AT THE END of the Hotel Carlton ballroom, with its sumptuous crimson curtains, painted beams and imitation Renaissance chandeliers. Senator Norris, his face pink from a strong lamp, is addressing the progressive conference in front of a dark expensive-looking tapestry and behind a shiny nickel-plated microphone.
MUCH THINKING on the nature and methods of our economic system has been stirred up by recent events. The spectacle of the most advanced industrial country in the world suddenly hurled from the heights of prosperity into depression was a shock even to the firm believers in the providential working of natural economic law. Most people have been aroused to a sense of humiliation at the sight of an economically sound country unable to use its resources and to direct its economic destinies.
DO YOU in the United States think it a paradox that Englishmen can continue to increase their capital wealth by adding both to their foreign investments and to their equipment at home, that they can continue to live (most of them) much as usual and support at the same time a vast body of persons in idleness with a dole greater than the income of a man in full employment in most other parts of the world; and yet do all this with one quarter of their industrial plant closed down and one quarter of their industrial workers unemployed? It would not be merely a paradox, but an impossibility, if Bri
To laymen, the dichotomy between law and literature is merely one aspect of the conflict between law and life. A feeling so widely and deeply held by even the most cultivated outside the law cannot be nurtured wholly upon untruth. And yet it conceals a fine covey of paradoxes which would have been fair game for a Hazlitt, though for all I know he himself shared the feeling or put to flight at least some of its paradoxes. That nothing which is human is alien to him, is truer of the lawyer than even of doctor or priest.
AT THE present time it seems almost silly to advance an argument for the formation of a new party. In a general way the need for one speaks for itself, and clamorously. Of the first ten persons you meet who have no definite connection with one of the old parties, either officially or through some form of self-interest, at least seven or eight will not question the fact that a new party is needed. What they will question is the practicability of trying to form one.
The Puritan Mind by Herbert Wallace Schneider, New York: Henry Holt and Company. 301 pages. $4. The most positive indigenous tradition we have to contemplate in America is the Puritan tradition. It was never a pure, newly sprung tradition even in its early glory; for European religious and political problems bulked too large in its inheritance.
The Question which everyone is now asking is one which has puzzled the world's most eminent economists for decades. It is impossible to discuss it briefly without seeming dogmatic or oversimple. To muster the adequate authority, to make the necessary elaborations and qualifications and to marshal the necessary statistics, would be a task for a research staff scouring an encyclopedic literature and pounding batteries of computing machines for years.
This is the first of a series of articles discussing the position of the contemporary progressive. They are the outcome of conversations among the editors of The New Republic which have been occurring for several months, and the gist of which may be of interest to our readers as raw material for though and discussion. The second article, by George Soule, will appear in next week’s issue. —THE EDITORS IT SEEMS to me that the time has come for liberals seriously to reconsider their positions.