Dorothy Thompson

Buffalo News/April 6, 1936

IN LOOKING back upon the history of the Congress soon to adjourn it appears that party government has taken to its bed with only a faith healer in attendance. The Roosevelt administration has had trenchant criticism from newspaper editors, an ex-president and from numerous common citizens.

But there has been no spearhead in Congress, where one would expect to see the opposition focused. It is true that the administration has had a large majority in both houses, but under competent party government even a small minority, if sufficiently intelligent and vigorous, has a great function.

A party out of power should begin to sketch the form of a future administration and may greatly modify the regime of its opponent. Republican government, based as ours is on a two-party system, will never really be threatened as long as an opposition, fully conscious of its function, fully aware that it will inevitably return one day to power, is preparing the public for that time.

G.O.P. Blamed

If the Republican prestige in the country is weak, in spite of the fact that the New Deal is by no means popular, this may be attributed largely to the lamentable failure of the Republican minority in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

In countries where there are many parties—France, for instance, and pre-Hitler Germany, where there have actually been a dozen or more parties existing simultaneously, government is by coalitions, and such opposition as there is is likely to be diffused.

There is no one party which can catch into itself the totality of disagreement and resolutely prepare itself for resumption of leadership. In England, where two parties split into four, the two-party system has reappeared, a strong Conservative party contested by a growing, fighting Labor party, with the vacillators like MacDonald reduced to power-lessness.

Policy Consistent

Although the difference between the two groups is great, nevertheless, each one, in or out of power, has fructified the other, so that eventually something like a consistent national policy has emerged.

The function of the opposition is manifold. It must force analysis; it must present amendments; it must instruct the country. But apparently the Republicans have been in power so long that they have forgotten how to conduct an opposition.

If they should happen to stay out of power for another four years, and fail to pull themselves together, the result would be very sad.

To take the Senate, and to be specific: Most of the Republican senators have hardly peeped in the last three years. Senator W. Warren Barbour of New Jersey has capacity for criticism, but when has he used it?

Borah Respected

Senator William A. Borah is a maverick, and although he is also listened to with respect, the respect is for Senator Borah and not for his party. Senator Arthur Capper of Kansas is the supreme political weathervane, who gravitates apparently automatically to the center of the most votes, and rarely battles on the floor.

Senator Robert D. Carey of Wyoming has not, I think, made two speeches in two yean.

He is a Sherlock Holmes at digging out information for others but a Dr. Watson at presenting it on the floor. Senator James Couzens of Michigan is a casual Republican uninterested in party politics.

He could be a tremendous asset to an organised opposition if he really believed in party government. Senator Daniel O. Hastings of Delaware is by far the most active partisan but vitiates his own effectiveness by being largely destructive.

Leadership Wasted

Senator Henry W. Keyes of New Hampshire has been in the Senate some 18 years and is still a cipher. Senator Charles L. McNary of Oregon, the Republican leader, would function well as leader of the majority. He is genial, a good mixer, knows the rules, is deft at compromise and at smoothing things out.

All these are admirable assets in putting through a program, but are not so useful in opposing one. Senator McNary showed capacities in opposing the last farm bill, but he shows them seldom. Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska is one of the most effective figures in the Senate, but he is a New Dealer.

He supported Al Smith in 1923, and will support President Roosevelt again in 1936. Senator Wallace H. White, Jr. of Maine has a good head on his shoulders but apparently suffers from an inferiority complex. Ha rarely is heard from. Senator James J. Davis of Pennsylvania has sat in three cabinets and in the inner council of the Order of Moose, which pretty adequately describes him.

Other Members

Senator Ernest W. Gibson from Vermont has never spoken. Senator Peter Norbeck of South Dakota is an interesting chancier, gifted with native logic, can be devastating in opposition, but seldom is so along party lines. Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota did a real job in the munitions inquiry. He helped create a genuine public opinion for the rejection of the commercial impulse to war. But here there is no party divergence. Senator Frederick Steiner of Oregon is the veterans’ idol. But a veterans’ idol is not much help to an opposition calling for economy. Senator Warren Austin of Vermont is as good in debate as any man in the Senate, but since Senator Norris labeled him a power trust attorney he has fallen silent. Senator Lyon J. Frazier of North Dakota is the author of the Frazier-Lemke greenback bill and more of a liability than an aaset to a conservative opposition. Senator Frederick Hale of Maine, who comes from a distinguished political family, is a ranking Republican member on the Appropriations committee, the key committee of the Senate, of which he was chairman under President Hoover.

Good Spearhead

He should be the spearhead of the Republican attack. Actually he has been very weak. Senator John G. Townsend Jr. of Delaware gets around a lot, knows a lot of gossip, but doesn’t let it out in public. Senator Hiram Johnson is for President Roosevelt. So is Senator Robert M. La Follette Jr., Senator L. J. Dickinson of Iowa is a dogmatic partisan, occasionally vigorous and effective, but he has rarely presented any alternative to a government measure.

It is in such a Senate that Senator Arthur Vanderberg, the Junior senator from Michigan, shines out.

He has never made a political speech as such on the floor, but he has introduced more amendments to government bills than most of the rest of his party colleagues lumped together.

He got through a very useful amendment to the Deposit Insurance bill; he killed single-handed and alone the Florida Ship Canal venture in an admirable and devastating presentation of the facts of the case.

Explanations Asked

He has lately caused the administration acute embarrassment by asking for facts concerning AAA payments of more than $10,000. (The results will probably greatly enrage some of Mr. Roosevelts liberal supporters.) His definite partisanship has not prevented him from occasional discriminating support of government measures. He voted against the bonus in the face of thousands of veterans’ telegrams —and went home to find his popularity increased. He did first-rate work in the munitions inquiry. His whole career in the Senate fits into a picture of enlightened conservatism and of energetic and reasonable opposition.

But this, for a whole party, is not enough.