From Labor Action, Vol. 14 No. 20, 15 May 1950, p. 1.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
For the first time since the reelection of Truman in 1948. a leading figure in the labor movement and particularly in the movement for labor political action has called on labor immediately to break its ties with the Democratic Party and establish its own party.
This came last Thursday, May 4, from the newly inaugurated president of the Hatters Union. Alex Rose, who is also vice-chairman of the Liberal Party in New York State.
A trend in this direction had appeared in the tops of both the AFL and the CIO prior to the November 1948 election, but Truman’s unexpected victory and the bedazzlement which followed it put a quick stop to it. Illusions on what labor could get out of its tieup with the Fair Deal machine mounted to new heights. Rose’s surprise speech, complete ly unheralded in advance, indicates that it is on its way down.
Obviously important in leading to the Liberal Party leader’s pronouncement was the result of the Florida Democratic primary election in which Claude Pepper, known as a Fair Deal stalwart, was defeated by Smathers on a program which differed little from that of the Taft Republicans.
The two-party system has become “a myth,” said Rose.
“What further evidence do we need than the returns from Florida, which show that a Democratic candidate in a Democratic Party primary can win on Senator Taft’s Republican program?” he asked.
The country has been reduced to “virtually one political party, with irregulars on each side,” he explained, and he urged labor together with liberals to build a new party as the only effective way to establish “a genuine two-party system in our country for the first time in generations.”
“We need this kind of realignment so we shall know for whom and for what we vote on Election Day; to be able to know on election night who won and who lost; to know at once what political thinking was approved or rejected; to realize who is in the administration and who is the opposition; to know what to expect from Congress and our government in days to come.”
It was in this passage especially that Rose showed his awareness of what the hypnosis with the Fair Deal has meant for labor: exultation over “victories” on election night because a Democrat supported by labor has won, followed by an unending series of disappointments, cries of “We were betrayed,” and soul-searching as the election victory proves its hollowness.
Most important of all, Rose’s speech indicates that he, at least, has given up any hope that the Democratic Party can be taken over by any coalition of labor and liberal forces and reformed into a “party of the people.”
At the same time, while taking this fresh step forward, the new Hatters’ president stayed within the old framework in regard to present policy, pending the formation of a new party. Until then, he said, he was still for “pro-labor candidates of both parties,” and even called on Senator Lehman to run for re-election. This, as Rose himself showed in his speech, can only lead to the same disheartening results and futile blind alleys.
But in spite of this, the Hatters’ stand can help the revival of strong labor party sentiment in the labor movement and cait mark a new beginning. As a leader of the Liberal Party, Rose himself can do more than merely talk about his new orientation; he can attempt to transform the policy of his own party in this direction, in the direction of rurt-ning independent candidates separately from and against the two parties with which the Liberals have constantly made deals. Whether there will be any change in this respect in view of Rose’s speech still remains to be seen.
Disillusionment with the fruits of Fair Dealism for labor is bound to grow. As it grows with experience, pressure for a break with the Democratic machine will increase. Formation of an independent labor party is still labor’s only way of ensuring that its vast political strength is used for itself and for social progress and not for the aggrandizement of pseudo-liberal politicians.
Last updated on 9 February 2024