22 septembre 2008
1
22
/09
/septembre
/2008
01:49
Vous ne vous en êtes peut-être pas aperçu, mais la semaine dernière, le système financier a rendu l'âme : disparition de Lehman Brothers, absorption de Merril Lynch et de la Halifax-Bank of Scotland, nationalisation du Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), du Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) et du géant mondial de l'assurance AIG, etc.Pour éviter le grippage du système bancaire, les banques centrales de la planète ont ouvert simultanément des lignes de crédits "en-veux-tu-en-voilà" et ont inondé le marché mondial de liquidités hyperinflationnaires.
Mais puisque des lignes de crédits de 50 ou 100 milliards de $ ou d'€, cela ne suffit plus à maintenir la fluidité du système, le secrétaire au Trésor des USA Henry Paulson vient de pondre une nouvelle catastrophe internationale : un plan de sauvetage du système financier mondial constitué de 700 milliards de dollars ! Et le plus drôle, c'est qu'il prétend emprunter cette somme (à qui ? aux banques ?), et qu'il appelle les nations du monde à mettre au pot. Idiot !
En 1929, une crise d'une ampleur similaire avait frappé le monde. A l'époque, la "mondialisation" s'appelait encore le "Système Colonial", le système monétaire international fondé sur l'étalon-or était sous le contrôle encore et toujours de... Londres, et le traité de Lisbonne Versailles offrait les nations européennes une à une aux PPP (partenariats public-privé) de l'époque : les régimes fascistes (Mussolini, Salazar, Hitler, Dollfuss, Franco, Metaxas, Pétain...). George Soros naissait en Hongrie en l'année 1930, et la famille Sarkozy de Nagy-Bosca n'avait pas encore fuit l'effroyable invasion communiste de 1944. Le président Hoover, aux USA, se contentait de protéger les intérêts de certains cartels et de répéter "la reprise est au coin de la rue" jusqu'en 1933.
C'est alors que Franklin Delano Roosevelt entre en scène, et que commencent 12 années de ce que j'appelle une révolution universelle.
J'ai pu acquérir "Looking Forward", édité en 1933 par FDR avant son investiture. Ce livre est un recueil-programme des discours et déclarations du candidat Roosevelt. Quel type de dialogue a-t-il engagé avec le peuple ? Comment voyait-il les choses ? Quelles solutions amenait-il, avec quelles méthodes ? J'espère que les traductions laborieuses de votre serviteur vous permettront de vous en faire une idée, et inspireront ceux qui prétendent tenir la barre durant l'ouragan financier.
Bonne lecture.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Looking Forward
Le regard vers demain
The John Day Company, New York - Imprimé en mars 1933
Introduction (autres chapitres)
Ceci est essentiellement une compilation des nombreux articles que j’ai écris et des discours que j’ai donné avant le 1er mars 1933. J’y ai ajouté de quoi lier l’ensemble et en faire un tout.Dans les textes qui suivent, je ne parlerai pas de politique mais de gouvernement, ni de partis mais de principes universels. Ces textes ne sont pas politiques, sauf à les considérer dans le sens plus large selon lequel un grand américain avait alors défini la politique – qu’il n’est rien dans toutes les affaires humaines qui soit étranger à la science de la politique.
La qualité de la politique nationale, considérée comme une science capable d’affecter pour le mieux les vies de chaque homme et femme d’Amérique, est ce à quoi la direction du pays doit s’intéresser – tout particulièrement lors d’années telles que celles que nous vivons, alors que la lourde main du découragement s’abat sur nous, alors qu’il semble que les choses soient devenues routinières, immobiles, installées, et que le monde soit devenu vieux, fatigué et tout à fait désarticulé. C’est cet esprit de dépression, de terrible et épuisante dépression, qui, si la qualité de notre direction politique est correcte, s’évanouira si subitement qu’il deviendra même difficile de se le remémorer.
Tout nous crie que cette philosophie absurde est fausse. L’Amérique est neuve. Elle change, se développe. Elle possède les immenses potentiels de la jeunesse. Mais la jeunesse peut fort bien mourir d’épuisement à force de se heurter au mur de l’incompétence politique et gouvernementale.
Que notre gouvernement ait été créé par nous-même, que ses principes et par conséquent la plupart de ses lois soient issues de notre volonté, est évident. Il est également vrai que notre intérêt envers le gouvernement est un intérêt personnel, et cependant on ne peut l’appeler égoïsme, dans la mesure où lorsque nous établissons une loi de gouvernement en vue de nous aider nous-même, nous la voulons utile à l’humanité. Tant que nous ne nous retrouverons pas nous-même, il y a de fortes chances que nous oubliions combien le peuple a durement travaillé pour se garantir le privilège de se gouverner.
Le bon gouvernement doit maintenir l’équilibre dans lequel chaque individu peut avoir une place s’il veut la prendre, dans lequel chaque individu peut trouver la sécurité s’il la souhaite, dans lequel chaque individu peut obtenir le pouvoir autant que le lui permettent ses capacités, tout en acceptant les responsabilités qui l’accompagne.
La construction d’un bon gouvernement est par conséquent une tâche longue et lente. Rien n’est plus frappant que la naïveté simple de ces hommes, qui exigent dès qu’un objectif se présente la production du plan impeccable qui produira à coup sûr le résultat.
L’activité humaine n’est pas si simple que cela. Gouverner, cela comprend l’art de formuler des politiques et d’utiliser des techniques politiciennes pour les mettre en œuvre pour autant qu’on ait réussi à leur obtenir le soutien général. Persuader, diriger, sacrifier, éduquer toujours, car il est probable que le plus important devoir de l’homme d’état soit d’éduquer.
Nous devons bâtir en vue du temps où jamais plus une dépression majeure ne sera plus possible ; et si cela veut dire abandonner les profits faciles des booms inflationnistes, hé bien qu’il en soit ainsi – et bon débarras.
Nos récentes expériences avec la spéculation ont troublé les vues de nombre d’esprits. Une génération entière est devenue folle à cause du mot coopération ; il y a eu une multitude de conférences de telle et telle industrie, des articles sur le commerce, des codes d’éthiques, des garde-fous, des discussions – tout cela voué à développer les ventes et la production. Ce qui manqua fut la planification nécessaire qui aurait prévenu la surproduction au lieu de la stimuler. Il est naturel que dans l’esprit de beaucoup, mettre en place un premier plan d’action, puis un second, semble être de la plus haute importance. Il est naturel que la suppression d’industries, et même d’institutions qui semblaient être les forteresses de notre puissance, ait plongé dans la perplexité tout le monde, y compris ceux qui jusque là avaient été capables de trouver dans l’histoire passée des suggestions pratiques adaptées à l’action présente. Et il aurait été naturel, ces expériences ne semblant rien solutionner, que le grand phénomène social de cette dépression produise des manifestations désordonnées. Pourtant, le radicalisme extrême n’a fait que peu d’émules, et le plus grand hommage que je puisse rendre à mes concitoyens est qu’en ces jours d’oppressante nécessité a persisté, de la part de ceux de notre peuple qui par millions ont tant souffert, un esprit d’ordre et d’espoir. Ne pas réussir à leur offrir une nouvelle chance ne serait pas seulement trahir leurs espérances, mais mésestimer leur patience.
Contrer par la réaction ce danger de radicalisme n’est que courir au désastre. C’est lancer un défi, une provocation. La bonne manière de faire face à ce danger est de présenter un programme de reconstruction faisable. Cela, et cela seulement, constitue la protection correcte contre d’une part l’aveugle réaction, et d’autre part les improvisations hasardeuses et l’opportunisme irresponsable.
Mon parti n’est ni nouveau, ni inexpérimenté. La direction nationale que j’y assume est nouvelle dans la mesure où de l’intérieur du parti elle date légalement, si l’on peut utiliser ce terme, du moment où ses délégués, assemblés en convention, m’ont nommé pour la présidence. Mais qu’un nouvel homme arrive à la tête de la nation ne devrait pas signifier qu’il y amène des concepts politiques jamais éprouvés ; au contraire, ils doivent prendre fermement racine dans l’expérience gouvernementale passée.
Le fédéralisme, comme Woodrow Wilson l’a si sagement présenté, se constituait en un groupe « épris d’unité et instruit par la conscience de la solidarité d’intérêt ». C’était le but de Jefferson d’enseigner au pays que la solidarité du fédéralisme n’était que partielle, qu’elle ne représentait qu’une minorité du peuple et qu’afin de bâtir une grande nation les intérêts de tout les groupes quels qu’ils soient devaient être pris en compte. C’est parce qu’il passa des années à construire un parti politique qu’on l’appela un politicien. Mais son travail fut en lui-même une contribution précise et utile à l’unification de toutes les parties du pays autours de principes communs. Lorsque les gens, par insouciance ou par snobisme, se moquent des partis politiques, ils oublient le fait que le système de gouvernement pluripartite est l’une des meilleures méthodes d’unification et d’enseignement du peuple à réfléchir en termes communs sur notre civilisation.
Nous avons dans notre histoire trois hommes qui, par l’universalité de leur intérêt et de leur connaissance, se distinguent principalement – Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson et Théodore Roosevelt. Tous trois avaient une connaissance intime de chaque courant de la vie nationale et internationale. Tous trois étaient habités d’une profonde culture dans le meilleur sens du mot, et pourtant tous trois comprirent les aspirations et les manques d’opportunité – les espoirs et les peurs de millions de leurs compagnons. Et toute culture véritable, finalement, ne se résume qu’à l’appréciation de cela précisément.
Et des trois, je pense que Jefferson était de plusieurs manières le plus profond – celui qui disposait de l’intellect le plus curieux et diversifié et, par-dessus tout, celui qui chaque instant jetait son regard le plus loin possible vers le futur, examinant sur l’humanité les effets ultimes des actions du présent.
Les méthodes de Jefferson illustraient généralement l’idée du gouvernement basé sur l’universalité d’intérêt. Je peux m’imaginer les semaines à chevaucher lorsque qu’il voyageait à travers tous les états de l’union, accumulant lentement et laborieusement la connaissance du peuple de son pays. Il ne se contentait pas seulement de s’imprégner des besoins des gens de toutes catégories, mais il donnait aussi de quoi comprendre les principes essentiels du soi gouvernement.
Jefferson avait l’esprit et l’intellect si vaste qu’il savait que le citoyen lambda le comprendrait lorsqu’il dirait : « J’irai souvent dans la mauvaise direction pour cause de jugement défectueux. Et lorsque j’irai dans la bonne, je me verrai accusé d’être dans l’erreur par ceux dont les positions n’exigeront pas d’eux qu’ils aient une vue d’ensemble de la question. Je vous demande votre soutien contre les erreurs d’autres, qui pourraient condamner cela même que, s’ils en voyaient toutes les parties, ils ne condamneraient pas. »
Je ne parlerai pas d’une vie économique complètement planifiée et régulée. Cela est aussi impossible qu’indésirable. Je parlerai de la nécessité, toutes les fois qu’il devient impératif que le gouvernement interfère pour réajuster les parties de la structure économique de la nation, qu’il y ait une réelle communauté d’intérêt – non seulement parmi les grands secteurs de ce grand pays, mais aussi parmi les unités économiques et les différents groupes de ces unités ; qu’il y ait une participation collective dans la mise en oeuvre des solutions, organisée sur la base de la volonté partagée de vouloir vivre ensemble, le modeste aussi bien que le puissant. Dans la plupart de nos plans à l’œuvre actuellement, il se trouve beaucoup trop de dispositions pour ne pas confondre la partie avec le tout, la tête avec le corps, le capitaine avec sa compagnie ou le général avec son armée. Je prêche non pas pour le contrôle de classe mais pour un véritable concert d’intérêts.
Les plans que nous préparons pour répondre à l’urgence présente, si nous les concevons avec sagesse et les faisons reposer sur une base suffisamment étendue, pourront montrer la voie vers une protection plus pérenne de notre vie sociale et économique, afin que nous puissions dans une large mesure éviter le cycle terrible de la prospérité se désintégrant en dépression. C’est dans ce sens que je défends la planification économique, non seulement pour cette période mais pour garantir nos besoins futurs.
Si Jefferson pouvait revenir dans nos assemblées, il pourrait constater que si les méthodes nécessaires de l’action gouvernementale ont été modifiées par un siècle de transformation économique, les principes de cette action sont toujours entièrement les siens. Il oeuvra pour la concorde la plus générale, capable d’actions concertées, sur la base d’une communauté d’intérêt juste et honnête. Il oeuvra pour réunir les fermiers éparpillés, les ouvriers, les hommes d’affaires, en vue de les faire participer aux affaires nationales. C’était son but et c’est le principe sur lequel fut établi le parti qu’il fonda. Celui-ci doit maintenant se comporter comme un organisme voué à l’unité nationale.
La foi en l’Amérique, la foi dans la tradition de nos responsabilités personnelles, la foi dans nos institutions, la foi en nous-même, exige que nous acceptions les nouveaux termes de notre vieux contrat social. Dans les commentaires qui suivent je résume ma conception fondamentale de ces termes, ayant confiance que vous soutiendrez l’action de votre nouvelle administration nationale, comprendrez que ses buts et ses intérêts sont vôtre et que notre responsabilité est mutuelle.
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, Hyde Park, 1er mars 1933.
-------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
This is essentially a compilation from many articles written and speeches made prior to March 1, 1933. I have added parts which bind the material together as a whole.
In the comments to follow I speak not of politics but of government, not of parties but of universal principles. They are not political except in that large sense in which a great American once expressed a definition of politics—that nothing in all human life is foreign to the science of politics.
The quality of national politics, viewed as a science which is capable of affecting for the better the lives of the average man and woman in America, is the concern of national leadership—particularly in such years as these when the hand of discouragement has fallen upon us, when it seems that things are in a rut, fixed, settled, that the world has grown old and tired and very much out of joint. That is the mood of depression, of dire and weary depression which, if the quality of our political leadership is right, should vanish so utterly that it will be difficult to reconstruct the mood.
Everything tells us that such a philosophy of futility is wrong. America is new. It is in the process of change and development. It has the great potentialities of youth. But youth can batter itself to death against the stone wall of political and governmental ineptitude.
That our government has been created by our-selves, that its policies and therefore many of its detailed acts have been ordered by us, is obvious. It is just as true that our interest in government is a self-interest, though it cannot be called selfish, for when we secure an act of government which is helpful to ourselves it should be helpful to all men. Until we look about us we are likely to forget how hard people have worked for the privilege of government.
Good government should maintain the balance where every individual may have a place if he will take it, where every individual may find safety if he wishes it, where every individual may attain such power as his ability permits, consistent with his assuming the accompanying responsibility.
The achievement of good government is therefore a long, slow task. Nothing is more striking than the simple innocence of the men who insist whenever an objective is present, on the prompt production of a patent scheme guaranteed to produce a result.
Human endeavor is not so simple as that. Government includes the art of formulating policies and using the political technique to attain so much of them as will receive general support; persuading, leading, sacrificing, teaching always, because perhaps the greatest duty of statesmanship is to educate.
We must build toward the time when a major depression cannot occur again; and if this means sacrificing the easy profits of inflationist booms, then let them go—and good riddance.
Our recent experiences with speculation have distorted the perspective of many minds. A whole generation had gone mad over that word cooperat ion; there had been many conferences of this and of that industry, trade papers, codes of ethics, red fire and "pep talks"—all aimed to build up sales, and more production. What had been lacking was the kind of planning which would prevent and not stimulate overproduction. It is natural that in the minds of many, first one plan of action and then another seemed of paramount importance. It is natural that the scrapping of industries, and even institutions which seemed the bulwarks of our strength, bewildered even those who had heretofore been able to find in past history practical suggestions for present action. It would be natural, when such experience seemed to contribute nothing, that the great social phenomenon of this depression would produce disorderly manifestations. Yet wild radicalism has made few converts, and the greatest tribute I can pay my countrymen is that in these days of crushing want, there persists an orderly and hopeful spirit on the part of the millions of our people who have suffered so much. To fail to offer them a new chance is not only to betray their hopes but to misunderstand their patience.
To meet by reaction that danger of radicalism is to invite disaster. It is a challenge, a provocation. The way to meet that danger is to offer a workable program of reconstruction. This and this only, is a proper protection against blind reaction on the one hand and improvised hit-or-miss, irresponsible opportunism on the other.
My party is neither new nor untried. My national leadership of it is new to the extent that within the party it legally dates, if that term may be used, from the moment its delegates, in convention assembled, nominated me for the Presidency. But a new man in that leadership should not mean an untried concept of policies; they must be firmly rooted in the governmental experience of the past.
Federalism, as Woodrow Wilson so wisely put it, was a group "possessed of unity and informed by a conscious solidarity of interest." It was Jefferson's purpose to teach the country that the solidarity of Federalism was only a partial one, that it represented only a minority of the people and that to build a great nation the interests of all groups in every part must be considered. He has been called a politician because he devoted years to the building of a political party. But his labor was in itself a definite and practical contribution to the unification of all parts of the country in support of common principles. When people carelessly or snobbishly deride political parties, they overlook the fact that the party system of government is one of the greatest methods of unification and of teaching people to think in common terms of our civilization. We have in our own history three men who chiefly stand out for the universality of their interest and of their knowledge—Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. All three knew at first hand every cross current of national and of international life. All three were possessed of a profound culture in the best sense of the word, and yet all three understood the yearnings and the lack of opportunity—the hopes and fears of millions of their fellow beings. All true culture finally comes down to an appreciation of just that.
And of the three, I think that Jefferson was in many ways the deepest student—the one with the most inquiring and diversified intellect and, above all, the one who at all times looked the farthest into the future, examining the ultimate effects on humanity of the actions of the present.
Jefferson's methods were usually illustrative of government based upon a universality of interest. I can picture the weeks on horseback when he was travelling into the different states of the union, slowly and laboriously accumulating an understanding of the people of his country. He was not only drinking in the needs of the people in every walk of life, but he was also giving to them an understanding of the essential principles of self-government.
Jefferson was so big in mind and spirit that he knew the average man would understand when he said, "I shall often go wrong through defective judgment. And when right, I shall be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your support against the errors of others who may condemn what they would not, if seen in all the parts."
I shall not speak of an economic life completely planned and regulated. That is as impossible as it is undesirable. I shall speak of the necessity, wherever it is imperative that government interfere to adjust parts of the economic structure of the nation, that there be a real community of interest - not only among the sections of this great country, but among the economic units and the various groups in these units; that there be a common participation in the work of remedial figures, planned on the basis of a shared common life, the low as well as the high. On much of our present plans there is too much disposition to mistake the part for the whole, the head for the body, the captain for the company, the general for the army. I plead not for a class control but for a true concert of interests.
The plans we make during the present emergency, if we plan wisely and rest our structure upon a base sufficiently broad, may show the way to a more permanent safeguarding of our social and economic life, to the end that we may in a large measure avoid the terrible cycle of prosperity crumbling into depression. In this sense I favor economic planning, not for this period alone but for our needs for a long time to come.
If Jefferson could return to our councils he would find that while economic changes of a century have changed the necessary methods of government action, the principles of that action are still wholly his own. He labored for a widespread concert of thought, capable of concert of action, based on a fair and just concert of interests. He labored to bring the scattered farmers, the workers, the business men into a participation in national affairs. This was his purpose and this is the principle upon which the party he founded was based. It should now present itself as an agency of national unity. Faith in America, faith in our tradition of our personal responsibility, faith in our institutions, faith in ourselves, demands that we recognize the new terms of the old social contract. In this comment I outline my basic conception of these terms, with the confidence that you will follow the action of your new national administration, understanding that its aims and objects are yours and that our responsibility is mutual.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.
Hyde Park, March 1, 1933.
-------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
This is essentially a compilation from many articles written and speeches made prior to March 1, 1933. I have added parts which bind the material together as a whole.
In the comments to follow I speak not of politics but of government, not of parties but of universal principles. They are not political except in that large sense in which a great American once expressed a definition of politics—that nothing in all human life is foreign to the science of politics.
The quality of national politics, viewed as a science which is capable of affecting for the better the lives of the average man and woman in America, is the concern of national leadership—particularly in such years as these when the hand of discouragement has fallen upon us, when it seems that things are in a rut, fixed, settled, that the world has grown old and tired and very much out of joint. That is the mood of depression, of dire and weary depression which, if the quality of our political leadership is right, should vanish so utterly that it will be difficult to reconstruct the mood.
Everything tells us that such a philosophy of futility is wrong. America is new. It is in the process of change and development. It has the great potentialities of youth. But youth can batter itself to death against the stone wall of political and governmental ineptitude.
That our government has been created by our-selves, that its policies and therefore many of its detailed acts have been ordered by us, is obvious. It is just as true that our interest in government is a self-interest, though it cannot be called selfish, for when we secure an act of government which is helpful to ourselves it should be helpful to all men. Until we look about us we are likely to forget how hard people have worked for the privilege of government.
Good government should maintain the balance where every individual may have a place if he will take it, where every individual may find safety if he wishes it, where every individual may attain such power as his ability permits, consistent with his assuming the accompanying responsibility.
The achievement of good government is therefore a long, slow task. Nothing is more striking than the simple innocence of the men who insist whenever an objective is present, on the prompt production of a patent scheme guaranteed to produce a result.
Human endeavor is not so simple as that. Government includes the art of formulating policies and using the political technique to attain so much of them as will receive general support; persuading, leading, sacrificing, teaching always, because perhaps the greatest duty of statesmanship is to educate.
We must build toward the time when a major depression cannot occur again; and if this means sacrificing the easy profits of inflationist booms, then let them go—and good riddance.
Our recent experiences with speculation have distorted the perspective of many minds. A whole generation had gone mad over that word cooperat ion; there had been many conferences of this and of that industry, trade papers, codes of ethics, red fire and "pep talks"—all aimed to build up sales, and more production. What had been lacking was the kind of planning which would prevent and not stimulate overproduction. It is natural that in the minds of many, first one plan of action and then another seemed of paramount importance. It is natural that the scrapping of industries, and even institutions which seemed the bulwarks of our strength, bewildered even those who had heretofore been able to find in past history practical suggestions for present action. It would be natural, when such experience seemed to contribute nothing, that the great social phenomenon of this depression would produce disorderly manifestations. Yet wild radicalism has made few converts, and the greatest tribute I can pay my countrymen is that in these days of crushing want, there persists an orderly and hopeful spirit on the part of the millions of our people who have suffered so much. To fail to offer them a new chance is not only to betray their hopes but to misunderstand their patience.
To meet by reaction that danger of radicalism is to invite disaster. It is a challenge, a provocation. The way to meet that danger is to offer a workable program of reconstruction. This and this only, is a proper protection against blind reaction on the one hand and improvised hit-or-miss, irresponsible opportunism on the other.
My party is neither new nor untried. My national leadership of it is new to the extent that within the party it legally dates, if that term may be used, from the moment its delegates, in convention assembled, nominated me for the Presidency. But a new man in that leadership should not mean an untried concept of policies; they must be firmly rooted in the governmental experience of the past.
Federalism, as Woodrow Wilson so wisely put it, was a group "possessed of unity and informed by a conscious solidarity of interest." It was Jefferson's purpose to teach the country that the solidarity of Federalism was only a partial one, that it represented only a minority of the people and that to build a great nation the interests of all groups in every part must be considered. He has been called a politician because he devoted years to the building of a political party. But his labor was in itself a definite and practical contribution to the unification of all parts of the country in support of common principles. When people carelessly or snobbishly deride political parties, they overlook the fact that the party system of government is one of the greatest methods of unification and of teaching people to think in common terms of our civilization. We have in our own history three men who chiefly stand out for the universality of their interest and of their knowledge—Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. All three knew at first hand every cross current of national and of international life. All three were possessed of a profound culture in the best sense of the word, and yet all three understood the yearnings and the lack of opportunity—the hopes and fears of millions of their fellow beings. All true culture finally comes down to an appreciation of just that.
And of the three, I think that Jefferson was in many ways the deepest student—the one with the most inquiring and diversified intellect and, above all, the one who at all times looked the farthest into the future, examining the ultimate effects on humanity of the actions of the present.
Jefferson's methods were usually illustrative of government based upon a universality of interest. I can picture the weeks on horseback when he was travelling into the different states of the union, slowly and laboriously accumulating an understanding of the people of his country. He was not only drinking in the needs of the people in every walk of life, but he was also giving to them an understanding of the essential principles of self-government.
Jefferson was so big in mind and spirit that he knew the average man would understand when he said, "I shall often go wrong through defective judgment. And when right, I shall be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your support against the errors of others who may condemn what they would not, if seen in all the parts."
I shall not speak of an economic life completely planned and regulated. That is as impossible as it is undesirable. I shall speak of the necessity, wherever it is imperative that government interfere to adjust parts of the economic structure of the nation, that there be a real community of interest - not only among the sections of this great country, but among the economic units and the various groups in these units; that there be a common participation in the work of remedial figures, planned on the basis of a shared common life, the low as well as the high. On much of our present plans there is too much disposition to mistake the part for the whole, the head for the body, the captain for the company, the general for the army. I plead not for a class control but for a true concert of interests.
The plans we make during the present emergency, if we plan wisely and rest our structure upon a base sufficiently broad, may show the way to a more permanent safeguarding of our social and economic life, to the end that we may in a large measure avoid the terrible cycle of prosperity crumbling into depression. In this sense I favor economic planning, not for this period alone but for our needs for a long time to come.
If Jefferson could return to our councils he would find that while economic changes of a century have changed the necessary methods of government action, the principles of that action are still wholly his own. He labored for a widespread concert of thought, capable of concert of action, based on a fair and just concert of interests. He labored to bring the scattered farmers, the workers, the business men into a participation in national affairs. This was his purpose and this is the principle upon which the party he founded was based. It should now present itself as an agency of national unity. Faith in America, faith in our tradition of our personal responsibility, faith in our institutions, faith in ourselves, demands that we recognize the new terms of the old social contract. In this comment I outline my basic conception of these terms, with the confidence that you will follow the action of your new national administration, understanding that its aims and objects are yours and that our responsibility is mutual.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.
Hyde Park, March 1, 1933.
Partager cet article
