Mr. Drake. One last question on South Africa. When we were talking about black leaders in the country and the necessity of dealing with them, what do you think the role of Nelson Mandela should be?
The President. Well, he’s sort of an enigma right now. He undoubtedly is a leader in ANC, and he was incarcerated because he openly advocated violence. Now there seems to be some word that he has indicated that he may be stepping back from that position. So, I think it would be worth talking to him, that—
Mr. Drake. Well, do you think he should be freed immediately?
The President. Well, I don’t know that that’s a decision for us to make. It seems from our viewpoint over here that this could, if it is true that he is advocating negotiations rather than just outright violence, that then this could be most helpful.
First, a timetable for elimination of apartheid laws should be set. Second, all political prisoners should be released. Third, Nelson Mandela should be released to participate in the country’s political process. Fourth, black political movements should be unbanned. Fifth, both the Government and its opponents should begin a dialog about constructing a political system that rests upon the consent of the governed, where the rights of majorities and minorities and individuals are protected by law. And the dialog should be initiated by those with power and authority: the South African Government itself. Sixth, if post-apartheid South Africa is to remain the economic locomotive of southern Africa, its strong and developed economy must not be crippled.
Truman is known for popularizing the saying “the buck stops here”, but I can find only two mentions in his official papers. At a 1951 DNC dinner he talked about the sign on his desk that says “the buck stops here” when describing his four main jobs: president and chief executive, head of the Democratic Party, “social chief of state”, and Commander-in-Chief. In a 1952 address to the Army War College, he described decision-making as a definitive act for presidents:
You know, it’s easy enough for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you–and on my desk I have a motto which says “The buck stops here”–the decision has to be made. That decision may be right. It may be wrong. If it is wrong, and it has been shown that it is wrong, I have no desire to cover it up. I admit it, and try to make another decision that will meet the situation. And that is what any President of the United States has to do. Just bear that in mind.
[Truman made the comments in reference to the Communist "takeover" of China, saying also that "We hope it will not be an irrevocable loss."]
Other presidents used the phrase many more times that Truman (although they may not have made it the centerpiece of their desks). The counts:
I felt like there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that — I believe they’ve moved that sign, “The buck stops here” from the Oval Office desk to “The buck stops here” on the Lincoln bedroom. It’s not good for the country and it’s not right. We need to have a new look about how we conduct ourselves in office. There’s a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, I don’t want you to let me down again. And we can do better than the past administration has done. It’s time for a fresh start. It’s time for a new look. It’s time for a fresh start after a season of cynicism.
By the way, it’s never been a catchphrase among academic administrators.
No, really, please do not stand next to me … if you are not considered socially desirable. As opposed to the Police song in which the narrator has mixed feelings about the attractive subject standing so close to him (for fear of scandal or worse), recent research suggests that it can also be detrimental to be in close proximity to people who are not deemed attractive by society. This truism has been tied to political behavior by Shankar Vendantam in his recent Washington Post article. Here are some selections:
Great liners like the Lusitania and the Arabic and mere ferryboats like the Sussex have been attacked without a moment’s warning, sometimes before they had even become aware that they were in the presence of an armed vessel of the enemy, and the lives of non-combatants, passengers and crew, have been sacrificed wholesale, in a manner which the Government of the United States cannot but regard as wanton and without the slightest color of justification.
And the sinking became a source of inspiration for WWI “calls to arms”.
What explains the lag? Interestingly, people who were in their teens in 1915 were in their 60s in 1965 - and their decision-making power was the greatest in formal political settings.
The Social Science Research Council, with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, is pleased to announce a call to faculty for interdisciplinary research field proposals for the 2009 Dissertation Proposal Development Fellowship (DPDF) program. Established in 2006, the DPDF combines financial
support and workshop experience for early-stage graduate students engaged in predissertation research and developing their dissertation proposals. The DPDF program is designed to intervene at a critical moment in the career development of graduate students in the humanities and social sciences by aiding their transition from students to researchers. It provides complementary interdisciplinary perspectives to students across the disciplines of the social sciences and humanities.* Faculty applicants must be tenured at different doctoral degree-granting programs at US universities and apply in teams of two. DPDF Research Directors lead groups of 12 graduate student fellows in two four-day workshops. Research directors receive a stipend of $10,000 each. More information about the program may be found at: http://programs.ssrc.org/dpdf.
It seems that there’s been growing concern recently about export controls and strategic national resources (for example, regarding technical information, fissile materials, and even rice).
In an early example of the debate over export controls, the Hindenburg crashed and burned 71 years ago today:
Q. Mr. President, regarding the helium question, which you took up with members of various departments the other day and afterwards indicated that the matter was for decision of the National Munitions Control Board, that Board had already approved the export. Did you intend that they should reopen the question?
THE PRESIDENT: I think probably there will be another meeting of the Board very soon.
Q. When?
THE PRESIDENT: Very soon; I don’t know when.
Q. Who has the power to call that meeting?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman.
Q. The Chairman yesterday said it would depend on you.
THE PRESIDENT: Perfectly true; I have not asked him yet because I have not seen him.
Q. Do you understand that the Board acted illegally when it approved the export of helium?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know; it is a question of law, I suppose. The statute is very definite in setting up the National Munitions Board. It says, “The Secretaries” of these different Departments—”The heads” of these Departments. Well, by Government custom, as you know, these interdepartmental boards meet with the membership composed of Assistant Secretaries and, in order that the record may be perfectly clear, we want to have a meeting with the Secretaries present. Legally, whether the action of the Board when it is constituted by Assistant Secretaries may be all right, nobody knows.
Following the disaster, Germany requested that the US loosen export controls on helium as a replacement for hydrogen in the next airship, Graf Zeppelin II (which was eventually used for military purposes). Congress responded by tightening controls, which became part of the dialogue between FDR, the Board, and the press regarding the Board’s decisions:
Q. In weighing the laws governing the export of helium, does the Board take into consideration the intent of the Congress, the intent of the time when it was passed, which was immediately after the Hindenburg disaster?
THE PRESIDENT: They take into consideration the language of the statute primarily. When any question comes up as to the construction of the language, they are at full liberty to look into the debates on the floor or the hearings of the committee prior to the passage of the statute. . . .
So the hydrogen/helium question became part of the debate between Congress and the president about administrative accountability.
Malcolm Smith and Cornelius Cotter used this as evidence in their 1957 article “Administrative Accountability: Reporting to Congress” in the old Western Political Quarterly. Look at the study: they try to catalogue all the required reporting devices that Congress imposed on the executive for a selection of statutes over about 25 years. Do we even do this type of work anymore?
[Google Scholar tells me this article has been cited a grand total of 2 times in the last 51 years, which probably tells us more about how our post-behavioral revolution "science" discards old narrative-based studies than anything about the actual study.]
I’d like to introduce the premiere of a new Voir Dire endeavor: E-Interview. In this feature we basically interview a variety of people via email. Alas, I can’t promise a consistent theme to these interviews or how they will go - one simply cannot predict the creative process.
This week’s E-Interview subject is Jamie Carson, (soon to be) Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Georgia.
The most persuasive argument the Communists have is not anything Marx or Lenin ever wrote, or anything Stalin ever said–but the depression which began in the United States in 1929. And the Russians have been waiting for another one ever since Potsdam. That depression weakened the faith of many men throughout the world in the ability of our democratic institutions to meet the needs of our people. That depression is still used by the Communists to shake the faith of millions in the way of life that this Nation represents.
Note the date: 1950, just at the beginning of one of the great expansions of the US economy (see Vatter’s The U. S. Economy in the 1950s: An Economic History). But change was uneven and helped different people in different ways.
First, they started out with a public opinion survey. They asked a lot of people what they thought of TVA. And most people said it was a wonderful thing. Then they asked people what they thought of public power, and most people said that was all right, too.
Well, this surprised the power companies, but it didn’t surprise me, and I don’t suppose it surprised anyone here. It simply meant that most people know what is good for them, when they have the facts in front of them.
Then the company agents asked people what they thought of socialism and of course most people said we are “agin” it. Naturally, they would say that.
You of course know the tale about a couple of men discussing socialism. One of them was a socialist and the other one was not.
The first man said, “Sam, if you had a million dollars, would you divide it with me?”
“Sure,” said Sam.
“Well,” said John, “if you had two pigs, would you give me one of them?”
Sam said, “Now John, you know I’ve got a couple of pigs.”
Truman saw such economic interests as trying to connect socialism to what government was doing - as “all part of some big plot to socialize the country”. This, he claimed, was no different from what the proponents of socialism (in different flavors) were doing in propaganda about economic hardship:
What these private power companies are actually doing is deliberately and in cold blood setting out to poison the minds of the people. They make no bones about it. Their own manuals say that their purpose is to influence the mass mind in this country by playing on people’s emotions.
The “mass mind”–what a horrible phrase. I think it’s one of the most horrible phrases in the language. They think of the individual human beings in this great country as parts of a mass mind. They set out to play upon the emotions of churchgoers, Boy Scouts, and schoolchildren. They try to control people’s thoughts by using slogans and scare words.
They have taken a leaf right out of the books of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. They are following the Soviet and the fascist lines.
This is nothing less than an attack on the fundamental principles of our democratic country. Instead of letting people make up their own minds on the basis of the facts and the truth, this private power company propaganda is deliberately designed to conceal the facts, and to manipulate people’s opinions by appealing to their emotions and not to their reason.
Selection systems can sometimes be imperfect. This may occasionally be revealed when a great candidate or performer comes to a position through unusual circumstances or a “fluke”. Witness Brett Michaels’ (lead singer of “Poison”) VH1 reality show, “Rock of Love” (or Rock of Love 2 for purists). The show’s ultimate winner (and hence Brett’s ‘Rock of Love’) turned out to be Ambre Lake (on the left) who nudged out Daisy De La Hoya (on the right - and, yes, she is apparently related to the well known boxer, Oscar De La Hoya). Curiously, Ambre was almost cut from the show (i.e. not chosen by Brett to continue to ‘rock his world’) very early on - not even past the quarterfinals. She was only saved when one contestant chose not to remain on the show after being chosen by Brett. But, as the show wore on she gained momentum and ended up beating out all of the other contestants.
Now, all of this is to suggest that scenarios such as this may provide information on the imperfections of any selection system. We can think of other instances in which great performers were not early picks; or, alternatively, situations in which stand out performers only attained the position which enabled them to excel through a “fluke” situation. Instances that come to mind include athletes who were not high draft choices or college stars but went on to do great things in the pros (e.g. Johnny Unitas or Scottie Pippen). Similarly, we might think of actors who were not the first choice for roles, but ended up being praised for their performances or winning academy award. Of course, the flip side of this idea are situations in which “high draft picks” turn out to not do so well down the road. The worlds of athletics and entertainment are full of these stories.
Are there, perhaps, applications in political science or law? Great judges who were not obvious picks? Perhaps political leaders who were good performers, but attained office by fluke? Obviously, there may be somewhat of a subjective element in assessing who was a great performer; but this notwithstanding, it may be the case that studying these instances could reveal interesting things about our method of selection in a given field. Another application might be academia - are there cases in which eventual academic stars did not start out as “high draft picks”? And, if so, what can we learn from this, if anything?
Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
Moreover,
In the images of falling statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred of years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale. In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation.
Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.
From henceforth in our history the thirtieth day of April will have a dual significance: the Inauguration of the First President of the United States, which began the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and the opening of the New York World’s Fair of 1939.
FDR saw the fair as symbolizing how the US was moving forward while Europe was stuck with old divisions and enmities (perhaps a little optimistically on both counts):
Often, I think, we Americans offer up a silent prayer that on the Continent of Europe, from which the American hemisphere was principally colonized, the years to come will break down many barriers to intercourse between nations—barriers which may be historic, but which so greatly, through the centuries, have led to strife and have hindered friendship and normal intercourse.
The United States stands today as a completely homogeneous nation, similar in its civilization from Coast to Coast and from North to South, united in a common purpose to work for the greatest good of the greatest number, united in the desire to move forward to better things in the use of its great resources of nature and its even greater resources of intelligent, educated manhood and womanhood, and united in its desire to encourage peace and good will among all the nations of the earth.
The high points of the Fair were undoubtedly Elektro the Smoking Robot and the Aquacade:
I have asked for this time tonight in order to announce my answer to the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for additional Watergate tapes, and to tell you something about the actions I shall be taking tomorrow–about what I hope they will mean to you and about the very difficult choices that were presented to me.
But admitting …
But the problem I confronted was this: Unless a President can protect the privacy of the advice he gets, he cannot get the advice he needs.
This principle is recognized in the constitutional doctrine of executive privilege, which has been defended and maintained by every President since Washington and which has been recognized by the courts, whenever tested, as inherent in the Presidency. I consider it to be my constitutional responsibility to defend this principle.
Three factors have now combined to persuade me that a major unprecedented exception to that principle is now necessary:
First, in the present circumstances, the House of Representatives must be able to reach an informed judgment about the President’s role in Watergate.
Second, I am making a major exception to the principle of confidentiality because I believe such action is now necessary in order to restore the principle itself, by clearing the air of the central question that has brought such pressures upon it–and also to provide the evidence which will allow this matter to be brought to a prompt conclusion.
Third, in the context of the current impeachment climate, I believe all the American people, as well as their representatives in Congress, are entitled to have not only the facts but also the evidence that demonstrates those facts.
But not admitting …
Incidentally, these transcripts–covering hours upon hours of conversations-should place in somewhat better perspective the controversy over the 18 1/2 minute gap in the tape of a conversation I had with Mr. Haldeman back in June of 1972.
Now, how it was caused is still a mystery to me and, I think, to many of the experts as well. But I am absolutely certain, however, of one thing: that it was not caused intentionally by my secretary, Rose Mary Woods, or any of my White House assistants. And certainly, if the theory were true that during those 18 1/2 minutes, Mr. Haldeman and I cooked up some sort of a Watergate coverup scheme, as so many have been quick to surmise, it hardly seems likely that in all of our subsequent conversations–many of them are here-which neither of us ever expected would see the light of day, there is nothing remotely indicating such a scheme; indeed, quite the contrary.
[I'm here to stay ...]
As for myself, I intend to go forward, to the best of my ability, with the work that you elected me to do. I shall do so in a spirit perhaps best summed up a century ago by another President when he was being subjected to unmerciful attack. Abraham Lincoln said:
“I do the very best I know how–the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”
Retrospect is a wonderful thing. Lee Sigelman used this to full advantage in his 2001 Political Communication article on the “onstage” and “backstage” versions of Nixon and Johnson. What’s neat about the paper is how alike the two were onstage versus their backstage personas.
We’ve been doing a lot with “onstage” rhetoric (for good reasons, I might add), but “backstage” rhetoric has taken a well, backseat. Or should we just leave backstage rhetoric to the historians?
You served John F. Kennedy for 11 years, as his counselor, adviser and legendary speechwriter. Why did you choose to be so modest in your forthcoming memoir, “Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History,” in which you decline to take the least credit for anything he achieved? I’m glad to hear you say that becauseI’m afraid people will read this book and say, “Oh, Sorensen did it all, or he claims he did it all.”
As the so-called poet of Camelot, are there any lines or phrases even one you are willing to claim authorship of? I acknowledge that I played a large part in the American University commencement speech on peace on June 10, 1963. “What kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.”
What do you make of Hillary’s comment that Obama’s promises and speeches are “just words”?Kennedy’s rhetoric when he was president turned out to be a key to his success. His mere words about Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba helped resolve the worst crisis the world has ever known without the U.S. having to fire a shot.
Nowadays, the words of politicians seem more about constructing images than resolving issues. We have a president now who doesn’t know the meaning of retreat. In fact he doesn’t know the meanings of lots of words.
What about Bill Clinton’s oratorical abilities? Bill’s not quite the persuasive communicator he used to be.
Whatever the causes, the consequences were real: one was the rise of Andrew Jackson, who vetoed the re-charter of the Bank in 1832. One has to wonder what a “failure to produce” by the Fed these days would do for its vaunted reputation and independence.
Q. Joseph Harsch, Christian Science Monitor and NBC: Mr. President, would you care to say anything to us about the loyalty and patriotism of Edward R. Murrow?
THE PRESIDENT. I am going to say nothing at all about that.
First of all, I don’t comment about people, I don’t comment about things of which I know nothing.
I will say this: I have known this man for many years; he has been one of the men I consider my friend among your profession. That is what I do know about him.
So far as indulging in philosophical discussion, I can’t remember any instance; but I do say that he has been one of those that over the years, in the war, when he was working in London, and so on, I always thought of him as a friend.
The New York Times has an interesting article on ghost writing in medical academia - here’s the lead in:
The drug maker Merck drafted dozens of research studies for a best-selling drug, then lined up prestigious doctors to put their names on the reports before publication, according to an article to be published Wednesday in a leading medical journal. The article, based on documents unearthed in lawsuits over the pain drug Vioxx, provides a rare, detailed look in the industry practice of ghostwriting medical research studies that are then published in academic journals.
Flat World Knowledge has a new business model: free textbooks. They’re not the first (they won’t be the last), but they’re making a major investment in digital distribution.
In these efforts they naturally look for assistance to the Federal library, which, though still the Library of Congress, and so entitled, is the one national library of the United States. Already the largest single collection of books on the Western Hemisphere, and certain to increase more rapidly than any other through purchase, exchange, and the operation of the copyright law, this library has a unique opportunity to render to the libraries of this country–to American scholarship–service of the highest importance. It is housed in a building which is the largest and most magnificent yet erected for library uses. Resources are now being provided which will develop the collection properly, equip it with the apparatus and service necessary to its effective use, render its bibliographic work widely available, and enable it to become, not merely a center of research, but the chief factor in great co-operative efforts for the diffusion of knowledge and the advancement of learning.
My favorite Internet use of the Library is the American Memory collection. For example, here are early photos of the Library and its construction:
It is our duty to inquire what has produced such unfortunate results and whether their recurrence can be prevented. In all former revulsions the blame might have been fairly attributed to a variety of cooperating causes, but not so upon the present occasion. It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits, exciting the people to wild speculations and gambling in stocks. These revulsions must continue to recur at successive intervals so long as the amount of the paper currency and bank loans and discounts of the country shall be left to the discretion of 1,400 irresponsible banking institutions, which from the very law of their nature will consult the interest of their stockholders rather than the public welfare.
The government was left short in covering its expenditures, but couldn’t print money to make up the difference. Its hands were tied because it had to back the dollar:
It is one of the highest and most responsible duties of Government to insure to the people a sound circulating medium, the amount of which ought to be adapted with the utmost possible wisdom and skill to the wants of internal trade and foreign exchanges. If this be either greatly above or greatly below the proper standard, the marketable value of every man’s property is increased or diminished in the same proportion, and injustice to individuals as well as incalculable evils to the community are the consequence.
Buchanan made these statements to Congress in December 1857. The Union was beginning to unravel, yet his main problem at that time was keeping financial peace. He devoted the first quarter of his annual message to the issues of specie and government finances.
Presidents don’t often focus on bank solvency, but Buchanan had to because he didn’t have a Bernanke to do it for him.
Possibly, but unlikely according to Dan Drezner. See the story here and audio commentary is also provided on the website. Can the Oakland A’s keep moneyball working? Here’s a snippet.
But as sabermetric methods have become more accepted in the boardrooms of baseball, Beane and other innovators have fewer inefficiencies to exploit. Since the publication of “Moneyball,” almost every team in the major leagues has incorporated sabremetric thinking into their organization.
The Boston Red Sox won two World Series in the past four years while employing Bill James, the godfather of the sabermetrics community. Other franchises around the league have also hired young sabermetrics devotees to run their front offices. The result: The popularization of sabermetrics has left Beane with less of an advantage — it’s harder to find diamonds in the rough when everyone else is mining the same territory. The A’s are not struggling because of “Moneyball”’s failure — they are struggling because of its success.
Could it be that the same would be true for academic institutions - as Moneyball principles become more pervasive can schools no longer exploit inefficiencies of other institutions (because they are harder to find)?
The end of busing of primary and secondary school students has been a major setback for integration of public schools in the USA. The purpose of this paper is not to offer an alternative to busing; regrettably, no obvious alternative stands out. Rather, it is to offer some social, legal and economic background to help the reader consider, and perhaps propose, realistic alternatives that would reduce both racial and economic segregation in our schools and society. The paper is divided into three sections. The first offers background information useful for better understanding and evaluating the end of busing and school resegregation. The second section focuses on an important parallel between racial and economic discrimination. The closing section introduces considerations important for anticipating reactions to, and the costs and benefits of, alternatives to busing for reintegrating schools, as well as several recommendations to which those considerations can be applied.
I am amazed how little has been written on busing since the mid-1970s.
The Brennan Center for Justice recounts a recent conference at Fordham Law School on state judicial elections which featured former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer. At issue were the implications of state judicial elections for judicial independence and citizens’ views of courts. O’Connor kicked things off:
O’Connor said she remembered seeing “Impeach Earl Warren” signs in New Mexico and Arizona when she was growing up, and said that in her final years on the Supreme Court, attacks on judges increased, including proposals for mass impeachments of judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case, or proposals to cut judicial terms short, or a particularly disconcerting movement towards “Jail4Judges,” a campaign to allow citizen panels to review rulings from the bench, with the ability to even imprison—as the name tantalizingly implies—those who made bad decisions. These developments were “very depressing,” she said, and so she decided to use her retirement to call attention to these attacks on judges.
“An independent judiciary is an essential bedrock principle, and we’re losing it.” The reason was in part the fact that civics and government are not a requirement for high school graduation. “One third of Americans can’t name the three branches of government, but two thirds can name a judge on American Idol!” …..
She went on. “No other nation in the world elects judges.” She pointed to Georgina Woods, the chief justice of Ghana, sitting in the front row, as if to illustrate her point.
“Why are we tolerating this? What are we going to do about it?” Then, seeming to remember that the initial question posed to her several minutes before was “why did you convene this conference,” she added, “That’s why,” and sat back in her chair. The audience laughed and applauded.
Justice Breyer then provided some thoughts on the matter:
Breyer took the floor next. Keeping state courts impartial is a major issue, but try talking about it with people “and they’re asleep after five minutes.” He recounted a trip to Russia he had made when serving as an appellate judge for the First Circuit after he was appointed by Carter. Meeting with Russian judges from across the country, he was surprised to hear their accounts of “telephone justice,” when the party boss calls and tells judges which way to vote. “They asked me, ‘do you have telephone justice in the United States,’ and I had to explain to them that no, the President wouldn’t call you. He’d be crazy to do that.”
More and more people today think that judges make decisions based on politics rather than the law, he added. O’Connor began to interrupt, then changed her mind. “No, no,” she said, waving her hand at him, “you tell them.”
He continued. “It’s extraordinary that three hundred million people have agreed to settle disputes using the law, not sticks and stones on the street, like they do in some places.”
Q. There has been some talk again about inflation. I don’t know . . .
THE PRESIDENT: How do you define inflation?
Q. I don’t know what it is. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: Neither do I. I have gotten to the point where even a cigarette tastes bad.
Q. That is a sign of a cold?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it certainly is.
Has the State Department given you the social program yet?
Q. Yes, it has.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the only news of any real importance that I know of.
I will tell you another thing there is today. If I were writing a story, here is the way I would put it: I don’t know whether you can hear me at the back of the room—my voice isn’t particularly strong this morning, since I have a cold. If I were going to write a story, I would write it along the lines of the decision that was actually taken last Saturday, but which really goes into effect today, by which the Government will not allow the exporting of gold, except earmarked gold for foreign Governments of course, and balances in commercial exchange. That is for straight movement.
The whole problem before us is to raise commodity prices. For the last year, the dollar has been shooting up and we decided to quit competition. The general effect probably will be an increase in commodity prices. It might well be called the next step in the general program.
But wait!
Q. Mr. President, is it still the desire of the United States to go back on the international gold standard?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely; one of the things we hope to do is to get the world as a whole back on some form of gold standard. . . .
