{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_5399/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_5399","id":"gutenberg_5399","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5399","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Democracy","World War, 1914-1918 -- United States"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nAN ESSAY ON THE AMERICAN CONTRIBUTION AND THE DEMOCRATIC IDEA\n\nBy Winston Churchill\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nFailure to recognize that the American, is at heart an idealist is\nto lack understanding of our national character. Two of our greatest\ninterpreters proclaimed it, Emerson and William James. In a recent\naddress at the Paris Sorbonne on \"American Idealism,\" M. Firmin Roz\nobserved that a people is rarely justly estimated by its contemporaries.\nThe French, he says, have been celebrated chiefly for the skill of their\nchefs and their vaudeville actors, while in the disturbed 'speculum\nmundi' Americans have appeared as a collection of money grabbers whose\nphilosophy is the dollar. It remained for the war to reveal the true\nnature of both peoples. The American colonists, M. Roz continues, unlike\nother colonists, were animated not by material motives, but by the\ndesire to safeguard and realize an ideal; our inherent characteristic\ntoday is a belief in the virtue and power of ideas, of a national,\nindeed, of a universal, mission. In the Eighteenth Century we proposed\na Philosophy and adopted a Constitution far in advance of the political\npractice of the day, and set up a government of which Europe predicted\nthe early downfall. Nevertheless, thanks partly to good fortune, and\nto the farseeing wisdom of our early statesmen who perceived that the\nsuccess of our experiment depended upon the maintenance of an isolation\nfrom European affairs, we established democracy as a practical form of\ngovernment.\n\nWe have not always lived up to our beliefs in ideas. In our dealings\nwith other nations, we yielded often to imperialistic ambitions and\nthus, to a certain extent, justified the cynicism of Europe. We took\nwhat we wanted--and more. From Spain we seized western Florida; the\nannexation of Texas and the subsequent war with Mexico are acts upon\nwhich we cannot look back with unmixed democratic pride; while more than\nonce we professed a naive willingness to fight England in order to\npush our boundaries further north. We regarded the Monroe Doctrine as\naltruistic, while others smiled. But it suited England, and her sea\npower gave it force.\n\nOur war with Spain in 1898, however, was fought for an idea, and,\ndespite the imperialistic impulse that followed it, marks a transition,\nan advance, in international ethics. Imperialistic cynics were not\nlacking to scoff at our protestation that we were fighting Spain in\norder to liberate Cuba; and yet this, for the American people at large,\nwas undoubtedly the inspiration of the war. We kept our promise, we did\nnot annex Cuba, we introduced into international affairs what is known\nas the Big Brother idea. Then came the Platt Amendment. Cuba was free,\nbut she must not wallow near our shores in an unhygienic state, or\nborrow money without our consent. We acquired valuable naval bases.\nMoreover, the sudden and unexpected acquisition of Porto Rico and the\nPhilippines made us imperialists in spite of ourselves.\n\nNations as well as individuals, however, must be judged by their\nintentions. The sound public opinion of our people has undoubtedly\nremained in favour of ultimate self-government for the Philippines, and\nthe greatest measure of self-determination for little Porto Rico; it has\nbeen unquestionably opposed to commercial exploitation of the islands,\ndesirous of yielding to these peoples the fruits of their labour in\ndeveloping the resources of their own lands. An intention, by the\nway, diametrically different from that of Germany. In regard to our\nprotectorate in the island of San Domingo, our \"semi-protectorate\" in\nNicaragua, the same argument of intention may fairly be urged. Germany,\nwho desired them, would have exploited them. To a certain extent, no\ndoubt, as a result of the momentum of commercial imperialism, we are\nstill exploiting them. But the attitude of the majority of Americans\ntoward more backward peoples is not cynical; hence there is hope that a\ndemocratic solution of the Caribbean and Central American problem may\nbe found. And we are not ready, as yet, to accept without further\nexperiment the dogma that tropical and sub-tropical people will not\nultimately be able to govern themselves. If this eventually, prove to be\nthe case at least some such experiment as the new British Labour Party\nhas proposed for the Empire may be tried. Our general theory that the\nexploitation of foreign peoples reacts unfavourably on the exploiters is\nundoubtedly sound.\n\nNor are the ethics of the manner of our acquisition of a part of Panama\nand the Canal wholly defensible from the point of view of international\ndemocracy. Yet it must be remembered that President Roosevelt was\ndealing with a corrupt, irresponsible, and hostile government, and that\nthe Canal had become a necessity not only for our own development, but\nfor that of the civilization of the world.\n\nThe Spanish War, as has been said, marked a transition, a development\nof the American Idea. In obedience to a growing perception that dominion\nand exploitation are incompatible with and detrimental to our system of\ngovernment, we fought in good faith to gain self-determination for an\nalien people. The only real peril confronting democracy is the arrest\nof growth. Its true conquests are in the realms of ideas, and hence it\ncalls for a statesmanship which, while not breaking with the past, while\ntaking into account the inherent nature of a people, is able to deal\ncreatively with new situations--always under the guidance of current\nsocial science.\n\nWoodrow Wilson's Mexican policy, being a projection of the American Idea\nto foreign affairs, a step toward international democracy, marks the\nbeginning of a new era. Though not wholly understood, though opposed by\na powerful minority of our citizens, it stirred the consciousness of a\nnational mission to which our people are invariably ready to respond.\nSince it was essentially experimental, and therefore not lacking in\nmistakes, there was ample opportunity for a criticism that seemed at\ntimes extremely plausible. The old and tried method of dealing with such\nanarchy as existed across our southern border was made to seem the safe\none; while the new, because it was untried, was presented as disastrous.\nIn reality, the reverse was the case.\n\nMr. Wilson's opponents were, generally speaking, the commercial classes\nin the community, whose environment and training led them to demand\na foreign policy similar to that of other great powers, a financial\nimperialism which is the logical counterpart in foreign affairs of the\ncommercial exploitation of domestic national resources and domestic\nlabour. These were the classes which combated the growth of democracy at\nhome, in national and state politics. From their point of view--not\nthat of the larger vision--they were consistent. On the other hand, the\nnation grasped the fact that to have one brand of democracy at home and\nanother for dealing with foreign nations was not only illogical but, in\nthe long run, would be suicidal to the Republic. And the people at large\nwere committed to democratic progress at home. They were struggling for\nit.\n\nOne of the most important issues of the American liberal movement early\nin this century had been that for the conservation of what remains\nof our natural resources of coal and metals and oil and timber and\nwaterpower for the benefit of all the people, on the theory that these\nare the property of the people. But if the natural resources of this\ncountry belong to the people of the United States, those of Mexico\nbelong to the people of Mexico. It makes no difference how \"lazy,\"\nignorant, and indifferent to their own interests the Mexicans at present\nmay be. And even more important in these liberal campaigns was the issue\nof the conservation of human resources--men and women and children who\nare forced by necessity to labour. These must be protected in health,\ngiven economic freedom and a just reward for their toil. The American\ndemocracy, committed to the principle of the conservation of domestic\nnatural and human resources, could not without detriment to itself\npersist in a foreign policy that ignored them. For many years our\nown government had permitted the squandering of these resources by\nadventurous capitalists; and gradually, as we became a rich industrial\nnation, these capitalists sought profitable investments for their\nincreasing surplus in foreign lands. Their manner of acquiring\n\"concessions\" in Mexico was quite similar to that by which they had\nseized because of the indifference and ignorance of our own people--our\nown mines and timber lands which our government held in trust. Sometimes\nthese American \"concessions\" have been valid in law though the law\nitself violated a democratic principle; more often corrupt officials\nwinked at violations of the law, enabling capitalists to absorb bogus\nclaims.\n\nThe various rulers of Mexico sold to American and other foreign\ncapitalists the resources belonging to the people of their country, and\npocketed, with their followers, the proceeds of the sale. Their control\nof the country rested upon force; the stability of the Diaz rule,\nfor instance, depended upon the \"President's\" ability to maintain his\ndictatorship--a precarious guarantee to the titles he had given. Hence\nthe premium on revolutions. There was always the incentive to the\nupstart political and military buccaneer to overthrow the dictator and\ngain possession of the spoils, to sell new doubtful concessions and levy\nnew tribute on the capitalists holding claims from a former tyrant.\n\nThe foreign capitalists appealed to their governments; commercial\nimperialism responded by dispatching military forces to protect the\nlives and \"property\" of its citizens, in some instances going so far as\nto take possession of the country. A classic case, as cited by Hobson,\nis Britain's South African War, in which the blood and treasure of the\npeople of the United Kingdom were expended because British capitalists\nhad found the Boers recalcitrant, bent on retaining their own country\nfor themselves. To be sure, South Africa, like Mexico is rich in\nresources for which advancing civilization continually makes demands.\nAnd, in the case of Mexico, the products of the tropics, such as rubber,\nare increasingly necessary to the industrial powers of the temperate\nzone. On the other hand, if the exploiting nation aspire to\nself-government, the imperialistic method of obtaining these products\nby the selfish exploitation of the natural and human resources of the\nbackward countries reacts so powerfully on the growth of democracy at\nhome--and hence on the growth of democracy throughout the world--as to\nthreaten the very future of civilization. The British Liberals, when\nthey came into power, perceived this, and at once did their best to\nmake amends to South Africa by granting her autonomy and virtual\nindependence, linking her to Britain by the silken thread of Anglo-Saxon\ndemocratic culture. How strong this thread has proved is shown by the\naction of those of Dutch blood in the Dominion during the present war.\n\nEventually, if democracy is not to perish from the face of the earth,\nsome other than the crude imperialistic method of dealing with backward\npeoples, of obtaining for civilization the needed resources of their\nlands, must be inaugurated--a democratic method. And this is perhaps\nthe supreme problem of democracy today. It demands for its solution a\ncomplete reversal of the established policy of imperialism, a new theory\nof international relationships, a mutual helpfulness and partnership\nbetween nations, even as democracy implies cooperation between\nindividual citizens. Therefore President Wilson laid down the doctrine\nthat American citizens enter Mexico at their own risk; that they must\nnot expect that American blood will be shed or the nation's money be\nexpended to protect their lives or the \"property\" they have acquired\nfrom Mexican dictators. This applies also to the small capitalists,\nthe owners of the coffee plantations, as well as to those Americans in\nMexico who are not capitalists but wage earners. The people of Mexico\nare entitled to try the experiment of self-determination. It is an\nexperiment, we frankly acknowledge that fact, a democratic experiment\ndependent on physical science, social science, and scientific education.\nThe other horn of the dilemma, our persistence in imperialism, is even\nworse--since by such persistence we destroy ourselves.\n\nA subjective judgment, in accordance with our own democratic standards,\nby the American Government as to the methods employed by a Huerta, for\ninstance, is indeed demanded; not on the ground, however, that such\nmethods are \"good\" or \"bad\"; but whether they are detrimental to Mexican\nself-determination, and hence to the progress of our own democracy.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nIf America had started to prepare when Belgium was invaded, had entered\nthe war when the Lusitania was sunk, Germany might by now have been\ndefeated, hundreds of thousands of lives might have been spared. All\nthis may be admitted. Yet, looking backward, it is easy to read the\nreason for our hesitancy in our national character and traditions.\nWe were pacifists, yes, but pacifists of a peculiar kind. One of our\ngreatest American prophets, William James, knew that there was an issue\nfor which we were ready to fight, for which we were willing to make the\nextreme sacrifice,--and that issue he defined as \"war against war.\" It\nremained for America to make the issue.\n\nPeoples do not rush to arms unless their national existence is\nthreatened. It is what may be called the environmental cause that drives\nnations quickly into war. It drove the Entente nations into war, though\nincidentally they were struggling for certain democratic institutions,\nfor international justice. But in the case of America, the environmental\ncause was absent. Whether or not our national existence was or is\nactually threatened, the average American does not believe that it is.\nHe was called upon to abandon his tradition, to mingle in a European\nconflict, to fight for an idea alone. Ideas require time to develop, to\nseize the imagination of masses. And it must be remembered that in 1914\nthe great issue had not been defined. Curiously enough, now that it\nis defined, it proves to be an American issue--a logical and positive\nprojection of our Washingtonian tradition and Monroe doctrine. These\nhad for their object the preservation and development of democracy,\nthe banishment from the Western Hemisphere of European imperialistic\nconflict and war. We are now, with the help of our allies, striving to\nbanish these things from the face of the earth. It is undoubtedly\nthe greatest idea for which man has been summoned to make the supreme\nsacrifice.\n\nIts evolution has been traced. Democracy was the issue in the Spanish\nWar, when we fought a weak nation. We have followed its broader\napplication to Mexico, when we were willing to ignore the taunts and\ninsults of another weak nation, even the loss of \"prestige,\" for the\nsake of the larger good. And we have now the clue to the President's\ninterpretation of the nation's mind during the first three years of the\npresent war. We were willing to bear the taunts and insults of Germany\nso long as it appeared that a future world peace night best be brought\nabout by the preservation of neutrality, by turning the weight of the\nimpartial public opinion of our democracy and that of other neutrals\nagainst militarism and imperialism. Our national aim was ever consistent\nwith the ideal of William James, to advance democracy and put an end to\nthe evil of war.\n\nThe only sufficient reason for the abandonment of the Washingtonian\npolicy is the furtherance of the object for which it was inaugurated,\nthe advance of democracy. And we had established the precedent,\nwith Spain and Mexico, that the Republic shall engage in no war of\nimperialistic conquest. We war only in behalf of, or in defence of,\ndemocracy.\n\nBefore the entrance of America, however, the issues of the European\nWar were by no means clear cut along democratic lines. What kind of\ndemocracy were the allies fighting for? Nowhere and at no time had it\nbeen defined by any of their statesmen. On the contrary, the various\nallied governments had entered into compacts for the transference\nof territory in the event of victory; and had even, by the offer of\nrewards, sought to play one small nation against another. This secret\ndiplomacy of bargains, of course, was a European heritage, the result of\nan imperialistic environment which the American did not understand,\nand from which he was happily free. Its effect on France is peculiarly\nenlightening. The hostility of European governments, due to their fear\nof her republican institutions, retarded her democratic growth, and\nher history during the reign of Napoleon III is one of intrigue for\naggrandizement differing from Bismarck's only in the fact that it was\nunsuccessful. Britain, because she was separated from the continent and\nprotected by her fleet, virtually withdrew from European affairs in\nthe latter part of the nineteenth century, and, as a result, made great\nstrides in democracy. The aggressions of Germany forced Britain in\nself-defence into coalitions. Because of her power and wealth she became\nthe Entente leader, yet her liberal government was compelled to enter\ninto secret agreements with certain allied governments in order to\nsatisfy what they deemed to be their needs and just ambitions. She had\nhonestly sought, before the war, to come to terms with Germany, and had\neven proposed gradual disarmament. But, despite the best intentions,\ncircumstances and environment, as well as the precarious situation of\nher empire, prevented her from liberalizing her foreign relations to\nconform with the growth of democracy within the United Kingdom and the\nDominions. Americans felt a profound pity for Belgium. But she was\nnot, as Cuba had been, our affair. The great majority of our citizens\nsympathized with the Entente, regarded with amazement and disgust the\nsudden disclosure of the true character of the German militaristic\ngovernment. Yet for the average American the war wore the complexion\nof other European conflicts, was one involving a Balance of Power,\nmysterious and inexplicable. To him the underlying issue was not\ndemocratic, but imperialistic; and this was partly because he was unable\nto make a mental connection between a European war and the brand of\ndemocracy he recognized. Preaching and propaganda fail unless it can be\nbrought home to a people that something dear to their innermost nature\nis at stake, that the fate of the thing they most desire, and are\nwilling to make sacrifices for, hangs in the balance.\n\nDuring a decade the old political parties, between which there was\nnow little more than an artificial alignment, had been breaking up.\nAmericans were absorbed in the great liberal movement begun under the\nleadership of President Roosevelt, the result of which was to transform\ndemocracy from a static to a pragmatic and evolutionary conception,--in\norder to meet and correct new and unforeseen evils. Political freedom\nwas seen to be of little worth unless also accompanied by the economic\nfreedom the nation had enjoyed before the advent of industrialism.\nClerks and farmers, professional men and shopkeepers and artisans were\nready to follow the liberal leaders in states and nation; intellectual\nelements from colleges and universities were enlisted. Paralleling\nthe movement, at times mingling with it, was the revolt of labour,\nmanifested not only in political action, but in strikes and violence.\nReadily accessible books and magazines together with club and forum\nlectures in cities, towns, and villages were rapidly educating the\npopulation in social science, and the result was a growing independent\nvote to make politicians despair.\n\nHere was an instance of a democratic culture growing in\nisolation, resentful of all external interference. To millions of\nAmericans--especially in our middle western and western states--bent\nupon social reforms, the European War appeared as an arresting\ninfluence. American participation meant the triumph of the forces\nof reaction. Colour was lent to this belief because the conservative\nelement which had opposed social reforms was loudest in its demand for\nintervention. The wealthy and travelled classes organized preparedness\nparades and distributed propaganda. In short, those who had apparently\ndone their utmost to oppose democracy at home were most insistent that\nwe should embark upon a war for democracy across the seas. Again, what\nkind of democracy? Obviously a status quo, commercially imperialistic\ndemocracy, which the awakening liberal was bent upon abolishing.\n\nThere is undoubtedly in such an office as the American presidency\nsome virtue which, in times of crisis, inspires in capable men an\nintellectual and moral growth proportional to developing events.\nLincoln, our most striking example, grew more between 1861 and 1865\nthan during all the earlier years of his life. Nor is the growth of\ndemocratic leaders, when seen through the distorted passions of\ntheir day, apparently a consistent thing. Greatness, near at hand, is\nstartlingly like inconsistency; it seems at moments to vacillate, to\nturn back upon and deny itself, and thus lays itself open to seemingly\nplausible criticism by politicians and time servers and all who cry out\nfor precedent. Yet it is an interesting and encouraging fact that the\nfaith of democratic peoples goes out, and goes out alone, to leaders\nwho--whatever their minor faults and failings--do not fear to reverse\nthemselves when occasion demands; to enunciate new doctrines, seemingly\nin contradiction to former assertions, to meet new crises. When a\ndemocratic leader who has given evidence of greatness ceases to develop\nnew ideas, he loses the public confidence. He flops back into the ranks\nof the conservative he formerly opposed, who catch up with him only when\nhe ceases to grow.\n\nIn 1916 the majority of the American people elected Mr. Wilson in the\nbelief that he would keep them out of war. In 1917 he entered the war\nwith the nation behind him. A recalcitrant Middle West was the first\nto fill its quota of volunteers, and we witnessed the extraordinary\nspectacle of the endorsement of conscription: What had happened? A very\nsimple, but a very great thing Mr. Wilson had made the issue of the\nwar a democratic issue, an American issue, in harmony with our national\nhopes and traditions. But why could not this issue have been announced\nin 1914 or 1915? The answer seems to be that peoples, as well as their\nleaders and interpreters, must grow to meet critical situations. In 1861\nthe moral idea of the Civil War was obscured and hidden by economic and\nmaterial interests. The Abraham Lincoln who entered the White House in\n1861 was indeed the same man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation\nin 1863; and yet, in a sense, he was not the same man; events and\nresponsibilities had effected a profound but logical growth in his\npersonality. And the people of the Union were not ready to endorse\nEmancipation in 1861. In 1863, in the darkest hour of the war, the\nspirit of the North responded to the call, and, despite the vilification\nof the President, was true to him to victory. More significant still,\nin view of the events of today, is what then occurred in England. The\nBritish Government was unfriendly; the British people as a whole had\nlooked upon our Civil War very much in the same light as the American\npeople regarded the present war at its inception--which is to say that\nthe economic and materialistic issue seemed to overshadow the moral one.\nWhen Abraham Lincoln proclaimed it to be a war for human freedom,\nthe sentiment of the British people changed--of the British people as\ndistinct from the governing classes; and the textile workers of the\nnorthern counties, whose mills could not get cotton on account of the\nblockade, declared their willingness to suffer and starve if the slaves\nin America might be freed.\n\nAbraham Lincoln at that time represented the American people as\nthe British Government did not represent the British people. We are\nconcerned today with peoples rather than governments.\n\nIt remained for an American President to announce the moral issue of the\npresent war, and thus to solidify behind him, not only the liberal mind\nof America, but the liberal elements within the nations of Europe. He\nbecame the democratic leader of the world. The issue, simply stated, is\nthe advancement of democracy and peace. They are inseparable. Democracy,\nfor progress, demands peace. It had reached a stage, when, in a\ncontracting world, it could no longer advance through isolation:\nits very existence in every country was threatened, not only by the\npartisans of reaction from within, but by the menace from without of a\nmilitaristic and imperialistic nation determined to crush it, restore\nsuperimposed authority, and dominate the globe. Democracy, divided\nagainst itself, cannot stand. A league of democratic nations, of\ndemocratic peoples, has become imperative. Hereafter, if democracy wins,\nself-determination, and not imperialistic exploitation, is to be the\nuniversal rule. It is the extension, on a world scale, of Mr.\nWilson's Mexican policy, the application of democratic principles to\ninternational relationships, and marks the inauguration of a new era. We\nresort to force against force, not for dominion, but to make the\nworld safe for the idea on which we believe the future of civilization\ndepends, the sacred right of self-government. We stand prepared to treat\nwith the German people when they are ready to cast off autocracy and\nmilitarism. Our attitude toward them is precisely our attitude toward\nthe Mexican People. We believe, and with good reason, that the German\nsystem of education is authoritative and false, and was more or less\ndeliberately conceived in order to warp the nature and produce\ncomplexes in the mind of the German people for the end of preserving and\nperpetuating the power of the Junkers. We have no quarrel with the\nduped and oppressed, but we war against the agents of oppression. To the\nconservative mind such an aspiration appears chimerical. But America,\nyoungest of the nations, was born when modern science was gathering\nthe momentum which since has enabled it to overcome, with a bewildering\nrapidity, many evils previously held by superstition to be ineradicable.\nAs a corollary to our democratic creed, we accepted the dictum that to\nhuman intelligence all things are possible. The virtue of this dictum\nlies not in dogma, but in an indomitable attitude of mind to which the\nworld owes its every advance in civilization; quixotic, perhaps, but\nnecessary to great accomplishment. In searching for a present-day\nprotagonist, no happier example could be found than Mr. Henry Ford, who\nexhibits the characteristic American mixture of the practical and the\nideal. He introduces into industry humanitarian practices that even\ntend to increase the vast fortune which by his own efforts he has\naccumulated. He sees that democratic peoples do not desire to go to\nwar, he does not believe that war is necessary and inevitable, he lays\nhimself open to ridicule by financing a Peace Mission. Circumstances\nforce him to abandon his project, but he is not for one moment\ndiscouraged. His intention remains. He throws all his energy and wealth\ninto a war to end war, and the value of his contribution is inestimable.\n\nA study of Mr. Ford's mental processes and acts illustrates the true\nmind of America. In the autumn of 1916 Mr. Wilson declared that \"the\npeople of the United States want to be sure what they are fighting\nabout, and they want to be sure that they are fighting for the things\nthat will bring the world justice and peace. Define the elements; let\nus know that we are not fighting for the prevalence of this nation over\nthat, for the ambitions of this group of nations as compared with the\nambitions of that group of nations, let us once be convinced that we are\ncalled in to a great combination for the rights of mankind, and America\nwill unite her force and spill her blood for the great things she has\nalways believed in and followed.\"\n\n\"America is always ready to fight for the things which are American.\"\nEven in these sombre days that mark the anniversary of our entrance into\nthe war. But let it be remembered that it was in the darkest days of the\nCivil War Abraham Lincoln boldly proclaimed the democratic, idealistic\nissue of that struggle. The Russian Revolution, which we must seek\nto understand and not condemn, the Allied defeats that are its\nconsequences, can only make our purpose the firmer to put forth all our\nstrength for the building up of a better world. The President's masterly\nseries of state papers, distributed in all parts of the globe, have\nindeed been so many Proclamations of Emancipation for the world's\noppressed. Not only powerful nations shall cease to exploit little\nnations, but powerful individuals shall cease to exploit their fellow\nmen. Henceforth no wars for dominion shall be waged, and to this\nend secret treaties shall be abolished. Peoples through their\nrepresentatives shall make their own treaties. And just as democracy\ninsures to the individual the greatest amount of self-determination,\nnations also shall have self-determination, in order that each shall be\nfree to make its world contribution. All citizens have duties to\nperform toward their fellow citizens; all democratic nations must be\ninterdependent.\n\nWith this purpose America has entered the war. But it implies that our\nown household must be swept and cleaned. The injustices and inequalities\nexisting in our own country, the false standards of worth, the\nmaterialism, the luxury and waste must be purged from our midst.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nIn fighting Germany we are indeed fighting an evil Will--evil because it\nseeks to crush the growth of individual and national freedom. Its object\nis to put the world back under the thrall of self-constituted authority.\nSo long as this Will can compel the bodies of soldiers to do its\nbidding, these bodies must be destroyed. Until the Will behind them is\nbroken, the world cannot be free. Junkerism is the final expression\nof reaction, organized to the highest efficiency. The war against the\nJunkers marks the consummation of a long struggle for human liberty in\nall lands, symbolizes the real cleavage dividing the world. As in the\nFrench Revolution and the wars that followed it, the true significance\nof this war is social. But today the Russian Revolution sounds the\nkeynote. Revolutions tend to express the extremes of the philosophies\nof their times--human desires, discontents, and passions that cannot be\norganized. The French Revolution was a struggle for political freedom;\nthe underlying issue of the present war is economic freedom--without\nwhich political freedom is of no account. It will not, therefore,\nsuffice merely to crush the Junkers, and with them militarism and\nautocracy. Unless, as the fruit of this appalling bloodshed and\nsuffering, the democracies achieve economic freedom, the war will\nhave been fought in vain. More revolutions, wastage and bloodshed will\nfollow, the world will be reduced to absolute chaos unless, in the more\nadvanced democracies, an intelligent social order tending to remove\nthe causes of injustice and discontent can be devised and ready for\ninauguration. This new social order depends, in turn, upon a world order\nof mutually helpful, free peoples, a league of Nations.--If the world\nis to be made safe for democracy, this democratic plan must be ready for\nthe day when the German Junker is beaten and peace is declared.\n\nThe real issue of our time is industrial democracy we must face that\nfact. And those in America and the Entente nations who continue to\noppose it will do so at their peril. Fortunately, as will be shown, that\nelement of our population which may be designated as domestic Junkers\nis capable of being influenced by contemporary currents of thought,\nis awakening to the realization of social conditions deplorable and\ndangerous. Prosperity and power had made them blind and arrogant. Their\nenthusiasm for the war was, however, genuine; the sacrifices they are\nmaking are changing and softening them; but as yet they can scarcely be\nexpected, as a class, to rejoice over the revelation--just beginning\nto dawn upon their minds--that victory for the Allies spells the end of\nprivilege. Their conception of democracy remains archaic, while wealth\nis inherently conservative. Those who possess it in America have as a\nrule received an education in terms of an obsolete economics, of the\nthought of an age gone by. It is only within the past few years that our\ncolleges and universities have begun to teach modern economics,\nsocial science and psychology--and this in the face of opposition from\ntrustees. Successful business men, as a rule, have had neither the time\nnor the inclination to read books which they regard as visionary,\nas subversive to an order by which they have profited. And that some\nAmericans are fools, and have been dazzled in Europe by the glamour of a\nprivilege not attainable at home, is a deplorable yet indubitable fact.\nThese have little sympathy with democracy; they have even been heard\nto declare that we have no right to dictate to another nation, even an\nenemy nation, what form of government it shall assume. We have no right\nto demand, when peace comes, that the negotiations must be with the\nrepresentatives of the German people. These are they who deplore the\nabsence among us of a tradition of monarchy, since the American people\n\"should have something to look up to.\" But this state of mind, which\nneeds no comment, is comparatively rare, and represents an extreme. We\nare not lacking, however, in the type of conservative who, innocent of a\nknowledge of psychology, insists that \"human nature cannot be changed,\"\nand that the \"survival of the fittest\" is the law of life, yet these\nwould deny Darwin if he were a contemporary. They reject the idea that\nsociety can be organized by intelligence, and war ended by eliminating\nits causes from the social order. On the contrary they cling to the\northodox contention that war is a necessary and salutary thing, and\nproclaim that the American fibre was growing weak and flabby from luxury\nand peace, curiously ignoring the fact that their own economic class,\nthe small percentage of our population owning sixty per cent. of the\nwealth of the country, and which therefore should be most debilitated by\nluxury, was most eager for war, and since war has been declared has most\namply proved its courage and fighting quality. This, however, and other\nevidences of the patriotic sacrifices of those of our countrymen who\npossess wealth, prove that they are still Americans, and encourages the\nhope and belief that as Americans they ultimately will do their share\ntoward a democratic solution of the problem of society. Many of them are\ncapable of vision, and are beginning to see the light today.\n\nIn America we succeeded in eliminating hereditary power, in obtaining a\nlarge measure of political liberty, only to see the rise of an economic\npower, and the consequent loss of economic liberty. The industrial\ndevelopment of the United States was of course a necessary and desirable\nthing, but the economic doctrine which formed the basis of American\ninstitutions proved to be unsuited to industrialism, and introduced\nunforeseen evils that were a serious menace to the Republic. An\nindividualistic economic philosophy worked admirably while there was\nample land for the pioneer, equality of opportunity to satisfy the\nindividual initiative of the enterprising. But what is known as\nindustrialism brought in its train fear and favour, privilege and\npoverty, slums, disease, and municipal vice, fostered a too rapid\nimmigration, established in America a tenant system alien to our\ntraditions. The conditions which existed before the advent of\nindustrialism are admirably pictured, for instance, in the autobiography\nof Mr. Charles Francis Adams, when he describes his native town of\nQuincy in the first half of the Nineteenth Century. In those early\ncommunities, poverty was negligible, there was no great contrast between\nrich and poor; the artisan, the farmer, the well-to-do merchant met\non terms of mutual self-respect, as man to man; economic class\nconsciousness was non-existent; education was so widespread that\nEuropean travellers wonderingly commented on the fact that we had no\n\"peasantry\"; and with few exceptions every citizen owned a piece of land\nand a home. Property, a refuge a man may call his own, and on which\nhe may express his individuality, is essential to happiness and\nself-respect. Today, less than two thirds of our farmers own their land,\nwhile vast numbers of our working men and women possess nothing but the\nlabour of their hands. The designation of labour as \"property\" by our\ncourts only served to tighten the bonds, by obstructing for a time the\nmovement to decrease the tedious and debilitating hours of contact of\nthe human organism with the machine,--a menace to the future of the\nrace, especially in the case of women and children. If labour is\n\"property,\" wretches driven by economic necessity have indeed only the\nchoice of a change of masters. In addition to the manual workers, an\narmy of clerical workers of both sexes likewise became tenants, and\ndependents who knew not the satisfaction of a real home.\n\nSuch conditions gradually brought about a profound discontent, a\ngrouping of classes. Among the comparatively prosperous there was set\nup a social competition in luxury that was the bane of large and\nsmall communities. Skilled labour banded itself into unions, employers\norganized to oppose them, and the result was a class conflict never\ncontemplated by the founders of the Republic, repugnant to democracy\nwhich by its very nature depends for its existence on the elimination of\nclasses. In addition to this, owing to the unprecedented immigration of\nignorant Europeans to supply the labour demand, we acquired a sinister\nproletariat of unskilled economic slaves. Before the war labour\ndiscovered its strength; since the war began, especially in the allied\nnations with quasi-democratic institutions, it is aware of its power to\nexert a leverage capable of paralyzing industry for a period sufficient\nto destroy the chances of victory. The probability of the occurrence\nof such a calamity depends wholly on whether or not the workman can\nbe convinced that it is his war, for he will not exert himself to\nperpetuate a social order in which he has lost faith, even though he now\nobtains a considerable increase in wages. Agreements entered into with\nthe government by union leaders will not hold him if at any time he\nfails to be satisfied that the present world conflict will not result\nin a greater social justice. This fact has been demonstrated by what\nis known as the \"shop steward\" movement in England, where the workers\nrepudiated the leaders' agreements and everywhere organized local\nstrikes. And in America, the unskilled workers are largely outside of\nthe unions.\n\nThe workman has a natural and laudable desire to share more fully in\nthe good things of life. And it is coming to be recognized that material\nprosperity, up to a certain point, is the foundation of mental and\nspiritual welfare: clean and comfortable surroundings, beauty, rational\namusements, opportunity for a rational satisfaction of the human\ninstincts are essential to contentment and progress. The individual, of\ncourse, must be enlightened; and local labour unions, recognizing\nthis, are spending considerable sums all over the country on schools\nto educate their members. If a workman is a profiteer, he is more to be\nexcused than the business profiteer, against whom his anger is directed;\nif he is a spendthrift, prodigality is a natural consequence of rapid\nacquisition. We have been a nation of spendthrifts.\n\nA failure to grasp the psychology of the worker involves disastrous\nconsequences. A discussion as to whether or not his attitude is\nunpatriotic and selfish is futile. No more profound mistake could be\nmade than to attribute to any element of the population motives wholly\nbase. Human nature is neither all black nor all white, yet is capable\nof supreme sacrifices when adequately appealed to. What we must get into\nour minds is the fact that a social order that insured a large measure\nof democracy in the early days of the Republic is inadequate to meet\nmodern industrial conditions. Higher wages, material prosperity alone\nwill not suffice to satisfy aspirations for a fuller self-realization,\nonce the method by which these aspirations can be gained is glimpsed.\nFor it cannot be too often repeated that the unquenchable conflicts are\nthose waged for ideas and not dollars. These are tinged with religious\nemotion.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nMr. Wilson's messages to the American people and to the world have\nproclaimed a new international order, a League of Democracies. And in a\nrecent letter to New Jersey Democrats we find him warning his party,\nor more properly the nation, of the domestic social changes necessarily\nflowing from his international program. While rightly resolved to\nprosecute the war on the battle lines to the utmost limit of American\nresources, he points out that the true significance of the conflict lies\nin \"revolutionary change.\" \"Economic and social forces,\" he says, \"are\nbeing released upon the world, whose effect no political seer dare to\nconjecture.\" And we \"must search our hearts through and through and\nmake them ready for the birth of a new day--a day we hope and believe\nof greater opportunity and greater prosperity for the average mass of\nstruggling men and women.\" He recognizes that the next great step in\nthe development of democracy which the war must bring about--is the\nemancipation of labour; to use his own phrase, the redemption of masses\nof men and women from \"economic serfdom.\" \"The old party slogans,\" he\ndeclares, \"will mean nothing to the future.\"\n\nJudging from this announcement, the President seems prepared to condemn\nboldly all the rotten timbers of the social structure that have outlived\ntheir usefulness--a position that hitherto no responsible politician has\ndared to take. Politicians, on the contrary, have revered the dead wood,\nhave sought to shore the old timbers for their own purposes. But so\nfar as any party is concerned, Mr. Wilson stands alone. Both of the two\ngreat parties, the Republican and the Democratic, in order to make\na show of keeping abreast of the times, have merely patched their\nplatforms with the new ideas. The Socialist Party in the United States\nis relatively small, is divided against itself, and has given no\nevidence of a leadership of broad sanity and vision. It is fortunate\nwe have been spared in this country the formation of a political labour\nparty, because such a party would have been composed of manual workers\nalone, and hence would have tended further to develop economic class\nconsciousness, to crystallize class antagonisms. Today, however, neither\nthe Republican nor the Democratic party represents the great issue of\nthe times; the cleavage between them is wholly artificial. The formation\nof a Liberal Party, with a platform avowedly based on modern social\nscience, has become essential. Such a party, to be in harmony with our\ntraditions and our creed, to arrest in our democracy the process of\nclass stratification which threatens to destroy it, must not draw its\nmembers from the ranks of manual labour alone, but from all elements\nof our population. It should contain all the liberal professions, and\nclerks and shopkeepers, as well as manual workers; administrators, and\neven those employers who have become convinced that our present\neconomic system does not suffice to meet the needs of the day. In short,\nmembership in such a party, as far as possible, should not be based upon\noccupation or economic status, but on an honest difference of view from\nthat of the conservative opposition. This would be a distinctly American\nsolution. In order to form such a party a campaign of education will\nbe necessary. For today Mr. Wilson's strength is derived from the\nindependent vote representing the faith of the people as a whole; but\nthe majority of those who support the President, while they ardently\ndesire the abolition in the world of absolute monarchy, of militarism\nand commercial imperialism, while they are anxious that this war shall\nexpedite and not retard the social reforms in which they are interested,\nhave as yet but a vague conception of the social order which these\nreforms imply.\n\nIt marks a signal advance in democracy when liberal opinion in any\nnation turns for guidance and support to a statesman of another nation.\nNo clearer sign of the times could be desired than the fact that our\nAmerican President has suddenly become the liberal leader of the world.\nThe traveller in France, and especially in Britain, meets on all sides\nstriking evidence of this. In these countries, until America's entrance\ninto the war, liberals had grown more and more dissatisfied with the\nfailure of their governments to define in democratic terms the issue of\nthe conflict, had resented the secret inter-allied compacts, savouring\nof imperialism and containing the germs of future war. They are now\nlooking across the Atlantic for leadership. In France M. Albert Thomas\ndeclared that Woodrow Wilson had given voice to the aspirations of his\nparty, while a prominent Liberal in England announced in a speech that\nit had remained for the American President to express the will and\npurpose of the British people. The new British Labour Party and the\nInter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conferences have adopted Mr. Wilson's\nprogram and have made use of his striking phrases. But we have between\nAmerica and Britain this difference: in America the President stands\nvirtually alone, without a party behind him representing his views;\nin Britain the general democratic will of the nation is now being\norganized, but has obtained as yet no spokesman in the government.\n\nExtraordinary symptomatic phenomena have occurred in Russia as well as\nin Britain. In Russia the rebellion of an awakening people against an\nage-long tyranny has almost at once leaped to the issue of the day,\ntaken on the complexion of a struggle for industrial democracy. Whether\nthe Germans shall be able to exploit the country, bring about a reaction\nand restore for a time monarchical institutions depends largely upon\nthe fortunes of the war. In Russia there is revolution, with concomitant\nchaos; but in Britain there is evolution, an orderly attempt of a people\nlong accustomed to progress in self-government to establish a new\nsocial order, peacefully and scientifically, and in accordance with a\ntraditional political procedure.\n\nThe recent development of the British Labour Party, although of deep\nsignificance to Americans, has taken place almost without comment in\nthis country. It was formally established in 1900, and was then composed\nof manual workers alone. In 1906, out of 50 candidates at the polls, 39\nwere elected to Parliament; in 1910, 42 were elected. The Parliamentary\nLabour Party, so called, has now been amalgamated with four and a half\nmillions of Trade Unionists, and with the three and a half millions\nof members of the Co-operative Wholesale Society and the Co-operative\nUnion. Allowing for duplication of membership, these three\norganizations--according to Mr. Sidney Webb--probably include two fifths\nof the population of the United Kingdom. \"So great an aggregation of\nworking class organizations,\" he says, \"has never come shoulder to\nshoulder in any country.\" Other smaller societies and organizations are\nlikewise embraced, including the Socialists. And now that the suffrage\nhas been extended, provision is made for the inclusion of women. The new\nparty is organizing in from three to four hundred constituencies, and\nat the next general election is not unlikely to gain control of the\npolitical balance of power.\n\nWith the majority of Americans, however, the word \"labour\" as\ndesignating a party arouses suspicion and distrust. By nature and\ntradition we are inclined to deplore and oppose any tendency toward\nthe stratification of class antagonisms--the result of industrial\ndiscontent--into political groups. The British tradition is likewise\nhostile to such a tendency. But in Britain the industrial ferment has\ngone much further than with us, and such a result was inevitable. By\ntaking advantage of the British experience, of the closer ties now being\nknit between the two democracies, we may in America be spared a stage\nwhich in Britain was necessary. Indeed, the program of the new British\nLabour Party seems to point to a distinctly American solution, one in\nharmony with the steady growth of Anglo-Saxon democracy. For it is now\nannounced that the word \"labour,\" as applied to the new party, does not\nmean manual labour alone, but also mental labour. The British unions\nhave gradually developed and placed in power leaders educated in social\nscience, who have now come into touch with the intellectual leaders\nof the United Kingdom, with the sociologists, economists, and social\nscientists. The surprising and encouraging result of such association is\nthe announcement that the new Labour Party is today publicly thrown open\nto all workers, both by hand and by brain, with the object of securing\nfor these the full fruits of their industry. This means the inclusion of\nphysicians, professors, writers, architects, engineers, and inventors,\nof lawyers who no longer regard their profession as a bulwark of the\nstatus quo; of clerks, of administrators of the type evolved by the war,\nwho indeed have gained their skill under the old order but who now in a\nsocial spirit are dedicating their gifts to the common weal, organizing\nand directing vast enterprises for their governments. In short, all\nuseful citizens who make worthy contributions--as distinguished from\nparasites, profiteers, and drones, are invited to be members; there is\nno class distinction here. The fortunes of such a party are, of course,\ndependent upon the military success of the allied armies and navies. But\nit has defined the kind of democracy the Allies are fighting for, and\nthus has brought about an unqualified endorsement of the war by those\nelements of the population which hitherto have felt the issue to be\nimperialistic and vague rather than democratic and clear cut. President\nWilson's international program is approved of and elaborated.\n\nThe Report on Reconstruction of the new British Labour Party is perhaps\nthe most important political document presented to the world since the\nDeclaration of Independence. And like the Declaration, it is written\nin the pure English that alone gives the high emotional quality of\nsincerity. The phrases in which it tersely describes its objects are\nadmirable. \"What is to be reconstructed after the war is over is\nnot this or that government department, this or that piece of social\nmachinery, but Society itself.\" There is to be a systematic approach\ntowards a \"healthy equality of material circumstance for every person\nborn into the world, and not an enforced dominion over subject nations,\nsubject colonies, subject classes, or a subject sex.\" In industry as\nwell as in government the social order is to be based \"on that equal\nfreedom, that general consciousness of consent, and that widest\nparticipation in power, both economic and political, which is\ncharacteristic of democracy.\" But all this, it should be noted, is not\nto be achieved in a year or two of \"feverish reconstruction\"; \"each\nbrick that the Labour Party helps to lay shall go to erect the structure\nit intends and no other.\"\n\nIn considering the main features of this program, one must have in\nmind whether these are a logical projection and continuation of the\nAnglo-Saxon democratic tradition, or whether they constitute an absolute\nbreak with that tradition. The only valid reason for the adoption of\nsuch a program in America would be, of course, the restoration of some\nsuch equality of opportunity and economic freedom as existed in our\nRepublic before we became an industrial nation. \"The first condition\nof democracy,\"--to quote again from the program, \"is effective personal\nfreedom.\"\n\nWhat is called the \"Universal Enforcement of the National Minimum\"\ncontemplates the extension of laws already on the statute books in order\nto prevent the extreme degradation of the standard of life brought about\nby the old economic system under industrialism. A living minimum wage is\nto be established. The British Labour Party intends \"to secure to\nevery member of the community, in good times and bad alike... all the\nrequisites of healthy life and worthy citizenship.\"\n\nAfter the war there is to be no cheap labour market, nor are the\nmillions of workers and soldiers to fall into the clutches of charity;\nbut it shall be a national obligation to provide each of these with work\naccording to his capacity. In order to maintain the demand for labour\nat a uniform level, the government is to provide public works. The\npopulation is to be rehoused in suitable dwellings, both in rural\ndistricts and town slums; new and more adequate schools and training\ncolleges are to be inaugurated; land is to be reclaimed and afforested,\nand gradually brought under common ownership; railways and canals are to\nbe reorganized and nationalized, mines and electric power systems. One\nof the significant proposals under this head is that which demands the\nretention of the centralization of the purchase of raw materials brought\nabout by the war.\n\nIn order to accomplish these objects there must be a \"Revolution in\nNational Finance.\" The present method of raising funds is denounced; and\nit is pointed out that only one quarter of the colossal expenditure made\nnecessary by the war has been raised by taxation, and that the three\nquarters borrowed at onerous rates is sure to be a burden on the\nnation's future. The capital needed, when peace comes, to ensure a happy\nand contented democracy must be procured without encroaching on the\nminimum standard of life, and without hampering production. Indirect\ntaxation must therefore be concentrated on those luxuries of which it\nis desirable that the consumption be discouraged. The steadily rising\nunearned increment of urban and mineral land ought, by appropriate\ndirect taxation, to be brought into the public exchequer; \"the definite\nteachings of economic science are no longer to be disregarded.\" Hence\nincomes are to be taxed above the necessary cost of family maintenance,\nprivate fortunes during life and at death; while a special capital levy\nmust be made to pay off a substantial portion of the national debt.\n\n\"The Democratic Control of Industry\" contemplates the progressive\nelimination of the private capitalist and the setting free of all who\nwork by hand and brain for the welfare of all.\n\nThe Surplus Wealth is to be expended for the Common Good. That which\nCarlyle designates as the \"inward spiritual,\" in contrast to the\n\"outward economical,\" is also to be provided for. \"Society,\" says the\ndocument, \"like the individual, does not live by bread alone, does not\nexist only for perpetual wealth production.\" First of all, there is to\nbe education according to the highest modern standard; and along with\neducation, the protection and advancement of the public health, 'mens\nsana in corpore sano'. While large sums must be set aside, not only for\noriginal research in every branch of knowledge, but for the promotion\nof music, literature, and fine art, upon which \"any real development of\ncivilization fundamentally depends.\"\n\nIn regard to the British Empire, the Labour Party urges self-government\nfor any people, whatever its colour, proving itself capable, and the\nright of that people to the proceeds of its own toil upon the resources\nof its territory. An unequivocal stand is taken for the establishment,\nas a part of the treaty of peace, of a Universal Society of Nations;\nand recognizing that the future progress of democracy depends upon\nco-operation and fellowship between liberals of all countries, the\nmaintenance of intimate relationships is advocated with liberals\noversea.\n\nFinally, a scientific investigation of each succeeding problem in\ngovernment is insisted upon, and a much more rapid dissemination among\nthe people of the science that exists. \"A plutocratic party may choose\nto ignore science, but no labour party can hope to maintain its position\nunless its proposals are, in fact, the outcome of the best political\nscience of its time.\"\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nThere are, it will be seen, some elements in the program of the new\nBritish Labour Party apparently at variance with American and English\ninstitutions, traditions, and ideas. We are left in doubt, for instance,\nin regard to its attitude toward private property. The instinct for\nproperty is probably innate in humanity, and American conservatism in\nthis regard is, according to certain modern economists, undoubtedly\nsound. A man should be permitted to acquire at least as much property\nas is required for the expression of his personality; such a wise\nlimitation, also, would abolish the evil known as absentee ownership.\nAgain, there will arise in many minds the question whether the funds\nfor the plan of National finance outlined in the program may be obtained\nwithout seriously deranging the economic system of the nation and of the\nworld. The older school denounces the program as Utopian. On the other\nhand, economists of the modern school who have been consulted have\ndeclared it practical. It is certain that before the war began it would\nnot have been thought possible to raise the billions which in four\nyears have been expended on sheer destruction; and one of our saddest\nreflections today must be of regret that a small portion of these\nbillions which have gone to waste could not have been expended for the\nvery purposes outlined--education, public health, the advancement of\nscience and art, public buildings, roads and parks, and the proper\nhousing of populations! It is also dawning upon us, as a result of new\npractices brought about by the war, that our organization of industry\nwas happy-go-lucky, inefficient and wasteful, and that a more scientific\nand economical organization is imperative. Under such a new system it\nmay well be, as modern economists claim, that, we shall have an ample\nsurplus for the Common Good.\n\nThe chief objection to a National or Democratic Control of Industry has\nbeen that it would tend to create vast political machines and thus give\nthe politicians in office a nefarious power. It is not intended here to\nattempt a refutation of this contention. The remedy lies in a changed\nattitude of the employee and the citizen toward government, and the\nfact that such an attitude is now developing is not subject to absolute\nproof. It may be said, however, that no greater menace to democracy\ncould have arisen than the one we seem barely to have escaped--the\ncontrol of politics and government by the capitalistic interests of the\nnation. What seems very clear is that an evolutionary drift toward the\nnational control of industry has for many years been going on, and that\nthe war has tremendously speeded up the tendency. Government has stepped\nin to protect the consumer of necessities from the profiteer, and\nis beginning to set a limit upon profits; has regulated exports and\nimports; established a national shipping corporation and merchant\nmarine, and entered into other industries; it has taken over the\nrailroads at least for the duration of the war, and may take over coal\nmines, and metal resources, as well as the forests and water power; it\nnow contemplates the regulation of wages.\n\nThe exigency caused by the war, moreover, has transformed the former\npractice of international intercourse. Co-operation has replaced\ncompetition. We are reorganizing and regulating our industries, our\nbusiness, making sacrifices and preparing to make more sacrifices in\norder to meet the needs of our Allies, now that they are sore beset. For\na considerable period after the war is ended, they will require our aid.\nWe shall be better off than any other of the belligerent nations, and\nwe shall therefore be called upon to practice, during the years of\nreconstruction, a continuation of the same policy of helpfulness.\nIndeed, for the nations of the world to spring, commercially speaking,\nat one another's throats would be suicidal even if it were possible. Mr.\nSidney Webb has thrown a flood of light upon the conditions likely to\nprevail. For example, speculative export trade is being replaced by\ncollective importing, bringing business more directly under the control\nof the consumer. This has been done by co-operative societies, by\nmunicipalities and states, in Switzerland, France, the United Kingdom,\nand in Germany. The Co-operative Wholesale Society of Great Britain,\nacting on behalf of three and a half million families, buys two and a\nhalf million dollars of purchases annually. And the Entente nations, in\norder to avoid competitive bidding, are buying collectively from us, not\nonly munitions of war, but other supplies, while the British Government\nhas made itself the sole importer of such necessities as wheat, sugar,\ntea, refrigerated meat, wool, and various metals. The French and Italian\ngovernments, and also certain neutral states, have done likewise. A\npurchasing commission for all the Allies and America is now proposed.\nAfter the war, as an inevitable result, for one thing, of transforming\nsome thirty million citizens into soldiers, of engaging a like number of\nmen and women at enhanced wages on the manufacture of the requisites of\nwar, Mr. Webb predicts a world shortage not only in wheat and foodstuffs\nbut in nearly all important raw materials. These will be required for\nthe resumption of manufacture. In brief, international co-operation\nwill be the only means of salvation. The policy of international trade\nimplied by world shortage is not founded upon a law of \"supply and\ndemand.\" The necessities cannot be permitted to go to those who can\nafford to pay the highest prices, but to those who need them most. For\nthe \"free play of economic forces\" would mean famine on a large scale,\nbecause the richer nations and the richer classes within the nations\nmight be fully supplied; but to the detriment and ruin of the world\nthe poorer nations and the poorer classes would be starved. Therefore\ngovernments are already beginning to give consideration to a new\norganization of international trade for at least three years after\nthe war. Now if this organization produce, as it may produce, a more\ndesirable civilization and a happier world order, we are not likely\nentirely to go back--especially in regard to commodities which are\nnecessities--to a competitive system. The principle of \"priority\nof need\" will supersede the law of \"supply and demand.\" And the\norganizations built up during the war, if they prove efficient, will not\nbe abolished. Hours of labour and wages in the co-operative League of\nNations will gradually be equalized, and tariffs will become things\nof the past. \"The axiom will be established,\" says Mr. Webb, \"that the\nresources of every country must, be held for the benefit not only of its\nown people but of the world.... The world shortage will, for years to\ncome, make import duties look both oppressive and ridiculous.\"\n\nSo much may be said for the principle of Democratic Control. In spite of\nall theoretical opposition, circumstances and evolution apparently point\nto its establishment. A system that puts a premium on commercial greed\nseems no longer possible.\n\nThe above comments, based on the drift of political practice during\nthe past decade and a half, may be taken for what they are worth.\nPredictions are precarious. The average American will be inclined to\nregard the program of the new British Labour Party as the embodiment of\nwhat he vaguely calls Socialism, and to him the very word is repugnant.\nAlthough he may never have heard of Marx, it is the Marxian conception\nthat comes to his mind, and this implies coercion, a government that\nconstantly interferes with his personal liberty, that compels him\nto tasks for which he has no relish. But your American, and your\nEnglishman, for that matter, is inherently an individualist he wants as\nlittle government as is compatible with any government at all. And the\ndescendants of the continental Europeans who flock to our shores\nare Anglo-Saxonized, also become by environment and education\nindividualists. The great importance of preserving this individualism,\nthis spirit in our citizens of self-reliance, this suspicion against too\nmuch interference with personal liberty, must at once be admitted. And\nany scheme for a social order that tends to eliminate and destroy it\nshould by Americans be summarily rejected.\n\nThe question of supreme interest to us, therefore, is whether the\nsocial order implied in the British program is mainly in the nature of\na development of, or a break with, the Anglo-Saxon democratic tradition.\nThe program is derived from an English source. It is based on what is\nknown as modern social science, which has as its ultimate sanction the\nnature of the human mind as revealed by psychology. A consideration of\nthe principles underlying this proposed social order may prove that it\nis essentially--if perhaps paradoxically--individualistic, a logical\nevolution of institutions which had their origin in the Magna Charta.\nOur Declaration of Independence proclaimed that every citizen had the\nright to \"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,\" which means\nthe opportunity to achieve the greatest self-development and\nself-realization. The theory is that each citizen shall find his place,\naccording to his gifts and abilities, and be satisfied therewith. We may\ndiscover that this is precisely what social science, in an industrial\nage, and by spiritualizing human effort, aims to achieve. We may find\nthat the appearance of such a program as that of the British Labour\nParty, supported as it is by an imposing proportion of the population\nof the United Kingdom, marks a further step, not only in the advance of\nsocial science and democracy, but also of Christianity.\n\nI mention Christianity, not for controversial or apologetic reasons, but\nbecause it has been the leaven of our western civilization ever since\nthe fall of the Roman Empire. Its constant influence has been to soften\nand spiritualize individual and national relationships. The bitter\ncontroversies, wars, and persecutions which have raged in its name are\nutterly alien to its being. And that the present war is now being fought\nby the Allies in the hope of putting an end to war, and is thus in the\ntrue spirit of Christianity, marks an incomparable advance.\n\nAlmost up to the present day, both in our conception and practice of\nChristianity, we have largely neglected its most important elements.\nChristian orthodoxy, as Auguste Sabatier points out, is largely derived\nfrom the older supernatural religions. The preservative shell of dogma\nand superstition has been cracking, and is now ready to burst, and the\nsocial teaching of Jesus would seem to be the kernel from which has\nsprung modern democracy, modern science, and modern religion--a trinity\nand unity.\n\nFor nearly two thousand years orthodoxy has insisted that the social\nprinciples of Christianity are impractical. And indeed, until the\npresent day, they have been so. Physical science, by enormously\naccelerating the means of transportation and communication, has so\ncontracted the world as to bring into communion peoples and races\nhitherto far apart; has made possible an intelligent organization of\nindustry which, for the first time in history, can create a surplus\nample to maintain in comfort the world's population. But this demands\nthe will to co-operation, which is a Christian principle--a recognition\nof the brotherhood of man. Furthermore, physical science has increased\nthe need for world peace and international co-operation because the\nterritories of all nations are now subject to swift and terrible\ninvasion by modern instruments of destruction, while the future\nsubmarine may sweep commerce from the seas.\n\nAgain, orthodoxy declares that human nature is inherently \"bad,\" while\ntrue Christianity, endorsed by psychology, proclaims it inherently\n\"good,\" which means that, properly guided, properly educated, it is\ncreative and contributive rather than destructive. No more striking\nproof of this fact can be cited than the modern experiment in prison\nreform in which hardened convicts, when \"given a chance,\" frequently\nbecome useful citizens. Unjust and unintelligent social conditions are\nthe chief factors in making criminals.\n\nOur most modern system of education, of which Professor John Dewey is\nthe chief protagonist, is based upon the assertions of psychology that\nhuman nature is essentially \"good\" creative. Every normal child is\nsupposed to have a special \"distinction\" or gift, which it is the task\nof the educator to discover. This distinction found, the child achieves\nhappiness in creation and contribution. Self-realization demands\nknowledge and training: the doing of right is not a negative but a\npositive act; it is not without significance that the Greek word for sin\nis literally \"missing the mark.\" Christianity emphasizes above all else\nthe worth of the individual, yet recognizes that the individual can\ndevelop only in society. And if the individual be of great worth, this\nworth must be by society developed to its utmost. Universal suffrage is\na logical corollary.\n\nUniversal suffrage, however, implies individual judgment, which means\nthat the orthodox principle of external authority is out of place both\nin Christianity and democracy. The Christian theory is that none shall\nintervene between a man's Maker and himself; democracy presupposes that\nno citizen shall accept his beliefs and convictions from others, but\nshall make up his own mind and act accordingly. Open-mindedness is the\nfirst requisite of science and democracy.\n\nWhat has been deemed, however, in Christianity the most unrealizable\nideal is that which may be called pacifism--to resist not evil, to turn\nthe other cheek, to agree with your adversary while you are in the\nway with him. \"I come not,\" said Jesus, in one of those paradoxical\nstatements hitherto so difficult to understand, \"I come not to bring\npeace, but a sword.\" It is indeed what we are fighting for--peace. But\nwe believe today, more strongly than ever before, as democracy advances,\nas peoples tend to gain more and more control over their governments,\nthat even this may not be an unrealizable ideal. Democracies, intent on\nself-realization and self-development, do not desire war.\n\nThe problem of social science, then, appears to be to organize human\nsociety on the principles and ideals of Christianity. But in view of\nthe fact that the trend of evolution is towards the elimination of\ncommercial competition, the question which must seriously concern us\ntoday is--What in the future shall be the spur of individual initiative?\nOrthodoxy and even democratic practice have hitherto taken it for\ngranted--in spite of the examples of highly socialized men, benefactors\nof society--that the average citizen will bestir himself only for\nmaterial gain. And it must be admitted that competition of some sort is\nnecessary for self-realization, that human nature demands a prize. There\ncan be no self-sacrifice without a corresponding self-satisfaction.\nThe answer is that in the theory of democracy, as well as in that of\nChristianity, individualism and co-operation are paradoxically blended.\nFor competition, Christianity substitutes emulation. And with democracy,\nit declares that mankind itself can gradually be rained towards the\nlevel of the choice individual who does not labour for gain, but in\nbehalf of society. For the process of democracy is not degrading, but\nlifting. Like Christianity, democracy demands faith, and has as its\ninspiring interpretation of civilization evolution towards a spiritual\ngoal. Yet the kind of faith required is no longer a blind faith, but one\nfounded on sane and carefully evolved theories. Democracy has become a\nscientific experiment.\n\nIn this connection, as one notably inspired by emulation, by the joy of\ncreative work and service, the medical profession comes first to\nmind. The finer element in this profession is constantly increasing in\nnumbers, growing more and more influential, making life less easy for\nthe quack, the vendor of nostrums, the commercial proprietor of the\nbogus medical college. The doctor who uses his talents for gain is\nfrowned upon by those of his fellow practitioners whose opinion really\ncounts. Respected physicians in our cities give much of their time to\nteaching, animating students with their own spirit; and labour long\nhours, for no material return, in the clinics of the poor. And how\noften, in reading our newspapers, do we learn that some medical\nscientist, by patient work, and often at the risk of life and health,\nhas triumphed over a scourge which has played havoc with humanity\nthroughout the ages! Typhoid has been conquered, and infant paralysis;\ngangrene and tetanus, which have taken such toll of the wounded in\nFlanders and France; yellow fever has been stamped out in the tropics;\nhideous lesions are now healed by a system of drainage. The very list of\nthese achievements is bewildering, and latterly we are given hope of\nthe prolongation of life itself. Here in truth are Christian deeds\nmultiplied by science, made possible by a growing knowledge of and\nmastery over Nature.\n\nSuch men by virtue of their high mission are above the vicious social\nand commercial competition poisoning the lives of so many of their\nfellow citizens. In our democracy they have found their work, and the\nwork is its own reward. They give striking testimony to the theory that\nabsorption in a creative or contributive task is the only source of\nself-realization. And he has little faith in mankind who shall\ndeclare that the medical profession is the only group capable of being\nsocialized, or, rather, of socializing themselves--for such is the\ntrue process of democracy. Public opinion should be the leaven. What\nis possible for the doctor is also possible for the lawyer, for the\nteacher. In a democracy, teaching should be the most honoured of the\nprofessions, and indeed once was,--before the advent of industrialism,\nwhen it gradually fell into neglect,--occasionally into deplorable\nsubmission to the possessors of wealth. Yet a wage disgracefully\nlow, hardship, and even poverty have not hindered men of ability from\nentering it in increasing numbers, renouncing ease and luxuries. The\nworth of the contributions of our professors to civilization has been\ninestimable; and fortunately signs are not lacking that we are coming\nto an appreciation of the value of the expert in government, who is\nreplacing the panderer and the politician. A new solidarity of teaching\nprofessional opinion, together with a growing realization by our public\nof the primary importance of the calling, is tending to emancipate it,\nto establish it in its rightful place.\n\nNor are our engineers without their ideal. A Goethals did not cut an\nisthmus in two for gain.\n\nIndustrialism, with its concomitant \"corporation\" practice, has\nundoubtedly been detrimental to the legal profession, since it has\nresulted in large fees; in the accumulation of vast fortunes, frequently\nby methods ethically questionable. Grave social injustices have been\ndone, though often in good faith, since the lawyer, by training and\nexperience, has hitherto been least open to the teachings of the new\nsocial science, has been an honest advocate of the system of 'laissez\nfaire'. But to say that the American legal profession is without ideals\nand lacking in the emulative spirit would be to do it a grave injustice.\nThe increasing influence of national and state bar associations\nevidences a professional opinion discouraging to the unscrupulous;\nwhile a new evolutionary and more humanitarian conception of law is now\nbeginning to be taught, and young men are entering the ranks imbued\nwith this. Legal clinics, like medical clinics, are established for the\nbenefit of those who cannot afford to pay fees, for the protection\nof the duped from the predatory quack. And, it must be said of this\nprofession, which hitherto has held a foremost place in America,\nthat its leaders have never hesitated to respond to a public call, to\nsacrifice their practices to serve the nation. Their highest ambition\nhas even been to attain the Supreme Court, where the salary is a mere\npittance compared to what they may earn as private citizens.\n\nThus we may review all the groups in the nation, but the most\nsignificant transformation of all is taking place within the business\ngroup,--where indeed it might be least expected. Even before the war\nthere were many evidences that the emulative spirit in business had\nbegun to modify the merely competitive, and we had the spectacle of\nlarge employers of labour awakening to the evils of industrialism, and\nthemselves attempting to inaugurate reforms. As in the case of labour,\nit would be obviously unfair to claim that the employer element was\nactuated by motives of self-interest alone; nor were their concessions\ndue only to fear. Instances could be cited, if there were space, of\nvoluntary shortening of hours of labour, of raising of wages, when\nno coercion was exerted either by the labour unions or the state;\nand--perhaps to their surprise employers discovered that such acts were\nnot only humane but profitable! Among these employers, in fact, may be\nobserved individuals in various stages of enlightenment, from the few\nwho have educated themselves in social science, who are convinced that\nthe time has come when it is not only practicable but right, who realize\nthat a new era has dawned; to others who still believe in the old\nsystem, who are trying to bolster it up by granting concessions, by\nestablishing committees of conference, by giving a voice and often a\nfinancial interest, but not a vote, in the conduct of the corporation\nconcerned. These are the counterpart, in industry, of sovereigns whose\naway has been absolute, whose intentions are good, but who hesitate,\noften from conviction, to grant constitutions. Yet even these are\nresponding in some degree to social currents, though the aggressive\nstruggles of labour may have influenced them, and partially opened\ntheir eyes. They are far better than their associates who still seek to\ncontrol the supplies of food and other necessities, whose efficiency is\nstill solely directed, not toward a social end, but toward the amassing\nof large fortunes, and is therefore wasted so far as society is\nconcerned. They do not perceive that by seeking to control prices they\nmerely hasten the tendency of government control, for it is better to\nhave government regulation for the benefit of the many than proprietary\ncontrol, however efficient, for the benefit of the few.\n\nThat a significant change of heart and mind has begun to take place\namongst capitalists, that the nucleus of a \"public opinion\" has been\nformed within an element which, by the use and wont of business and\nhabits of thought might be regarded as least subject to the influence of\nsocial ideas, is a most hopeful augury. This nascent opinion has begun\nto operate by shaming unscrupulous and recalcitrant employers into\nbetter practices. It would indeed fare ill with democracy if, in such\nan era, men of large business proved to be lacking in democratic\ninitiative, wholly unreceptive and hostile to the gradual introduction\nof democracy into industry, which means the perpetuation of the\nAmerican Idea. Fortunately, with us, this capitalistic element is of\ncomparatively recent growth, the majority of its members are essentially\nAmericans; they have risen from small beginnings, and are responsive\nto a democratic appeal--if that appeal be properly presented. And, as a\nmatter of fact, for many years a leaven had been at work among them; the\ntruth has been brought home to them that the mere acquisition of wealth\nbrings neither happiness nor self-realization; they have lavished their\nmoney on hospitals and universities, clinics, foundations for scientific\nresearch, and other gifts of inestimable benefit to the nation and\nmankind. Although the munificence was on a Medicean scale, this private\ncharity was in accord with the older conception of democracy, and paved\nthe way for a new order.\n\nThe patriotic and humanitarian motive aroused by the war greatly\naccelerated the socializing transformation of the business man and the\ncapitalist. We have, indeed, our profiteers seeking short cuts to luxury\nand wealth; but those happily most representative of American affairs,\nincluding the creative administrators, hastened to Washington with a\nwillingness to accept any position in which they might be useful, and\nin numerous instances placed at the disposal of the government the\nmanufacturing establishments which, by industry and ability, they\nthemselves had built up. That in thus surrendering the properties for\nwhich they were largely responsible they hoped at the conclusion of\npeace to see restored the 'status quo ante' should not be held against\nthem. Some are now beginning to surmise that a complete restoration is\nimpossible; and as a result of their socializing experience, are even\nwondering whether it is desirable. These are beginning to perceive\nthat the national and international organizations in the course of\nconstruction to meet the demands of the world conflict must form the\nmodel for a future social structure; that the unprecedented pressure\ncaused by the cataclysm is compelling a recrystallization of society in\nwhich there must be fewer misfits, in which many more individuals than\nformerly shall find public or semi-public tasks in accordance with their\ngifts and abilities.\n\nIt may be argued that war compels socialization, that after the war\nthe world will perforce return to materialistic individualism. But this\ncalamity, terrible above all others, has warned us of the imperative\nneed of an order that shall be socializing, if we are not to witness the\ndestruction of our civilization itself. Confidence that such an order,\nthanks to the advancement of science, is now within our grasp should not\nbe difficult for Americans, once they have rightly conceived it. We, who\nhave always pinned our faith to ideas, who entered the conflict for an\nIdea, must be the last to shirk the task, however Herculean, of world\nreconstruction along the lines of our own professed faith. We cannot be\nrenegades to Democracy.\n\nAbove all things, then, it is essential for us as a people not to\nabandon our faith in man, our belief that not only the exceptional\nindividual but the majority of mankind can be socialized. What is true\nof our physicians, our scientists and professional men, our manual\nworkers, is also true of our capitalists and business men. In a more\njust and intelligent organization of society these will be found willing\nto administer and improve for the common weal the national resources\nwhich formerly they exploited for the benefit of themselves and their\nassociates. The social response, granted the conditions, is innate in\nhumanity, and individual initiative can best be satisfied in social\nrealization.\n\nUniversal education is the cornerstone of democracy. And the recognition\nof this fact may be called the great American contribution. But in\nour society the fullest self-realization depends upon a well balanced\nknowledge of scientific facts, upon a rounded culture. Thus education,\nproperly conceived, is a preparation for intelligent, ethical, and\ncontented citizenship. Upon the welfare of the individual depends the\nwelfare of all. Without education, free institutions and universal\nsuffrage are mockeries; semi-learned masses of the population are at the\nmercy of scheming politicians, controversialists, and pseudo-scientific\nreligionists, and their votes are swayed by prejudice.\n\nIn a materialistic competitive order, success in life depends upon the\nknack--innate or acquired, and not to be highly rated--of outwitting\none's neighbour under the rules of the game--the law; education is\nmerely a cultural leaven within the reach of the comparatively few\nwho can afford to attend a university. The business college is a more\nlogical institution. In an emulative civilization, however, the problem\nis to discover and develop in childhood and youth the personal aptitude\nor gift of as many citizens as possible, in order that they may find\nself-realization by making their peculiar contribution towards the\nadvancement of society.\n\nThe prevailing system of education, which we have inherited from the\npast, largely fails to accomplish this. In the first place, it has been\nauthoritative rather than scientific, which is to say that students have\nbeen induced to accept the statements of teachers and text books, and\nhave not been trained to weigh for themselves their reasonableness and\nworth; a principle essentially unscientific and undemocratic, since it\ninculcates in the future citizen convictions rather than encourages the\nhabit of open-mindedness so necessary for democratic citizenship.\nFor democracy--it cannot be too often repeated--is a dynamic thing,\nexperimental, creative in its very essence. No static set of opinions\ncan apply to the constantly changing aspect of affairs. New discoveries,\nwhich come upon us with such bewildering rapidity, are apt abruptly to\nalter social and industrial conditions, while morals and conventions are\nno longer absolute. Sudden crises threaten the stability of nations\nand civilizations. Safety lies alone in the ability to go forward,\nto progress. Psychology teaches us that if authoritative opinions,\nconvictions, or \"complexes\" are stamped upon the plastic brain of\nthe youth they tend to harden, and he is apt to become a Democrat or\nRepublican, an Episcopalian or a Baptist, a free trader or a tariff\nadvocate or a Manchester economist without asking why. Such \"complexes\"\nwere probably referred to by the celebrated physician who emphasized\nthe hopelessness of most individuals over forty. And every reformer and\nforum lecturer knows how difficult it is to convert the average audience\nof seasoned adults to a new idea: he finds the most responsive groups\nin the universities and colleges. It is significant that the \"educated\"\nadult audiences in clubs and prosperous churches are the least open to\nconversion, because, in the scientific sense, the \"educated\" classes\nretain complexes, and hence are the least prepared to cope with the\nworld as it is today. The German system, which has been bent upon\ninstalling authoritative conviction instead of encouraging freedom of\nthought, should be a warning to us.\n\nAgain, outside of the realm of physical science, our text books have\nbeen controversial rather than impartial, especially in economics and\nhistory; resulting in erroneous and distorted and prejudiced ideas of\nevents, such for instance, as our American Revolution. The day of the\ncontroversialist is happily coming to an end, and of the writer who\ntwists the facts of science to suit a world of his own making, or of\nthat of a group with which he is associated. Theory can now be labelled\ntheory, and fact, fact. Impartial and painstaking investigation is the\nsole method of obtaining truth.\n\nThe old system of education benefited only the comparatively few to\nwhose nature and inclination it was adapted. We have need, indeed, of\nclassical scholars, but the majority of men and women are meant for\nother work; many, by their very construction of mind, are unfitted to\nbecome such. And only in the most exceptional cases are the ancient\nlanguages really mastered; a smattering of these, imposed upon the\nunwilling scholar by a principle opposed to psychology,--a smattering\nfrom which is derived no use and joy in after life, and which has no\nconnection with individual inclination--is worse than nothing. Precious\ntime is wasted during the years when the mind is most receptive. While\nthe argument of the old school that discipline can only be inculcated\nby the imposition of a distasteful task is unsound. As Professor Dewey\npoints out, unless the interest is in some way involved there can be\nno useful discipline. And how many of our university and high school\ngraduates today are in any sense disciplined? Stimulated interest\nalone can overcome the resistance imposed by a difficult task, as any\nscientist, artist, organizer or administrator knows. Men will discipline\nthemselves to gain a desired end. Under the old system of education a\nfew children succeed either because they are desirous of doing well,\ninterested in the game of mental competition; or else because they\ncontrive to clothe with flesh and blood some subject presented as a\nskeleton. It is not uncommon, indeed, to recognize in later years with\nastonishment a useful citizen or genius whom at school or college we\nrecall as a dunce or laggard. In our present society, because of archaic\nmethods of education, the development of such is largely left to chance.\nThose who might have been developed in time, who might have found their\ntask, often become wasters, drudges, and even criminals.\n\nThe old system tends to make types, to stamp every scholar in the same\nmould, whether he fits it or not. More and more the parents of today\nare looking about for new schools, insisting that a son or daughter\npossesses some special gift which, under teachers of genius, might be\ndeveloped before it is too late. And in most cases, strange to say, the\nparents are right. They themselves have been victims of a standardized\nsystem.\n\nA new and distinctly American system of education, designed to meet the\ndemands of modern conditions, has been put in practice in parts of the\nUnited States. In spite of opposition from school boards, from all\nthose who cling to the conviction that education must of necessity be an\nunpalatable and \"disciplinary\" process, the number of these schools is\ngrowing. The objection, put forth by many, that they are still in the\nexperimental stage, is met by the reply that experiment is the very\nessence of the system. Democracy is experimental, and henceforth\neducation will remain experimental for all time. But, as in any other\nbranch of science, the element of ascertained fact will gradually\nincrease: the latent possibilities in the mind of the healthy child will\nbe discovered by knowledge gained through impartial investigation. The\nold system, like all other institutions handed down to us from the ages,\nproceeds on no intelligent theory, has no basis on psychology, and is\naccepted merely because it exists.\n\nThe new education is selective. The mind of each child is patiently\nstudied with the view of discovering the peculiar bent, and this bent\nis guided and encouraged. The child is allowed to forge ahead in those\nsubjects for which he shows an aptitude, and not compelled to wait on a\nclass. Such supervision, of course, demands more teachers, teachers of\nan ability hitherto deplorably rare, and thoroughly trained in their\nsubjects, with a sympathetic knowledge of the human mind. Theirs will be\nthe highest and most responsible function in the state, and they must be\nrewarded in proportion to their services.\n\nA superficial criticism declares that in the new schools children will\nstudy only \"what they like.\" On the contrary, all subjects requisite for\na wide culture, as well as for the ability to cope with existence in\na highly complex civilization, are insisted upon. It is true, however,\nthat the trained and gifted teacher is able to discover a method of so\npresenting a subject as to seize the imagination and arouse the interest\nand industry of a majority of pupils. In the modern schools French, for\nexample, is really taught; pupils do not acquire a mere smattering\nof the language. And, what is more important, the course of study is\ndirectly related to life, and to practical experience, instead of being\nset forth abstractly, as something which at the time the pupil perceives\nno possibility of putting into use. At one of the new schools in the\nsouth, the ignorant child of the mountains at once acquires a knowledge\nof measurement and elementary arithmetic by laying out a garden,\nof letters by inscribing his name on a little signboard in order to\nidentify his patch--for the moment private property. And this principle\nis carried through all the grades. In the Gary Schools and elsewhere\nthe making of things in the shops, the modelling of a Panama Canal, the\ninspection of industries and governmental establishments, the\ndesigning, building, and decoration of houses, the discussion and even\ndramatization of the books read,--all are a logical and inevitable\ncontinuation of the abstract knowledge of the schoolroom. The success of\nthe direct application of learning to industrial and professional\nlife may also be observed in such colleges as those at Cincinnati and\nSchenectady, where young men spend half the time of the course in the\nshops of manufacturing, corporations, often earning more than enough to\npay their tuition.\n\nChildren are not only prepared for democratic citizenship by being\nencouraged to think for themselves, but also to govern and discipline\nthemselves. On the moral side, under the authoritative system of lay\nand religious training, character was acquired at the expense of mental\nflexibility--the Puritan method; our problem today, which the new system\nundertakes, is to produce character with open-mindedness--the kind\nof character possessed by many great scientists. Absorption in an\nappropriate task creates a moral will, while science, knowledge, informs\nthe mind why a thing is \"bad\" or \"good,\" disintegrating or upbuilding.\nMoreover, these children are trained for democratic government by the\ngranting of autonomy. They have their own elected officials, their\nown courts; their decisions are, of course, subject to reversal by the\nprincipal, but in practice this seldom occurs.\n\nThe Gary Schools and many of the new schools are public schools. And the\nprinciple of the new education that the state is primarily responsible\nfor the health of pupils--because an unsound body is apt to make an\nunsound citizen of backward intelligence--is now being generally adopted\nby public schools all over the country. This idea is essentially an\nelement of the democratic contention that all citizens must be given\nan equality of opportunity--though all may not be created equal--now\nbecoming a positive rather than a negative right, guaranteed by the\nstate itself. An earnest attempt is thus made by the state to give\nevery citizen a fair start that in later years he may have no ground\nfor discontent or complaint. He stands on his own feet, he rises in\nproportion to his ability and industry. Hence the program of the British\nLabour Party rightly lays stress on education, on \"freedom of mental\nopportunity.\" The vast sums it proposes to spend for this purpose are\njustified.\n\nIf such a system of education as that briefly outlined above is\ncarefully and impartially considered, the objection that democratic\ngovernment founded on modern social science is coercive must disappear.\nSo far as the intention and effort of the state is able to confer it,\nevery citizen will have his choice of the task he is to perform for\nsociety, his opportunity for self-realization. For freedom without\neducation is a myth. By degrees men and women are making ready to take\ntheir places in an emulative rather than a materialistically competitive\norder. But the experimental aspect of this system should always be borne\nin mind, with the fact that its introduction and progress, like that of\nother elements in the democratic program, must be gradual, though always\nproceeding along sound lines. For we have arrived at that stage of\nenlightenment when we realize that the only mundane perfection lies in\nprogress rather than achievement. The millennium is always a lap ahead.\nThere would be no satisfaction in overtaking it, for then we should have\nnothing more to do, nothing more to work for.\n\nThe German Junkers have prostituted science by employing it for the\ndestruction of humanity. In the name of Christianity they have waged\nthe most barbaric war in history. Yet if they shall have demonstrated\nto mankind the futility of efficiency achieved merely for material ends;\nif, by throwing them on a world screen, they shall have revealed\nthe evils of power upheld alone by ruthlessness and force, they will\nunwittingly have performed a world service. Privilege and dominion,\npowers and principalities acquired by force must be sustained by force.\nTo fail will be fatal. Even a duped people, trained in servility, will\nnot consent to be governed by an unsuccessful autocracy. Arrogantly\nGermany has staked her all on world domination. Hence a victory for the\nAllies must mean a democratic Germany.\n\nNothing short of victory. There can be no arrangement, no\nagreement, no parley with or confidence in these modern scions of\ndarkness--Hohenzollerns, Hindenburgs, Zudendorffs and their tools.\nPropaganda must not cease; the eyes of Germans still capable of sight\nmust be opened. But, as the President says, force must be used to the\nlimit--force for a social end as opposed to force for an evil end. There\nare those among us who advocate a boycott of Germany after peace is\ndeclared. These would seem to take it for granted that we shall fall\nshort of victory, and hence that selfish retaliative or vindictive\npractices between nations, sanctioned by imperialism, will continue to\nflourish after the war. But should Germany win she will see to it that\nthere is no boycott against her. A compromised peace would indeed mean\nthe perpetuation of both imperialism and militarism.\n\nIt is characteristic of those who put their faith in might alone that\nthey are not only blind to the finer relationships between individuals\nand nations, but take no account of the moral forces in human affairs\nwhich in the long run are decisive,--a lack of sensitiveness which\nexplains Germany's colossal blunders. The first had to do with Britain.\nThe German militarists persisted in the belief that the United Kingdom\nwas degenerated by democracy, intent upon the acquisition of wealth,\ndistracted by strife at home, uncertain of the Empire, and thus would\nselfishly remain aloof while the Kaiser's armies overran and enslaved\nthe continent. What happened, to Germany's detriment, was the instant\nsocialization of Britain, and the binding together of the British\nEmpire. Germany's second great blunder was an arrogant underestimation\nof a self-reliant people of English culture and traditions. She believed\nthat we, too, had been made flabby by democracy, were wholly intent upon\nthe pursuit of the dollar--only to learn that America would lavish\nher vast resources and shed her blood for a cause which was American.\nGermany herself provided that cause, shaped the issues so that there\nwas no avoiding them. She provided the occasion for the socializing\nof America also; and thus brought about, within a year, a national\ntransformation which in times of peace might scarce in half a century\nhave been accomplished.\n\nAbove all, as a consequence of these two blunders, Germany has been\ncompelled to witness the consummation of that which of all things she\nhad most to fear, the cementing of a lasting fellowship between the\nEnglish speaking Republic and the English speaking Empire. For we had\nbeen severed since the 18th Century by misunderstandings which of late\nGermany herself had been more or less successful in fostering. She has\nfurnished a bond not only between our governments, but--what is vastly\nmore important for democracy--a bond between our peoples. Our soldiers\nare now side by side with those of the Empire on the Frontier of\nFreedom; the blood of all is shed and mingled for a great cause embodied\nin the Anglo-Saxon tradition of democracy; and our peoples, through the\nrealization of common ideas and common ends, are learning the supreme\nlesson of co-operation between nations with a common past, are being\ncemented into a union which is the symbol and forerunner of the\ndemocratic league of Nations to come. Henceforth, we believe, because\nof this union, so natural yet so long delayed, by virtue of the ultimate\nvictory it forecasts, the sun will never set on the Empire of the free,\nfor the drum beats of democracy have been heard around the world. To\nthis Empire will be added the precious culture of France, which the\ncourage of her sons will have preserved, the contributions of Italy, and\nof Russia, yes, and of Japan.\n\nOur philosophy and our religion are changing; hence it is more and more\ndifficult to use the old terms to describe moral conduct. We say,\nfor instance, that America's action in entering the war has been\n\"unselfish.\" But this merely means that we have our own convictions\nconcerning the ultimate comfort of the world, the manner of\nself-realization of individuals and nations. We are attempting to\nturn calamity into good. If this terrible conflict shall result in\nthe inauguration of an emulative society, if it shall bring us to the\nrecognition that intelligence and science may be used for the upbuilding\nof such an order, and for an eventual achievement of world peace, every\nsacrifice shall have been justified.\n\nSuch is the American Issue. Our statesmen and thinkers have helped to\nevolve it, our people with their blood and treasure are consecrating it.\nAnd these statesmen and thinkers, of whom our American President is\nnot the least, are of democracy the pioneers. From the mountain tops on\nwhich they stand they behold the features of the new world, the dawn of\nthe new day hidden as yet from their brothers in the valley. Let us have\nfaith always that it is coming, and struggle on, highly resolving that\nthose who gave their lives in the hour of darkness shall not have died\nin vain.","title":"An essay on the American contribution and the democratic idea","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":16674}