Address at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner.

Mr. Chairman, fellow Democrats:

It is a great experience to be present at this gathering this evening. I appreciate your generous welcome and the evidence of your friendship. Our meeting here is only one of many similar meetings that are being held throughout the country in tribute and in celebration. To all I send the warmest and most sincere greetings.

We meet tonight, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Democratic National Committee, to honor two great Americans. These men early in our history inspired the people of this country to assert their rights against privilege. They endowed the United States with a liberal philosophy and tradition. At the same time they were practical men, able to translate liberal philosophy into law and political fact.

I speak of the father of American liberalism-Thomas Jefferson.

I speak also of the man who later gave American liberalism new and even richer meaning--Andrew Jackson.

Although these meetings tonight are political gatherings, the things I shall talk about are important to every citizen in the Nation no matter what political affiliation he or she may have.

The party system prevails in this country. I believe in it and I have confidence in it. It constitutes the most effective means of presenting the issues of the day to the American people.

The party of progressive liberalism in the United States, the party that carries on the traditions of Jefferson and Jackson, the party that has four times in succession received the people's mandate--is the Democratic Party.

This year its mandate must again be considered by the people for renewal.

This is a year of challenge. I propose that we meet that challenge head on.

The people will again decide whether they want the forces of positive, progressive liberalism to continue in office, or whether, in these challenging times, they want to entrust their government to those forces of conservatism which believe in the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

This is the choice that Americans have had to make since the earliest years of the Republic: a choice between a parcel labeled progressive liberalism and a parcel labeled reactionary conservatism. This being true, it is highly important to know what the American people have found in each of these parcels.

Our Constitution made no provision for government by political parties. But political parties were not long in developing in the early years of the Republic. Sharp differences of opinion arose in George Washington's Cabinet over the powers and purposes of the new Government. And I can say right here that George Washington wasn't the only President that had differences in his Cabinet !

Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, frankly affirmed his belief that government should be controlled by the rich and the well born. He believed that government should be aristocratic and that it should operate primarily in the interest of wealth and privilege.

Fortunately for the people, there was also in Washington's administration a powerful man, Thomas Jefferson, who believed just as strongly that government should be by the whole people and for the whole people. He was convinced that true democratic progress could be attained only by extending political and economic liberty, religious freedom, and educational opportunity. Jefferson passionately believed that the genius of America rested in the ranks of the ordinary men, and that they must control the government.

There could hardly have been a sharper cleavage than that between Hamilton and Jefferson.

The supporters of Jefferson organized a political party of progressive liberalism that has continued in American political life down to the present day. That party is today known as the Democratic Party.

The followers of Alexander Hamilton also banded themselves together as a political party. This, the party of conservatism, the party of rule by the privileged few, has its counterpart in our national life today.

I have long been impressed by the continuity of these two political philosophies throughout American history.

I have been impressed because the policies of their disciples are such faithful images of the philosophies themselves. The parcel of reactionary conservatism may be wrapped in bright colors and gay tinsel, but when you open it, you always find party rule for the benefit of the privileged few. Inside the parcel of progressive liberalism, however, you always find government for the benefit of all the people--true democratic government.

Jefferson was elected President in 1800. He and his party promptly swept away laws that restricted citizenship and threatened freedom of speech and the press. The judiciary, which had been rigged against popular rule, was reformed. Perhaps most important of all for the common man was Jefferson's success in arranging the Louisiana Purchase.

This purchase was strongly opposed by the conservatives, who rightly foresaw that the acquisition of this tremendous domain would diminish the political influence of wealthy men in the East. They also foresaw that it would cut down their supply of cheap labor.

The years following Jefferson were years of growth. Industries rose in the East and with them a new class of industrial workers. The States of the West grew rapidly in population and strength.

The votes of vigorous common men of eastern factories and western farms brought Andrew Jackson to the Presidency in 1829. During the next 8 years, that illustrious son of the frontier carried out a second social and economic revolution in America. Jeffersonian liberalism thus gave birth to and was carried on by Jacksonian democracy.

When I consider the problems that confronted Andrew Jackson in the 1830's, I am struck by how little our national problems change. Most of the issues tackled by Jackson were merely new phases of issues that had earlier confronted Jefferson. And they were substantially the same problems that confronted the Nation a hundred years later, when one of the greatest Americans of all time came to the Presidency--Franklin D. Roosevelt.

One of these great national problems has been the undue influence of concentrated wealth.

Jackson abolished the United States Bank, which gave a few bankers an inside track in Washington and a powerful hold on the Federal Government. Jefferson before him, and Woodrow Wilson much later, fought the same evils. Franklin Roosevelt continued the same fight and succeeded in bringing the national capital from Wall Street back to Washington.

A second problem, important in Jackson's day and in ours, is the proper use of the Nation's resources for the benefit of all.

Jackson, in his fight to open up the western land for settlement, was opposed by selfish men who profited by cheap labor and who tried to obstruct new opportunities for the ordinary man.

The land problem exists today, but its character has changed. There are vast new acreages throughout the Nation that could be made productive and fit for settlement by means of reclamation, conservation, and irrigation. The struggle for new opportunities for the ordinary citizen has thus shifted to the building of dams, the generation of power, the irrigation of deserts, the control of flood waters, and the prevention of erosion. These are the modern aspects of the land problem. They are just as vital to our democracy now as Jackson's fight for cheap land was a hundred years ago.

The forces that fought Jefferson--and the forces that Jackson fought--and that progressive liberals have had to fight throughout our history have been the forces of selfish wealth and special privilege.

The party of progressive liberalism--the Democratic Party--believes today, as it has always believed, that it is the duty of popular government to protect and promote the interests, not of just the privileged few, but of all the groups and individuals in our Nation.

The Democratic Party believes today, as it has always believed, that vigilance and action are needed not only to protect the people from concentrations of wealth and power, but to keep concentrated wealth and power from destroying itself, and the Nation with it.

It is easy to see why the Democratic Party knows that concentrated wealth and power must be held in check.

One might have supposed that those who dictated the policy for 12 years after the First World War would have followed economic measures beneficial to the real and continuing welfare of the country. But no! In their reckless pursuit of immediate profits they encouraged economic policies that drained off so much in profits at the top-and allowed so little in wages to run out at the bottom--that the whole system broke down in 1929.

A second example: Billions of dollars were loaned to foreign countries after the First World War and a vigorous foreign trade was developed. So far, so good. But those in control then proceeded to erect high tariff barriers that prevented those countries from paying back our loans by shipping us their products. The inevitable result was that our foreign loans and investments went down the drain and our flourishing foreign trade was cut down in its prime. We had the worst depression in history.

These experiences of the past teach us practical lessons:

Government run for the benefit of the few will inevitably destroy all.

Government run for the good of all will benefit all.

These lessons point out the course we must follow in building for tomorrow.

In my State of the Union Message on January 7, I spoke to the Congress, and to all the people of the Nation, about our great goals--goals which can mean a glorious future for the United States. I set forth, in outline form, the production that our people can accomplish; the prosperity that they can enjoy; the improvements in social justice and social security, in education and in housing, that they can achieve.

I said in that message that there are some people in this country who look with fear and distrust upon planning for the future. I said that there are some who are afraid to look ahead despite the obvious fact that our great national achievements have been attained by men with vision--men who planned--men like Jefferson and Jackson, Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

The cries from reactionary quarters after the State of the Union Message only prove the truth of my statement that some people are afraid to look ahead.

These men who live in the past remind me of a toy I'm sure all of you have seen. The toy is a small wooden bird called the "Floogie Bird." Around the Floogie Bird's neck is a label reading: "I fly backwards. I don't care where I'm going. I just want to see where I've been."

These backward looking men refuse to see where courageous leadership can take this Nation in the years that lie ahead. These men of small vision and faint hearts have set up their familiar cry, "Of course it's fine, but it can't be done."

How history repeats itself! How familiar all this must sound to those who study the story of Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, or Jackson's efforts to open up the West!

The men who ridiculed Jefferson and Jackson were men of small courage and big fears. Their political descendants are to be found among those who were afraid to attempt recovery in the 1930's and who are now afraid to make farsighted preparations for American prosperity.

Let the farmers and the workers and the average businessmen of today--the kind of people in whom Jefferson and Jackson had such faith--ponder where they would be now if the timid men with little ideas had gained mastery during the more recent crises in our history.

In the depths of the great depression of the 1930's, when agriculture was in ruins, business in collapse, and labor in despair, these timid men could not generate the forces of recovery. They said that the required measures would imperil the Nation's credit. Their philosophy of government, running true to form, blinded them to the fact that the Nation's credit rests always on the welfare and prosperity of the people.

But how wrong they were! Through the efforts of the people, with the aid of the party of progressive liberalism to which the people turned, farm income increased from less than $2 billion in 1933 to almost $5 billion in 1940. In 1947, farm income stood at more than $18 billion. That is the highest farm income in history.

But these accomplishments of a free people and their Government have not changed the defeatists one iota. When I say--as in my recent State of the Union Message--that we can steer between farm prices that are dangerously high and farm prices that are ruinously low; when I say that we can save the fertility of our farms through soil conservation; when I say that we can bring electricity and labor-saving devices to every farm; when I say that we can increase the agricultural output by 10 percent over the next 10 years; when I say that good wages and general prosperity will provide the demand for this increased farm output--when I say these things now, we hear from the customary quarters, "It can't be done."

I know that it can be done, and we of the forward-looking faith must dedicate ourselves to the proposition that it will be done.

And where did the American worker find himself in 1932? He was either unemployed or expecting to be unemployed. His home was saddled with debt. His children were drawn into the sweatshops. The unions which he had formed for his self-protection were disintegrating. The only thing left to him was an unswerving faith that, somehow, the American system would find a way to lift him out of the depths of despair and desolation.

That way was found, under the leadership of the party of progressive liberalism--the Democratic Party.

Employment increased from 39 million jobs in 1933 to a peak of 60 million jobs in 1947. The average weekly earnings of workers in manufacturing industries rose from $15 a week to $51 a week. Wages and salaries rose from $28 billion in 1933 to $49 billion by 1940. They stood at more than $120 billion in 1947.

Yet, when I say that we should enact a 75_percent minimum wage now; when I say

that we can reach 64 million jobs within the next 10 years; when I say that we can lift our standard of living by another 27 percent within that time--when I say these things, again we hear that same old refrain, "It can't be done."

I know that it can be done, and we of the forward-looking faith must dedicate ourselves to the proposition that it will be done.

Now what happened to business under the tender custody of a reactionary administration, which some of the older statesmen of the stock exchange politely called "conservative and prudent"?

In 1932, thoughtful businessmen were wondering how long life could remain sacred or how property could be safe when hungry men could not secure food for their families. Some of them even had their yachts steamed up to leave the country.

I know a small minority of businessmen, who are profoundly mistaken, harbor the thought that a liberal-minded government is hostile to them.

What are the facts?

In 1933, corporations went into the red to the tune of $400 million, after taxes. By 1940, they were earning $6 1/2 billion, after taxes. By 1947, they earned $17 billion, after taxes.

Looking at the record, I should think businessmen would want more of that kind of hostility!

When I speak of increasing our national output by one-third over the next 10 years, every person in his right mind knows that this will be beneficial to business. Under our system of enterprise, an expanded economy always means more opportunity for individual initiative. I want business earnings to grow as our whole economy thrives and prospers. But we know from experience that profits based upon excessive prices and inflation are built upon sand. The structure will crumble if the foundation is not made firm.

In the interest of business as much as any other group, we must win the fight against inflation to avoid disaster. In the interest of business as much as any other group, we must make the next 10 years a period of extraordinary achievement.

The timid people say it can't be done.

I say it can be done, and we of the forward-looking faith must dedicate ourselves to the proposition that it will be done.

Under our American system, the political party is the device around which men and women rally to a cause in which they believe. Progressive liberals will rally to the Democratic Party, even though they do not happen to be members of that party, because they know that the Democratic Party is the best fighting force for the triumphant achievement of worthy goals.

The Democratic Party, throughout its history, has served as the rallying point because it has remained true to its faith, and because its programs run true to the aspirations of the American people.

The 10-year program that I have outlined for American prosperity is rounded on our faith in the ability of the American people to plan their future boldly and to move forward steadfastly toward their goals.

If anyone chooses to call this politics, then it is the politics of Jefferson and Jackson, Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt--and it is good enough for me.