AN ESSAY ON THE AMERICAN CONTRIBUTION AND THE DEMOCRATIC IDEA

By Winston Churchill

I. 

Failure to recognize that the American, is at heart an idealist isto lack understanding of our national character. Two of our greatestinterpreters proclaimed it, Emerson and William James. In a recentaddress at the Paris Sorbonne on "American Idealism, " M. Firmin Rozobserved that a people is rarely justly estimated by its contemporaries. The French, he says, have been celebrated chiefly for the skill of theirchefs and their vaudeville actors, while in the disturbed 'speculummundi' Americans have appeared as a collection of money grabbers whosephilosophy is the dollar. It remained for the war to reveal the truenature of both peoples. The American colonists, M. Roz continues, unlikeother colonists, were animated not by material motives, but by thedesire to safeguard and realize an ideal; our inherent characteristictoday is a belief in the virtue and power of ideas, of a national, indeed, of a universal, mission. In the Eighteenth Century we proposeda Philosophy and adopted a Constitution far in advance of the politicalpractice of the day, and set up a government of which Europe predictedthe early downfall. Nevertheless, thanks partly to good fortune, andto the farseeing wisdom of our early statesmen who perceived that thesuccess of our experiment depended upon the maintenance of an isolationfrom European affairs, we established democracy as a practical form ofgovernment. 

We have not always lived up to our beliefs in ideas. In our dealingswith other nations, we yielded often to imperialistic ambitions andthus, to a certain extent, justified the cynicism of Europe. We tookwhat we wanted--and more. From Spain we seized western Florida; theannexation of Texas and the subsequent war with Mexico are acts uponwhich we cannot look back with unmixed democratic pride; while more thanonce we professed a naive willingness to fight England in order topush our boundaries further north. We regarded the Monroe Doctrine asaltruistic, while others smiled. But it suited England, and her seapower gave it force. 

Our war with Spain in 1898, however, was fought for an idea, and, despite the imperialistic impulse that followed it, marks a transition, an advance, in international ethics. Imperialistic cynics were notlacking to scoff at our protestation that we were fighting Spain inorder to liberate Cuba; and yet this, for the American people at large, was undoubtedly the inspiration of the war. We kept our promise, we didnot annex Cuba, we introduced into international affairs what is knownas the Big Brother idea. Then came the Platt Amendment. Cuba was free, but she must not wallow near our shores in an unhygienic state, orborrow money without our consent. We acquired valuable naval bases. Moreover, the sudden and unexpected acquisition of Porto Rico and thePhilippines made us imperialists in spite of ourselves. 

Nations as well as individuals, however, must be judged by theirintentions. The sound public opinion of our people has undoubtedlyremained in favour of ultimate self-government for the Philippines, andthe greatest measure of self-determination for little Porto Rico; it hasbeen unquestionably opposed to commercial exploitation of the islands, desirous of yielding to these peoples the fruits of their labour indeveloping the resources of their own lands. An intention, by theway, diametrically different from that of Germany. In regard to ourprotectorate in the island of San Domingo, our "semi-protectorate" inNicaragua, the same argument of intention may fairly be urged. Germany, who desired them, would have exploited them. To a certain extent, nodoubt, as a result of the momentum of commercial imperialism, we arestill exploiting them. But the attitude of the majority of Americanstoward more backward peoples is not cynical; hence there is hope that ademocratic solution of the Caribbean and Central American problem maybe found. And we are not ready, as yet, to accept without furtherexperiment the dogma that tropical and sub-tropical people will notultimately be able to govern themselves. If this eventually, prove to bethe case at least some such experiment as the new British Labour Partyhas proposed for the Empire may be tried. Our general theory that theexploitation of foreign peoples reacts unfavourably on the exploiters isundoubtedly sound. 

Nor are the ethics of the manner of our acquisition of a part of Panamaand the Canal wholly defensible from the point of view of internationaldemocracy. Yet it must be remembered that President Roosevelt wasdealing with a corrupt, irresponsible, and hostile government, and thatthe Canal had become a necessity not only for our own development, butfor that of the civilization of the world. 

The Spanish War, as has been said, marked a transition, a developmentof the American Idea. In obedience to a growing perception that dominionand exploitation are incompatible with and detrimental to our system ofgovernment, we fought in good faith to gain self-determination for analien people. The only real peril confronting democracy is the arrestof growth. Its true conquests are in the realms of ideas, and hence itcalls for a statesmanship which, while not breaking with the past, whiletaking into account the inherent nature of a people, is able to dealcreatively with new situations--always under the guidance of currentsocial science. 

Woodrow Wilson's Mexican policy, being a projection of the American Ideato foreign affairs, a step toward international democracy, marks thebeginning of a new era. Though not wholly understood, though opposed bya powerful minority of our citizens, it stirred the consciousness of anational mission to which our people are invariably ready to respond. Since it was essentially experimental, and therefore not lacking inmistakes, there was ample opportunity for a criticism that seemed attimes extremely plausible. The old and tried method of dealing with suchanarchy as existed across our southern border was made to seem the safeone; while the new, because it was untried, was presented as disastrous. In reality, the reverse was the case. 

Mr. Wilson's opponents were, generally speaking, the commercial classesin the community, whose environment and training led them to demanda foreign policy similar to that of other great powers, a financialimperialism which is the logical counterpart in foreign affairs of thecommercial exploitation of domestic national resources and domesticlabour. These were the classes which combated the growth of democracy athome, in national and state politics. From their point of view--notthat of the larger vision--they were consistent. On the other hand, thenation grasped the fact that to have one brand of democracy at home andanother for dealing with foreign nations was not only illogical but, inthe long run, would be suicidal to the Republic. And the people at largewere committed to democratic progress at home. They were struggling forit. 

One of the most important issues of the American liberal movement earlyin this century had been that for the conservation of what remainsof our natural resources of coal and metals and oil and timber andwaterpower for the benefit of all the people, on the theory that theseare the property of the people. But if the natural resources of thiscountry belong to the people of the United States, those of Mexicobelong to the people of Mexico. It makes no difference how "lazy, "ignorant, and indifferent to their own interests the Mexicans at presentmay be. And even more important in these liberal campaigns was the issueof the conservation of human resources--men and women and children whoare forced by necessity to labour. These must be protected in health, given economic freedom and a just reward for their toil. The Americandemocracy, committed to the principle of the conservation of domesticnatural and human resources, could not without detriment to itselfpersist in a foreign policy that ignored them. For many years ourown government had permitted the squandering of these resources byadventurous capitalists; and gradually, as we became a rich industrialnation, these capitalists sought profitable investments for theirincreasing surplus in foreign lands. Their manner of acquiring"concessions" in Mexico was quite similar to that by which they hadseized because of the indifference and ignorance of our own people--ourown mines and timber lands which our government held in trust. Sometimesthese American "concessions" have been valid in law though the lawitself violated a democratic principle; more often corrupt officialswinked at violations of the law, enabling capitalists to absorb bogusclaims. 

The various rulers of Mexico sold to American and other foreigncapitalists the resources belonging to the people of their country, andpocketed, with their followers, the proceeds of the sale. Their controlof the country rested upon force; the stability of the Diaz rule, for instance, depended upon the "President's" ability to maintain hisdictatorship--a precarious guarantee to the titles he had given. Hencethe premium on revolutions. There was always the incentive to theupstart political and military buccaneer to overthrow the dictator andgain possession of the spoils, to sell new doubtful concessions and levynew tribute on the capitalists holding claims from a former tyrant. 

The foreign capitalists appealed to their governments; commercialimperialism responded by dispatching military forces to protect thelives and "property" of its citizens, in some instances going so far asto take possession of the country. A classic case, as cited by Hobson, is Britain's South African War, in which the blood and treasure of thepeople of the United Kingdom were expended because British capitalistshad found the Boers recalcitrant, bent on retaining their own countryfor themselves. To be sure, South Africa, like Mexico is rich inresources for which advancing civilization continually makes demands. And, in the case of Mexico, the products of the tropics, such as rubber, are increasingly necessary to the industrial powers of the temperatezone. On the other hand, if the exploiting nation aspire toself-government, the imperialistic method of obtaining these productsby the selfish exploitation of the natural and human resources of thebackward countries reacts so powerfully on the growth of democracy athome--and hence on the growth of democracy throughout the world--as tothreaten the very future of civilization. The British Liberals, whenthey came into power, perceived this, and at once did their best tomake amends to South Africa by granting her autonomy and virtualindependence, linking her to Britain by the silken thread of Anglo-Saxondemocratic culture. How strong this thread has proved is shown by theaction of those of Dutch blood in the Dominion during the present war. 

Eventually, if democracy is not to perish from the face of the earth, some other than the crude imperialistic method of dealing with backwardpeoples, of obtaining for civilization the needed resources of theirlands, must be inaugurated--a democratic method. And this is perhapsthe supreme problem of democracy today. It demands for its solution acomplete reversal of the established policy of imperialism, a new theoryof international relationships, a mutual helpfulness and partnershipbetween nations, even as democracy implies cooperation betweenindividual citizens. Therefore President Wilson laid down the doctrinethat American citizens enter Mexico at their own risk; that they mustnot expert that American blood will be shed or the nation's money beexpended to protect their lives or the "property" they have acquiredfrom Mexican dictators. This applies also to the small capitalists, the owners of the coffee plantations, as well as to those Americans inMexico who are not capitalists but wage earners. The people of Mexicoare entitled to try the experiment of self-determination. It is anexperiment, we frankly acknowledge that fact, a democratic experimentdependent on physical science, social science, and scientific education. The other horn of the dilemma, our persistence in imperialism, is evenworse--since by such persistence we destroy ourselves. 

A subjective judgment, in accordance with our own democratic standards, by the American Government as to the methods employed by a Huerta, forinstance, is indeed demanded; not on the ground, however, that suchmethods are "good" or "bad"; but whether they are detrimental to Mexicanself-determination, and hence to the progress of our own democracy. 

II. 

If America had started to prepare when Belgium was invaded, had enteredthe war when the Lusitania was sunk, Germany might by now have beendefeated, hundreds of thousands of lives might have been spared. Allthis may be admitted. Yet, looking backward, it is easy to read thereason for our hesitancy in our national character and traditions. We were pacifists, yes, but pacifists of a peculiar kind. One of ourgreatest American prophets, William James, knew that there was an issuefor which we were ready to fight, for which we were willing to make theextreme sacrifice, --and that issue he defined as "war against war. " Itremained for America to make the issue. 

Peoples do not rush to arms unless their national existence isthreatened. It is what may be called the environmental cause that drivesnations quickly into war. It drove the Entente nations into war, thoughincidentally they were struggling for certain democratic institutions, for international justice. But in the case of America, the environmentalcause was absent. Whether or not our national existence was or isactually threatened, the average American does not believe that it is. He was called upon to abandon his tradition, to mingle in a Europeanconflict, to fight for an idea alone. Ideas require time to develop, toseize the imagination of masses. And it must be remembered that in 1914the great issue had not been defined. Curiously enough, now that itis defined, it proves to be an American issue--a logical and positiveprojection of our Washingtonian tradition and Monroe doctrine. Thesehad for their object the preservation and development of democracy, the banishment from the Western Hemisphere of European imperialisticconflict and war. We are now, with the help of our allies, striving tobanish these things from the face of the earth. It is undoubtedlythe greatest idea for which man has been summoned to make the supremesacrifice. 

Its evolution has been traced. Democracy was the issue in the SpanishWar, when we fought a weak nation. We have followed its broaderapplication to Mexico, when we were willing to ignore the taunts andinsults of another weak nation, even the loss of "prestige, " for thesake of the larger good. And we have now the clue to the President'sinterpretation of the nation's mind during the first three years of thepresent war. We were willing to bear the taunts and insults of Germanyso long as it appeared that a future world peace night best be broughtabout by the preservation of neutrality, by turning the weight of theimpartial public opinion of our democracy and that of other neutralsagainst militarism and imperialism. Our national aim was ever consistentwith the ideal of William James, to advance democracy and put an end tothe evil of war. 

The only sufficient reason for the abandonment of the Washingtonianpolicy is the furtherance of the object for which it was inaugurated, the advance of democracy. And we had established the precedent, with Spain and Mexico, that the Republic shall engage in no war ofimperialistic conquest. We war only in behalf of, or in defence of, democracy. 

Before the entrance of America, however, the issues of the EuropeanWar were by no means clear cut along democratic lines. What kind ofdemocracy were the allies fighting for? Nowhere and at no time had itbeen defined by any of their statesmen. On the contrary, the variousallied governments had entered into compacts for the transferenceof territory in the event of victory; and had even, by the offer ofrewards, sought to play one small nation against another. This secretdiplomacy of bargains, of course, was a European heritage, the result ofan imperialistic environment which the American did not understand, and from which he was happily free. Its effect on France is peculiarlyenlightening. The hostility of European governments, due to their fearof her republican institutions, retarded her democratic growth, andher history during the reign of Napoleon III is one of intrigue foraggrandizement differing from Bismarck's only in the fact that it wasunsuccessful. Britain, because she was separated from the continent andprotected by her fleet, virtually withdrew from European affairs inthe latter part of the nineteenth century, and, as a result, made greatstrides in democracy. The aggressions of Germany forced Britain inself-defence into coalitions. Because of her power and wealth she becamethe Entente leader, yet her liberal government was compelled to enterinto secret agreements with certain allied governments in order tosatisfy what they deemed to be their needs and just ambitions. She hadhonestly sought, before the war, to come to terms with Germany, and hadeven proposed gradual disarmament. But, despite the best intentions, circumstances and environment, as well as the precarious situation ofher empire, prevented her from liberalizing her foreign relations toconform with the growth of democracy within the United Kingdom and theDominions. Americans felt a profound pity for Belgium. But she wasnot, as Cuba had been, our affair. The great majority of our citizenssympathized with the Entente, regarded with amazement and disgust thesudden disclosure of the true character of the German militaristicgovernment. Yet for the average American the war wore the complexionof other European conflicts, was one involving a Balance of Power, mysterious and inexplicable. To him the underlying issue was notdemocratic, but imperialistic; and this was partly because he was unableto make a mental connection between a European war and the brand ofdemocracy he recognized. Preaching and propaganda fail unless it can bebrought home to a people that something dear to their innermost natureis at stake, that the fate of the thing they most desire, and arewilling to make sacrifices for, hangs in the balance. 

During a decade the old political parties, between which there wasnow little more than an artificial alignment, had been breaking up. Americans were absorbed in the great liberal movement begun under theleadership of President Roosevelt, the result of which was to transformdemocracy from a static to a pragmatic and evolutionary conception, --inorder to meet and correct new and unforeseen evils. Political freedomwas seen to be of little worth unless also accompanied by the economicfreedom the nation had enjoyed before the advent of industrialism. Clerks and farmers, professional men and shopkeepers and artisans wereready to follow the liberal leaders in states and nation; intellectualelements from colleges and universities were enlisted. Parallelingthe movement, at times mingling with it, was the revolt of labour, manifested not only in political action, but in strikes and violence. Readily accessible books and magazines together with club and forumlectures in cities, towns, and villages were rapidly educating thepopulation in social science, and the result was a growing independentvote to make politicians despair. 

Here was an instance of a democratic culture growing inisolation, resentful of all external interference. To millions ofAmericans--especially in our middle western and western states--bentupon social reforms, the European War appeared as an arrestinginfluence. American participation meant the triumph of the forcesof reaction. Colour was lent to this belief because the conservativeelement which had opposed social reforms was loudest in its demand forintervention. The wealthy and travelled classes organized preparednessparades and distributed propaganda. In short, those who had apparentlydone their utmost to oppose democracy at home were most insistent thatwe should embark upon a war for democracy across the seas. Again, whatkind of democracy? Obviously a status quo, commercially imperialisticdemocracy, which the awakening liberal was bent upon abolishing. 

There is undoubtedly in such an office as the American presidencysome virtue which, in times of crisis, inspires in capable men anintellectual and moral growth proportional to developing events. Lincoln, our most striking example, grew more between 1861 and 1865than during all the earlier years of his life. Nor is the growth ofdemocratic leaders, when seen through the distorted passions oftheir day, apparently a consistent thing. Greatness, near at hand, isstartlingly like inconsistency; it seems at moments to vacillate, toturn back upon and deny itself, and thus lays itself open to seeminglyplausible criticism by politicians and time servers and all who cry outfor precedent. Yet it is an interesting and encouraging fact that thefaith of democratic peoples goes out, and goes out alone, to leaderswho--whatever their minor faults and failings--do not fear to reversethemselves when occasion demands; to enunciate new doctrines, seeminglyin contradiction to former assertions, to meet new crises. When ademocratic leader who has given evidence of greatness ceases to developnew ideas, he loses the public confidence. He flops back into the ranksof the conservative he formerly opposed, who catch up with him only whenhe ceases to grow. 

In 1916 the majority of the American people elected Mr. Wilson in thebelief that he would keep them out of war. In 1917 he entered the warwith the nation behind him. A recalcitrant Middle West was the firstto fill its quota of volunteers, and we witnessed the extraordinaryspectacle of the endorsement of conscription: What had happened? A verysimple, but a very great thing Mr. Wilson had made the issue of thewar a democratic issue, an American issue, in harmony with our nationalhopes and traditions. But why could not this issue have been announcedin 1914 or 1915? The answer seems to be that peoples, as well as theirleaders and interpreters, must grow to meet critical situations. In 1861the moral idea of the Civil War was obscured and hidden by economic andmaterial interests. The Abraham Lincoln who entered the White House in1881 was indeed the same man who signed the Emancipation Proclamationin 1863; and yet, in a sense, he was not the same man; events andresponsibilities had effected a profound but logical growth in hispersonality. And the people of the Union were not ready to endorseEmancipation in 1861. In 1863, in the darkest hour of the war, thespirit of the North responded to the call, and, despite the vilificationof the President, was true to him to victory. More significant still, in view of the events of today, is what then occurred in England. TheBritish Government was unfriendly; the British people as a whole hadlooked upon our Civil War very much in the same light as the Americanpeople regarded the present war at its inception--which is to say thatthe economic and materialistic issue seemed to overshadow the moral one. When Abraham Lincoln proclaimed it to be a war for human freedom, the sentiment of the British people changed--of the British people asdistinct from the governing classes; and the textile workers of thenorthern counties, whose mills could not get cotton on account of theblockade, declared their willingness to suffer and starve if the slavesin America might be freed. 

Abraham Lincoln at that time represented the American people asthe British Government did not represent the British people. We areconcerned today with peoples rather than governments. 

It remained for an American President to announce the moral issue of thepresent war, and thus to solidify behind him, not only the liberal mindof America, but the liberal elements within the nations of Europe. Hebecame the democratic leader of the world. The issue, simply stated, isthe advancement of democracy and peace. They are inseparable. Democracy, for progress, demands peace. It had reached a stage, when, in acontracting world, it could no longer advance through isolation:its very existence in every country was threatened, not only by thepartisans of reaction from within, but by the menace from without of amilitaristic and imperialistic nation determined to crush it, restoresuperimposed authority, and dominate the globe. Democracy, dividedagainst itself, cannot stand. A league of democratic nations, ofdemocratic peoples, has become imperative. Hereafter, if democracy wins, self-determination, and not imperialistic exploitation, is to be theuniversal rule. It is the extension, on a world scale, of Mr. Wilson's Mexican policy, the application of democratic principles tointernational relationships, and marks the inauguration of a new era. Weresort to force against force, not for dominion, but to make theworld safe for the idea on which we believe the future of civilizationdepends, the sacred right of self-government. We stand prepared to treatwith the German people when they are ready to cast off autocracy andmilitarism. Our attitude toward them is precisely our attitude towardthe Mexican People. We believe, and with good reason, that the Germansystem of education is authoritative and false, and was more or lessdeliberately conceived in order to warp the nature and producecomplexes in the mind of the German people for the end of preserving andperpetuating the power of the Junkers. We have no quarrel with theduped and oppressed, but we war against the agents of oppression. To theconservative mind such an aspiration appears chimerical. But America, youngest of the nations, was born when modern science was gatheringthe momentum which since has enabled it to overcome, with a bewilderingrapidity, many evils previously held by superstition to be ineradicable. As a corollary to our democratic creed, we accepted the dictum that tohuman intelligence all things are possible. The virtue of this dictumlies not in dogma, but in an indomitable attitude of mind to which theworld owes its every advance in civilization; quixotic, perhaps, butnecessary to great accomplishment. In searching for a present-dayprotagonist, no happier example could be found than Mr. Henry Ford, whoexhibits the characteristic American mixture of the practical and theideal. He introduces into industry humanitarian practices that eventend to increase the vast fortune which by his own efforts he hasaccumulated. He sees that democratic peoples do not desire to go towar, he does not believe that war is necessary and inevitable, he layshimself open to ridicule by financing a Peace Mission. Circumstancesforce him to abandon his project, but he is not for one momentdiscouraged. His intention remains. He throws all his energy and wealthinto a war to end war, and the value of his contribution is inestimable. 

A study of Mr. Ford's mental processes and acts illustrates the truemind of America. In the autumn of 1916 Mr. Wilson declared that "thepeople of the United States want to be sure what they are fightingabout, and they want to be sure that they are fighting for the thingsthat will bring the world justice and peace. Define the elements; letus know that we are not fighting for the prevalence of this nation overthat, for the ambitions of this group of nations as compared with theambitions of that group of nations, let us once be convinced that we arecalled in to a great combination for the rights of mankind, and Americawill unite her force and spill her blood for the great things she hasalways believed in and followed. "

"America is always ready to fight for the things which are American. "Even in these sombre days that mark the anniversary of our entrance intothe war. But let it be remembered that it was in the darkest days of theCivil War Abraham Lincoln boldly proclaimed the democratic, idealisticissue of that struggle. The Russian Revolution, which we must seekto understand and not condemn, the Allied defeats that are itsconsequences, can only make our purpose the firmer to put forth all ourstrength for the building up of a better world. The President's masterlyseries of state papers, distributed in all parts of the globe, haveindeed been so many Proclamations of Emancipation for the world'soppressed. Not only powerful nations shall cease to exploit littlenations, but powerful individuals shall cease to exploit their fellowmen. Henceforth no wars for dominion shall be waged, and to thisend secret treaties shall be abolished. Peoples through theirrepresentatives shall make their own treaties. And just as democracyinsures to the individual the greatest amount of self-determination, nations also shall have self-determination, in order that each shall befree to make its world contribution. All citizens have duties toperform toward their fellow citizens; all democratic nations must beinterdependent. 

With this purpose America has entered the war. But it implies that ourown household must be swept and cleaned. The injustices and inequalitiesexisting in our own country, the false standards of worth, thematerialism, the luxury and waste must be purged from our midst. 

III. 

In fighting Germany we are indeed fighting an evil Will--evil because itseeks to crush the growth of individual and national freedom. Its objectis to put the world back under the thrall of self-constituted authority. So long as this Will can compel the bodies of soldiers to do itsbidding, these bodies must be destroyed. Until the Will behind them isbroken, the world cannot be free. Junkerism is the final expressionof reaction, organized to the highest efficiency. The war against theJunkers marks the consummation of a long struggle for human liberty inall lands, symbolizes the real cleavage dividing the world. As in theFrench Revolution and the wars that followed it, the true significanceof this war is social. But today the Russian Revolution sounds thekeynote. Revolutions tend to express the extremes of the philosophiesof their times--human desires, discontents, and passions that cannot beorganized. The French Revolution was a struggle for political freedom;the underlying issue of the present war is economic freedom--withoutwhich political freedom is of no account. It will not, therefore, suffice merely to crush the Junkers, and with them militarism andautocracy. Unless, as the fruit of this appalling bloodshed andsuffering, the democracies achieve economic freedom, the war willhave been fought in vain. More revolutions, wastage and bloodshed willfollow, the world will be reduced to absolute chaos unless, in the moreadvanced democracies, an intelligent social order tending to removethe causes of injustice and discontent can be devised and ready forinauguration. This new social order depends, in turn, upon a world orderof mutually helpful, free peoples, a league of Nations. --If the worldis to be made safe for democracy, this democratic plan must be ready forthe day when the German Junker is beaten and peace is declared. 

The real issue of our time is industrial democracy we must face thatfact. And those in America and the Entente nations who continue tooppose it will do so at their peril. Fortunately, as will be shown, thatelement of our population which may be designated as domestic Junkersis capable of being influenced by contemporary currents of thought, is awakening to the realization of social conditions deplorable anddangerous. Prosperity and power had made them blind and arrogant. Theirenthusiasm for the war was, however, genuine; the sacrifices they aremaking are changing and softening them; but as yet they can scarcely beexpected, as a class, to rejoice over the revelation--just beginningto dawn upon their minds--that victory for the Allies spells the end ofprivilege. Their conception of democracy remains archaic, while wealthis inherently conservative. Those who possess it in America have as arule received an education in terms of an obsolete economics, of thethought of an age gone by. It is only within the past few years that ourcolleges and universities have begun to teach modern economics, social science and psychology--and this in the face of opposition fromtrustees. Successful business men, as a rule, have had neither the timenor the inclination to read books which they regard as visionary, as subversive to an order by which they have profited. And that someAmericans are fools, and have been dazzled in Europe by the glamour of aprivilege not attainable at home, is a deplorable yet indubitable fact. These have little sympathy with democracy; they have even been heardto declare that we have no right to dictate to another nation, even anenemy nation, what form of government it shall assume. We have no rightto demand, when peace comes, that the negotiations must be with therepresentatives of the German people. These are they who deplore theabsence among us of a tradition of monarchy, since the American people"should have something to look up to. " But this state of mind, whichneeds no comment, is comparatively rare, and represents an extreme. Weare not lacking, however, in the type of conservative who, innocent of aknowledge of psychology, insists that "human nature cannot be changed, "and that the "survival of the fittest" is the law of life, yet thesewould deny Darwin if he were a contemporary. They reject the idea thatsociety can be organized by intelligence, and war ended by eliminatingits causes from the social order. On the contrary they cling to theorthodox contention that war is a necessary and salutary thing, andproclaim that the American fibre was growing weak and flabby from luxuryand peace, curiously ignoring the fact that their own economic class, the small percentage of our population owning sixty per cent. Of thewealth of the country, and which therefore should be most debilitated byluxury, was most eager for war, and since war has been declared has mostamply proved its courage and fighting quality. This, however, and otherevidences of the patriotic sacrifices of those of our countrymen whopossess wealth, prove that they are still Americans, and encourages thehope and belief that as Americans they ultimately will do their sharetoward a democratic solution of the problem of society. Many of them arecapable of vision, and are beginning to see the light today. 

In America we succeeded in eliminating hereditary power, in obtaining alarge measure of political liberty, only to see the rise of an economicpower, and the consequent loss of economic liberty. The industrialdevelopment of the United States was of course a necessary and desirablething, but the economic doctrine which formed the basis of Americaninstitutions proved to be unsuited to industrialism, and introducedunforeseen evils that were a serious menace to the Republic. Anindividualistic economic philosophy worked admirably while there wasample land for the pioneer, equality of opportunity to satisfy theindividual initiative of the enterprising. But what is known asindustrialism brought in its train fear and favour, privilege andpoverty, slums, disease, and municipal vice, fostered a too rapidimmigration, established in America a tenant system alien to ourtraditions. The conditions which existed before the advent ofindustrialism are admirably pictured, for instance, in the autobiographyof Mr. Charles Francis Adams, when he describes his native town ofQuincy in the first half of the Nineteenth Century. In those earlycommunities, poverty was negligible, there was no great contrast betweenrich and poor; the artisan, the farmer, the well-to-do merchant meton terms of mutual self-respect, as man to man; economic classconsciousness was non-existent; education was so widespread thatEuropean travellers wonderingly commented on the fact that we had no"peasantry"; and with few exceptions every citizen owned a piece of landand a home. Property, a refuge a man may call his own, and on whichhe may express his individuality, is essential to happiness andself-respect. Today, less than two thirds of our farmers own their land, while vast numbers of our working men and women possess nothing but thelabour of their hands. The designation of labour as "property" by ourcourts only served to tighten the bonds, by obstructing for a time themovement to decrease the tedious and debilitating hours of contact ofthe human organism with the machine, --a menace to the future of therace, especially in the case of women and children. If labour is"property, " wretches driven by economic necessity have indeed only thechoice of a change of masters. In addition to the manual workers, anarmy of clerical workers of both sexes likewise became tenants, anddependents who knew not the satisfaction of a real home. 

Such conditions gradually brought about a profound discontent, agrouping of classes. Among the comparatively prosperous there was setup a social competition in luxury that was the bane of large andsmall communities. Skilled labour banded itself into unions, employersorganized to oppose them, and the result was a class conflict nevercontemplated by the founders of the Republic, repugnant to democracywhich by its very nature depends for its existence on the elimination ofclasses. In addition to this, owing to the unprecedented immigration ofignorant Europeans to supply the labour demand, we acquired a sinisterproletariat of unskilled economic slaves. Before the war labourdiscovered its strength; since the war began, especially in the alliednations with quasi-democratic institutions, it is aware of its power toexert a leverage capable of paralyzing industry for a period sufficientto destroy the chances of victory. The probability of the occurrenceof such a calamity depends wholly on whether or not the workman canbe convinced that it is his war, for he will not exert himself toperpetuate a social order in which he has lost faith, even though he nowobtains a considerable increase in wages. Agreements entered into withthe government by union leaders will not hold him if at any time hefails to be satisfied that the present world conflict will not resultin a greater social justice. This fact has been demonstrated by whatis known as the "shop steward" movement in England, where the workersrepudiated the leaders' agreements and everywhere organized localstrikes. And in America, the unskilled workers are largely outside ofthe unions. 

The workman has a natural and laudable desire to share more fully inthe good things of life. And it is coming to be recognized that materialprosperity, up to a certain point, is the foundation of mental andspiritual welfare: clean and comfortable surroundings, beauty, rationalamusements, opportunity for a rational satisfaction of, the human. Instincts are essential to contentment and progress. The individual, ofcourse, must be enlightened; and local labour unions, recognizingthis, are spending considerable sums all over the country on schoolsto educate their members. If a workman is a profiteer, he is more to beexcused than the business profiteer, against whom his anger is directed;if he is a spendthrift, prodigality is a natural consequence of rapidacquisition. We have been a nation of spendthrifts. 

A failure to grasp the psychology of the worker involves disastrousconsequences. A discussion as to whether or not his attitude isunpatriotic and selfish is futile. No more profound mistake could bemade than to attribute to any element of the population motives whollybase. Human nature is neither all black nor all white, yet is capableof supreme sacrifices when adequately appealed to. What we must get intoour minds is the fact that a social order that insured a large measureof democracy in the early days of the Republic is inadequate to meetmodern industrial conditions. Higher wages, material prosperity alonewill not suffice to satisfy aspirations for a fuller self-realization, once the method by which these aspirations can be gained is glimpsed. For it cannot be too often repeated that the unquenchable conflicts arethose waged for ideas and not dollars. These are tinged with religiousemotion. 

IV. 

Mr. Wilson's messages to the American people and to the world haveproclaimed a new international order, a League of Democracies. And in arecent letter to New Jersey Democrats we find him warning his party, or more properly the nation, of the domestic social changes necessarilyflowing from his international program. While rightly resolved toprosecute the war on the battle lines to the utmost limit of Americanresources, he points out that the true significance of the conflict liesin "revolutionary change. " "Economic and social forces, " he says, "arebeing released upon the world, whose effect no political seer dare toconjecture. " And we "must search our hearts through and through andmake them ready for the birth of a new day--a day we hope and believeof greater opportunity and greater prosperity for the average mass ofstruggling men and women. " He recognizes that the next great step inthe development of democracy which the war must bring about--is theemancipation of labour; to use his own phrase, the redemption of massesof men and women from "economic serfdom. " "The old party slogans, " hedeclares, "will mean nothing to the future. "

Judging from this announcement, the President seems prepared to condemnboldly all the rotten timbers of the social structure that have outlivedtheir usefulness--a position that hitherto no responsible politician hasdared to take. Politicians, on the contrary, have revered the dead wood, have sought to shore the old timbers for their own purposes. But sofar as any party is concerned, Mr. Wilson stands alone. Both of the twogreat parties, the Republican and the Democratic, in order to makea show of keeping abreast of the times, have merely patched theirplatforms with the new ideas. The Socialist Party in the United Statesis relatively small, is divided against itself, and has given noevidence of a leadership of broad sanity and vision. It is fortunatewe have been spared in this country the formation of a political labourparty, because such a party would have been composed of manual workersalone, and hence would have tended further to develop economic classconsciousness, to crystallize class antagonisms. Today, however, neitherthe Republican nor the Democratic party represents the great issue ofthe times; the cleavage between them is wholly artificial. The formationof a Liberal Party, with a platform avowedly based on modern socialscience, has become essential. Such a party, to be in harmony with ourtraditions and our creed, to arrest in our democracy the process ofclass stratification which threatens to destroy it, must not draw itsmembers from the ranks of manual labour alone, but from all elementsof our population. It should contain all the liberal professions, andclerks and shopkeepers, as well as manual workers; administrators, andeven those employers who have become convinced that our presenteconomic system does not suffice to meet the needs of the day. In short, membership in such a party, as far as possible, should not be based uponoccupation or economic status, but on an honest difference of view fromthat of the conservative opposition. This would be a distinctly Americansolution. In order to form such a party a campaign of education willbe necessary. For today Mr. Wilson's strength is derived from theindependent vote representing the faith of the people as a whole; butthe majority of those who support the President, while they ardentlydesire the abolition in the world of absolute monarchy, of militarismand commercial imperialism, while they are anxious that this war shallexpedite and not retard the social reforms in which they are interested, have as yet but a vague conception of the social order which thesereforms imply. 

It marks a signal advance in democracy when liberal opinion in anynation turns for guidance and support to a statesman of another nation. No clearer sign of the times could be desired than the fact that ourAmerican President has suddenly become the liberal leader of the world. The traveller in France, and especially in Britain, meets on all sidesstriking evidence of this. In these countries, until America's entranceinto the war, liberals had grown more and more dissatisfied with thefailure of their governments to define in democratic terms the issue ofthe conflict, had resented the secret inter-allied compacts, savouringof imperialism and containing the germs of future war. They are nowlooking across the Atlantic for leadership. In France M. Albert Thomasdeclared that Woodrow Wilson had given voice to the aspirations of hisparty, while a prominent Liberal in England announced in a speech thatit had remained for the American President to express the will andpurpose of the British people. The new British Labour Party and theInter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conferences have adopted Mr. Wilson'sprogram and have made use of his striking phrases. But we have betweenAmerica and Britain this difference: in America the President standsvirtually alone, without a party behind him representing his views;in Britain the general democratic will of the nation is now beingorganized, but has obtained as yet no spokesman in the government. 

Extraordinary symptomatic phenomena have occurred in Russia as well asin Britain. In Russia the rebellion of an awakening people against anage-long tyranny has almost at once leaped to the issue of the day, taken on the complexion of a struggle for industrial democracy. Whetherthe Germans shall be able to exploit the country, bring about a reactionand restore for a time monarchical institutions depends largely uponthe fortunes of the war. In Russia there is revolution, with concomitantchaos; but in Britain there is evolution, an orderly attempt of a peoplelong accustomed to progress in self-government to establish a newsocial order, peacefully and scientifically, and in accordance with atraditional political procedure. 

The recent development of the British Labour Party, although of deepsignificance to Americans, has taken place almost without comment inthis country. It was formally established in 1900, and was then composedof manual workers alone. In 1906, out of 50 candidates at the polls, 39were elected to Parliament; in 1910, 42 were elected. The ParliamentaryLabour Party, so called, has now been amalgamated with four and a halfmillions of Trade Unionists, and with the three and a half millionsof members of the Co-operative Wholesale Society and the Co-operativeUnion. Allowing for duplication of membership, these threeorganizations--according to Mr. Sidney Webb--probably include two fifthsof the population of the United Kingdom. "So great an aggregation ofworking class organizations, " he says, "has never come shoulder toshoulder in any country. " Other smaller societies and organizations arelikewise embraced, including the Socialists. And now that the suffragehas been extended, provision is made for the inclusion of women. The newparty is organizing in from three to four hundred constituencies, andat the next general election is not unlikely to gain control of thepolitical balance of power. 

With the majority of Americans, however, the word "labour" asdesignating a party arouses suspicion and distrust. By nature andtradition we are inclined to deplore and oppose any tendency towardthe stratification of class antagonisms--the result of industrialdiscontent--into political groups. The British tradition is likewisehostile to such a tendency. But in Britain the industrial ferment hasgone much further than with us, and such a result was inevitable. Bytaking advantage of the British experience, of the closer ties now beingknit between the two democracies, we may in America be spared a stagewhich in Britain was necessary. Indeed, the program of the new BritishLabour Party seems to point to a distinctly American solution, one inharmony with the steady growth of Anglo-Saxon democracy. For it is nowannounced that the word "labour, " as applied to the new party, does notmean manual labour alone, but also mental labour. The British unionshave gradually developed and placed in power leaders educated in socialscience, who have now come into touch with the intellectual leadersof the United Kingdom, with the sociologists, economists, and socialscientists. The surprising and encouraging result of such association isthe announcement that the new Labour Party is today publicly thrown opento all workers, both by hand and by brain, with the object of securingfor these the full fruits of their industry. This means the inclusion ofphysicians, professors, writers, architects, engineers, and inventors, of lawyers who no longer regard their profession as a bulwark of thestatus quo; of clerks, of administrators of the type evolved by the war, who indeed have gained their skill under the old order but who now in asocial spirit are dedicating their gifts to the common weal, organizingand directing vast enterprises for their governments. In short, alluseful citizens who make worthy contributions--as distinguished fromparasites, profiteers, and drones, are invited to be members; there isno class distinction here. The fortunes of such a party are, of course, dependent upon the military success of the allied armies and navies. Butit has defined the kind of democracy the Allies are fighting for, andthus has brought about an unqualified endorsement of the war by thoseelements of the population which hitherto have felt the issue to beimperialistic and vague rather than democratic and clear cut. PresidentWilson's international program is approved of and elaborated. 

The Report on Reconstruction of the new British Labour Party is perhapsthe most important political document presented to the world since theDeclaration of Independence. And like the Declaration, it is writtenin the pure English that alone gives the high emotional quality ofsincerity. The phrases in which it tersely describes its objects areadmirable. "What is to be reconstructed after the war is over isnot this or that government department, this or that piece of socialmachinery, but Society itself. " There is to be a systematic approachtowards a "healthy equality of material circumstance for every personborn into the world, and not an enforced dominion over subject nations, subject colonies, subject classes, or a subject sex. " In industry aswell as in government the social order is to be based "on that equalfreedom, that general consciousness of consent, and that widestparticipation in power, both economic and political, which ischaracteristic of democracy. " But all this, it should be noted, is notto be achieved in a year or two of "feverish reconstruction"; "eachbrick that the Labour Party helps to lay shall go to erect the structureit intends and no other. "

In considering the main features of this program, one must have inmind whether these are a logical projection and continuation of theAnglo-Saxon democratic tradition, or whether they constitute an absolutebreak with that tradition. The only valid reason for the adoption ofsuch a program in America would be, of course, the restoration of somesuch equality of opportunity and economic freedom as existed in ourRepublic before we became an industrial nation. "The first conditionof democracy, "--to quote again from the program, "is effective personalfreedom. "

What is called the "Universal Enforcement of the National Minimum"contemplates the extension of laws already on the statute books in orderto prevent the extreme degradation of the standard of life brought aboutby the old economic system under industrialism. A living minimum wage isto be established. The British Labour Party intends "to secure toevery member of the community, in good times and bad alike. .. All therequisites of healthy life and worthy citizenship. "

After the war there is to be no cheap labour market, nor are themillions of workers and soldiers to fall into the clutches of charity;but it shall be a national obligation to provide each of these with workaccording to his capacity. In order to maintain the demand for labourat a uniform level, the government is to provide public works. Thepopulation is to be rehoused in suitable dwellings, both in ruraldistricts and town slums; new and more adequate schools and trainingcolleges are to be inaugurated; land is to be reclaimed and afforested, and gradually brought under common ownership; railways and canals are tobe reorganized and nationalized, mines and electric power systems. Oneof the significant proposals under this head is that which demands theretention of the centralization of the purchase of raw materials broughtabout by the war. 

In order to accomplish these objects there must be a "Revolution inNational Finance. " The present method of raising funds is denounced; andit is pointed out that only one quarter of the colossal expenditure madenecessary by the war has been raised by taxation, and that the threequarters borrowed at onerous rates is sure to be a burden on thenation's future. The capital needed, when peace comes, to ensure a happyand contented democracy must be procured without encroaching on theminimum standard of life, and without hampering production. Indirecttaxation must therefore be concentrated on those luxuries of which itis desirable that the consumption be discouraged. The steadily risingunearned increment of urban and mineral land ought, by appropriatedirect taxation, to be brought into the public exchequer; "the definiteteachings of economic science are no longer to be disregarded. " Henceincomes are to be taxed above the necessary cost of family maintenance, private fortunes during life and at death; while a special capital levymust be made to pay off a substantial portion of the national debt. 

"The Democratic Control of Industry" contemplates the progressiveelimination of the private capitalist and the setting free of all whowork by hand and brain for the welfare of all. 

The Surplus Wealth is to be expended for the Common Good. That whichCarlyle designates as the "inward spiritual, " in contrast to the"outward economical, " is also to be provided for. "Society, " says thedocument, "like the individual, does not live by bread alone, does notexist only for perpetual wealth production. " First of all, there is tobe education according to the highest modern standard; and along witheducation, the protection and advancement of the public health, 'menssana in corpore sano'. While large sums must be set aside, not only fororiginal research in every branch of knowledge, but for the promotionof music, literature, and fine art, upon which "any real development ofcivilization fundamentally depends. "

In regard to the British Empire, the Labour Party urges self-governmentfor any people, whatever its colour, proving itself capable, and theright of that people to the proceeds of its own toil upon the resourcesof its territory. An unequivocal stand is taken for the establishment, as a part of the treaty of peace, of a Universal Society of Nations;and recognizing that the future progress of democracy depends uponco-operation and fellowship between liberals of all countries, themaintenance of intimate relationships is advocated with liberalsoversea. 

Finally, a scientific investigation of each succeeding problem ingovernment is insisted upon, and a much more rapid dissemination amongthe people of the science that exists. "A plutocratic party may chooseto ignore science, but no labour party can hope to maintain its positionunless its proposals are, in fact, the outcome of the best politicalscience of its time. "

V. 

There are, it will be seen, some elements in the program of the newBritish Labour Party apparently at variance with American and Englishinstitutions, traditions, and ideas. We are left in doubt, for instance, in regard to its attitude toward private property. The instinct forproperty is probably innate in humanity, and American conservatism inthis regard is, according to certain modern economists, undoubtedlysound. A man should be permitted to acquire at least as much propertyas is required for the expression of his personality; such a wiselimitation, also, would abolish the evil known as absentee ownership. Again, there will arise in many minds the question whether the fundsfor the plan of National finance outlined in the program may be obtainedwithout seriously deranging the economic system of the nation and of theworld. The older school denounces the program as Utopian. On the otherhand, economists of the modern school who have been consulted havedeclared it practical. It is certain that before the war began it wouldnot have been thought possible to raise the billions which in fouryears have been expended on sheer destruction; and one of our saddestreflections today must be of regret that a small portion of thesebillions which have gone to waste could not have been expended for thevery purposes outlined--education, public health, the advancement ofscience and art, public buildings, roads and parks, and the properhousing of populations! It is also dawning upon us, as a result of newpractices brought about by the war, that our organization of industrywas happy-go-lucky, inefficient and wasteful, and that a more scientificand economical organization is imperative. Under such a new system itmay well be, as modern economists claim, that, we shall have an amplesurplus for the Common Good. 

The chief objection to a National or Democratic Control of Industry hasbeen that it would tend to create vast political machines and thus givethe politicians in office a nefarious power. It is not intended here toattempt a refutation of this contention. The remedy lies in a changedattitude of the employee and the citizen toward government, and thefact that such an attitude is now developing is not subject to absoluteproof. It may be said, however, that no greater menace to democracycould have arisen than the one we seem barely to have escaped--thecontrol of politics and government by the capitalistic interests of thenation. What seems very clear is that an evolutionary drift toward thenational control of industry has for many years been going on, and thatthe war has tremendously speeded up the tendency. Government has steppedin to protect the consumer of necessities from the profiteer, andis beginning to set a limit upon profits; has regulated exports andimports; established a national shipping corporation and merchantmarine, and entered into other industries; it has taken over therailroads at least for the duration of the war, and may take over coalmines, and metal resources, as well as the forests and water power; itnow contemplates the regulation of wages. 

The exigency caused by the war, moreover, has transformed the formerpractice of international intercourse. Co-operation has replacedcompetition. We are reorganizing and regulating our industries, ourbusiness, making sacrifices and preparing to make more sacrifices inorder to meet the needs of our Allies, now that they are sore beset. Fora considerable period after the war is ended, they will require our aid. We shall be better off than any other of the belligerent nations, andwe shall therefore be called upon to practice, during the years ofreconstruction, a continuation of the same policy of helpfulness. Indeed, for the nations of the world to spring, commercially speaking, at one another's throats would be suicidal even if it were possible. Mr. Sidney Webb has thrown a flood of light upon the conditions likely toprevail. For example, speculative export trade is being replaced bycollective importing, bringing business more directly under the controlof the consumer. This has been done by co-operative societies, bymunicipalities and states, in Switzerland, France, the United Kingdom, and in Germany. The Co-operative Wholesale Society of Great Britain, acting on behalf of three and a half million families, buys two and ahalf million dollars of purchases annually. And the Entente nations, inorder to avoid competitive bidding, are buying collectively from us, notonly munitions of war, but other supplies, while the British Governmenthas made itself the sole importer of such necessities as wheat, sugar, tea, refrigerated meat, wool, and various metals. The French and Italiangovernments, and also certain neutral states, have done likewise. Apurchasing commission for all the Allies and America is now proposed. After the war, as an inevitable result, for one thing, of transformingsome thirty million citizens into soldiers, of engaging a like number ofmen and women at enhanced wages on the manufacture of the requisites ofwar, Mr. Webb predicts a world shortage not only in wheat and foodstuffsbut in nearly all important raw materials. These will be required forthe resumption of manufacture. In brief, international co-operationwill be the only means of salvation. The policy of international tradeimplied by world shortage is not founded upon a law of "supply anddemand. " The necessities cannot be permitted to go to those who canafford to pay the highest prices, but to those who need them most. Forthe "free play of economic forces" would mean famine on a large scale, because the richer nations and the richer classes within the nationsmight be fully supplied; but to the detriment and ruin of the worldthe poorer nations and the poorer classes would be starved. Thereforegovernments are already beginning to give consideration to a neworganization of international trade for at least three years afterthe war. Now if this organization produce, as it may produce, a moredesirable civilization and a happier world order, we are not likelyentirely to go back--especially in regard to commodities which arenecessities--to a competitive system. The principle of "priorityof need" will supersede the law of "supply and demand. " And theorganizations built up during the war, if they prove efficient, will notbe abolished. Hours of labour and wages in the co-operative League ofNations will gradually be equalized, and tariffs will become thingsof the past. "The axiom will be established, " says Mr. Webb, "that theresources of every country must, be held for the benefit not only of itsown people but of the world. .. . The world shortage will, for years tocome, make import duties look both oppressive and ridiculous. "

So much may be said for the principle of Democratic Control. In spite ofall theoretical opposition, circumstances and evolution apparently pointto its establishment. A system that puts a premium on commercial greedseems no longer possible. 

The above comments, based on the drift of political practice duringthe past decade and a half, may be taken for what they are worth. Predictions are precarious. The average American will be inclined toregard the program of the new British Labour Party as the embodiment ofwhat he vaguely calls Socialism, and to him the very word is repugnant. Although he may never have heard of Marx, it is the Marxian conceptionthat comes to his mind, and this implies coercion, a government thatconstantly interferes with his personal liberty, that compels himto tasks for which he has no relish. But your American, and yourEnglishman, for that matter, is inherently an individualist he wants aslittle government as is compatible with any government at all. And thedescendants of the continental Europeans who flock to our shoresare Anglo-Saxonized, also become by environment and educationindividualists. The great importance of preserving this individualism, this spirit in our citizens of self-reliance, this suspicion against toomuch interference with personal liberty, must at once be admitted. Andany scheme for a social order that tends to eliminate and destroy itshould by Americans be summarily rejected. 

The question of supreme interest to us, therefore, is whether thesocial order implied in the British program is mainly in the nature ofa development of, or a break with, the Anglo-Saxon democratic tradition. The program is derived from an English source. It is based on what isknown as modern social science, which has as its ultimate sanction thenature of the human mind as revealed by psychology. A consideration ofthe principles underlying this proposed social order may prove that itis essentially--if perhaps paradoxically--individualistic, a logicalevolution of institutions which had their origin in the Magna Charta. Our Declaration of Independence proclaimed that every citizen had theright to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, " which meansthe opportunity to achieve the greatest self-development andself-realization. The theory is that each citizen shall find his place, according to his gifts and abilities, and be satisfied therewith. We maydiscover that this is precisely what social science, in an industrialage, and by spiritualizing human effort, aims to achieve. We may findthat the appearance of such a program as that of the British LabourParty, supported as it is by an imposing proportion of the populationof the United Kingdom, marks a further step, not only in the advance ofsocial science and democracy, but also of Christianity. 

I mention Christianity, not for controversial or apologetic reasons, butbecause it has been the leaven of our western civilization ever sincethe fall of the Roman Empire. Its constant influence has been to softenand spiritualize individual and national relationships. The bittercontroversies, wars, and persecutions which have raged in its name areutterly alien to its being. And that the present war is now being foughtby the Allies in the hope of putting an end to war, and is thus in thetrue spirit of Christianity, marks an incomparable advance. 

Almost up to the present day, both in our conception and practice ofChristianity, we have largely neglected its most important elements. Christian orthodoxy, as Auguste Sabatier points out, is largely derivedfrom the older supernatural religions. The preservative shell of dogmaand superstition has been cracking, and is now ready to burst, and thesocial teaching of Jesus would seem to be the kernel from which hassprung modern democracy, modern science, and modern religion--a trinityand unity. 

For nearly two thousand years orthodoxy has insisted that the socialprinciples of Christianity are impractical. And indeed, until thepresent day, they have been so. Physical science, by enormouslyaccelerating the means of transportation and communication, has socontracted the world as to bring into communion peoples and raceshitherto far apart; has made possible an intelligent organization ofindustry which, for the first time in history, can create a surplusample to maintain in comfort the world's population. But this demandsthe will to co-operation, which is a Christian principle--a recognitionof the brotherhood of man. Furthermore, physical science has increasedthe need for world peace and international co-operation because theterritories of all nations are now subject to swift and terribleinvasion by modern instruments of destruction, while the futuresubmarine may sweep commerce from the seas. 

Again, orthodoxy declares that human nature is inherently "bad, " whiletrue Christianity, endorsed by psychology, proclaims it inherently"good, " which means that, properly guided, properly educated, it iscreative and contributive rather than destructive. No more strikingproof of this fact can be cited than the modern experiment in prisonreform in which hardened convicts, when "given a chance, " frequentlybecome useful citizens. Unjust and unintelligent social conditions arethe chief factors in making criminals. 

Our most modern system of education, of which Professor John Dewey isthe chief protagonist, is based upon the assertions of psychology thathuman nature is essentially "good" creative. Every normal child issupposed to have a special "distinction" or gift, which it is the taskof the educator to discover. This distinction found, the child achieveshappiness in creation and contribution. Self-realization demandsknowledge and training: the doing of right is not a negative but apositive act; it is not without significance that the Greek word for sinis literally "missing the mark. " Christianity emphasizes above all elsethe worth of the individual, yet recognizes that the individual candevelop only in society. And if the individual be of great worth, thisworth must be by society developed to its utmost. Universal suffrage isa logical corollary. 

Universal suffrage, however, implies individual judgment, which meansthat the orthodox principle of external authority is out of place bothin Christianity and democracy. The Christian theory is that none shallintervene between a man's Maker and himself; democracy presupposes thatno citizen shall accept his beliefs and convictions from others, butshall make up his own mind and act accordingly. Open-mindedness is thefirst requisite of science and democracy. 

What has been deemed, however, in Christianity the most unrealizableideal is that which may be called pacifism--to resist not evil, to turnthe other cheek, to agree with your adversary while you are in theway with him. "I come not, " said Jesus, in one of those paradoxicalstatements hitherto so difficult to understand, "I come not to bringpeace, but a sword. " It is indeed what we are fighting for--peace. Butwe believe today, more strongly than ever before, as democracy advances, as peoples tend to gain more and more control over their governments, that even this may not be an unrealizable ideal. Democracies, intent onself-realization and self-development, do not desire war. 

The problem of social science, then, appears to be to organize humansociety on the principles and ideals of Christianity. But in view ofthe fact that the trend of evolution is towards the elimination ofcommercial competition, the question which must seriously concern ustoday is--What in the future shall be the spur of individual initiative?Orthodoxy and even democratic practice have hitherto taken it forgranted--in spite of the examples of highly socialized men, benefactorsof society--that the average citizen will bestir himself only formaterial gain. And it must be admitted that competition of some sort isnecessary for self-realization, that human nature demands a prize. Therecan be no self-sacrifice without a corresponding self-satisfaction. The answer is that in the theory of democracy, as well as in that ofChristianity, individualism and co-operation are paradoxically blended. For competition, Christianity substitutes emulation. And with democracy, it declares that mankind itself can gradually be rained towards thelevel of the choice individual who does not labour for gain, but inbehalf of society. For the process of democracy is not degrading, butlifting. Like Christianity, democracy demands faith, and has as itsinspiring interpretation of civilization evolution towards a spiritualgoal. Yet the kind of faith required is no longer a blind faith, but onefounded on sane and carefully evolved theories. Democracy has become ascientific experiment. 

In this connection, as one notably inspired by emulation, by the joy ofcreative work and service, the medical profession comes first tomind. The finer element in this profession is constantly increasing innumbers, growing more and more influential, making life less easy forthe quack, the vendor of nostrums, the commercial proprietor of thebogus medical college. The doctor who uses his talents for gain isfrowned upon by those of his fellow practitioners whose opinion reallycounts. Respected physicians in our cities give much of their time toteaching, animating students with their own spirit; and labour longhours, for no material return, in the clinics of the poor. And howoften, in reading our newspapers, do we learn that some medicalscientist, by patient work, and often at the risk of life and health, has triumphed over a scourge which has played havoc with humanitythroughout the ages! Typhoid has been conquered, and infant paralysis;gangrene and tetanus, which have taken such toll of the wounded inFlanders and France; yellow fever has been stamped out in the tropics;hideous lesions are now healed by a system of drainage. The very list ofthese achievements is bewildering, and latterly we are given hope ofthe prolongation of life itself. Here in truth are Christian deedsmultiplied by science, made possible by a growing knowledge of andmastery over Nature. 

Such men by virtue of their high mission are above the vicious socialand commercial competition poisoning the lives of so many of theirfellow citizens. In our democracy they have found their work, and thework is its own reward. They give striking testimony to the theory thatabsorption in a creative or contributive task is the only source ofself-realization. And he has little faith in mankind who shalldeclare that the medical profession is the only group capable of beingsocialized, or, rather, of socializing themselves--for such is thetrue process of democracy. Public opinion should be the leaven. Whatis possible for the doctor is also possible for the lawyer, for theteacher. In a democracy, teaching should be the most honoured of theprofessions, and indeed once was, --before the advent of industrialism, when it gradually fell into neglect, --occasionally into deplorablesubmission to the possessors of wealth. Yet a wage disgracefullylow, hardship, and even poverty have not hindered men of ability fromentering it in increasing numbers, renouncing ease and luxuries. Theworth of the contributions of our professors to civilization has beeninestimable; and fortunately signs are not lacking that we are comingto an appreciation of the value of the expert in government, who isreplacing the panderer and the politician. A new solidarity of teachingprofessional opinion, together with a growing realization by our publicof the primary importance of the calling, is tending to emancipate it, to establish it in its rightful place. 

Nor are our engineers without their ideal. A Goethals did not cut anisthmus in two for gain. 

Industrialism, with its concomitant "corporation" practice, hasundoubtedly been detrimental to the legal profession, since it hasresulted in large fees; in the accumulation of vast fortunes, frequentlyby methods ethically questionable. Grave social injustices have beendone, though often in good faith, since the lawyer, by training andexperience, has hitherto been least open to the teachings of the newsocial science, has been an honest advocate of the system of 'laissezfaire'. But to say that the American legal profession is without idealsand lacking in the emulative spirit would be to do it a grave injustice. The increasing influence of national and state bar associationsevidences a professional opinion discouraging to the unscrupulous;while a new evolutionary and more humanitarian conception of law is nowbeginning to be taught, and young men are entering the ranks imbuedwith this. Legal clinics, like medical clinics, are established for thebenefit of those who cannot afford to pay fees, for the protectionof the duped from the predatory quack. And, it must be said of thisprofession, which hitherto has held a foremost place in America, that its leaders have never hesitated to respond to a public call, tosacrifice their practices to serve the nation. Their highest ambitionhas even been to attain the Supreme Court, where the salary is a merepittance compared to what they may earn as private citizens. 

Thus we may review all the groups in the nation, but the mostsignificant transformation of all is taking place within the businessgroup, --where indeed it might be least expected. Even before the warthere were many evidences that the emulative spirit in business hadbegun to modify the merely competitive, and we had the spectacle oflarge employers of labour awakening to the evils of industrialism, andthemselves attempting to inaugurate reforms. As in the case of labour, it would be obviously unfair to claim that the employer element wasactuated by motives of self-interest alone; nor were their concessionsdue only to fear. Instances could be cited, if there were space, ofvoluntary shortening of hours of labour, of raising of wages, whenno coercion was exerted either by the labour unions or the state;and--perhaps to their surprise employers discovered that such acts werenot only humane but profitable! Among these employers, in fact, may beobserved individuals in various stages of enlightenment, from the fewwho have educated themselves in social science, who are convinced thatthe time has come when it is not only practicable but right, who realizethat a new era has dawned; to others who still believe in the oldsystem, who are trying to bolster it up by granting concessions, byestablishing committees of conference, by giving a voice and often afinancial interest, but not a vote, in the conduct of the corporationconcerned. These are the counterpart, in industry, of sovereigns whoseaway has been absolute, whose intentions are good, but who hesitate, often from conviction, to grant constitutions. Yet even these areresponding in some degree to social currents, though the aggressivestruggles of labour may have influenced them, and partially openedtheir eyes. They are far better than their associates who still seek tocontrol the supplies of food and other necessities, whose efficiency isstill solely directed, not toward a social end, but toward the amassingof large fortunes, and is therefore wasted so far as society isconcerned. They do not perceive that by seeking to control prices theymerely hasten the tendency of government control, for it is better tohave government regulation for the benefit of the many than proprietarycontrol, however efficient, for the benefit of the few. 

That a significant change of heart and mind has begun to take placeamongst capitalists, that the nucleus of a "public opinion" has beenformed within an element which, by the use and wont of business andhabits of thought might be regarded as least subject to the influence ofsocial ideas, is a most hopeful augury. This nascent opinion has begunto operate by shaming unscrupulous and recalcitrant employers intobetter practices. It would indeed fare ill with democracy if, in suchan era, men of large business proved to be lacking in democraticinitiative, wholly unreceptive and hostile to the gradual introductionof democracy into industry, which means the perpetuation of theAmerican Idea. Fortunately, with us, this capitalistic element is ofcomparatively recent growth, the majority of its members are essentiallyAmericans; they have risen from small beginnings, and are responsiveto a democratic appeal--if that appeal be properly presented. And, as amatter of fact, for many years a leaven had been at work among them; thetruth has been brought home to them that the mere acquisition of wealthbrings neither happiness nor self-realization; they have lavished theirmoney on hospitals and universities, clinics, foundations for scientificresearch, and other gifts of inestimable benefit to the nation andmankind. Although the munificence was on a Medicean scale, this privatecharity was in accord with the older conception of democracy, and pavedthe way for a new order. 

The patriotic and humanitarian motive aroused by the war greatlyaccelerated the socializing transformation of the business man and thecapitalist. We have, indeed, our profiteers seeking short cuts to luxuryand wealth; but those happily most representative of American affairs, including the creative administrators, hastened to Washington with awillingness to accept any position in which they might be useful, andin numerous instances placed at the disposal of the government themanufacturing establishments which, by industry and ability, theythemselves had built up. That in thus surrendering the properties forwhich they were largely responsible they hoped at the conclusion ofpeace to see restored the 'status quo ante' should not be held againstthem. Some are now beginning to surmise that a complete restoration isimpossible; and as a result of their socializing experience, are evenwondering whether it is desirable. These are beginning to perceivethat the national and international organizations in the course ofconstruction to meet the demands of the world conflict must form themodel for a future social structure; that the unprecedented pressurecaused by the cataclysm is compelling a recrystallization of society inwhich there must be fewer misfits, in which many more individuals thanformerly shall find public or semi-public tasks in accordance with theirgifts and abilities. 

It may be argued that war compels socialization, that after the warthe world will perforce return to materialistic individualism. But thiscalamity, terrible above all others, has warned us of the imperativeneed of an order that shall be socializing, if we are not to witness thedestruction of our civilization itself. Confidence that such an order, thanks to the advancement of science, is now within our grasp should notbe difficult for Americans, once they have rightly conceived it. We, whohave always pinned our faith to ideas, who entered the conflict for anIdea, must be the last to shirk the task, however Herculean, of worldreconstruction along the lines of our own professed faith. We cannot berenegades to Democracy. 

Above all things, then, it is essential for us as a people not toabandon our faith in man, our belief that not only the exceptionalindividual but the majority of mankind can be socialized. What is trueof our physicians, our scientists and professional men, our manualworkers, is also true of our capitalists and business men. In a morejust and intelligent organization of society these will be found willingto administer and improve for the common weal the national resourceswhich formerly they exploited for the benefit of themselves and theirassociates. The social response, granted the conditions, is innate inhumanity, and individual initiative can best be satisfied in socialrealization. 

Universal education is the cornerstone of democracy. And the recognitionof this fact may be called the great American contribution. But inour society the fullest self-realization depends upon a well balancedknowledge of scientific facts, upon a rounded culture. Thus education, properly conceived, is a preparation for intelligent, ethical, andcontented citizenship. Upon the welfare of the individual depends thewelfare of all. Without education, free institutions and universalsuffrage are mockeries; semi-learned masses of the population are at themercy of scheming politicians, controversialists, and pseudo-scientificreligionists, and their votes are swayed by prejudice. 

In a materialistic competitive order, success in life depends upon theknack--innate or acquired, and not to be highly rated--of outwittingone's neighbour under the rules of the game--the law; education ismerely a cultural leaven within the reach of the comparatively fewwho can afford to attend a university. The business college is a morelogical institution. In an emulative civilization, however, the problemis to discover and develop in childhood and youth the personal aptitudeor gift of as many citizens as possible, in order that they may findself-realization by making their peculiar contribution towards theadvancement of society. 

The prevailing system of education, which we have inherited from thepast, largely fails to accomplish this. In the first place, it has beenauthoritative rather than scientific, which is to say that students havebeen induced to accept the statements of teachers and text books, andhave not been trained to weigh for themselves their reasonableness andworth; a principle essentially unscientific and undemocratic, since itinculcates in the future citizen convictions rather than encourages thehabit of open-mindedness so necessary for democratic citizenship. For democracy--it cannot be too often repeated--is a dynamic thing, experimental, creative in its very essence. No static set of opinionscan apply to the constantly changing aspect of affairs. New discoveries, which come upon us with such bewildering rapidity, are apt abruptly toalter social and industrial conditions, while morals and conventions areno longer absolute. Sudden crises threaten the stability of nationsand civilizations. Safety lies alone in the ability to go forward, to progress. Psychology teaches us that if authoritative opinions, convictions, or "complexes" are stamped upon the plastic brain ofthe youth they tend to harden, and he is apt to become a Democrat orRepublican, an Episcopalian or a Baptist, a free trader or a tariffadvocate or a Manchester economist without asking why. Such "complexes"were probably referred to by the celebrated physician who emphasizedthe hopelessness of most individuals over forty. And every reformer andforum lecturer knows how difficult it is to convert the average audienceof seasoned adults to a new idea: he finds the most responsive groupsin the universities and colleges. It is significant that the "educated"adult audiences in clubs and prosperous churches are the least open toconversion, because, in the scientific sense, the "educated" classesretain complexes, and hence are the least prepared to cope with theworld as it is today. The German system, which has been bent uponinstalling authoritative conviction instead of encouraging freedom ofthought, should be a warning to us. 

Again, outside of the realm of physical science, our text books havebeen controversial rather than impartial, especially in economics andhistory; resulting in erroneous and distorted and prejudiced ideas ofevents, such for instance, as our American Revolution. The day of thecontroversialist is happily coming to an end, and of the writer whotwists the facts of science to suit a world of his own making, or ofthat of a group with which he is associated. Theory can now be labelledtheory, and fact, fact. Impartial and painstaking investigation is thesole method of obtaining truth. 

The old system of education benefited only the comparatively few towhose nature and inclination it was adapted. We have need, indeed, ofclassical scholars, but the majority of men and women are meant forother work; many, by their very construction of mind, are unfitted tobecome such. And only in the most exceptional cases are the ancientlanguages really mastered; a smattering of these, imposed upon theunwilling scholar by a principle opposed to psychology, --a smatteringfrom which is derived no use and joy in after life, and which has noconnection with individual inclination--is worse than nothing. Precioustime is wasted during the years when the mind is most receptive. Whilethe argument of the old school that discipline can only be inculcatedby the imposition of a distasteful task is unsound. As Professor Deweypoints out, unless the interest is in some way involved there can beno useful discipline. And how many of our university and high schoolgraduates today are in any sense disciplined? Stimulated interestalone can overcome the resistance imposed by a difficult task, as anyscientist, artist, organizer or administrator knows. Men will disciplinethemselves to gain a desired end. Under the old system of education afew children succeed either because they are desirous of doing well, interested in the game of mental competition; or else because theycontrive to clothe with flesh and blood some subject presented as askeleton. It is not uncommon, indeed, to recognize in later years withastonishment a useful citizen or genius whom at school or college werecall as a dunce or laggard. In our present society, because of archaicmethods of education, the development of such is largely left to chance. Those who might have been developed in time, who might have found theirtask, often become wasters, drudges, and even criminals. 

The old system tends to make types, to stamp every scholar in the samemould, whether he fits it or not. More and more the parents of todayare looking about for new schools, insisting that a son or daughterpossesses some special gift which, under teachers of genius, might bedeveloped before it is too late. And in most cases, strange to say, theparents are right. They themselves have been victims of a standardizedsystem. 

A new and distinctly American system of education, designed to meet thedemands of modern conditions, has been put in practice in parts of theUnited States. In spite of opposition from school boards, from allthose who cling to the conviction that education must of necessity be anunpalatable and "disciplinary" process, the number of these schools isgrowing. The objection, put forth by many, that they are still in theexperimental stage, is met by the reply that experiment is the veryessence of the system. Democracy is experimental, and hencefortheducation will remain experimental for all time. But, as in any otherbranch of science, the element of ascertained fact will graduallyincrease: the latent possibilities in the mind of the healthy child willbe discovered by knowledge gained through impartial investigation. Theold system, like all other institutions handed down to us from the ages, proceeds on no intelligent theory, has no basis on psychology, and isaccepted merely because it exists. 

The new education is selective. The mind of each child is patientlystudied with the view of discovering the peculiar bent, and this bentis guided and encouraged. The child is allowed to forge ahead in thosesubjects for which he shows an aptitude, and not compelled to wait on aclass. Such supervision, of course, demands more teachers, teachers ofan ability hitherto deplorably rare, and thoroughly trained in theirsubjects, with a sympathetic knowledge of the human mind. Theirs will bethe highest and most responsible function in the state, and they must berewarded in proportion to their services. 

A superficial criticism declares that in the new schools children willstudy only "what they like. " On the contrary, all subjects requisite fora wide culture, as well as for the ability to cope with existence ina highly complex civilization, are insisted upon. It is true, however, that the trained and gifted teacher is able to discover a method of sopresenting a subject as to seize the imagination and arouse the interestand industry of a majority of pupils. In the modern schools French, forexample, is really taught; pupils do not acquire a mere smatteringof the language. And, what is more important, the course of study isdirectly related to life, and to practical experience, instead of beingset forth abstractly, as something which at the time the pupil perceivesno possibility of putting into use. At one of the new schools in thesouth, the ignorant child of the mountains at once acquires a knowledgeof measurement and elementary arithmetic by laying out a garden, of letters by inscribing his name on a little signboard in order toidentify his patch--for the moment private property. And this principleis carried through all the grades. In the Gary Schools and elsewherethe making of things in the shops, the modelling of a Panama Canal, theinspection of industries and governmental establishments, thedesigning, building, and decoration of houses, the discussion and evendramatization of the books read, --all are a logical and inevitablecontinuation of the abstract knowledge of the schoolroom. The success ofthe direct application of learning to industrial and professionallife may also be observed in such colleges as those at Cincinnati andSchenectady, where young men spend half the time of the course in theshops of manufacturing, corporations, often earning more than enough topay their tuition. 

Children are not only prepared for democratic citizenship by beingencouraged to think for themselves, but also to govern and disciplinethemselves. On the moral side, under the authoritative system of layand religious training, character was acquired at the expense of mentalflexibility--the Puritan method; our problem today, which the new systemundertakes, is to produce character with open-mindedness--the kindof character possessed by many great scientists. Absorption in anappropriate task creates a moral will, while science, knowledge, informsthe mind why a thing is "bad" or "good, " disintegrating or upbuilding. Moreover, these children are trained for democratic government by thegranting of autonomy. They have their own elected officials, theirown courts; their decisions are, of course, subject to reversal by theprincipal, but in practice this seldom occurs. 

The Gary Schools and many of the new schools are public schools. And theprinciple of the new education that the state is primarily responsiblefor the health of pupils--because an unsound body is apt to make anunsound citizen of backward intelligence--is now being generally adoptedby public schools all over the country. This idea is essentially anelement of the democratic contention that all citizens must be givenan equality of opportunity--though all may not be created equal--nowbecoming a positive rather than a negative right, guaranteed by thestate itself. An earnest attempt is thus made by the state to giveevery citizen a fair start that in later years he may have no groundfor discontent or complaint. He stands on his own feet, he rises inproportion to his ability and industry. Hence the program of the BritishLabour Party rightly lays stress on education, on "freedom of mentalopportunity. " The vast sums it proposes to spend for this purpose arejustified. 

If such a system of education as that briefly outlined above iscarefully and impartially considered, the objection that democraticgovernment founded on modern social science is coercive must disappear. So far as the intention and effort of the state is able to confer it, every citizen will have his choice of the task he is to perform forsociety, his opportunity for self-realization. For freedom withouteducation is a myth. By degrees men and women are making ready to taketheir places in an emulative rather than a materialistically competitiveorder. But the experimental aspect of this system should always be bornein mind, with the fact that its introduction and progress, like that ofother elements in the democratic program, must be gradual, though alwaysproceeding along sound lines. For we have arrived at that stage ofenlightenment when we realize that the only mundane perfection lies inprogress rather than achievement. The millennium is always a lap ahead. There would be no satisfaction in overtaking it, for then we should havenothing more to do, nothing more to work for. 

The German Junkers have prostituted science by employing it for thedestruction of humanity. In the name of Christianity they have wagedthe most barbaric war in history. Yet if they shall have demonstratedto mankind the futility of efficiency achieved merely for material ends;if, by throwing them on a world screen, they shall have revealedthe evils of power upheld alone by ruthlessness and force, they willunwittingly have performed a world service. Privilege and dominion, powers and principalities acquired by force must be sustained by force. To fail will be fatal. Even a duped people, trained in servility, willnot consent to be governed by an unsuccessful autocracy. ArrogantlyGermany has staked her all on world domination. Hence a victory for theAllies must mean a democratic Germany. 

Nothing short of victory. There can be no arrangement, noagreement, no parley with or confidence in these modern scions ofdarkness--Hohenzollerns, Hindenburgs, Zudendorffs and their tools. Propaganda must not cease; the eyes of Germans still capable of sightmust be opened. But, as the President says, force must be used to thelimit--force for a social end as opposed to force for an evil end. Thereare those among us who advocate a boycott of Germany after peace isdeclared. These would seem to take it for granted that we shall fallshort of victory, and hence that selfish retaliative or vindictivepractices between nations, sanctioned by imperialism, will continue toflourish after the war. But should Germany win she will see to it thatthere is no boycott against her. A compromised peace would indeed meanthe perpetuation of both imperialism and militarism. 

It is characteristic of those who put their faith in might alone thatthey are not only blind to the finer relationships between individualsand nations, but take no account of the moral forces in human affairswhich in the long run are decisive, --a lack of sensitiveness whichexplains Germany's colossal blunders. The first had to do with Britain. The German militarists persisted in the belief that the United Kingdomwas degenerated by democracy, intent upon the acquisition of wealth, distracted by strife at home, uncertain of the Empire, and thus wouldselfishly remain aloof while the Kaiser's armies overran and enslavedthe continent. What happened, to Germany's detriment, was the instantsocialization of Britain, and the binding together of the BritishEmpire. Germany's second great blunder was an arrogant underestimationof a self-reliant people of English culture and traditions. She believedthat we, too, had been made flabby by democracy, were wholly intent uponthe pursuit of the dollar--only to learn that America would lavishher vast resources and shed her blood for a cause which was American. Germany herself provided that cause, shaped the issues so that therewas no avoiding them. She provided the occasion for the socializingof America also; and thus brought about, within a year, a nationaltransformation which in times of peace might scarce in half a centuryhave been accomplished. 

Above all, as a consequence of these two blunders, Germany has beencompelled to witness the consummation of that which of all things shehad most to fear, the cementing of a lasting fellowship between theEnglish speaking Republic and the English speaking Empire. For we hadbeen severed since the 18th Century by misunderstandings which of lateGermany herself had been more or less successful in fostering. She hasfurnished a bond not only between our governments, but--what is vastlymore important for democracy--a bond between our peoples. Our soldiersare now side by side with those of the Empire on the Frontier ofFreedom; the blood of all is shed and mingled for a great cause embodiedin the Anglo-Saxon tradition of democracy; and our peoples, through therealization of common ideas and common ends, are learning the supremelesson of co-operation between nations with a common past, are beingcemented into a union which is the symbol and forerunner of thedemocratic league of Nations to come. Henceforth, we believe, becauseof this union, so natural yet so long delayed, by virtue of the ultimatevictory it forecasts, the sun will never set on the Empire of the free, for the drum beats of democracy have been heard around the world. Tothis Empire will be added the precious culture of France, which thecourage of her sons will have preserved, the contributions of Italy, andof Russia, yes, and of Japan. 

Our philosophy and our religion are changing; hence it is more and moredifficult to use the old terms to describe moral conduct. We say, for instance, that America's action in entering the war has been"unselfish. " But this merely means that we have our own convictionsconcerning the ultimate comfort of the world, the manner ofself-realization of individuals and nations. We are attempting toturn calamity into good. If this terrible conflict shall result inthe inauguration of an emulative society, if it shall bring us to therecognition that intelligence and science may be used for the upbuildingof such an order, and for an eventual achievement of world peace, everysacrifice shall have been justified. 

Such is the American Issue. Our statesmen and thinkers have helped toevolve it, our people with their blood and treasure are consecrating it. And these statesmen and thinkers, of whom our American President isnot the least, are of democracy the pioneers. From the mountain tops onwhich they stand they behold the features of the new world, the dawn ofthe new day hidden as yet from their brothers in the valley. Let us havefaith always that it is coming, and struggle on, highly resolving thatthose who gave their lives in the hour of darkness shall not have diedin vain.