Election 1944: Pre-convention news

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 1, 1944)

Bricker cites free enterprise as big 1944 issue

Hershey, Pennsylvania (UP) –
Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, resumed active campaigning today after spending four “non-political” days in conferences with 35 other governors, including his possible chief opponent, Thomas E. Dewey of New York.

Even before the official end of the 36th Annual Governors’ Conference, Bricker went to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where he told local members of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association that “reestablishment of free enterprise” was one of the foremost issues of the 1944 campaign.

Dewey stayed to the end, ruffling some feelings when he observed that the conference spent too much time on social activities and too little time on problems common to the states, but closing it with a conciliatory note when he acted as mediator in a dispute over a resolution demanding better cooperation between the federal government and the states.

Bricker told his Lancaster audience:

Free enterprise made our country great and strong. Yet the New Deal has arrogantly sought to destroy business in many ways.

Recalling the recent government seizure of Montgomery Ward & Co. at Chicago, Bricker quoted Attorney General Francis Biddle as saying in that connection that “no business in this country is immune from seizure.”

He asserted:

If what Attorney General Biddle says is true, then we no longer have a constitutional government ln the United States of America – we have a dictator.

[NormanStewart]

Nolan charges New Deal strangles American business

Cites vital role of free enterprise
By Joseph H. Schmalacker

William G. Nolan, Republican nominee in the 4th Congressional district special election, charged in a statement issued today through Republican campaign headquarters that American business has been subjected to a process of “strangulation” by the New Deal.

He declared:

We of the Republican Party feel that with aggressive and strengthening leadership in Congress we can once again develop the initiative and concentrated effort of American free enterprise.

Nolan’s statement asserted America’s “fifth freedom” was the freedom of enterprise and maintained its existence depended on “six birthrights of every American.” He said these birthrights had motivated American life from the very beginning and added that:

Without the fifth freedom, the four freedoms of the Bill of Rights would have little vitality, and the future development of our country would never be possible of achievement.

Names six birthrights

Nolan’s statement said the birthrights included:

The freedom to work in a field of one’s own choosing; the freedom to earn and save and to invest one’s savings; the freedom to plan and build and to profit from one’s contribution to the growth and progress of one’s community; the freedom to create and to enjoy the fruits of one’s creativeness; the freedom to venture and to reap the rewards of one’s initiative and daring, and the freedom to try and fail and to try again.

The statement added:

The New Deal and the present administration, through its socialized philosophy and governmental structure, does not hold any such opportunity for an expanded future. We fell, therefore, that we should add emphasis to these points and to bring to the electorate’s attention the strangulation of American business which the New Deal is carrying out.

Nolan is running against John J. Rooney, Assistant District Attorney, who has both the Democratic and American Labor Party endorsements. Both sides stepped up their activities today, announcing a series of semi-final political rallies for the special election next Tuesday. Nolan’s backers will stage a rally at the 7th AW Republican Club, 5205 5th Avenue, tonight, while Rooney speaks at the 3rd AD Democratic Club, Clinton and Kane Streets. Nolan, a World War I veteran, also unveiled a servicemen’s plaque at the Federal Republican Club, 341 Union Street.

GOP faces hard fight

Behind the widening activity of the campaign was a bid by both the Republicans and Democrats to strengthen party prestige. The Republicans, waging an uphill fight in a district long recognized as a Democratic stronghold, hope to make an impressive showing on the basis of the vote which turns out at the polls. The late Rep. Thomas H. Cullen, whose death caused Governor Dewey to call the special election, represented the district for 13 consecutive terms and was dean of New York State’s Democratic delegation in the House.

With 30,487 voters registered and eligible to cast ballots and with the number of enrolled voters heavily in favor of the Democrats, the latter are working hard to guard against a slump in the percentage of the vote which their party polls normally. Records of the Board of Elections give the Democrats an enrollment of 23,127 to the Republican Party total of 4,995.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 4, 1944)

Nolan, Rooney press fight for Congress seat

By Joseph H. Schmalacker

An all-out fight with the fourth term, the New Deal and so-called “communistic tie-ups” as the principal issues, developed in the special election in Brooklyn’s 4th Congressional district last night as the campaign approached a climax and political party organizations and organized labor groups mobilized to bring their supporters to the polls Tuesday.

The importance rival forces have attached to the special election as a political laboratory test in advance of the November campaign became clear from the eleventh-hour activities of the opposing camps.

The Republican campaign headquarters, backing William G. Nolan, GOP nominee, and gunning for a political upset in a district long controlled by the Democrats, flooded the mails with 25,000 letters to the voters, began the distribution of 15,000 cards by hand and prepared to throw a force of 250 workers into the district for direct calls to the homes of voters.

Nolan said in the letter to the voters:

I am opposed to communistic tie-ups, to the New Deal, to the fourth term and to the government’s “kicking” of labor and small business around to suit its political convenience.

Rooney backers announced

The headquarters for John J. Rooney, Democratic nominee (also endorsed by the American Labor Party), struck back by announcing Rooney’s endorsement by the Central and Labor Council of the American Federation of Labor acting through its Brooklyn Nonpartisan Committee.

Meanwhile, the Greater New York CIO Council, headed by Councilman Michael J. Quill, reiterated its support of Rooney and called on CIO members to vote for him.

Mr. Quill, declaring Rooney had pledged himself without qualification to support President Roosevelt and his war and peace policies, asserted the special election was important, not only to help determine the makeup of Congress, “but also as demonstrating labor and the people’s support for President Roosevelt’s Victory program.”

Nolan restates position

Nolan’s letter reiterated his platform of the freedoms of enterprise on which he has been campaigning.

His letter told the voters:

It is imperative that every voter go to the polls and vote, not only to elect a new Congressman, due to the untimely death of our friend and neighbor, Congressman Thomas Cullen, but to oppose the New Deal and a fourth term. I believe in the democratic principles of Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Murtha, president of Central Trades and Labor Council, and James C. Quinn, secretary, told Rooney in a letter that the council after an analysis of the records of the candidates had reported favorably on Rooney’s candidacy.

Other Rooney supporters

Rooney’s headquarters said he had also received expressions of support from Vincent Kane, president of the Uniformed Firemen’s Association; Vincent J. Ferris, former secretary of the Allied Printing Trades Council; James Barry of the Plasterers Council; Jacob Rosenberg, president of the Musicians Union, Local 802, and John Owens, secretary and treasurer of the International Longshoremen’s Union. Nolan, a superintendent of stevedores, is a member of this union. The Rooney headquarters listed about ten other union locals said to have endorsed him.

Meanwhile, William A. Root, chairman of the Nolan campaign committee, and Raymond Schmidt, vice chairman, said they believed the election would be close. The voting on Tuesday will be from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET.

[NormanStewart]

Bricker to carry fight to convention

Washington (UP) – (June 3)
Roy D. Moore, Ohio publisher who is managing Governor John W. Bricker’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, said tonight that “our man is still in the fight and will stay there until the GOP Convention acts.”

He said in an interview that the Bricker forces do not anticipate or concede possible first-ballot nomination of Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York. He also challenged accuracy of newspaper polls and surveys by private organizations indicating that Dewey has enough pledged and claimed delegates to win on the first ballot.

Moore said:

Governor Bricker would not have entered this contest unless he and his friends thought he could win. The fact that we are still in this fight should prove that we haven’t changed our minds.

Bricker’s aides, he asserted, have made no claim to delegates except those from Ohio.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 5, 1944)

New Mexico GOP voters to pick governor nominee

Albuquerque, New Mexico (UP) –
Only about 33,000 Democratic votes, less than half the 64,000 party votes recorded in the 1942 primary, will be cast in New Mexico’s primary election tomorrow, Ray Rodgers, State Democratic chairman, predicted today.

Major interest in the Republican ticket was centered in the race for the nomination for Governor between Gallup banker Glenn Emmons and Grants businessman Carroll Gunderson.

Seeking nomination for the state’s two seats in the House of Representatives in the Democratic contest, Reps. Clinton Anderson and Antonio Fernandez are running for reelection, opposed by Robert Valdez and Capt. Bob Wollard.

---

ALP names Dickstein as Congress candidate

Rep. Samuel Dickstein, a Manhattan Democrat, who has served in Congress 22 years, yesterday was named as the American Labor Party candidate from the new 19th Congressional district.

Tammany leaders are scheduled to select a candidate today, and there was some doubt as to whether Dickstein or Rep. Arthur Klein would get the Democratic nomination.

[NormanStewart]

Farley’s name may be offered to convention

New Deal foes would prevent unanimous choice of Roosevelt
By Lyle C. Wilson

Washington (UP) –
Submission of James A. Farley’s name to the Democratic National Convention for the presidential nomination in opposition to President Roosevelt’s fourth term candidacy was under consideration today by conservative Democrats.

Farley’s permission still has to be obtained. No one expects the proposed maneuver to prevent the President’s renomination, but it would prevent unanimous action. It is the only method by which anti-Roosevelt Democrats can show the voters the extent of fourth term opposition within the party – be it large or small.

Convention spectators will see real political drama if Farley is placed in nomination. Among some of the big and little convention delegates already selected, there is a scattering of anti-fourth term sentiment which will never have an opportunity to express itself unless there is at least one name put up against Mr. Roosevelt.

Could poll delegations

But with two men in the contest, a situation will be created in which all or any of the state delegations can be polled. The usual way of casting ballots is for the chairman of each delegation to announce the disposition of its voters as the state roll is called. Some of the big states and some of the little ones bind their delegations with the so-called unit rule.

In Florida, for instance, the unit rule has been followed. That state’s 18 delegates to the Democratic convention are divided 14 for Mr. Roosevelt and four for Senator Harry F. Byrd (D-VA). Under the unit rule, the chairman could and probably will announce that Florida casts 18 convention votes for Mr. Roosevelt’s renomination.

But with Farley or any opposition candidate in the race, there could be a request for a poll of the delegation.

Foresee split in 20 states

It is believed that in upwards of 20 states, Farley’s name would cause a minority of the various delegations to split away from the Roosevelt parade to cast what would be, at most, courtesy ballots for the former Postmaster General and protest ballots against the President.

Farley was placed in nomination four years ago in opposition to a third term.

The purpose of the anti-fourth term campaign is not to elect some alternative Democrat President of the United States. It is to defeat Mr. Roosevelt. He has taken party control away from men who feel that they are entitled to consideration in Democratic affairs and they are determined to come back to power.

[NormanStewart]

The New York Times (June 6, 1944)

Gillette takes lead in Iowa primary

Senator ahead; Blue names in GOP race for governor

Des Moines, Iowa (AP) – (June 5)
Senator Guy M. Gillette, a Democrat campaigning for reelection, took a long lead over his opponent, Ernest K. Seemann, in the Iowa primary today.

Returns from 748 of 2,463 precincts gave Gillette 12,093, Seemann 3,181.

Mr. Seemann, a Waterloo factory worker, was making his fifth bid for a place in the national political spotlight.

The winner in the Democratic primary is to meet Governor B. B. Hickenlooper in the general election. Mr. Hickenlooper was unopposed for the Republican nomination.

In the Republican governorship race, Henry W. Burma, Speaker of the House, conceded the nomination to Lieutenant Governor Robert D. Blue. They were trailed by Milton W. Strickler of Des Moines.

Returns from 757 precincts gave:

Blue	31,925
Burma	19,215
Strickler	3,548

Two of the eight Republican Congressmen seeking renomination were trailing opponents, Henry O. Talle in the 2nd district and Fred C. Gilchrist in the 6th.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 6, 1944)

Heffernan: Bricker or Dewey – which?

Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio concluded his address the Conference of Governors with these words:

The strength of America stems from the practice of representative government in the towns, the cities, the counties and the states of this nation. When state and local governments become paralyzed, the door is open to totalitarianism and every form of demagogy. When local responsibility is destroyed, citizenship atrophies and dies. But when state and local governments flourish, when men and women practice representative government and exercise home rule, the foundations of the Republic are secure. The more the history of the Republic is written at the crossroads and the less at the Capitol, the freer we shall be.

Mr. Bricker’s immediate predecessor on the platform was his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Governor Dewey of New York. Mr. Dewey had also stressed the desirability of strong state and local governments.

As I read both these addresses, each delivered by a statesman in whose hands may soon rest the destiny of our nation, a memory came to me. Where had words of the same import and in some instances very similar form been uttered before and by whom? In the capital of this state, and by Franklin D. Roosevelt, then – as now is Mr. Dewey – Governor of New York. Then, as now is Mr. Dewey, an aspirant for the Presidency.

And it occurred to me that among men of high ambition the desire often existed to have the seat of power wherever they may be themselves located. It is perhaps natural. So with this in mind, as a seeker for my own candidate for the Presidency, I studied carefully the two addresses. For I wanted to find a man in whom this feeling would be fundamental, as it was, let us say, in Thomas Jefferson, and would govern his actions when he had ascended from the Chief Magistracy of a state to that of the Republic. Would Mr. Dewey, who ran for the District Attorneyship and used it as a stepping-stone and the echo of whose declaration that he was resolved to serve four years in the Governorship is still on the air, hold true to the views now expressed, if he succeeded Franklin Roosevelt?

Or would John Bricker, who after three splendid terms in the Governorship of Ohio voluntarily surrendered the certainty of another successive term in order to seek the Republican nomination for the Presidency, hold fast should his ambition be gratified?

I think Bricker rings true. And, as one of those Americans who found themselves four years ago without a candidate and are again threatened with a Hobson’s choice, I hope Mr. Bricker will be the nominee.

[NormanStewart]

The New York Times (June 7, 1944)

Dempsey leads in New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico (AP) – (June 6)
Governor John J. Dempsey, seeking renomination on the Democratic ticket, had a lead tonight of 604 votes to 97 for Mrs. Edna Peterson of Albuquerque, on the basis of unofficial and incomplete returns from thirteen of New Mexico’s 900 voting points in the primary. In the contest for the Republican governorship nomination, unofficial, incomplete returns from 11 precincts gave Gallup banker Glenn L. Emmons 129 votes to 117 for former legislator Carroll G. Gunderson.

[NormanStewart]

House women aid poll

Named by Spangler to advise Republican campaign

Washington – (June 6)
The six Republican women members of Congress were named today by Harrison E. Spangler, chairman of the Republican National Committee, to a special women’s advisory committee for the 1944 campaign.

All except Rep. Winifred Stanley of New York, absent on a speaking engagement, attended a luncheon conference with Mr. Spangler at which he expressed great pride in “the largest contingent of women Representatives of any one party serving at one time” and said that it was “fitting they should be the original members of the Woman’s Advisory Committee.”

The others names were Reps. Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts, Frances P. Bolton of Ohio, Jessie Sumner of Illinois, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine and Clare Boothe Luce of Connecticut.

[NormanStewart]

Certainty in five weeks

That is period fixed in capital and President is said to base plans on it
By Arthur Krock

Washington – (June 6)
Members of the government were advised this forenoon that the invasion to liberate Europe was keeping exact pace with Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s timetable. They were informed that, up to the moment of this report, men, ships, aircraft and supplies had reached the destinations planned for them to reach today and at the time appointed.

In the late afternoon, the relation of the invasion to the timetable was said to be unchanged.

But only a very few high officials were given, with any exactitude, an idea of how long the military and naval commanders believe will be required before the operation under Gen. Eisenhower can be set down as an unqualified success, a general success, a moderate success, a stalemate or a defeat. This period was placed at a maximum of five weeks from June 6, or about July 11. The President, it is understood, is basing his summer plans on this calculation. Where he will go and when, and in some degree what he will do (including possible conferences abroad), will be governed by the progress of the invasion in these five weeks and its final outcome.

Air battles are expected

A military authority explained today that the lapse of time was fixed conservatively and that unforeseen events may reduce. But probably will not extend, it. He said the period will probably include one or more great air battles in which the Luftwaffe will still be able to give an account of itself. If it is virtually destroyed in one battle, since replacement facilities are believed to be inadequate, that will shorten the time. If two battles are required, the decision will be retarded that much.

He said further that the Germans can be expected to put great weight behind delaying actions until they have had to assemble as much manpower and supply as they can from their eastern and southern fronts in preparation for the great infantry and artillery battle which most authorities think will have to be fought before the road to Berlin is opened. During that time, the problem of the Allies will be to maintain and increase strength and broaden their lines of supply which, being by water, are subject to more obstacles from nature than the Germans will encounter over land.

Too early to celebrate

For these reasons and others, five weeks has been set as the period that must be passed before definite conclusions can be reached. High government officials, to whom with the President this calculation has been imparted, trust that the public will not be led by hope or native optimism to expect quick and crushing victory and the same low percentage of losses the Allies had on the first day. One of these said today that it is not yet the time to celebrate the toss harts in the air. This, he remarked, is not Armistice Day, though some people are behaving as if it was.

In the proving period of five weeks, the Republican National Convention will have met and adjourned, but there will still be nine days before the opening of the Democratic Party gathering. Thus, if the final decision does not come much more quickly, its outcome will be in doubt while the Republicans deliberate and after they have nominated their candidates for President and Vice President and adopted a platform. But the Democrats and all involved in their convention will be able to reach their conclusions (as to candidacy and otherwise) after the event.

[jacktyunmen]

boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Get out of here with that nonsense!

[NormanStewart]

I’ll give it a chance.

[jacktyunmen]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Get out of here you fucking john bircher!

[jacktyunmen]

I would rather peel my skin off than listen to what the fucking Westbrook Pegler has to say about anything.

[NormanStewart]

Wait till the end of this month or July. You’ll hear more from him.

[NormanStewart]

Invasion may dull Mississippi issue

Democratic convention today may show political effect of news amid rebellion
By Turner Catledge

Jackson, Mississippi – (June 6)
The domestic political reaction to the long-awaited invasion of Europe may have its first practical demonstration tomorrow at the Mississippi State Democratic convention which, until tonight, had been all set to “read the riot act” to President Roosevelt and the New Deal wing of the party regarding white supremacy, states’ rights, the poll tax and Vice President Henry A. Wallace.

The dominant anti-New Deal leadership of the Mississippi Democratic organization declared that they still had the strength to put through a series of resolutions demanding that the party nationally take no stand prejudicial to the South on the above-named issues. They were able, too, they said, to send an uninstructed delegation to Chicago and to nominate an uninstructed delegation to Chicago and to nominate an uninstructed set of presidential electors to vote for “any other Democrats” except those named at Chicago if the demands were ignored.

“These things we can do, invasion or no invasion,” one of the original planners of this strategy said tonight.

But news tones down issue

Regardless of this contention, there was evident among these leaders, and some of their followers, a disposition to crowd in behind the banner of the President’s war leadership as news of the invasion continued to flow through the newspapers and over the radio.

Leaders of the “revolt” wanted it distinctly understood that whatever was done here at their behest tomorrow, it must not be construed as aimed at Mr. Roosevelt’s war commandership but at the “anti-Southerners” with whim they maintain he has surrounded himself in management of domestic affairs.

The anti-New Dealers came here with a set of resolutions already virtually drawn. These resolutions called first for rejection of Mr. Wallace as the party’s vice-presidential candidate. They demanded that the party at the Chicago convention restore the rule requiring a two-thirds’ majority to nominate candidates for President and Vice President; that it reject any proposals for equality between the white and Negro races; that it turn down any platform plank proposing federal action against the poll tax, or limiting in any other manner the rights of the state to conduct its own affairs.

One of the first tangible reactions to the invasion news was a revival of the pro-Roosevelt forces among the Democratic ranks. Until today, these forces had remained quiet, seemingly content to let the anti-New Dealers go through with the program.

Agree on race question

They feared local repercussions over the race issue if they tried to stop it, and on that issue, there is no division among Mississippi Democrats.

But with the opening of the invasion, the pro-New Dealers saw a rare opportunity to raise the slogan of “stand by the Commander-in-Chief.” They were joined quickly by some of the forces of Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, who was not present for the convention in person. The Bilboites appeared not so much impressed by the virtues of the New Deal and the President as by the possibility of slapping down the prosperous business, professional, planter elements leading the other side.

Regardless of the new life of the pro-Roosevelt forces, most observers agreed tonight that the antis were in the saddle and whatever comes out of the meeting tomorrow will be their brew.

Moreover, it was evident on every hand here that Mississippi Democrats of virtually every strip are smarting irritably under what they regard as the efforts of the Northern wing of the party “to tell us how to run our business,” especially in dealing with the Nego problem. It seems an inevitable reaction to the pressures outside the South for the fuller emancipation of the Negroes, and particularly to the consciousness that those pressures are growing strong within the very party through which they have maintained white supremacy since Reconstruction. The invasion may have modified the immediate emphasis, but it has not changed the fundamental differences, nor can it.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 9, 1944)

Battle lines form as GOP meets to name candidates

Battle lines for the Kings County political campaign were being drawn this afternoon as Republican leaders went into session to name the first of their candidates for the 1944 elections.

Leaders of 24 Assembly districts, headed by County Chairman John R. Crews, assembled at GOP headquarters, 32 Court Street, to begin shaping their ticket.

Their first move was slated to be the designation of Judge Nicholas Howard Pinto, now serving as Governor Dewey’s temporary appointee on the County Court bench, as the GOP candidate for election the full 14-year term in November.

The Democrats, out to recapture the judgeship which their party lost when Dewey chose Judge Pinto to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Democratic Judge Peter J. Brancato, named Senator Carmine J. Marasco as their designee yesterday.

Meanwhile, as the vanguard of the leaders trooped into the GOP headquarters strong suggestions began emanating from usually well-informed quarters that a political surprise would be sprung at the leaders’ session. None of the leaders would comment.

Like the Democratic organization, the Republicans will name nine candidates for Congress, nine for the State Senate and 24 for the Assembly at Albany. It was indicated that the complete slate would not be filled immediately, but that further time would be allowed for the consideration of designees before primary petitions are filed June 27.

[NormanStewart]

Farley resignation seen as prelude to 4th term fight

May enter race for nomination

Democratic and Republican leaders today agreed in interpreting the surprise resignation of James A. Farley as State Democratic chairman to mean that he intends to take an active part in attempting to prevent a fourth-term nomination for President Roosevelt, even if his own name has to be entered as a contender for the nomination.

Farley’s announcement, based on his claim that “business duties and obligations” would prohibit him from giving to the campaign the time he felt would be necessary to its success, had a hollow ring to most political experts, who said they saw in the explanation a literal warning to the President that his former staunch ally was preparing to fight a fourth-term nomination more vigorously than he opposed a third term for Franklin Roosevelt.

After the former Postmaster General released his prepared statement announcing the resignation in his Hotel Biltmore office yesterday, newsmen piled him with questions, but he refused to be pinned down. The only query he answered for the record concerned his future interest in politics.

“It is only natural for a fellow who has always been a Democrat to be interested in the success of the Democratic Party,” he said. Beyond that, he would not go.

Farley said he will attend the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, July 19, as a delegate. But he flatly refused to say if he would be a candidate for the presidential nomination.

It was reported that President Roosevelt knew in advance of the resignation, but that the information did not come from Farley himself.

Farley called a meeting of the state committee for July 11, just a week before the national conventions opens, at which his successor will be chosen, but he made it clear he had made no recommendations to the committee or any of its members.

Kelly’s name mentioned

Although Frank V. Kelly, Kings County Democratic leader, announced that he is not a candidate to succeed Farley as chairman of the New York State Democratic Committee, Rudolph Reimer, former Commissioner of Immigration, said today he believes the committeemen should urge the election of Mr. Kelly to that post.

Farley’s political career began when he was elected town clerk of Stony Point when he was only 22. He rose through a succession of posts, including assemblyman, member of the State Athletic Commission, Postmaster General and chairman of the Democratic National Committee. His success in the party’s top position led Franklin Roosevelt to choose him to run his campaign for nomination in 1932. It was during the President’s second term that the rift between them began to make itself noticeable. Farley had never been a full New Dealer. He opposed the President’s Supreme Court “packing,” the purge of anti-New Dealers and the third term.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 10, 1944)

Bricker assails New Deal ‘policy of regimentation’

Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, last night assailed the “New Deal philosophy of individual regimentation and centralization of power” and said that in contrast the Republican Party proposed “an atmosphere of opportunity and real incentive to achievement.”

Bricker charged on a broadcast over NBC:

For 11 years our national leaders have tried to change our system of free enterprise and representative government. They argued now that our nation had reached maturity. The President himself said: “Our task now… is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand.”

Upon that defeatist premise, the New Deal launched its program of administrative management and regimentation.

The New Deal degenerated into arbitrary and capricious management, Bricker charged, with governmental planners hostile to new business enterprises, strangling small business, devising tax legislation for the purpose of effecting social changes and launching upon a program of unlimited spending.

He attacked the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week holding that insurance was subject to federal antitrust statutes and said that the Democratic platform upon which the present administration was elected contained a plank “in unequivocal language favoring the continuance of state supervision” over insurance.