I picked up on Farley’s comments, too. Nowhere in the article did it say, in terms of policy, what it meant to be “liberal” or “conservative,” except in Farley’s comments.
“Social and economic justice” meant then what they mean today; social justice through buying votes of masses of government dependents. Economic justice is the redistribution of wealth from the producers to the government, so that they can fuel their social justice programs. FDR said that anyone who thought differently should be run out of the party.
This article makes it very clear that when someone says the modern democrat party is “not the party of your grand daddy,” you can bring up this article. Looks like the only way it’s different is that the purge has been completed.
My theory is, the NYT of that day, as today, was simply a house organ for the Democrat Party. So naturally, it would emphasize "Roosevelt's choice," (not to be confused with Hobson's Choice), without supplying any details about what issues were involved.
Odd though, how one issued did somehow mysteriously pop up. Who but the NYTimes could fail to "connect the dots" between the entirely "coincidental" increase over 11% in tax receipts with the corresponding 10% reduction in national income??
Nobody, except apparently our idiot Republicans of the time. Wonder if they (we!) are any smarter today? ;-)