[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

believer in progressive principles of democratic, representative government and not the
wild man who, in effect, leans in the direction of Communism, for that is just as
dangerous as Fascism itself.
The opposing or conservative school of thought, as a general proposition, does not
recognize the need for government itself to step in and take action to meet these new
problems. It believes that individual initiative and private philanthropy will solve them
 that we ought to repeal many of the things we have done and go back, for instance, to
the old gold standard, or stop all this business of old age pensions and unemployment
insurance, or repeal the Securities and Exchange Act, or let monopolies thrive
unchecked return, in effect, to the kind of government that we had in the twenties.
Assuming the mental capacity of all the candidates, the important question which it
seems to me the primary voter must ask is this: "To which of these general schools of
thought does the candidate belong?"
As President of the United States, I am not asking the voters of the country to vote for
Democrats next November as opposed to Republicans or members of any other party.
Nor am I, as President, taking part in Democratic primaries.
As the head of the Democratic Party, however, charged with the responsibility of
carrying out the definitely liberal declaration of principles set forth in the 1936
Democratic platform, I feel that I have every right to speak in those few instances where
there may be a clear-cut issue between candidates for a Democratic nomination
involving these principles, or involving a clear misuse of my own name.
Do not misunderstand me. I certainly would not indicate a preference in a state primary
merely because a candidate, otherwise liberal in outlook, had conscientiously differed
with me on any single issue. I should be far more concerned about the general attitude of
a candidate towards present day problems and his own inward desire to get practical
needs attended to in a practical way. We all know that progress may be blocked by
outspoken reactionaries, and also by those who say "yes" to a progressive objective, but
who always find some reason to oppose any special specific proposal to gain that
objective. I call that type of candidate a "yes, but" fellow.
And I am concerned about the attitude of a candidate or his sponsors with respect to the
rights of American citizens to assemble peaceably and to express publicly their views
and opinions on important social and economic issues. There can be no constitutional
democracy in any community which denies to the individual his freedom to speak and
worship as he wishes. The American people will not be deceived by anyone who
attempts to suppress individual liberty under the pretense of patriotism.
This being a free country with freedom of expression especially with freedom of the
press there will be a lot of mean blows struck between now and Election Day. By
"blows" I mean misrepresentation, personal attack and appeals to prejudice. It would be
a lot better, of course, if campaigns everywhere could be waged with arguments instead
of with blows.
I hope the liberal candidates will confine themselves to argument and not resort to
blows. In nine cases out of ten the speaker or the writer who, seeking to influence public
opinion, descends from calm argument to unfair blows hurts himself more than his
opponent.
The Chinese have a story on this a story based on three or four thousand years of
civilization: Two Chinese coolies were arguing heatedly in the midst of a crowd. A
stranger expressed surprise that no blows were being struck. His Chinese friend replied:
"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out."
I know that neither in the summer primaries nor in the November elections will the
American voters fail to spot the candidate whose ideas have given out.
September 3, 1939.
My Fellow Americans and My Friends:
Tonight my single duty is to speak to the whole of America.
Until four-thirty this morning I had hoped against hope that some miracle would prevent
a devastating war in Europe and bring to an end the invasion of Poland by Germany.
For four long years a succession of actual wars and constant crises have shaken the
entire world and have threatened in each case to bring on the gigantic conflict which is
today unhappily a fact.
It is right that I should recall to your minds the consistent and at time successful efforts
of your government in these crises to throw the full weight of the United States into the
cause of peace. In spite of spreading wars I think that we have every right and every
reason to maintain as a national policy the fundamental moralities, the teachings of
religion and the continuation of efforts to restore peace for some day, though the time
may be distant, we can be of even greater help to a crippled humanity.
It is right, too, to point out that the unfortunate events of these recent years have, without
question, been based on the use of force and the threat of force. And it seems to me
clear, even at the outbreak of this great war, that the influence of America should be
consistent in seeking for humanity a final peace which will eliminate, as far as it is
possible to do so, the continued use of force between nations.
It is, of course, impossible to predict the future. I have my constant stream of [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]