In this speech given amidst the Great Depression Roosevelt
sought to explain the dramatic ideological differences between himself
and Republican President Herbert Hoover. In it Roosevelt argued that
the United States had entered a new era in which only through an active
government could individual liberty and opportunity be protected from the
abuses of industry and the unequal distribution of resources. As
you read, examine how Roosevelt substantiates his view that an active federal
government is necessary to preserve opportunity and liberty for all.
And, consider how he explains why such government activism
essential to liberty and opportunity in the 1930s was not necessary
throughout much of the 19th century.
.... [During the 19th century] on the western frontier land was substantially free. No one who did not shirk the task of earning a living was entirely without opportunity.... Starvation and dislocation were practically impossible....
At the very worst there was always the possibility of climbing into a covered wagon and moving West, where the untilled prairies afforded a haven for men to whom the East did not provide a place.
So great were our national resources that we could offer this relief not only to our own people but to the distressed of the world. We could invite immigration from Europe and welcome it with open arms.
Traditionally when a depression came a new section of land was opened in the West. And even our temporary misfortune served our manifest destiny.
It was in the middle of the nineteenth century that a new force was released and a new dream created. The force was what is called the industrial revolution, the advance of steam and machinery....
The dream was the dream of an economic machine, able to raise the standard of living for everyone; to bring luxury within the reach of the humblest; to annihilate distance by steam power.... and to release everyone from the drudgery of the heaviest manual toil....
Heretofore government had merely been called upon to produce conditions within which people could live happily, labor peacefully and rest secure. Now [during the industrial revolution] it was called upon to aid in the consummation of this new dream....
It was thought that no price was to high to pay for the advantages which we could draw from a finished industrial system.
The history of the last half century is accordingly a large measure a history of a group of financial titans, whose methods were not scrutinized with too much care and who were honored... irrespective of the means they used.
The financiers who pushed the railroads to the Pacific were always ruthless, often wasteful and frequently corrupt, but they did build railroads....
As long as we had free land, as long as population was growing by leaps and bounds, as long as our industrial plants were insufficient to supply our own needs, society chose to give the ambitious man free play and unlimited reward....
During this period of expansion there was equal opportunity for all, and the business of government was not to interfere, but to assist in the development of industry.
Some of my friends tell me they do not want the government in business. With this I agree, but wonder if they realize the implications of the past. For while it has been American doctrine that the government must not go into business.... still it has been traditional particularly in Republican administrations, for business urgently to ask the government to put at private disposal all kinds of government assistance....
In retrospect we can no see that the turn of the tide came with the turn of the century. We were reaching our last frontier; there was no more free land and our industrial combinations had become great uncontrolled and irresponsible units of power within the State.
Clear-sighted men saw with fear the danger that opportunity would no longer be equal; that the growing corporation... might threaten the economic freedom of individuals to earn a living. In that hour our antitrust laws were born.
The cry was raised against the great corporations. Theodore Roosevelt, the first great Republican Progressive, fought a Presidential campaign on the issue of ėtrust bustingķ and talked freely about the malefactors of great wealth....
Woodrow Wilson, elected in 1912, saw the situation more clearly.
Where Jefferson had feared the encroachment of political power on the lives
of individuals, Wilson knew that the new power was financial. He
saw, in the [concentration of wealth in the hands of a few], the despot
of the twentieth century on whom great masses of individuals relied for
their safety and their livelihood, and whose irresponsibility and greed
(if not controlled) would reduce them to starvation and penury....
A glance at the situation today only too clearly indicates that equality of opportunity as we have known it no longer exists. Our industrial plant is built. The problem is now whether, under existing conditions, it is not overbuilt.
Our last frontier has long since been reached, and there is practically no more free land....
There is no safety valve in the form of a Western prairie to which those thrown out of work by the Eastern economic machines can go for a new start. We are not able to invite immigration from Europe to enjoy our endless plenty. We are no providing a drab living for our own people....
Just as freedom to farm has ceased, so also the opportunity in business has narrowed. It is true that men can start small enterprises... but area after area has been pre-empted altogether by the great corporations, and even in fields which still have no great concerns the small man starts under a handicap.
The unfeeling statistics of the past three decades show that the independent business man is running a losing race.
Recently a careful study... showed that our economic life was dominated by some 600-odd corporations who controlled two-thirds of American industry. Ten million small business men divided the other third. More striking, it appeared that if the process of concentration goes on at the same rate, at the end of another century we shall have all American industry controlled by a dozen corporations and run perhaps by a hundred men.
Put plainly, we are steering a steady course towards economic oligarchy, if we are not there already.
Clearly this calls for a reappraisal of values....
The day of the great promoter or the financial titan, to whom we granted anything if only he would build or develop, is over....
[Our task] is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand... of meeting the problem of under-consumption, of adjusting production to consumption, of distributing wealth and products more equitably, of adapting existing economic organizations to the service of the people.
The day of enlightened administration has come.
Just as in older times the central government was first a haven of refuge and then a threat, so now in a closer economic system the... ambitious financial [corporation] is no longer a servant of national desire but a danger. I would draw the parallel one step further. We did not think because national government had become a threat in the eighteenth century that therefore we should abandon the principle of national government.
Nor today should we abandon the principle of strong economic units called
corporations....
In other times we dealt with the problem of an unduly ambitious central
government by modifying it gradually into a constitutional democratic government.
So today we are modifying and controlling our economic units.
As I see it, the task of government in its relation to business is to assist the development of an economic declaration of rights, an economic constitutional order. This is the common task of statesman and business man. It is the minimum requirement of more permanently safe order of things....
Every man has a right to life, and this means that he also has a right to make a comfortable living. He may by [laziness] or crime decline to exercise that right, but it may not be denied to him.
We have no actual famine or dearth; our industrial and agricultural mechanism can produce enough to spare.
Our government formal and informal, political and economic, owes to every one an avenue to possess himself a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs through his own work....
If, in accord with this principle, we must restrict the operations of the speculator, the manipulator, even the financier, I believe we must accept the restriction as needful not to hamper individualism but to protect it....
The government should assume the function of economic regulation only as a last resort, to be tried only when private initiative, inspired by high responsibility, with such assistance and balance government can give, has finally failed....
The final term of the high contract was for liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We have learned a great deal about both in the past century....
We now that the old ėrights of personal competencyķ the right to read, to think, to speak, to choose and live a mode of life must be respected at all hazards.
We know that the liberty to do anything which deprives others of those elemental rights is outside the protection of any compact, and that the government in this regard is the maintenance of a balance within every individual may have a place if he will take it, in which every individual may find safety if he wishes it, in which every individual may attain such power as his ability permits, consistent with his assuming the accompanying responsibility....
Faith in America, faith in our tradition of personal responsibility, faith in our institutions, faith in ourselves demands the we recognize the new terms of the old social contract.
We shall fulfill them, as we fulfilled the obligation of the apparent utopia which Jefferson imagined for us in 1776 and which Jefferson, [Theodore] Roosevelt, and Wilson sought to bring to realization.
We must do so, lest a rising tide of misery, engendered by our common failure engulf us all.
But failure is not an American habit, and in the strength of great hope
we must all shoulder our common load.