Having made some general observations on the aspirations and obstacles of fascist ideology in democratic countries, we shall now attempt to weigh the actual possibilities of a further spread of autocratic rule in the principal states of Europe. Herein we cannot abstain from a certain amount of prophecy, with all the hazards of statements not entirely based on undisputable fact; but we shall try to keep the forecast within reasonable bounds and to fortify it by reference to actual experience in the different countries under survey. Instead of travelling rather haphazardly over Europe, we should prefer a systematic grouping of the different countries which have not yet adopted autocracy. However, we shall find it rather difficult to discover a reasonable line of division; and accordingly we shall deal with each state separately and determine in the course of our journey whether some synoptical conclusions are permissible.

The border position of geography between the natural and the social sciences is fairly generally recognized. Concerned primarily with differences in the different areas of the world, geography studies both natural and cultural features. In some universities, it is included among the natural sciences, in others among the social sciences. In England and America, geographers have particularly cultivated that portion of their field which leads naturally into economics, i.e., economic geography. Much less attention has been paid to the relations with history, although various geographers and historians have studied what has variously been called historical geography or geographic history. Even less have geographers in the English-speaking countries concerned themselves with that portion of their subject which bears upon the political areas of the world. The territorial problems of the war and postwar period, however, stimulated activity in this field both in England and America, the most notable product of which is Bowman's The New World, consisting in large part of the materials gathered for the American Commission to the Peace Conference.

Although my subject is President Roosevelt's Latin-American policy (to March, 1935), I shall take the liberty of treating it in a broad way so as to include some developments prior to the advent of the Roosevelt Administration, in order to have a background for the better understanding of the more recent developments.

Although the subject, as stated, envisages merely foreign policy, it should be borne in mind that foreign policy and domestic policy cannot be kept entirely separate, as if they existed in water-tight compartments. A united front in foreign policy is sometimes urged, and it is argued that party politics, as the saying goes, should stop at the water's edge. This, however, is a specious argument intended to put into the position of being unpatriotic those who oppose the foreign policy of the Administration. A united front in respect to foreign relations is no more possible or to be expected than in domestic affairs, because foreign and domestic affairs are closely related.

Attention has been drawn recently to the possibility of a Fascist revolution in the United States—by the Dickstein Committee, by journalistic and cinematic exposés of Fascist tendencies, by the revival of the 1918–20 “Red-baiting” spirit and technique, and by the fervent and constant agitation of the League Against War and Fascism and related organizations. Little is said seriously in responsible circles of the possibility of a Communist revolution, that being so overworked a thesis that all are aware of whatever drift in that direction there may be. Hence the present discussion of Fascist tendencies must not be taken to imply the impossibility of a swing to the left, but rather simply to denote an interest in a more novel movement to the right.

In these times, when governmental costs are mounting and to many it seems impossible to balance the national budget, all sorts of bizarre proposals are being made to raise additional revenue. They run the gamut from a national governmental lottery, through various modes of inflation, via the printing-press route and all points rightward, to excessive forms of graduated taxes, which may kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The importance of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution of the United States as an untapped source of untold revenue has been overlooked. The constitutional provision reads: “The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

Students of government and well-informed public citizens usually point to Thomas B. Reed of Maine as the first Speaker of the House of Representatives to use the prerogative of his office and the rules of the House to force the passage of legislation demanded by the leaders of the majority party. Likewise “Uncle Joe” Cannon of Illinois is usually held up as the undesirable product of this concept of legislative procedure. Little attention has been centered on earlier Speakers such as James G. Blaine of Maine and Samuel J. Randall of Pennsylvania, who laid the foundations of such a tradition. Blaine contributed to this theory of dictatorial leadership by his committee selections, his partisan decisions, his personal attractiveness, and his expansion of the Speaker's prerogative in situations which allowed him to exercise his discretion. Randall, as Speaker, followed the course laid down by Blaine, but went a step further by actually seeking to add to his powers by changes in the rules. This effort produced important modifications which cleared out the underbrush of tangled rules, thus preparing the way for the later timber-felling reforms of “Czar Reed.”

Growth of Administrative Services. Any one returning to Washington after an absence of several years must be struck at once by the physical changes which have taken place in the political nerve center of the nation. These changes are largely the result of the erection of new government buildings and the clearing away of old structures to make way for others yet to come. In May, 1932, the Washington telephone directory listed 663 office telephones under the heading “United States Government.” In June, 1935, it listed 892, or a gain of nearly 35 per cent for the three-year period. This expansion of physical equipment may be said to symbolize the growth of the administrative organization of the national government. One sees on every hand new departmental edifices, and whole buildings now occupied by bureaus or commissions which were formerly tucked away in departmental buildings, or by new independent agencies which were non-existent until a year or two ago.

In the December, 1933, issue of the REVIEW, pp. 942–955, appeared a tabular review of the changes in major units of the national government between March 4 and November 1, 1933. Supplementary lists have appeared in the following issues: April, 1934, changes between November 1, 1933, and March 15, 1934; October, 1934, changes between March 15 and June 30, 1934; February, 1935, changes between June 30 and December 15, 1934; August, 1935, changes between December 15, 1934, and July 5, 1935. The present list indicates the reorganizations effected and new units created between July 5 and August 12, 1935. As in previous lists, mention is made of units only specifically authorized by law or established by the President under general authority vested in him.

This year, Sweden is celebrating the five hundreth anniversary of the Riksdag, or national parliament. Appropriate ceremonies were observed in January at the opening of the annual session in Stockholm, and near the end of May the entire Riksdag and the royal family journeyed to the little town of Arboga, in central Sweden, where the first meeting of the parliament was held in 1435. There an impressive celebration was held, culminating in the unveiling of a statue to Engelbrekt, the first, and one of the greatest, in a long line of remarkable leaders in the cause of the common people of Sweden. It was Engelbrekt who led the revolt against the union with Denmark-Norway in 1434, and who, on January 13, 1435, convened at Arboga an assembly representative not only of the nobles and the clergy but also of the commons—the citizens of the towns and the farmers of the countryside.

When the United States last year became a member of the International Labor Organization, many people deplored the decision as being the first covert step toward full membership in the League of Nations. Those whose outlook was more sympathetic to international cooperation replied, in defense, that the Labor Organization is independent of the League, having its own buildings, its own separate organs, its own secretariat, and so on; that its membership is not identical with that of the League; and that therefore a state, by becoming a member of the Labor Organization assumed no connection whatever with the League.

In 1934, Congress passed a joint resolution providing for American membership in the International Labor Organization which stated: “The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the government of the United States in the International Labor Organization, which through its general conference of representatives of its members and through its International Labor Office, collects information concerning labor throughout the world and prepares conventions for the consideration of member governments with a view to improving conditions of labor.”