Unwilling Captive

The chance to become President of the U. S. is supposed to be the cherished birthright of every American child. In the case of ex-Child John L. Lewis this cherished birthright has become to many a "consuming ambition" and its exercise by this labor leader would be regarded as vaguely unAmerican. But the possibility of Mr. Lewis' offering himself as a candidate in 1940 is "a slim one indeed" according to Edward Levinson, well-informed Labor editor of the New York Post. In his book, Labor on the March,* published this week, Author Levinson ascribes high-minded purposes to this self-denial:

"Lewis would not be a candidate because it is not in the cards for him to be a labor President. Even before President Roosevelt turned away from the 'Little Steel' strikers, Lewis knew that public office--the Presidency in particular --cannot at this stage of American affairs be the unconditioned property of labor. Lewis is the chief spokesman of labor; in the White House he could no longer be that. While a labor President, backed by a majority in Congress, could make great contributions toward winning security for labor's millions, a President dependent on the support of other strata of the population would have to heed various pressures. To be the leader of an aggressive, growing labor movement makes Lewis far more serviceable to the working people than to be a captive in the White House."

If there are to be captives in the White House, Mr. Lewis is ready to join the hunt: "Anxious for more and immediate gains for labor, he would like to see a President elected by a partnership of labor, the middle class, liberals and the farmers. He is thus interested in the possible formation of a bloc which can control the Democratic party; or failing that, a new liberal or progressive party rather than a labor party. His own candidacy for the Presidency, if it comes about in 1940, would be with Lewis a second choice. He would rather back a progressive on whom labor can count, than take the field against conservatives nominated by the two old parties. The latter course would be pioneering without the prospects of immediate result. Lewis does not object to pioneering, but he does not see labor's pressing problems permitting a long span of spade work and defeats as a preliminary to labor rule in the distant future. Unlike the A. F. of L. leaders, who look upon the possibility of independent political action by labor as akin to Communism, Lewis does not bar the possible formation of a new party in which labor will dominate or be an important partner."

Of Mr. Levinson's book, Critic Lewis remarked: "It contains some magnificent reporting."

* Harper ($3).

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.