WASHINGTON, July 1, 1933 (UPI)--President Roosevelt, with the genius for political phrase-making that invented the "new deal," now heralds "the great cooperation" as the key to solution of the economic ills that beset the nation.
The President's peculiar insight into the public mind is marked by his recognition of growing revolt against the extreme and destructive competition that has characterized some phases of economic life in recent years.
There is no group in America that can withstand the forces of an aroused public opinion, the President said in explaining his new industrial program. "This great cooperation can succeed only if those who bravely go forward to restore jobs have aggressive public support and those who lag are made to feel the full weight of public disapproval."
President Roosevelt's idea of political cooperation toward the economic welfare also found expression in a letter to Congress at the closing hour in which he remarked that there had been, on the broad average, "a more sincere and more whole-hearted cooperation between the legislative and the executive branches of the United States Government than has been witnessed by the American people in many a long year. This spirit of teamwork has in most cases transcended party lines. It has taken cognizance of a crisis in the affairs of our nation and of the whole world."
The political purport of these presidential utterances is that the White House looks on the one hand to a closer cooperation of the Federal Government with industry, and on the other hand to a more cooperative spirit between the Executive and Legislative branches of the government than has been manifest in recent years.
The president himself therefore belies any intention of "dictatorship" such as has been attributed to him by numerous political critics. Nevertheless, there is a general disposition on the part of political observers to comment the evident growth in executive power relative to congressional power. The last congress undoubtedly was more responsive to the will of the White House than any in the present century, not exceeding the wartime sessions.
The center of interest is whether a "planned national economy" such as has been legalized by recent enactments taken collectively, can be accomplished without impairment of the traditional and constitutional balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial divisions of government.
Congress evidently believes that it can be accomplished, otherwise that body would have been far more reluctant to approve the wholesale delegation of power to the executive. The real political test of the "new deal," it is believed, will come at a later session of Congress when that body appraises the conformity of executive orders and regulations with the grants of authority which were made in the laws.
For example, Congress approved without a quaver the "economy act" which was generally known to involve a $400,000,000 cut in compensations and pension payments to war veterans. The regulations which were formulated by the Veterans' Administration and the Bureau of the Budget in pursuance of the original law, however, occasioned much dissatisfaction, and the consequence was that the debate on the regulations became more acute, and protracted than had occurred on the original law. In fact, this discussion delayed the adjournment of Congress for nearly a week and temporarily jeopardized the president's clear leadership.
The economic "new deal" now being put into effect in time may also reawaken interest in the fundamental historical theme of American politics - federal centralization versus states rights. The new program inevitably will centralize at Washington a vast range of governmental functions which may in time arouse the jealousy of local state or sectional interests. For the present, the mood of the country seems to favor a "strong" government in Washing-ton. But the history of the nation also shows the periodic recoil from extreme centralization.
Regardless of the widespread employment of revolutionary phraseology in reference to the "new deal" by the public and by journalists, the fundamental fact remains that the United States has not abandoned, or yet put to a decisive political test, the merits of the constitutional republican form of government. The proximity of such a test will depend upon the effects of the "new deal" in restoring a reasonable degree of prosperity and public confidence in this country.
