defend. And it is in those instances innwhich Lorimer saw his mission specificallynas one of “saving” America fromnan enemy — particularly when the enemyntook the form of national policiesnand politics that threatened Americans’npersonal liberty — that his character andnconvictions can best be seen. The foremostnexample of this was Lorimer’snopposition to FDR and the New Deal.nLorimer had gone to war on othernissues on many previous occasions. LikenWilliam Jennings Bryan and SergeantnAlvin York, Lorimer had been amongnthe group of Americans who staunchlynopposed America’s involvement innWorfd War I, but who threw aside theirnideological differences once war hadnbeen declared and patriotically supportedntheir country’s fight abroad. Lorimernhad also fought passionately and successfullynfor immigration reform in then1920’s.’ But the new foe of the 1930’snwas to Lorimer a foe of uncalculablendanger. Lorimer saw in FDR and thenNew Deal a subversion of everythingnthat was good about Americans andnAmerican culture, and he unleashednupon Roosevelt the full force of his ragenA Periodical of Rare Qualitynand Literary InterestnSend now for a freensample copy of this newnsmall quarterly. Insightfulnessays m the “humane letters”ntraaition, sharp satire, andngenuine poetry make ThenShakespeherian Rag anconsistent delight. AnnualnSubscription rates: $10.00nwithintheU.S., $16.00nfrom abroad.nQ Please send me a free samplencopy of The Shakespeherian Rag.nADDRESSnCrrY/STATE/ZIPnThe Shakespeherian RaenP. O. Box442001/Lawrence,KS 66044n38/CHRONICLESnISSN 1045-7593nand rhetoric.nLorimer did, however, give Rooseveltna chance. During the honeymoon periodnafforded all newly elected Presidents,nhe urged the depressed country to standnbehind Roosevelt. “Republicans andnDemocrats must back up the new Administration,nbut it, in turn, must backnup America.” He steered the Post alongna nonparhsan course in the monthsnTollowing the 1932 election, publishingnarticles with such Htles as “PullnTogether,” and stressing how “absolutelynessential” it was that “the peoplenshould give their support and confidencento President Roosevelt.” ButnLorimer could not stay this course fornlong, and the December 9, 1933, issuenof the Post signaled an end to the trucenif not an open declaration of war onnRoosevelt. The “Brain Trust” receivednthe Post’s first volley. Nothing ranklednLorimer more than the radical-professor-turned-policymaker,nand he urgednthe public to stay vigilant as to the truenmission of these “best and the brighte,st”:n”No thoughtful man can escapenthe conclusion that many of the brainntrust’s ideas and plans are based onnRussian ideology; that we are steadilynbeing herded to the left; and. thatnfundamental American ideas are inndanger of being scrapped.”nDuring the next three years Lorimerntried to keep the country’s morale highnwith uplifting fiction and celebrity profiles,nbut he continued relentlessly innhis editorials to hammer at what he sawnas the administraHon’s abuses: economically,nits policies had fueled monetaryndevaluation; politically, it hadnwaged war on the Constitution, subvertednthe civil service, and reinstitutednthe spoils system; and morally andnculturally, the New Deal’s socialistnagenda — of a leviathan state promisingnsubsistence without work and securitynwithout self-sacrifice — had underminednif not eradicated what was bestnin the American character. To thenubiquitous cry “Is everybody happy?”nLorimer sourly replied: “No . . . notnthose who hold fast to old-fashioned,ncommonsense ideas of thrift, economy,ngood faith and personal liberty.”nCohn contends that Roosevelt’snlandslide victory in the 1936 electionndismayed Lorimer but did not lead tonhis decision to resign as editor. He hadnbeen diagnosed as having cancer, andnhis failing health is what prompted hisnnnresignation on January 1, 1937. Hendied ten months later.nThe December 26, 1936, issue ofnthe Post was the last one edited bynLorimer, and his editoral, “LookingnForward,” the only editorial he evernsigned, was an unsentimental farewell.nHe made it clear to his readers that, forngood or ill, and for nearly four decades,nthe magazine had been the voice ofnGeorge Lorimer. “Up to the hournwhen this number of The SaturdaynEvening Post goes to press, I havenformulated its policies, planned thennumbers, and personally read and selectednthe material for them.” And hentook this opportunity to summarizenone final time his and the magazine’sneditorial position. The Post had alwaysnencouraged and supported reasonablenchange, but never “cure-alls,” andnnever “change for the sake of change.”nIf it is true, as Cohn concludes, thatnthe 20th century had outgrown Lorimer’sn19th-century rhetoric, that hisnconception of “nineteenth-centurynbourgeois America had by the mid-n1930s become increasingly distantnfrom social reality,” it is also true thatnLorimer had correctly assessed America’snsocial and cultural state. He correcdynforesaw the social, moral, andncultural implications of a welfare economy,nand he correctly traced thenAmerican leviathan to the Rooseveltnadministration. We must “render untonRoosevelt the things that are Roosevelt’s,”nLorimer concluded in a bitternturn of phrase. He also correctly discernednthe modern American’s infatuationnwith “rights.” In a statement thatnembodies as much wisdom today as itndid when he wrote it in 1936, Lorimernsaid: “I marvel whence mankind derivesnall these newly proclaimed rights.nHe came into being without a stitch tonhis back or right of any kind. Whatnrights he now enjoys are such becausen[they are] embodied in laws andncodes.” And he perceptively drew attentionnto one of the least attractivenaspects of modern American culture:nthe intolerance of frank and free discussion.nIn a 1933 response to FDR’snattacks on the loyalty of those whoncridcized his policies, he wrote: “Wenare in danger of making it a crime tondisagree with those who hold ideas andnbeliefs contrary to our own.” Prescience,nCohn might have added, wasnone of Lorimer’s virtues. <^n