Verdict on the New Deal
Joseph Dana Miller
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
January-February 1936]
Joseph Dana Miller was during this period
Editor of Land and Freedom. Many of the editorials
published were unsigned. It is therefore possible that Miller was
not the author of this article, although the content is thought to
be consistent with his own perspectives as Editor. |
We have been called to task by some of our subscribers for a lack of
sympathy with the New Deal. They do not ask us to endorse the acts of
the administration, but beg us to regard with a more sympathetic
attitude the policies now in operation at Washington, because these
acts and policies are undertaken in a humanitarian spirit and by men
who are kindly disposed, and who have the welfare of the people at
heart. It may be said that autocracies and dictatorships have always
begun in this way. The gloved hand preceded the mailed fist. The
initial pretence was always to provide for the wellbeing of the
people. The claim is not that the people be granted freedom to do
things for themselves but that those higher up the government in short
do something for them.
It is for this reason that we do not care a hoot how well-meaning are
the New Dealers, or how many things they do for the people, or how
tremendously vituperative they become. They have yet to assail even
the outposts of privilege. Who own the earth own us. This great wrong
cannot be overthrown by taking from some and giving to others, by
silly regimentation, by reducing acreage, or plowing under cotton, or
killing little pigs. In the face of all that is being done we are
asked to refrain from harsh criticism. Are they not trying to do
something for the people, we are asked.
We shall try to be polite. Cardinal Newman said it was a mark of good
breeding to be merciful to the absurd. But it is mighty difficult at
times. It is precisely because these strange policies are not only
absurd but are fraught with grave dangers that the Henry George men of
the nation should raise their voices with a unanimous shout of
disapproval.
But when all is said that can be said against the New Deal we cannot
accept as an alternative policy tariffs and subsidies which the Old
Deal offers us. As yet there is no sign in political life of any
prominent leader standing for an unfettered industry. The Republican
party is traditionally hobbled by its protectionist traditions. It
cannot break away from the body of death which binds it to outworn
shibboleths. It seems quite impossible that it can blaze a new
pathway. Yet until it does the New Deal with all its preposterous
experimentation has the field to itself.
So far no one in political life seems willing or able to take up the
cudgels for the true doctrine of unfettered competition? Is no one
equal to the task? Even those who look with distrust upon the New Deal
and its spending orgy seem hopelessly confused. Professor McBain of
Columbia who is a critic of the New Deal, nevertheless has this to
say:
"I think the traditional American system shows that
it is no longer capable of self-operation to the satisfaction of a
sufficiently large portion of the people of the country."
He gave it as his opinion that business, as now organized, will never
again absorb enough of the unemployed.
Is it necessary to say that "as organized" it never has?
The unemployed we have always with us, in the best of times from one
to three millions. Why? Because men are shut out from the
opportunities for employment. In new countries with vast tracts of
land unappropriated there are no unemployed. This constant attempt to
discuss the problem without reference to the factors in the problem is
the besetting sin of the professorial mind. It has filled the world
with a perfect Babel of incoherence. If these professors would only
see that the problem is one of the relation of labor to land, of the
willing hands to the natural resources of the earth, they would save
themselves a world of trouble, and their readers a lot of perplexity
in the vain effort to understand them, any one of them we may say, for
they all differ, thus proving that ninety-nine per cent of them must
be wrong.
There are a very few factors in the problem. The professors inject
many more. Here are men at work on a problem in which the solution is
absurdly simple if the real factors are considered. Along come a group
of experimenters who lug in each his imaginary factor, one or more.
The problem is thus rendered increasingly intricate and complicated.
But if ninety per cent of the remaining factors are thrown out of the
window, the whole sum of the problem is laid bare. It is not merely a
problem in economics, it is a problem in ratiocination by which if we
consider only the necessary or active factors we have the correct
answer. The confusion arises from the introduction of factors that do
not belong.
But the professors like them. It lends a semblance of great
profundity. It enables them to pick flaws in the speculations of their
brother professors. The infinite refinements of their theorizing add
to their stature, immeasurably increasing their importance. If they
ever see that it is not so complicated as all that, they thrust the
suggestion aside. It looks profound to them and so it must be.
Chesterton has hit it off well:
"Oh, we have learned to peer and pore
On tortuous problems from our youth;
We know all labyrinthian lore,
We are the Three Wise Men of yore,
And we know all things but the truth."
IT is frequently a matter of surprise that the average thinking that
goes on seems to take so little account of laws and principles. From
which we are prone to argue that what is needed is more knowledge,
and, what concerns us most, more knowledge of economics. In the main,
this of course is true. But the conclusion needs some qualification.
For many of those from whom we get some of the most astounding results
in thinking have studied economics and are familiar with Adam Smith,
McCulloch, Perry, Tausig and others from whom, even if in broken
lights, we get some economic principles. With these opinions and
teachings Lippmann, Moley and Tugwell, even Roosevelt himself, are not
unfamiliar. Some of them even profess to know Henry George.
There must be some other explanation why these presumably informed
persons fail to "think through." This explanation that
should be forthcoming must also account for a similar failure on the
part of mass thinking. We have a certain body of knowledge, volumes of
statistics, results of intensive study and research, and a thousand
ingenious speculations. Some thinking must accompany the exercise that
has resulted in this vast material. But conclusions that hang together
seem to be wholly lacking. Nothing enduring has come from it; only
syntheses in which any agreement seems pitiably small.
There are premises which if granted lead up to rational summarizing.
There are prodigious arrays of facts, but we look in vain for anything
save now and then a few significant hints. There are writers like
Lippmann, Stuart Chase, and contributors to the Nation and the New
Republic who toy with problems and leave us dangling in the air. They
are sure of nothing; they retrace their steps continuously and seem to
take all sides at once. They attack communism, socialism, Douglassism,
Townsendism, but not being themselves. So fundamental these attacks
seem distressingly futile. They have no real social philosophy on
which they can fall back, no solid ground for their feet.
The explanation is this: Thought is for the most part Two
Dimensional. But there is a Third Dimension. Real thought must be
Three Dimensional. Within the first two speculation may run rampant;
conclusions from observed facts are left to the vagaries of
imagination and are the prey of personal preference and education and
predilection. There may be correct diagnosis, and keen minds working
in the first two dimensions may arrive at correct conclusions and true
remedies and solutions. But usually by accident, and always with the
risks of possible loss, or the entrance of fallacies that vitiate
conclusions. Such minds working in the first two dimensions have done
much useful work in the world of thought but they are not among the
great thinkers save only as they have contributed to the conclusion of
others.
It is the workers in the Third Dimension, only those, indeed, who do
the real thinking. In the Third Dimension are Laws and Principles
without which no philosophy of Life, or Religion, or Economics can be
enduring. Facts, statistics, all knowledge, are of use only as they
derive their strength from Laws and Principles. Workers in the Third
Dimension judge the passing panorama not by any temporary standards,
but by codes of ethical value which have eternal validity.
Political Economy is a body of such laws all in the Third Dimension,
but not on that account difficult to understand. Instinctively we
recognize them in the order in which they make their appearance.
First: Facts; Second: Conclusions. But in the Third Dimension we come
up with Laws and Principles. If Principles and Laws do not support the
conclusions we must abandon the facts and reconstruct the conclusions.
One of the characteristics of writers on economics of the present day
is their talkativeness. With such small bases of principles to guide
them they possess amazing fluency. Talk is cheap and we have more of
it where opinions are many and unsound. Some of it is entirely
incomprehensible, as for example much of Mr. Tugwell's "speculations."
Those who contend the language is a device to conceal thought will
find here abundant confirmation. There is more to talk about. Variety
of opinions and confusion of opinions lead to strange and unusual
verbosity. This is at the basis of the charge against Henry George men
that they are people of one idea. It is a familiar reproach of those
who because they have many opinions and few fundamental princples find
it incumbent upon them to spread their language so lavishly. Their
paucity of laws and princiles are the explanation of their plethora of
words.
|