Editorial: Dear Mr. President
They say, Mr. President, that you and Congress are feuding.
They say, for example, that you requested a national service law not particularly because you thought it was needed now or believed Congress would pass it, but rather to get yourself on record in case further labor strife crops up – so you may put the blame on Congress if that happens and if no such law is enacted.
They say, too, that the belief by some Congressmen that this is the case has added to Congressional resentment and made the feud more bitter.
They say – inevitably no doubt, but perhaps without justification – that your words and deeds relating to domestic policies are dictated by fourth-term strategy, and that the national service law proposal is a sample of such maneuvering. That you prefer to tackle the labor problem by indirection, as a face-saving gesture, rather than by frontal attack. That this is the adroit, the expedient, way of washing your hands of a vexing and politically delicate problem.
They say, Mr. President, that this is typical of your administration – that you have your eyes focused so firmly upon the history books that your capacity to deal with actualities is muscle-bound.
They say that if such were not the case, you’d be more willing to delegate authority and to retain or dismiss members of your official family on the basis of performance rather than by the measuring rod of personal loyalty.
They say, too, that if your viewpoint were altered ever so slightly in that respect, you’d be less sensitive to criticism, less anxious to call people Tories and copperheads and dunces, more positive and effective in decisions. That, in short, your great natural endowments would be able to function freely to your nation’s benefit.
They say there’s no hope of any change, any improvement.
They say all that, and much more.
What do you say, Mr. President?