The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, August 9, 1920, Page 5

N The Birth of the New National Party Groundwork for Ultimately Victorious Progressive Organization Laid in BY FRED CAREY HE groundwoérk for the ultimate for- mation of a truly progressive third political party in the Umited States was laid at Chicago the week% of July 12. - Although the hope ‘of 99 per cent of the men and women assembled in Chicago that week—the creation of-a united, aggressive political organization with such a man as Robert M. La Fol- lette at its head—was not realized, yet the first step toward the bringing together of the people who believe/in true democracy was taken: g The failure to reach a complete agreement and unite all the progressive forces in a common cause was nof the fault of the mass of the delegates. It - was the fault of a few leaders. ; To a certain extent the “third party” convention was uncontrolled. The delegates were not under . the control of any bosses or political guardians, but they. failed to accomplish what they went to Chicago to accomplish because they put too great faith in the ability of their leaders to reach a common ground - upon which all forward- looking men and- women could unite. - But in “spite of what seems to the man who was - not there a failure to unite the progressive forces of the country the foundation - for such a union was laid. ~ Representatives of labor - —men from the mines, the factories and the shops— / met with “white-collared” workers and with #silk- stocking” folks from the East and talked over their - differences and theirideals, grew to know each other better, to understand each other and to realize that men and women from the farm and factory, from the lawyer’s office and the throttle, from the univer- sity and from the mine, had a common cause and ‘could come together for a ' common purpose. | : Why then did these men and women fail to com= pletely agree upon a program? The answer is that they permitted a few men to argue and discuss for three days and three nights, without any chance of getting together, minor dif- ferences of opinion that ought mnot to have. been allowed to come up at all. : HONESTY OF LEADERS PROVES UNDOING OF SETTLEMENT ; * Had the two conventions—the Committe.of Forty- eight and the Labor party, then meeting sepalptely —taken the matter in their own hands as some of the delegates wished to do and had discharged both conference committees and named others the chances are that Amos Pinchot, Allen McCurdy, . Robert M. La Follette, Parley Christénsen, Max Hayes, J. A. H. Hopkins and- Robert Buck would today be working together in the same political party instead of being at loggerheads over a few planks in the platform and the party name. 3 It was not that the leaders of the Committee of Forty-eight and of the Labor party did not differ honestly and did not believe that a compromise would mean the sacrifice '0f principle. Their very honesty was their undoing. Had they been of the common, garden variety of politician their differ- ences would not have lasted 24 hours. ; “They would have done what the Republicans and Democrats did, They would have drafted a plat- — o] e Parley Parker Christensen, former Bull Mooser and a prominent attorney of Salt Lake City, Utah, is the candidate for president ‘of the new Farmer-Labor party organized at Chicago. . ly the rank and file of the dele- form which the most conservative Forty-eighter and the most radical Laborite could-have supported with ardor, each believing that it meant exactly what he wanted it to mean. But these leaders had fundamental differences, or what they considered fundamental differences, and they refused to compromise what they consider- ed vital principles. An example of these differences was given by Allen McCurdy of New York, the eloquent keynoter of the Committee of Forty-eight convention. McCurdy, as a Forty-eighter, and Robert Buck, as ‘a Labor party man, could not come within a hundred miles of agreeing upon a plank providing that labor should have a share in the manage- ~ ment of industry. McCurdy believed that labor was entitled to a share in the control of industry. So did Buck. Wherein they differed was in the wordifig.of the pldnk. Buck. and other Labor party-lead- ers stood eut for .a plank that would give labor an “increasing’”. share in the control of industry. - McCurdy and his fel- lotw Forty-eighters in- sisted that the platform should say | that the party favored giving the workers an “ade- quate” share in the con- * trol of industry. In a half-hour speech i to Committee of Forty- " eight: members - who “bolted” the 'Farmer- Labor party, McCurdy said the use of the word “increasing” was his objection to the plat- form adopted. The difference seemed ~ vital - to McCurdy. Tt seemed vital to several university professors of economics, but it was a mere mole hill to a North’ Dakota woman who had become imbued Nonparti§an league and the idea' of throwing technicalities and phrases aside. “I don’t pretend to know any- thing about the technical differ- ence between ‘increasing’ and - ‘adequate’ control,” she said, “but I can not see what real difference it makes in our platform, “If ! the workers are given ‘adequate’ control they will not care wheth- er or not they have “increasing’ control and if they are given ‘in- creasing’ control, as soon as they have increased their control to what they consider . ‘adequate’ they will be willing to stop.” Hers was the real spirit of the convention, but unfortunate- gates were unable to function as a body. They were disorganized and wavering. They had no common objective and therefore depended upon the leaders; who failed to accomplish what they had come together to do. The real trouble with the con- ference committee upon the %dopti_on of a platform seemed to e that the members of the com- mittee were striving to agree upon a platform that suited the committee and not upon a decla- PAGE FIVE - . ‘with the spirit of the ° Max Hayes of the Labor party; which amalgamated with the Com- mittee of Forty-eight and . other liberal¢organizations, is the Farm- © ier-Labor party candidate for vice president. Formation of Farmer-Labor Group at Chicago Convention ration of principles that would appeal to the people of the country who were-looking toward Chicago for relief from the incompetency and wishy-wash- iness of the two old parties. 3 Perhaps it may be unfair to the platform com- mittee members, but to an outsider they seemed to lack vision, to fail to grasp the immensity of the thing they were trying to do and even to be unable to grasp what the third party movement might be made to mean to the people of the United States. Ninety-nine per cent of the men and women who went to Chicago the week of July 12 went there for the definite purpose of forming a real third party. Not less than 90 per cent of the delegates went to Chicago with the belief that they would agree on a common platform, nominate Robert M. La Follette for president, select a strong man as a running mate, amalgamate the Labor party, the Forty-eighters, the World War Veterans and all other progressive organizations in one political organization that zg‘ould be a real factor in the coming national elec- ion. It is not much to say that 99 per cent of the men and women present left Chicago after a week of hard work and sleepless nights disappointed but not discouraged. i ONLY SMALL PART OF FORTY-EIGHT COMMITTEE BOLTS A new party had been formed. It was not all that most of the delegates had hoped it would be. It was a party that did not appeal to many Forty- eighters. The single taxers left it. Robert M. La Follette declined to be its candidate. But in spite of all those untoward facts two big facts remain— ] A third party was formed and— Had it been possible for the mass of the dele- gates to have had their way, the new party would have embraced every person in Chicago that week, with the possible exception of a few people who did not intend to be satisfied with anything, no matter what was done. SRR The delegates arrived in Chicago with high hopes. They did not abandon those hopes until the last minute and the majority of the delegates, it must be understood, retain those same great hopes of the. new third party, because they approved of its plat- form and its candidates. : The “bolsters” who refused to remain within the - mew “Farmer-Labor” party ranks comprised a small part even of the original Committee of Forty-eight convention. ¥ When the joint convention adopted the more radical of the two platforms offered the Forty- eighters for the most part remained in the conven- tion and took part in the naming of the party and in the nomination of candidates. - ) The eastern leaders of the Committee of Forty-eight led the “bolt.” A number joined them, but it can not be rightful- ly said ‘that the Committee of Forty-eight as a whole is not co-operating with the new party. It was on Saturday, June 10, that the first convention, that of the Forty-eighters, was held in the Morrison hotel. Several hundred delegates, representing 44 states, were present. The keenest interest was taken. Allen McCurdy’s keynote speech was cheered to the echo and Parley Christensen, Salt Lake City lawyer, standing” six feet four and ‘weighing 287 pounds; was‘chos.en permanent chairman of "the Committee of Forty-eight convention. Christensen was chosen be- cause the delegates wanted a western man for their presiding ‘officer. The first difference in the Forty-eight convention came over the selection of a confer- ence committee to meet a similar committee from the Labor party and other political groups. The leaders of the C?mmittee L e A kB 455