JANUARY 6, 1954
NEW YORK, Tuesday—I came back to New York City from Hyde Park, Sunday afternoon. We really did leave the little cottage there deserted, which seems strange, for ever since the middle of November my granddaughter and her two children have been permanent residents and they did create a lively atmosphere! However, she and her husband and children left by car on the second of January for Carbondale, Ill., where he has taken a job with the University of Southern Illinois.
My son and his family had spent part of Sunday morning dismantling their big Christmas tree and they were all rather sad as we walked back from their house to mine. John said to me, "I hate taking the Christmas tree down. It is always such a pity to bring this happy season to an end and feel that it means the end of the holidays, too." I think that is how we all felt but there seems to be plenty to do as soon as one gets back to New York.
I notice with interest in the papers that the National Manufacturers Association1 says that the Taft-Hartley Law instead of being eased should be given more teeth and if that cannot be done, to leave it alone. There has been such a long conflict over this law that it seems strange at this time to find opposition even from the National Manufacturers Association 2.
President Eisenhower assured the American Federation of Labor3 and the Congress of Industrial Organizations sometime ago that he would send in his proposals for changes in the law and that these proposals would be an attempt to make the law absolutely fair to the workers, employers, and public. It is evident, however, that there is going to be a real fight on any changes that are not changes which labor would consider unfair. It is likely that in dealing with this question there will be a split in the Republican Party.
Senator Ives and the progressive Republican members of Congress will undoubtedly be willing to accept some changes affecting the sections which the unions have found most unfair. This will again mean, if the President leads the progressive wing of his party, that he will need Democratic votes to back him and to achieve the legislation which he wants.
It is to be hoped that the Democratic leadership will uphold anything progressive and constructive that the President proposes. Just to oppose measures because they are Republican proposals is foolish. It is important that the country should understand just what the Democratic Party is doing and where the Democratic Party stands on all these questions. In the long run people have to make up their minds where their allegiance should go on the position a party takes on questions which touch the lives of the people.