Wednesday, October 19, 1952

THE COLLEGE NEWSy

Page Three

 

Youth For Eisenhower

 

C Sonne Assails

Economic Policy

especially contributed
by Carol Sonne, ’53

Economic policy is*a large term
that has been flung around rather
loosely lately. But obviously in
these years of increased govern-
ment control it is a factor which

will affect every one of us. Very.

few people can honestly say they
are satisfied with economic condi-
tions as they stand now. Will the
Republican party be able to
change any of that? I firmly be-
lieve they can. :

The most pertinent economic
threat to our country today is an
internal one, the threat of infla-
tion. It is wiping out the middle
class business men, impoverishing
the fixed income. group, and slow-
ly strangling everyone except the
government itself, and, ironically
enough, big business. Why?
Spending is fine—say the Demo-
crats. More money is pumped into
the system, prices go up, but: then
so do wages, so everything is fine.
More goods are being produced,
because more people can afford to
buy them.

Cash for Production

The government is better off, for
it has printed and spent these ex-
tra dollars, the country is better
off because it has more cash for
new production, and the people are
better off because their wages in-
crease correspondingly while in-
creased productivity has given
them better goods to buy.

Moreover, say the Democrats,
this increased government spend-
ing gives a certain stability to the
economy. Government bonds in
every bank insure security for all.

Beautiful on paper, beautiful in
theory, beautiful to the “intellec-
tuals”—but let’s gét our feet on
the ground, even if we are in an
ivory tower. :

With government spending,
prices most certainly do rise be-
cause there are more dollars to
pay for the same amount of goods.
But, as every American knows,
wages do not increase correspond-
ingly. There is on the average a
two-year lapse before they are
raised at all,and even then it never
covers the rise in the cost of liv-
ing. I am sure the Bryn Mawr
faculty would be the first to agree
with me there! So the wage earn-
er is hit—hard.

Who Benefits?

Who then benefits? The govern-
ment, because it spends the money
before prices start rising and is
ahead of the spiral. There is also
another group which benefits—and
this is where the Republicans
really have the last laugh. Who?
Big business, because they can pay
off their debts more and more easi-
ly as the value of money decreases,
i.e. as the dollar that they owe is
worth less, while at the same time
nothing keeps them from shooting
their prices sky high—for the gov-
ernment buys much of their pro-
duce, and they: seemingly can af-
ford anything.

All right, what can be done
about it? Obviously, cut spend-
ing. Hear the Democrats laugh
and say, “Impossible,” but the Re-
publicans have a more positive ap-
proach to the whole, thing.

Two major ways in which the
Republican party can cut down
spending are: :

1) Cut thirty per cent of th
government officials; this would
not only shrink the pay roll and

oy ed on Page 6, Col. 2

     
 

 

Ike Explains Policy
On Farm Program

especially contributed by
Sally Moore, ’56

Eisenhower’s views on farm pol-
icy were most clearly expressed in
his speech at the national plowing
contest at Kasson, Minnesota, on
September 8, when he stated that
he favored full parity and federal
aid on a basis that would leave the
farmer his own boss. He pledged
that the Republican Party would
go forward with positive, aggress-
ive, farmer-run programs.

General Eisenhower said the Re-
publican Party stands behind the
price laws now on the books which
were the result of unpartisan ef-
fort. He added that in making
future farm laws, he would call
upon the farmers for knowledge.
He stated that agriculture is en-
titled to a fair, full share of na-
tional income, and that the farm-
ers would rather .earn their share
than have it as a government hand-
out.

The General criticized the admin-
istration for its “bungling, fumb-
ling” handling of agriculture’s
problem. He charged them with
trying to get federal control of
agriculture, and denounced the

Brannan Plan as a slave act which

aims to control the farmer and so-
cialize agriculture. He favored
conservatism, but claimed that
with too many federal programs,
the administration was defeating
its purpose. He wants more ex-
tensive conservation programs car-
ried out by state governments.

State Control

Governor Stevenson lost a great
deal of necessary support in Lou-
isiana and Texas when he came
out in favor of federal control of
the Tidelands. Eisenhower gained
this support when he came out for
state control, and gave his reasons.
I'he federal government, he said,
‘was overreaching its powers and
becoming dangerously centralized.
The federal government has no
right to seize the profits from
these off-shore oil lands which
rightly belong to the states, and
which the states need.

The state governments need and
have been using the money from
the Tidelands to promote civil
projects in their state, and partic-
ularly in the field of public edu-
cation. The University of Texas,
subsidized from the Tidelands, has
always been a wealthy college,
well known for its high standards.
If the federal government takes
away their source of revenue, their
standards will fall hopelessly.

Eisenhower believes firmly in
states’ rights. He not only wants
state ownership of the Tidelands,
but also state and local operated
programs for conservation and de-
velopment. He contends that the
federal government, if they oper-
ate many large scale programs in
different areas, cannot possibly
have the interest in each program
that the people directly concerned
will have. It is a well known fact
that mass production lowers the
standard of the individual product.
And why should every state in the
union pay for all the other states’
projects?

Governor Shivers of Texas and
Governor Kennon of Louisiana
have supported Eisenhower on the
Tidelands issue, for they know how
necessary those Tidelands are to
the states. Governor Shivers has
encouraged the pro-Eisenhower
faction in the Texas Democratic
party, and Governor Kennon has
come right out and said he will
vote for Ike.

 

 

Harvey Berates
Arrogant. Party

To the Editors:

It has become fashionable for
Stevenson supporters, when con-
fronted with an Eisenhower voter,
to assume the too-polite expression
of a cultivated lady thrown into
conversation with a country milk-
maid. Remarks the worldly one:
“You mean you’re not for Steven-
son? Why, how could anyone be
for Eisenhower?”

Either this smugness is decidedly
out of place, or there is some-
thing terribly wrong with a theory
of government which has held that
reasoning power and _ leadership
abilities may occur from time to
time—even so long a time as 20
years—in more than one party or-
ganization. When a party has
been (so long in power as to pre-
aol tag blatant certainty, that
no other party could possess the
intelligence to govern this coun-
try, and to proclaim that presump-
tion in the very face of its own

failure to govern’ successfully,
then, indeed, is it time for a
change.

The Democrats assert, of course,
that they have really governed
with unerring hand: human nature
or Russian ubiquity are blamed for
their failure to protect American
power and moral prestige. But I
am far from convinced that the
Democratic administration has al-
ways acted wisely in its conduct
and formulation of this nation’s
foreign policy. Since when are
Koreas classified as unavoidable
accidents? Nor, in domestic is-
sues, can I accept philosophies
which hold corruption a normal,
albeit regrettable, state of affairs,
and the evolution of Bigger, Om-
nipotent Government the sole pro-
tector of the dignity and values
of Western man.

International Position

During the past 20 years this
country has faced unprecedented
problems at home and abroad.
Both Republicans and Democrats
appreciate measures of social re-
form and the mounting responsi-
bilities of our international posi-
tion. It is therefore utterly ri-
diculous to label Republicans union
busters, isolationists, “Aryan”
racists, or Wall Street warmong-
ers aching for another depression.

No one disputes that during 20
years of Democratic administra-
tion this country has changed, and
progressed, in many ways. Re-
publicans do assert, however, that
these changes have not always
been for the best and that Demo-
cratic leadership has, in fact, made
some grave mistakes in the name
of “progress”,

Now it is one thing to make
mistakes, quite another to be un-
able, by the very nature of the
political processes, to acknowledge
these mistakes. The dynastic
Democrats of today’s government
suffer from acute myopia: they
cannot see their mistakes and are
not looking for new viewpoints,
personnel or policies. They have
become so certain of their own in-
fallibility as to be more high-
handed than open-minded about
their own actions and depression-
born slogans.

In this campaign much has
been made of the “captive can-
didate” theme. Eisenhower’s nom-
ination must be taken for what it
is: a defeat of the Old Guard. The
Democrat’s convention, on the
other hand, ignored the popular
candidate and nominated, with
predicted ease and casual arro-

_ Continued on Page 5, Col. 1

 

 

 

Castor Considers
F.E.P.C. Problem

especially contributed
by Jane Castor, °53

The political issue of the
F.E.P.C. ‘is a real problem in
America today. Everyone realizes
that all people should have equal
rights of employment. Although
there is an agreement as to the
end, there is disagreement as to
the means. The F.E.P.C. would
allow the federal government to
enforce this equality; basically this
seems the same as equality to jus-
tice in the courts of the land, and
thus the right of the federal gov-
ernment to enforce this equality
apears to be a “good” idea.

but this is mere theory and to
bring real and lasting results one
shouid consider the practical, in-
stead of the theoretical. In 1948
the Democratic party was success-
ful in electing its Presidential can-
didate and in securing a Demo-
cratic majority in the United
States Congress; although the
Democratic platform had support-
ed F.E.P.C. the Democratic Con-
gress and President were unable
to pass legislation.

The reason was the attitude of
the Democrats elected from the
South to the Congress. These men
knew the problem at first hand.
The Democratic party has played
politics with this- important issue
by appealing to the Negro vote in
many of the doubtful Northern
states (for example, Iilinois, Penn-
sylvania, and New York) in order
to maintain their balance of power
there; the Democratic politicians
of the North have ignored the fact
that the people of the South have
to live with the problem that the
mass of uneducated Negroes pre-
sent.

General__Eisenhower faces this
problem realistically and has de-
clared that he is against the idea
of forcing such legislation on the
South. He realizes that aside from
the fact that there are not many
Negroes in the South who are
well-educated enough to actually
present a problem of unequal job
opportunities, that forcing the
South in such a matter will not
end in real and lasting results—
instead, the people of the South

Continued in Page 6, Col. 5

Army Experience,
Integrity Aid Ike

To the Editor:

No, I am not a Democrat for
Eisenhower. I am a Republican
for Ike, and I think my party has
made a fortunate choice in him,
because

1) He has had vast. experience
in foreign affairs, both in peace-
time and in. wartime. He knows
how to get along with people who
think differently than he does, and
has. never adopted a “let Papa
show you how this is done” at-
titude. Being a military man, he
knows what is practical for us to
do and what is not.

2) Since he is an Army man,
and used to years of no nonsense,
he can and will make decisions
after considering all sides of the
question and act firmly on his de-
cisions. Furthermore, he is a prac-
tical man and will not allow vacil-
lation, hangers-on, inflated pay-
rolls, corruption, graft, laziness
and the general downright thieve-
ry of the people’s substance, all of
which now characterize the ad-
ministration. No group can or
ought to expect special favors

Continued on Page 6, Col. 1

Time to Change:
Roosevelt Views
Ike AS The Man

especially contributed
by Sara D. Roosevelt ’54

The Republican cry throughout
this campaign of 1952 has been
“it’s time for a change.” This
seems to many a too-oft repeated
empty phrase, so they ask “why”?
Why will a Republican adminis-
tration put us in any better a
position than we are now; and
after all, what is wrong with what
we have and what we have had for
the last twenty years? I would
like to try to answer these ques-
tions.

Foreign policy seems to be a
major issue at the present time,
We are in an extremely dangerous
international position, which is the
result of an unsteady policy, and
a lack of foresight. It is useless
at this point to spend time “blam-
ing” the Democratic administra-
tion for each of their mistakes
that have led us further and fur-
ther from international security,
but I would like to point out that
if the administration credits itself
with steps forward we have made,
it must also acknowledge respon-
sibility for the errors it made.

Entrance in Korea

For instance, our entrance in
Korea was a necessary move, but
the steps leading up to this move
were contradictory and indecisive.
The support of the Israel state
was policy of the Democratic
party, but at the same time the
Arab States’ good will was un-
necessarily lost. The Marshall
Plan is doing tremendous good to
hold Western Europe in the com-
munity of the Atlantic Pact, but
Eastern Europe has fallen  be-
hind the iron curtain.

The Democratic party has also
failed to take a definite stand
either on the Egyptian issues or
on the Persian issue. It seems to
me that one of the reasons a
change of party is so important at
this time is that the government
needs a shot of new blood in its
arm. Men would come into im-
portant positions who were not
hampered by a past record.

Whichever party wins the elec-
tion will find no pat solution to
the foreign situation, but with a
changed administration, there will
be no need to waste time apologiz-
ing for past mistakes. Men like
John Foster Dulles will be able to
test a policy of initiative on our
own which might be strong enough
to anticipate and stop the moves
of Russia.

Economy in Government

What about economy in the gov-
ernment? It appears that those
at present in control of our gov-
ernment feel the United States
has unlimited amounts of money
to spend. This country cannot af-
ford unplanned spending such as
has been going on in regards our
armed forces. :

It cannot afford the inflationary
results such heavy government
spending produces, and it cannot
afford a tax system which vir
tually wipes out the small busi-
ness man and the professional
man: backbones of our economy
and our culture. In so vital a
time America must be internally
strong economically to be able to
survive herself and to put her
money to the best use externally.
Much has been said during this
Continued on Page 6, Col. 4