wallace to the wolves in 1944.

To the credit of the liberal Mr. Wallace, it can be said that he went down fighting.

His dramatic challenge, “The future belongs to those who go down the line unswervingly for the liberal principles of both political democracy and economic democracy regardless of race, color or religion. In a political, educational and economic sense, there must be no inferior races. The poll tax must go. Equal educational opportunities must come. The future must bring equal wages for equal work regardless of sex or race,” electrified the convention and stunned the white-supremacy Southern delegates.

The answer of the South, led by Maryland, Delaware, Alabama and South Carolina, was to switch their votes from their favorite sons to Truman. In this, they had the help of machine bosses of Chicago, New York and Jersey City who opposed Wallace for his tie-up with the CIO labor unions.

Altogether the South had a couple of field days in Chicago last week. So far as the convention itself was concerned, the New Deal was held in check. The South had one foot in the saddle.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (July 30, 1944)

Editorial: How the CIO plans to get out the vote

The CIO Political Action Committee is likely to become the biggest issue in the presidential election.

To some, it is a subversive movement organized by a smart coalition of Communists, labor bosses, intellectuals and leftists in general to gain control of the government and make the state supreme under their dictatorship.

To others, it is a crusade to educate voters to preserve democracy – that’s what the CIO leaders call it.

Without debating what it is, let’s at least look at how it proposes to operate – what makes it tick. For it is a real, concrete movement, smartly led and financed with millions of dollars. And if it is to be a force in American politics, we ought to understand it – and if it is to be kept from becoming the dominating force, then we first have to learn how it operates.

For that reason, The Press today starts publication of a series of five stories telling just what the PAC is, what it proposes to do and how it proposes to do it. The stories are based on publications and statements of its leaders and on the textbooks which it is sending out by hundreds of thousands to train its followers in the details of political organization.

Its basic principle is simple – first get ‘em registered, and then get out the vote. Its textbooks center around that theme.

“A big vote is always a good vote,” says the PAC. So, it proceeds on the job of getting out a big vote of its own people. Obviously the only practical policy of its opponents is to get out a big vote of their own people. In which case we may have a big vote of all the people.

If that happens, then the PAC will have accomplished a worthy purpose, regardless of how you view it.

“Unless you are registered you are as useless as a soldier without a gun,” says the PAC political textbook.

Its immediate job is to work through 14 regional officers and thousands upon thousands of shop stewards and local committees and union headquarters to get its vote registered.

To do this, the PAC proposes a registration committee in each plant; complete file cards for each union member; checking of these cards against registration lists; contact with each non-registered worker and his family to get them registered; assistance in making registration convenient or in helping workers to overcome election red tape, and a huge whoop-it-up campaign to make registration popular through posters, leaflets, buttons, etc.

To accomplish these objectives, political textbooks have been issued by the PAC and by various CIO unions.

“The secret of political success today lies largely in doorbell ringing,” says the Guide to Political Action.

“Talk to friends,” it urges, especially pointing out how shop stewards and members of grievance committees are in a favorable position.

“Make a list of neighbors and friends” and then talk to them to see that they are registered. These neighborhood lists are to form the foundation for block and precinct political clubs.

Each precinct is to have a committee and a captain. The PAC textbook says:

A good captain is eager to help solve the problem of his neighbors… Such captains build precinct organizations which become centers of social as well as political activity in the neighborhood. By such work, the precinct captain and his assistants are able to mobilize the people of their neighborhood when a political campaign is launched.

“Whenever possible, the precinct captains should be neighbors,” it is emphasized, and the particular value of women as neighborhood organizers is pointed out.

All of which is very practical, irrefutable and effective politics.

If the CIO and its left-wing associates are to be kept from taking over the government, then the same sort of grassroots organizing will be required to defeat them.

For it isn’t true that a big vote is always a good vote – not when it is a big vote only of those who organized and carried through the essentials of getting one particular group of voters to the polls.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (July 31, 1944)

Editorial: Greetings, Mr. Dewey

Western Pennsylvania has long been a political progressive region.

The voters here were the first to turn against the highhanded methods of the Republican Old Guard. They were among the first in Pennsylvania to vote against Prohibition candidates and they led the parade to the New Deal when it first took office.

Throughout recent years, voters of this region have shown an increasing discrimination and independent in marking their ballots. More and more, they have demanded that their candidates for public office “show them something.”

This quite accurately could be called the region of the political pendulum.

Today, Western Pennsylvania welcomes, for the first time since his renomination, the Republican candidate for President, Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York.

In choosing Pittsburgh for his first campaign appearance, Mr. Dewey, we think, picked a strategically sound place to begin. If he can convince local labor, business, agricultural and other leaders of his earnestness and abilities, he will have made an important start on his campaign for the White House.

Whether or not the Republican nominee can carry Allegheny and other Western counties in the November election will depend, to a great extent, on the campaign developments yet to come.

In any case, Pittsburgh is glad to see Mr. Dewey, Mrs. Dewey and the Governor’s political and official associates. Regardless of politics, the people here will hope that the New York Governor will find it possible to pay another visit to the city later in the campaign, when he is ready for addresses on the major issues of the election.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (August 1, 1944)

Editorial: Dewey hit bigotry

Soon or late, every presidential candidate runs into the issue of racial and religious bigotry. Most of them try to duck it. A few, of better stuff, hit it head on. Governor Thomas E. Dewey is that kind. He thinks intolerance is too high a price to pay for votes.

When Rep. Ham Fish (R-NY) was quoted as attacking the Jews for their alleged partisan support of FDR and the New Deal, Mr. Dewey lashed out with this:

Two years ago, I publicly opposed the nomination and election of Congressman Fish. The statements attributed to him confirm my judgment expressed at that time. Anyone who injects a racial or religious issue into a political campaign is guilty of a disgraceful, un-American act. I have always fought that kind of thing all my life and always will, regardless of partisan considerations. I have never accepted support of any such individual and I never shall.

Every race and religion has its bigots. So do both political parties. Therefore, it is important that parties and candidates come clean on this issue. The Republican platform says: “We unreservedly condemn the injection into American life of appeals to racial or religious prejudice.” Candidate Dewey has shown where he stands.

Unfortunately, the Democratic enemies of intolerance were unable to write a similar plank into their platform. Whether it was left out of the draft the President sent to the Democratic Convention, we do not know. But, now that Mr. Dewey and the Republicans have led the way, Candidate Roosevelt should have enough courage to follow.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (August 2, 1944)

Editorial: The Republican danger

One specific and practical result which most observers saw in Governor Thomas E. Dewey’s visit here this week was the substantial unity among Republicans.

Everybody knows the Republicans are not all of a mind on the issues of the day, on campaign methods, on governmental administration or on any other subject.

Some of them are as far apart as the poles as far apart, for instance, as the CIO Political Action Committee and the Southern “bourbons” in the Democratic Party.

Nobody expects them to get together on any given question, and it probably would be an unhealthy thing if they did. But it is a wholesome situation when they can, for the nonce, shelve some of their personal grudges, pet schemes, ambitions and philosophies in the interest of a greater objective.

In this year’s elections, there are only two choices for President – Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Dewey.

You’ve got to take one or the other. That’s our American system. And when you take Mr. Roosevelt, you take him with all his faults and peculiarities, whatever may be your opinion of any one of them. You take the whole.

It is the same with Mr. Dewey. Lots of people who may vote for the Republican nominee may disagree with many of the things he has done, will do or may stand for. But they will have to weigh him, his policies and record of the present Washington administration, as a whole.

So, there isn’t any point in professional Republican politicians bickering among themselves over leadership, local policies, patronage or any other matter. Either they are for Mr. Dewey or they are against him. In either case, nothing else, for purposes of the election campaign, can count for very much.

Mr. Dewey, by his conduct immediately after the Republican Convention, and by his conferences here Monday, seems to have instilled the idea concretely among Republican organization workers. For the moment, he has broken the moorings of petty factionalism – at least on the surface.

This will help the party and, more important, it will help the voters see the issues of the campaign in a clearer light – uncluttered by internal quarrels and scuffles.

Mr. Dewey also impressed the Republicans and others who saw him with the idea that it is he who is the candidate. He displayed a willingness to hear all sides, to listen to all arguments, but at the same time made it eminently clear that it is he who will weld the decisive policy, he who will assume the responsibility.

The clearer that picture becomes, the better it will be for Mr. Dewey – and for the Republican ticket.

For there are conspicuous affiliates of the Republican Party whose philosophies are retrogressive, whose influence, if given free rein, is a liability. The less the evidence that these back numbers can speak for the nominee and his ticket, the more confidence the candidate and his running mates will receive and earn from the public.

No candidate for major office can be responsible for the conduct of all of his support. But he can minimize the significance of that support if he demonstrates, as Mr. Dewey seems to be doing, that he can stand on his own feet – that he can lead, and not be led.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (August 3, 1944)

Editorial: How can they do it?

Republican voters in the 29th New York Congressional district, we suppose, know their own minds.

And they have a free right to nominate whomsoever they may choose to represent them in Congress.

But for the life of us we can’t comprehend how, with any feeling of pride or conscience, they can keep on sending Ham Fish to Washington.

However, Mr. Fish’s margin of victory was the smallest in his career. So there is still hope for the voters of that district.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (August 4, 1944)

Editorial: On the right track

We’ll have more to say about the St. Louis conference of Republican governors, under the leadership of presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey, when we see the complete result of their deliberations. Meanwhile, it seems to us, the six reports they made yesterday were a good start in their effort to define clear “areas of responsibility” between the states and the federal government.

Criticism of the trend toward federal centralization which has been so marked in the last 11 years will be most effective, we think, if it emphasizes the truth that concentration of power in Washington leads inevitably to confusion, duplication of effort, waste, inefficiency, and invasion of legitimate and necessary local rights. This, as the governors are pointing out, has been happening in many fields, and nowhere more strikingly than in the matter of increasing federal ownership of land.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: By the CIO and for the CIO

Right while the CIO is starting the biggest campaign in union history to gain control of federal and state governments, one of its chief leaders has revealed how CIO officials regard public office when they hold one.

R. J. Thomas, president of the United Auto Workers, which with more than a million members is the largest CIO union, is also a member of the War Labor Board.

This is one of the most important of the agencies set up to prosecute the war – and its membership is based on that newfangled formula of equal division between representatives of labor, business and the public.

The idea, of course, is that these men of differing experience and viewpoint will be able to combine their talents and backgrounds best to serve the nation as a whole.

But Mr. Thomas does not regard his War Labor Board membership as a public service. Testifying in a New York trial, he candidly declared that he considers it a union responsibility and not a federal service.

“I am there to represent labor,” he said, and added that he thought it is his special duty “to nominate only CIO members to serve on WLB panels.”

Although paid $25 a day plus expenses for WLB service, Mr. Thomas said he didn’t regard WLB membership as “federal service or a federal job.” He is still working for the union even when Uncle Sam pays the bill.

The CIO, through its Political Action Committee, is now setting out to collect millions of dollars for political activity in the coming campaign.

“I hope we can get $25 million,” said David J. McDonald, its national finance chairman, before a meeting of 300 CIO representatives called to organize the Pennsylvania branch.

Mr. McDonald continued:

The more we spend, the better Congress we will have. The more we spend in Pennsylvania, the better state legislature we will have.

Treasurer McDonald made it plain that the organization of which he is financial head is working on the old theory that everything has its price – including Congress and legislatures.

And Mr. Thomas made it plain that as head of the biggest CIO union he operates on the theory that you’ll still working for the CIO even when you fill a public position on the public payroll.

The two theories joined together make an interesting explanation of how the CIO leadership would regard the government should it gain control of it by being the heaviest spender in a national campaign.

There is more than the Presidency involved in this vast, well-financed campaign by a single labor organization to gain control of the government.

Mr. McDonald made this quite plain by his reference to Congress and the Legislature.

The Presidency is far distant from the average man and woman. But the laws under which they live, the agencies and bureaus which enforce and interpret those laws, the county and ward and precinct bosses who are in power – all these are very close to the citizen in his everyday life. They are among the direct – perhaps the most desired – objectives of the CIO-PAC.

It wants CIO members or those who are dominated by the CIO in power – not for broad and even-handed public service, but directly to serve the CIO, as Mr. Thomas so plainly testified.

This is a campaign by a single labor group to elevate itself above all other groups – to initiate government of the people by the CIO and for the CIO.