diff options
| author | pgww <pgww@lists.pglaf.org> | 2025-10-02 14:22:01 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | pgww <pgww@lists.pglaf.org> | 2025-10-02 14:22:01 -0700 |
| commit | d1ee45879d256b869a9f748330b692b1829ab439 (patch) | |
| tree | 7288a4cc139c6c435a83ab468cc8c9f1e32faeb9 /76966-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '76966-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 76966-h/76966-h.htm | 5566 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 76966-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 42126 bytes |
2 files changed, 5566 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/76966-h/76966-h.htm b/76966-h/76966-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6a73e76 --- /dev/null +++ b/76966-h/76966-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,5566 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> + <title> + The phantom public | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +h1,h2,h3,h4 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + margin-top:3em; +} + + +p { + margin-top: .51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .49em; +} + +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: 33.5%; + margin-right: 33.5%; + clear: both; +} + +hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%; display: none; visibility: hidden;} +@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} +h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} + +ul.index { list-style-type: none; } +li.ifrst { + margin-top: 1em; + text-indent: -2em; + padding-left: 1em; +} +li.indx { + margin-top: .5em; + text-indent: -2em; + padding-left: 1em; +} +li.isub1 { + text-indent: -2em; + padding-left: 2em; +} + +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; +} + +td {padding: 0.3em;} +.tdl {text-align: left;} +.tdr {text-align: right;} +.tdc {text-align: center;} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: 0; +} /* page numbers */ + +blockquote { + margin-top: 0; + margin-bottom: 0; + margin-left: 5%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +.center {text-align: center;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + +.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} + +/* Footnotes */ +.footnotes {} + +.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + +.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + +.fnanchor { + vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: + none; +} + +/* Poetry */ +/* uncomment the next line for centered poetry */ +/* .poetry-container {display: flex; justify-content: center;} */ +.poetry-container {text-align: center;} +.poetry {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} +.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em auto;} +.poetry .verse {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;} + +/* Poetry indents */ +.poetry .indent0 {text-indent: -3.0em;} + + </style> +</head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76966 ***</div> + + +<h1> +THE PHANTOM PUBLIC +</h1><br><br> + +<p class="center"> +BY<br> +<span style="font-size:larger">WALTER LIPPMANN</span><br> +<br><br><br> +NEW YORK<br> +HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY +</p> + +<hr class="x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p class="center"> +COPYRIGHT, 1925, BY<br> +HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY, INC.<br> +<br> +<br> +Printed in the U. S. A. +</p> +</div> + +<hr class="x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p class="center"> +TO<br> +LEARNED HAND +</p> +</div> + +<hr class="x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<blockquote> +<p><i>“The Voice of the People has been said to be the voice of God: and +however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true +in fact.”</i>—Alexander Hamilton, June 18, 1787, at the Federal Convention +(Yates’s notes, cited <i>Sources and Documents Illustrating +the American Revolution</i>, edited by S. G. Morison).</p> + +<p><i>“... consider ‘Government by Public Opinion’ as a formula.... +It is an admirable formula: but it presupposes, not only that public +opinion exists, but that on any particular question there is a public +opinion ready to decide the issue. Indeed, it presupposes that the supreme +statesman in democratic government is public opinion. Many +of the shortcomings of democratic government are due to the fact that +public opinion is not necessarily a great statesman at all.”</i>—From +“Some Thoughts on Public Life,” a lecture by Viscount Grey of +Fallodon, February 3, 1923.</p> +</blockquote> +</div> + + +<hr class="x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h2 class="nobreak" id="Contents"> + <span class="smcap">Contents</span> + </h2> +</div> + +<table> + <tr> + <td colspan="3" class="tdc">PART I</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr"></td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Chapter</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><span class="smcap">Page</span></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">I.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Disenchanted Man</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_13">13</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">II.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Unattainable Ideal</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_22">22</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">III.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Agents and Bystanders</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_40">40</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">IV.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">What the Public Does</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_54">54</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">V.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Neutralization of Arbitrary Force</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_63">63</a></td> + </tr> + + <tr> + <td colspan="3" class="tdc">PART II</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">VI.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Question Aristotle Asked</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_77">77</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">VII.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Nature of a Problem</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_81">81</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">VIII.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Social Contracts</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_95">95</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">IX.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Two Questions Before the Public</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_107">107</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">X.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Main Value of Public Debate</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_110">110</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">XI.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Defective Rule</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_115">115</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">XII.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Criteria of Reform</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_125">125</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">XIII.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Principles of Public Opinion</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_143">143</a></td> + </tr> + + <tr> + <td colspan="3" class="tdc">PART III</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">XIV.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Society in Its Place</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_155">155</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">XV.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Absentee Rulers</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_173">173</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr">XVI.</td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Realms of Disorder</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_187">187</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdr"></td> + <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Index</span></td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_201">201</a></td> + </tr> +</table> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h2 class="nobreak" id="PART_I"> + PART I + </h2> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[p. 13]</span></p> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_I"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter I</span> + <br> + THE DISENCHANTED MAN + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>The private citizen today has come to feel +rather like a deaf spectator in the back +row, who ought to keep his mind on the mystery +off there, but cannot quite manage to +keep awake. He knows he is somehow affected +by what is going on. Rules and regulations +continually, taxes annually and wars occasionally +remind him that he is being swept +along by great drifts of circumstance.</p> + +<p>Yet these public affairs are in no convincing +way his affairs. They are for the most part +invisible. They are managed, if they are +managed at all, at distant centers, from behind +the scenes, by unnamed powers. As a +private person he does not know for certain +what is going on, or who is doing it, or where +he is being carried. No newspaper reports his +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[14]</span>environment so that he can grasp it; no school +has taught him how to imagine it; his ideals, +often, do not fit with it; listening to speeches, +uttering opinions and voting do not, he +finds, enable him to govern it. He lives in +a world which he cannot see, does not understand +and is unable to direct.</p> + +<p>In the cold light of experience he knows +that his sovereignty is a fiction. He reigns +in theory, but in fact he does not govern. +Contemplating himself and his actual accomplishments +in public affairs, contrasting the +influence he exerts with the influence he is +supposed according to democratic theory to +exert, he must say of his sovereignty what +Bismarck said of Napoleon III.: “At a distance +it is something, but close to it is nothing +at all.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_1_1" href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> When, during an agitation of +some sort, say a political campaign, he hears +himself and some thirty million others described +as the source of all wisdom and power +and righteousness, the prime mover and the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[15]</span>ultimate goal, the remnants of sanity in +him protest. He cannot all the time play +Chanticleer who was so dazzled and delighted +because he himself had caused the sun to +rise.</p> + +<p>For when the private man has lived through +the romantic age in politics and is no longer +moved by the stale echoes of its hot cries, +when he is sober and unimpressed, his own +part in public affairs appears to him a pretentious +thing, a second rate, an inconsequential. +You cannot move him then with a good +straight talk about service and civic duty, +nor by waving a flag in his face, nor by sending +a boy scout after him to make him vote. +He is a man back home from a crusade to +make the world something or other it did not +become; he has been tantalized too often by +the foam of events, has seen the gas go out +of it, and, with sour derision for the stuff, he is +saying with the author of <i>Trivia</i>:⁠<a id="FNanchor_2_2" href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> + +<p>“‘Self-determination,’ one of them insisted.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[16]</span></p> + +<p>“‘Arbitration,’ cried another.</p> + +<p>“‘Coöperation,’ suggested the mildest of +the party.</p> + +<p>“‘Confiscation,’ answered an uncompromising +female.</p> + +<p>“I, too, became intoxicated with the sound +of these vocables. And were they not the +cure for all our ills?</p> + +<p>“‘Inoculation!’ I chimed in. ‘Transubstantiation, +alliteration, inundation, flagellation, +and afforestation!’”</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>It is well known that nothing like +the whole people takes part in public +affairs. Of the eligible voters in the +United States less than half go to the +polls even in a presidential year.⁠<a id="FNanchor_3_3" href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> During +the campaign of 1924 a special effort +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[17]</span>was made to bring out more voters. They +did not come out. The Constitution, the +nation, the party system, the presidential succession, +private property, all were supposed +to be in danger. One party prophesied red +ruin, another black corruption, a third tyranny +and imperialism if the voters did not go to +the polls in greater numbers. Half the citizenship +was unmoved.</p> + +<p>The students used to write books about +voting. They are now beginning to write +books about nonvoting. At the University +of Chicago Professor Merriam and Mr. Gosnell +have made an elaborate inquiry⁠<a id="FNanchor_4_4" href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> into the +reason why, at the typical Chicago mayoral +election of 1923, there were, out of 1,400,000 +eligible electors, only 900,000 who registered, +and out of those who registered there were +only 723,000 who finally managed to vote. +Thousands of persons were interviewed. +About 30 per cent of the abstainers had, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[18]</span>or at least claimed to have had, an insuperable +difficulty about going to the polls. They +were ill, they were absent from the city, they +were women detained at home by a child or +an invalid, they had had insufficient legal +residence. The other 70 per cent, representing +about half a million free and sovereign +citizens of this Republic, did not even pretend +to have a reason for not voting, which, +in effect, was not an admission that they +did not care about voting. They were needed +at their work, the polls were crowded, the +polls were inconveniently located, they were +afraid to tell their age, they did not believe +in woman suffrage, the husband objected, +politics is rotten, elections are rotten, they +were afraid to vote, they did not know +there was an election. About a quarter +of those who were interviewed had the +honesty to say they were wholly uninterested.</p> + +<p>Yet Bryce is authority for the statement +that “the will of the sovereign people is +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[19]</span>expressed ... in the United States ... by +as large a proportion of the registered voters as +in any other country.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_5_5" href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> And certainly Mr. +Lowell’s tables on the use of the initiative +and referendum in Switzerland in the main +support the view that the indifference of +the American voter is not unique.⁠<a id="FNanchor_6_6" href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> In fact, +realistic political thinkers in Europe long +ago abandoned the notion that the collective +mass of the people direct the course of public +affairs. Robert Michels, himself a Socialist, +says flatly that “the majority is permanently +incapable of self-government,”⁠<a id="FNanchor_7_7" href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> and quotes +approvingly the remark of a Swedish Socialist +Deputy, Gustaf F. Steffen, that “even +after the victory there will always remain +in political life the leaders and the led.” +Michels, who is a political thinker of great +penetration, unburdens himself finally on the +subject by printing a remark of Hertzen’s +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[20]</span>that the victory of an opposition party +amounts to “passing from the sphere of +envy to the sphere of avarice.”</p> + +<p>There is then nothing particularly new in +the disenchantment which the private citizen +expresses by not voting at all, by voting only +for the head of the ticket, by staying away +from the primaries, by not reading speeches +and documents, by the whole list of sins +of omission for which he is denounced. +I shall not denounce him further. My sympathies +are with him, for I believe that he +has been saddled with an impossible task and +that he is asked to practice an unattainable +ideal. I find it so myself for, although +public business is my main interest and I +give most of my time to watching it, I cannot +find time to do what is expected of me in the +theory of democracy; that is, to know what is +going on and to have an opinion worth expressing +on every question which confronts a +self-governing community. And I have not +happened to meet anybody, from a President +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[21]</span>of the United States to a professor of political +science, who came anywhere near to embodying +the accepted ideal of the sovereign +and omnicompetent citizen.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h4>Footnotes</h4> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_1_1" href="#FNanchor_1_1" class="label">[1]</a> Cited Philip Guedalla, <i>The Second Empire</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_2_2" href="#FNanchor_2_2" class="label">[2]</a> Logan Pearsall Smith, <i>More Trivia</i>, p. 41.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_3_3" href="#FNanchor_3_3" class="label">[3]</a> <i>Cf.</i> Simon Michelet, <i>Stay-at-Home Vote and Absentee Voters</i>, +pamphlet of the National Get Out the Vote Club; also A. M. Schlesinger +and E. M. Erickson, “The Vanishing Voter,” <i>New Republic</i>, +Oct. 15, 1924. The percentage of the popular to the eligible vote from +1865 to 1920 declined from 83.51 per cent to 52.36 per cent.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_4_4" href="#FNanchor_4_4" class="label">[4]</a> Charles Edward Merriam and Harvey Foote Gosnell, <i>Non-Voting: +Causes and Methods of Control</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_5_5" href="#FNanchor_5_5" class="label">[5]</a> James Bryce, <i>Modern Democracies</i>, Vol. II, p. 52.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_6_6" href="#FNanchor_6_6" class="label">[6]</a> A. Lawrence Lowell, <i>Public Opinion and Popular Government</i>. +<i>Cf.</i> Appendices.</p></div> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[22]</span></p> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_7_7" href="#FNanchor_7_7" class="label">[7]</a> Robert Michels, <i>Political Parties</i>, p. 390.</p></div></div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_II"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter II</span> + <br> + THE UNATTAINABLE IDEAL + </h3> +</div> + + +<p>I have tried to imagine how the perfect +citizen could be produced. Some say he will +have to be born of the conjunction of the +right germ plasms, and, in the pages of books +written by Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard +and other revivalists, I have seen prescriptions +as to just who ought to marry whom +to produce a great citizenry. Not being a +biologist I keep an open but hopeful mind on +this point, tempered, however, with the knowledge +that certainty about how to breed +ability in human beings is on the whole in +inverse proportion to the writer’s scientific +reputation.</p> + +<p>It is then to education that logically one +turns next, for education has furnished the +thesis of the last chapter of every optimistic +book on democracy written for one hundred +and fifty years. Even Robert Michels, stern +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[23]</span>and unbending antisentimentalist that he is, +says in his “final considerations” that “it +is the great task of social education to raise +the intellectual level of the masses, so that +they may be enabled, within the limits of what +is possible, to counteract the oligarchical +tendencies” of all collective action.</p> + +<p>So I have been reading some of the new +standard textbooks used to teach citizenship +in schools and colleges. After reading them +I do not see how any one can escape the conclusion +that man must have the appetite of +an encyclopædist and infinite time ahead of +him. To be sure he no longer is expected to +remember the exact salary of the county clerk +and the length of the coroner’s term. In the +new civics he studies the problems of government, +and not the structural detail. He is +told, in one textbook of five hundred concise, +contentious pages, which I have been reading, +about city problems, state problems, national +problems, international problems, trust problems, +labor problems, transportation problems, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[24]</span>banking problems, rural problems, agricultural +problems, and so on <i>ad infinitum</i>. In +the eleven pages devoted to problems of the +city there are described twelve sub-problems.</p> + +<p>But nowhere in this well-meant book is the +sovereign citizen of the future given a hint +as to how, while he is earning a living, rearing +children and enjoying his life, he is to keep +himself informed about the progress of this +swarming confusion of problems. He is +exhorted to conserve the natural resources of +the country because they are limited in quantity. +He is advised to watch public expenditures +because the taxpayers cannot pay out +indefinitely increasing amounts. But he, the +voter, the citizen, the sovereign, is apparently +expected to yield an unlimited quantity of +public spirit, interest, curiosity and effort. +The author of the textbook, touching on everything, +as he thinks, from city sewers to Indian +opium, misses a decisive fact: the citizen gives +but a little of his time to public affairs, has +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[25]</span>but a casual interest in facts and but a poor +appetite for theory.</p> + +<p>It never occurs to this preceptor of civic +duty to provide the student with a rule by +which he can know whether on Thursday +it is his duty to consider subways in Brooklyn +or the Manchurian Railway, nor how, +if he determines on Thursday to express his +sovereign will on the subway question, he +is to repair those gaps in his knowledge of +that question which are due to his having +been preoccupied the day before in expressing +his sovereign will about rural credits in +Montana and the rights of Britain in the +Sudan. Yet he cannot know all about everything +all the time, and while he is watching +one thing a thousand others undergo +great changes. Unless he can discover some +rational ground for fixing his attention where +it will do the most good, and in a way that +suits his inherently amateurish equipment, +he will be as bewildered as a puppy trying +to lick three bones at once.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[26]</span></p> + +<p>I do not wish to say that it does the student +no good to be taken on a sightseeing tour of +the problems of the world. It may teach him +that the world is complicated, even if he +comes out of the adventure “laden with +germs, breathing creeds and convictions on +you whenever he opens his mouth.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_8_8" href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> He +may learn humility, but most certainly his +acquaintance with what a high-minded author +thought were American problems in 1925 +will not equip him to master American problems +ten years later. Unless out of the study +of transient issues he acquires an intellectual +attitude no education has occurred.</p> + +<p>That is why the usual appeal to education +as the remedy for the incompetence of democracy +is so barren. It is, in effect, a proposal +that school teachers shall by some magic of +their own fit men to govern after the makers +of laws and the preachers of civic ideals have +had a free hand in writing the specifications. +The reformers do not ask what men can be +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[27]</span>taught. They say they should be taught +whatever may be necessary to fit them to +govern the modern world.</p> + +<p>The usual appeal to education can bring +only disappointment. For the problems of +the modern world appear and change faster +than any set of teachers can grasp them, +much faster than they can convey their substance +to a population of children. If the +schools attempt to teach children how to +solve the problems of the day, they are bound +always to be in arrears. The most they +can conceivably attempt is the teaching of a +pattern of thought and feeling which will enable +the citizen to approach a new problem in +some useful fashion. But that pattern cannot +be invented by the pedagogue. It is the +political theorist’s business to trace out that +pattern. In that task he must not assume +that the mass has political genius, but that +men, even if they had genius, would give +only a little time and attention to public +affairs.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[28]</span></p> + +<p>The moralist, I am afraid, will agree all too +readily with the idea that social education +must deal primarily not with the elements +and solutions of particular phases of transient +problems but with the principles that constitute +an attitude toward all problems. I +warn him off. It will require more than a good +conscience to govern modern society, for +conscience is no guide in situations where +the essence of the difficulty is to find a guide +for the conscience.</p> + +<p>When I am tempted to think that men can +be fitted out to deal with the modern world +simply by teaching morals, manners and +patriotism, I try to remember the fable of +the pensive professor walking in the woods +at twilight. He stumbled into a tree. This +experience compelled him to act. Being a +man of honor and breeding, he raised his +hat, bowed deeply to the tree, and exclaimed +with sincere regret: “Excuse me, sir, I thought +you were a tree.”</p> + +<p>Is it fair, I ask, as a matter of morality, to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[29]</span>chide him for his conduct? If he had encountered +a tree, can any one deny his right to +collide with it? If he had stumbled into a +man, was his apology not sufficient? Here +was a moral code in perfect working order, +and the only questionable aspect of his conduct +turned not on the goodness of his heart or +the firmness of his principles but on a point +of fact. You may retort that he had a moral +obligation to know the difference between a +man and a tree. Perhaps so. But suppose +that instead of walking in the woods he had +been casting a ballot; suppose that instead +of a tree he had encountered the Fordney-McCumber +tariff. How much more obligation +to know the truth would you have imposed +on him then? After all, this walker in the +woods at twilight with his mind on other +things was facing, as all of us think we are, +the facts he imagined were there, and was +doing his duty as he had learned it.</p> + +<p>In some degree the whole animate world +seems to share the inexpertness of the thoughtful +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[30]</span>professor. Pawlow showed by his experiments +on dogs that an animal with a false +stomach can experience all the pleasures of +eating, and the number of mice and monkeys +known to have been deceived in laboratories is +surpassed only by the hopeful citizens of a +democracy. Man’s reflexes are, as the psychologists +say, conditioned. And, therefore, +he responds quite readily to a glass egg, a +decoy duck, a stuffed shirt or a political +platform. No moral code, as such, will enable +him to know whether he is exercising his moral +faculties on a real and an important event. +For effective virtue, as Socrates pointed out +long ago, is knowledge; and a code of the +right and the wrong must wait upon a perception +of the true and the false.</p> + +<p>But even the successful practice of a +moral code would not emancipate democracy. +There are too many moral codes. In our +immediate lives, within the boundaries of +our own society, there may be commonly +accepted standards. But a political theorist +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[31]</span>who asks that a local standard be universally +applied is merely begging one of the questions +he ought to be trying to solve. For, while +possibly it may be an aim of political organization +to arrive at a common standard of +judgment, one of the conditions which engenders +politics and makes political organization +necessary is the conflict of standards.</p> + +<p>Darwin’s story of the cats and clover⁠<a id="FNanchor_9_9" href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> may +be recommended to any one who finds it +difficult to free his mind of the assumption +that his notions of good and bad are universal. +The purple clover is cross-fertilized by the +bumblebee, and, therefore, the more bumblebees +the better next year’s crop of clover. But +the nests of bumblebees are rifled by field +mice which are fond of the white grubs. +Therefore, the more field mice the fewer +bumblebees and the poorer the crop. But in +the neighborhood of villages the cats hunt +down the field mice. And so the more cats +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[32]</span>the fewer mice, the more bumblebees the +better the crop. And the more kindly old +ladies there are in the village the more cats +there will be.</p> + +<p>If you happen not to be a Hindu or a vegetarian +and are a beef-eating Occidental you +will commend the old ladies who keep the cats +who hunt the mice who destroy the bumblebees +who make the pasture of clover for the cattle. +If you are a cat you also will be in favor of +the old ladies. But if you are a field mouse, +how different the rights and wrongs of that +section of the universe! The old ladies who +keep cats will seem about as kindly as witches +with pet tigers, and the Old Lady Peril will +be debated hysterically by the Field Mouse +Security League. For what could a patriotic +mouse think of a world in which bumblebees +did not exist for the sole purpose of producing +white grubs for field mice? There would seem +to be no law and order in such a world; and +only a highly philosophical mouse would admit +with Bergson that “the idea of disorder +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[33]</span>objectifies for the convenience of language, +the disappointment of a mind that finds +before it an order different from what it +wants.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_10_10" href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> For the order which we recognize as +good is an order suited to our needs and hopes +and habits.</p> + +<p>There is nothing universal or eternal or +unchangeable about our expectations. For +rhetorical effect we often say there is. But +in concrete cases it is not easy to explain +why the thing we desire is so righteous. If +the farmers are able to buy less than their +accustomed amount of manufactured foods +there is disorder and a problem. But what +absolute standard is there which determines +whether a bushel of wheat in 1925 should, as +compared with 1913, exchange for more, as +many, or less manufactures? Can any one +define a principle which shall say whether the +standard of living of the farmers or of any +other class should rise or fall, and how fast +and how much? There may be more jobs +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[34]</span>than workingmen at the wage offered: the +employers will complain and will call it a +problem, but who knows any rule which tells +how large a surplus of labor there ought to +be and at what price? There may be more +workingmen than jobs of the kind and at the +places and for the wages they will or can take. +But, although the problem will be acute, +there is no principle which determines how +many machinists, clerks, coal miners, bankers, +or salesmen it is the duty of society to provide +work for.</p> + +<p>It requires intense partisanship and much +self-deception to argue that some sort of peculiar +righteousness adheres to the farmers’ claims +as against the manufacturers’, the employers’ +against the wage-earners’, the creditors’ +against the debtors’, or the other way around. +These conflicts of interest are problems. +They require solution. But there is no moral +pattern available from which the precise +nature of the solution can be deduced.</p> + +<p>If then eugenics cannot produce the ideal +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[35]</span>democratic citizen, omnicompetent and sovereign, +because biology knows neither how to +breed political excellence nor what that excellence +is; if education cannot equip the citizen, +because the school teacher cannot anticipate +the issues of the future; if morality cannot +direct him, first, because right or wrong in +specific cases depends upon the perception of +true or false, and, second, on the assumption +that there is a universal moral code, which, +in fact, does not exist, where else shall we look +for the method of making the competent +citizen? Democratic theorists in the nineteenth +century had several other prescriptions +which still influence the thinking of many +hopeful persons.</p> + +<p>One school based their reforms on the aphorism +that the cure for the evils of democracy +is more democracy. It was assumed that +the popular will was wise and good if only +you could get at it. They proposed extensions +of the suffrage, and as much voting as possible +by means of the initiative, referendum and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[36]</span>recall, direct election of Senators, direct +primaries, an elected judiciary, and the like. +They begged the question, for it has never +been proved that there exists the kind of +public opinion which they presupposed. Since +the Bryan campaign of 1896 this school of +thought has made great conquests in most +of the states, and has profoundly influenced +the federal government. The eligible vote +has trebled since 1896; the direct action of +the voter has been enormously extended. Yet +that same period has seen a decline in the +percentage of the popular vote cast at presidential +elections from 80.75 per cent in 1896 +to 52.36 per cent in 1920. Apparently there +is a fallacy in the first assumption of this +school that “the whole people” desires to +participate actively in government. Nor is +there any evidence to show that the persons +who do participate are in any real sense directing +the course of affairs. The party machines +have survived every attack. And why should +they not? If the voter cannot grasp the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[37]</span>details of the problems of the day because he +has not the time, the interest or the knowledge, +he will not have a better public opinion +because he is asked to express his opinion +more often. He will simply be more bewildered, +more bored and more ready to follow +along.</p> + +<p>Another school, calling themselves revolutionary, +have ascribed the disenchantment of +democracy to the capitalistic system. They +have argued that property is power, and that +until there is as wide a distribution of economic +power as there is of the right to vote the suffrage +cannot be more effective. No serious +student, I think, would dispute that socialist +premise which asserts that the weight of influence +on society exercised by an individual is +more nearly related to the character of his property +than to his abstract legal citizenship. But +the socialist conclusion that economic power +can be distributed by concentrating the ownership +of great utilities in the state, the conclusion +that the pervasion of industrial life +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[38]</span>by voting and referenda will yield competent +popular decisions, seems to me again to beg +the question. For what reason is there to +think that subjecting so many more affairs +to the method of the vote will reveal hitherto +undiscovered wisdom and technical competence +and reservoirs of public interest in men? The +socialist scheme has at its root the mystical +fallacy of democracy, that the people, all of +them, are competent; at its top it suffers from +the homeopathic fallacy that adding new tasks +to a burden the people will not and cannot +carry now will make the burden of citizenship +easily borne. The socialist theory presupposes +an unceasing, untiring round of civic +duties, an enormous complication of the political +interests that are already much too +complicated.</p> + +<p>These various remedies, eugenic, educational, +ethical, populist and socialist, all +assume that either the voters are inherently +competent to direct the course of affairs or +that they are making progress toward such an +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[39]</span>ideal. I think it is a false ideal. I do not +mean an undesirable ideal. I mean an unattainable +ideal, bad only in the sense that +it is bad for a fat man to try to be a ballet +dancer. An ideal should express the true +possibilities of its subject. When it does not +it perverts the true possibilities. The ideal +of the omnicompetent, sovereign citizen is, in +my opinion, such a false ideal. It is unattainable. +The pursuit of it is misleading. The +failure to achieve it has produced the current +disenchantment.</p> + +<p>The individual man does not have opinions +on all public affairs. He does not know how +to direct public affairs. He does not know +what is happening, why it is happening, what +ought to happen. I cannot imagine how he +could know, and there is not the least reason +for thinking, as mystical democrats have +thought, that the compounding of individual +ignorances in masses of people can produce a +continuous directing force in public affairs.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h4>Footnotes</h4> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_8_8" href="#FNanchor_8_8" class="label">[8]</a> Logan Pearsall Smith.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_9_9" href="#FNanchor_9_9" class="label">[9]</a> As told by J. Arthur Thomson, <i>The Outline of Science</i>, Vol. III, +p. 646.</p></div> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[40]</span></p> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_10_10" href="#FNanchor_10_10" class="label">[10]</a> <i>Creative Evolution</i>, Ch. III.</p></div></div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_III"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter III</span> + <br> + AGENTS AND BYSTANDERS + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>When a citizen has qualified as a voter he +finds himself one of the theoretical rulers of a +great going concern. He has not made the +complicated machine with its five hundred +thousand federal officers and its uncounted +local offices. He has not seen much of it. +He is bound by contracts, by debts, by +treaties, by laws, made before he was aware +of them. He does not from day to day decide +who shall do what in the business of government. +Only some small fraction of it comes +intermittently to his notice. And in those +episodic moments when he stands in the +polling booth he is a highly intelligent and +public-spirited voter indeed who can discover +two real alternatives and enlist his influence +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[41]</span>for a party which promises something he can +understand.</p> + +<p>The actual governing is made up of a multitude +of arrangements on specific questions +by particular individuals. These rarely become +visible to the private citizen. Government, +in the long intervals between elections, +is carried on by politicians, officeholders and +influential men who make settlements with +other politicians, officeholders and influential +men. The mass of people see these settlements, +judge them, and affect them only +now and then. They are altogether too +numerous, too complicated, too obscure in +their effects to become the subject of any +continuing exercise of public opinion.</p> + +<p>Nor in any exact and literal sense are those +who conduct the daily business of government +accountable after the fact to the great mass +of the voters. They are accountable only, +except in spectacular cases, to the other +politicians, officeholders and influential men +directly interested in the particular act. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[42]</span>Modern society is not visible to anybody, nor +intelligible continuously and as a whole. One +section is visible to another section, one +series of acts is intelligible to this group and +another to that.</p> + +<p>Even this degree of responsible understanding +is attainable only by the development of +fact-finding agencies of great scope and complexity.⁠<a id="FNanchor_11_11" href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> +These agencies give only a remote +and incidental assistance to the general public. +Their findings are too intricate for the casual +reader. They are also almost always much +too uninteresting. Indeed the popular boredom +and contempt for the expert and for +statistical measurement are such that the +organization of intelligence to administer +modern affairs would probably be entirely +neglected were it not that departments of +government, corporations, trade unions and +trade associations are being compelled by their +own internal necessities of administration, and +by compulsion of other corporate groups, to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[43]</span>record their own acts, measure them, publish +them and stand accountable for them.</p> + +<p>The need in the Great Society not only for +publicity but for uninterrupted publicity is +indisputable. But we shall misunderstand +the need seriously if we imagine that the +purpose of the publication can possibly be +the informing of every voter. We live at +the mere beginnings of public accounting. +Yet the facts far exceed our curiosity. The +railroads, for example, make an accounting. +Do we read the results? Hardly. A few +executives here and there, some bankers, +some regulating officials, some representatives +of shippers and the like read them. The +rest of us ignore them for the good and sufficient +reason that we have other things to do.</p> + +<p>For the man does not live who can read all +the reports that drift across his doorstep or +all the dispatches in his newspaper. And if +by some development of the radio every man +could see and hear all that was happening +everywhere, if publicity, in other words, became +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[44]</span>absolute, how much time could or would +he spend watching the Sinking Fund Commission +and the Geological Survey? He would +probably tune in on the Prince of Wales, or, +in desperation, throw off the switch and seek +peace in ignorance. It is bad enough today—with +morning newspapers published in the +evening and evening newspapers in the +morning, with October magazines in September, +with the movies and the radio—to be condemned +to live under a barrage of eclectic +information, to have one’s mind made the +receptacle for a hullabaloo of speeches, arguments +and unrelated episodes. General information +for the informing of public opinion is +altogether too general for intellectual decency. +And life is too short for the pursuit of omniscience +by the counting in a state of nervous +excitement of all the leaves on all the trees.</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>If all men had to conceive the whole process +of government all the time the world’s work +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[45]</span>would obviously never be carried on. Men +make no attempt to consider society as a +whole. The farmer decides whether to plant +wheat or corn, the mechanic whether to take +the job offered at the Pennsylvania or the +Erie shops, whether to buy a Ford or a piano, +and, if a Ford, whether to buy it from the +garage on Elm Street or from the dealer who +sent him a circular. These decisions are +among fairly narrow choices offered to him; +he can no more choose among all the jobs in +the world than he can consider marrying any +woman in the world. These choices in detail +are in their cumulative mass the government +of society. They may rest on ignorant or +enlightened opinions, but, whether he comes +to them by accident or scientific instruction, +they are specific and particular among at best +a few concrete alternatives and they lead to a +definite, visible result.</p> + +<p>But men are supposed also to hold public +opinions about the general conduct of society. +The mechanic is supposed not only to choose +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[46]</span>between working for the Pennsylvania or the +Erie but to decide how in the interests of +the nation all the railroads of the country +shall be regulated. The two kinds of opinion +merge insensibly one into the other; men have +general notions which influence their individual +decisions and their direct experiences unconsciously +govern their general notions. Yet +it is useful to distinguish between the two +kinds of opinion, the specific and direct, the +general and the indirect.</p> + +<p>Specific opinions give rise to immediate +executive acts; to take a job, to do a particular +piece of work, to hire or fire, to buy or sell, to +stay here or go there, to accept or refuse, to +command or obey. General opinions give +rise to delegated, indirect, symbolic, intangible +results: to a vote, to a resolution, to applause, +to criticism, to praise or dispraise, +to audiences, circulations, followings, contentment +or discontent. The specific opinion +may lead to a decision to act within the +area where a man has personal jurisdiction; +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[47]</span>that is, within the limits set by law and +custom, his personal power and his personal +desire. But general opinions lead only to +some sort of expression, such as voting, and +do not result in executive acts except in +coöperation with the general opinions of large +numbers of other persons.</p> + +<p>Since the general opinions of large numbers +of persons are almost certain to be a vague and +confusing medley, action cannot be taken until +these opinions have been factored down, +canalized, compressed and made uniform. +The making of one general will out of a multitude +of general wishes is not an Hegelian +mystery, as so many social philosophers have +imagined, but an art well known to leaders, +politicians and steering committees.⁠<a id="FNanchor_12_12" href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> It consists +essentially in the use of symbols which +assemble emotions after they have been +detached from their ideas. Because feelings +are much less specific than ideas, and yet +more poignant, the leader is able to make a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[48]</span>homogeneous will out of a heterogeneous +mass of desires. The process, therefore, by +which general opinions are brought to coöperation +consists of an intensification of +feeling and a degradation of significance. +Before a mass of general opinions can eventuate +in executive action, the choice is narrowed +down to a few alternatives. The victorious +alternative is executed not by the +mass but by individuals in control of its +energy.</p> + +<p>A private opinion may be quite complicated, +and may issue in quite complicated +actions, in a whole train of subsidiary opinions, +as when a man decides to build a house and +then makes a hundred judgments as to how +it shall be built. But a public opinion has no +such immediate responsibility or continuous +result. It leads in politics to the making of a +pencil mark on a piece of paper, and then to a +period of waiting and watching as to whether +one or two years hence the mark shall be +made in the same column or in the adjoining +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[49]</span>one. The decision to make the mark may be +for reasons <i>a</i><sup>1</sup>, <i>a</i><sup>2</sup>, <i>a</i><sup>3</sup> ... <i>a</i><sup>n</sup>: the result, +whether an idiot or genius has voted, is A.</p> + +<p>For great masses of people, though each of +them may have more or less distinct views, +must when they act converge to an identical +result. And the more complex the collection +of men the more ambiguous must be the unity +and the simpler the common ideas.</p> + + +<h4>3</h4> + +<p>In English-speaking countries during the +last century the contrast between the action +of men individually and in the mass has +been much emphasized, and yet greatly misunderstood. +Macaulay, for example, speaking +on the Reform Bill of 1832, drew the conventional +distinction between private enterprise +and public action:</p> + +<p>“In all those things which depend on the +intelligence, the knowledge, the industry, the +energy of individuals, this country stands +preëminent among all countries of the world +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[50]</span>ancient and modern. But in those things +which it belongs to the state to direct we have +no such claim to superiority ... can there be +a stronger contrast than that which exists +between the beauty, the completeness, the +speed, the precision with which every process +is performed in our factories, and the awkwardness, +the crudeness, the slowness, the uncertainty +of the apparatus by which offenses +are punished and rights vindicated?... +Surely we see the barbarism of the Thirteenth +Century and the highest civilization of the +Nineteenth Century side by side, and we see +that the barbarism belongs to the government, +and the civilization to the people.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_13_13" href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p> + +<p>Macaulay was, of course, thinking of the +contrast between factory production and +government as it existed in England under +Queen Victoria’s uncles and the hard-drinking, +hard-riding squirearchy. But the Prussian +bureaucracy amply demonstrated that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[51]</span>there is no such necessary contrast between +governmental and private action. There is +a contrast between action by and through +great masses of people and action that moves +without them.</p> + +<p>The fundamental contrast is not between +public and private enterprises, between +“crowd” psychology and individual, but +between men doing specific things and men +attempting to command general results. The +work of the world is carried on by men in their +executive capacity, by an infinite number of +concrete acts, plowing and planting and reaping, +building and destroying, fitting this to +that, going from here to there, transforming +A into B and moving B from X to Y. The +relationships between the individuals doing +these specific things are balanced by a most +intricate mechanism of exchange, of contract, +of custom and of implied promises. Where +men are performing their work they must +learn to understand the process and the substance +of these obligations if they are to do +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[52]</span>it at all. But in governing the work of other +men by votes or by the expression of opinion +they can only reward or punish a result, accept +or reject alternatives presented to them. +They can say yes or no to something which +has been done, yes or no to a proposal, but +they cannot create, administer and actually +perform the act they have in mind. Persons +uttering public opinions may now and then +be able to define the acts of men, but their +opinions do not execute these acts.</p> + + +<h4>4</h4> + +<p>To the realm of executive acts, each of us, +as a member of the public, remains always +external. Our public opinions are always and +forever, by their very nature, an attempt +to control the actions of others from the +outside. If we can grasp the full significance +of that conclusion we shall, I think, have +found a way of fixing the rôle of public opinion +in its true perspective; we shall know how +to account for the disenchantment of democracy, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[53]</span>and we shall begin to see the outline of +an ideal of public opinion which, unlike that +accepted in the dogma of democracy, may be +really attainable.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h4>Footnotes</h4> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_11_11" href="#FNanchor_11_11" class="label">[11]</a> <i>Cf.</i> my <i>Public Opinion</i>, Chapters XXV and XXVI.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_12_12" href="#FNanchor_12_12" class="label">[12]</a> <i>Cf.</i> my <i>Public Opinion</i>, Chapters XIII and XIV.</p></div> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[54]</span></p> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_13_13" href="#FNanchor_13_13" class="label">[13]</a> Speech on the Reform Bill of 1832, quoted in the <i>Times</i> (London), +July 12, 1923.</p></div></div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_IV"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter IV</span> + <br> + WHAT THE PUBLIC DOES + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>I do not mean to say that there is no other +attainable ideal of public opinion but that +severely practical one which this essay is +meant to disclose. One might aim to enrich +the minds of men with charming fantasies, +animate nature and society with spirits, set +up an Olympus in the skies and an Atlantis +at the end of the world. And one might then +assert that, so the quality of ideas be fine or +give peace, it does not matter how or whether +they eventuate in the government of affairs.</p> + +<p>Utopia and Nirvana are by definition their +own sufficient reason, and it may be that to +contemplate them is well worth the abandonment +of feeble attempts to control the action +of events. Renunciation, however, is a luxury +in which all men cannot indulge. They will +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[55]</span>somehow seek to control the behavior of others, +if not by positive law then at least by persuasion. +When men are in that posture toward +events they are a public, as I am here defining +the term; their opinions as to how others ought +to behave are public opinions. The more +clearly it is understood what the public can +do and what it cannot, the more effectively +it will do what lies within its power to do well +and the less it will interfere with the liberties +of men.</p> + +<p>The rôle of public opinion is determined by +the fact that its relation to a problem is external. +The opinion affects an opinion, but does +not itself control the executive act. A public +opinion is expressed by a vote, a demonstration +of praise or blame, a following or a boycotting. +But these manifestations are in +themselves nothing. They count only if they +influence the course of affairs. They influence +it, however, only if they influence an actor +in the affair. And it is, I believe, precisely +in this secondary, indirect relationship between +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[56]</span>public opinion and public affairs that we +have the clue to the limits and the possibilities +of public opinion.</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>It may be objected at once that an election +which turns one set of men out of office +and installs another is an expression of public +opinion which is neither secondary nor indirect. +But what in fact is an election? We +call it an expression of the popular will. But +is it? We go into a polling booth and mark a +cross on a piece of paper for one of two, or +perhaps three or four names. Have we expressed +our thoughts on the public policy of +the United States? Presumably we have a +number of thoughts on this and that with +many buts and ifs and ors. Surely the cross +on a piece of paper does not express them. +It would take us hours to express our thoughts, +and calling a vote the expression of our mind +is an empty fiction.</p> + +<p>A vote is a promise of support. It is a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[57]</span>way of saying: I am lined up with these men, +on this side. I enlist with them. I will follow. +I will buy. I will boycott. I will +strike. I applaud. I jeer. The force I can +exert is placed here, not there.</p> + +<p>The public does not select the candidate, +write the platform, outline the policy any +more than it builds the automobile or acts +the play. It aligns itself for or against +somebody who has offered himself, has made +a promise, has produced a play, is selling an +automobile. The action of a group as a +group is the mobilization of the force it +possesses.</p> + +<p>The attempt has been made to ascribe some +intrinsic moral and intellectual virtue to majority +rule. It was said often in the nineteenth +century that there was a deep wisdom in +majorities which was the voice of God. Sometimes +this flattery was a sincere mysticism, +sometimes it was the self-deception which +always accompanies the idealization of power. +In substance it was nothing but a transfer to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[58]</span>the new sovereign of the divine attributes of +kings. Yet the inherent absurdity of making +virtue and wisdom dependent on 51 per cent +of any collection of men has always been +apparent. The practical realization that the +claim was absurd has resulted in a whole +code of civil rights to protect minorities and in +all sorts of elaborate methods of subsidizing +the arts and sciences and other human interests +so they might be independent of the +operation of majority rule.</p> + +<p>The justification of majority rule in politics +is not to be found in its ethical superiority. +It is to be found in the sheer necessity +of finding a place in civilized society for the +force which resides in the weight of numbers. +I have called voting an act of enlistment, an +alignment for or against, a mobilization. +These are military metaphors, and rightly so, +I think, for an election based on the principle +of majority rule is historically and practically +a sublimated and denatured civil war, a paper +mobilization without physical violence.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[59]</span></p> + +<p>Constitutional democrats, in the intervals +when they were not idealizing the majority, +have acknowledged that a ballot was a civilized +substitute for a bullet. “The French +Revolution,” says Bernard Shaw, “overthrew +one set of rulers and substituted another with +different interests and different views. That +is what a general election enables the people +to do in England every seven years if they +choose. Revolution is therefore a national +institution in England; and its advocacy by +an Englishman needs no apology.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_14_14" href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> It makes +an enormous difference, of course, whether +the people fight or vote, but we shall understand +the nature of voting better if we recognize +it to be a substitute for fighting. +“There grew up in the 17th and 18th Centuries +in England,” says Dwight Morrow in +his introduction to Professor Morse’s book, +“and there has been carried from England to +almost every civilized government in the +world, a procedure through which party +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[60]</span>government becomes in large measure a substitute +for revolution.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_15_15" href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> Hans Delbrück puts +the matter simply when he says that the +principle of majority rule is “a purely practical +principle. If one wants to avoid a civil +war, one lets those rule who in any case would +obtain the upper hand if there should be a +struggle; and they are the superior numbers.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_16_16" href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p> + +<p>But, while an election is in essence sublimated +warfare, we must take care not to miss +the importance of the sublimation. There +have been pedantic theorists who wished to +disqualify all who could not bear arms, and +woman suffrage has been deplored as a falsification +of the value of an election in uncovering +the alignment of martial force in the +community. One can safely ignore such +theorizing. For, while the institution of an +election is in its historical origins an alignment +of the physical force, it has come to be an alignment +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[61]</span>of all kinds of force. It remains an alignment, +though in advanced democracies it +has lost most of its primitive association with +military combat. It has not lost it in the +South where the Negro population is disfranchised +by force, and not permitted to +make its weight felt in an election. It has +not lost it in the unstable Latin American +republics where every election is in some +measure still an armed revolution. In fact, +the United States has officially recognized +this truth by proclaiming that the substitution +of election for revolution in Central +America is the test of political progress.</p> + +<p>I do not wish to labor the argument any +further than may be necessary to establish +the theory that what the public does is not +to express its opinions but to align itself for +or against a proposal. If that theory is accepted, +we must abandon the notion that +democratic government can be the direct +expression of the will of the people. We must +abandon the notion that the people govern. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[62]</span>Instead we must adopt the theory that, by +their occasional mobilizations as a majority, +people support or oppose the individuals who +actually govern. We must say that the popular +will does not direct continuously but that +it intervenes occasionally.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h4>Footnotes</h4> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_14_14" href="#FNanchor_14_14" class="label">[14]</a> Preface to <i>The Revolutionist’s Handbook</i>, p. 179.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_15_15" href="#FNanchor_15_15" class="label">[15]</a> <i>Parties and Party Leaders</i>, p. xvi.</p></div> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[63]</span></p> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_16_16" href="#FNanchor_16_16" class="label">[16]</a> H. Delbrück, <i>Government and the Will of the People</i>, p. 15. Translated +by Roy S. MacElwee.</p></div></div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_V"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter V</span> + <br> + THE NEUTRALIZATION OF ARBITRARY FORCE + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>If this is the nature of public action, what +ideal can be formulated which shall conform +to it?</p> + +<p>We are bound, I think, to express the ideal +in its lowest terms, to state it not as an ideal +which might conceivably be realized by exceptional +groups now and then or in some distant +future but as an ideal which normally might +be taught and attained. In estimating the +burden which a public can carry, a sound +political theory must insist upon the largest +factor of safety. It must understate the +possibilities of public action.</p> + +<p>The action of a public, we had concluded, +is principally confined to an occasional intervention +in affairs by means of an alignment +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[64]</span>of the force which a dominant section of that +public can wield. We must assume, then, +that the members of a public will not possess +an insider’s knowledge of events or share his +point of view. They cannot, therefore, construe +intent, or appraise the exact circumstances, +enter intimately into the minds of the +actors or into the details of the argument. +They can watch only for coarse signs indicating +where their sympathies ought to turn.</p> + +<p>We must assume that the members of a +public will not anticipate a problem much +before its crisis has become obvious, nor stay +with the problem long after its crisis is past. +They will not know the antecedent events, +will not have seen the issue as it developed, +will not have thought out or willed a program, +and will not be able to predict the consequences +of acting on that program. We must +assume as a theoretically fixed premise of +popular government that normally men as +members of a public will not be well informed, +continuously interested, nonpartisan, creative +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[65]</span>or executive. We must assume that a public +is inexpert in its curiosity, intermittent, that +it discerns only gross distinctions, is slow to +be aroused and quickly diverted; that, since +it acts by aligning itself, it personalizes whatever +it considers, and is interested only when +events have been melodramatized as a conflict.</p> + +<p>The public will arrive in the middle of the +third act and will leave before the last curtain, +having stayed just long enough perhaps to +decide who is the hero and who the villain +of the piece. Yet usually that judgment will +necessarily be made apart from the intrinsic +merits, on the basis of a sample of behavior, +an aspect of a situation, by very rough external +evidence.</p> + +<p>We cannot, then, think of public opinion +as a conserving or creating force directing +society to clearly conceived ends, making +deliberately toward socialism or away from +it, toward nationalism, an empire, a league of +nations or any other doctrinal goal. For +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[66]</span>men do not agree as to their aims, and it is +precisely the lack of agreement which creates +the problems that excite public attention. +It is idle, then, to argue that though men evidently +have conflicting purposes, mankind +has some all-embracing purpose of which you +or I happen to be the authorized spokesman. +We merely should have moved in a circle were +we to conclude that the public is in some deep +way a messianic force.</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>The work of the world goes on continually +without conscious direction from public opinion. +At certain junctures problems arise. +It is only with the crises of some of these +problems that public opinion is concerned. +And its object in dealing with a crisis is to +help allay that crisis.</p> + +<p>I think this conclusion is unescapable. For +though we may prefer to believe that the +aim of popular action should be to do justice +or promote the true, the beautiful and the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[67]</span>good, the belief will not maintain itself in the +face of plain experience. The public does not +know in most crises what specifically is the +truth or the justice of the case, and men are +not agreed on what is beautiful and good. +Nor does the public rouse itself normally +at the existence of evil. It is aroused at +evil made manifest by the interruption of a +habitual process of life. And finally, a problem +ceases to occupy attention not when justice, +as we happen to define it, has been done but +when a workable adjustment that overcomes +the crisis has been made. If all this were not +the necessary manner of public opinion, if it +had seriously to crusade for justice in every +issue it touches, the public would have to be +dealing with all situations all the time. That +is impossible. It is also undesirable. For +did justice, truth, goodness and beauty depend +on the spasmodic and crude interventions +of public opinion there would be +little hope for them in this world.</p> + +<p>Thus we strip public opinion of any implied +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[68]</span>duty to deal with the substance of a problem, +to make technical decisions, to attempt justice +or impose a moral precept. And instead we +say that the ideal of public opinion is to align +men during the crisis of a problem in such a +way as to favor the action of those individuals +who may be able to compose the crisis. The +power to discern those individuals is the end +of the effort to educate public opinion. The +aim of research designed to facilitate public +action is the discovery of clear signs by which +these individuals may be discerned.</p> + +<p>The signs are relevant when they reveal by +coarse, simple and objective tests which side +in a controversy upholds a workable social +rule, or which is attacking an unworkable +rule, or which proposes a promising new rule. +By following such signs the public might +know where to align itself. In such an alignment +it does not, let us remember, pass +judgment on the intrinsic merits. It merely +places its force at the disposal of the side +which, according to objective signs, seems to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[69]</span>be standing for human adjustments according +to a clear rule of behavior and against the +side which appears to stand for settlement in +accordance with its own unaccountable will.</p> + +<p>Public opinion, in this theory, is a reserve +of force brought into action during a crisis +in public affairs. Though it is itself an irrational +force, under favorable institutions, +sound leadership and decent training the power +of public opinion might be placed at the disposal +of those who stood for workable law as +against brute assertion. In this theory, public +opinion does not make the law. But by canceling +lawless power it may establish the +condition under which law can be made. It +does not reason, investigate, invent, persuade, +bargain or settle. But, by holding the aggressive +party in check, it may liberate intelligence. +Public opinion in its highest ideal +will defend those who are prepared to act on +their reason against the interrupting force of +those who merely assert their will.</p> + +<p>The action of public opinion at its best +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[70]</span>would not, let it be noted, be a continual +crusade on behalf of reason. When power, +however absolute and unaccountable, reigns +without provoking a crisis, public opinion +does not challenge it. Somebody must challenge +arbitrary power first. The public +can only come to his assistance.</p> + + +<h4>3</h4> + +<p>That, I think, is the utmost that public +opinion can effectively do. With the substance +of the problem it can do nothing +usually but meddle ignorantly or tyrannically. +It has no need to meddle with it. Men in +their active relation to affairs have to deal +with the substance, but in that indirect +relationship when they can act only through +uttering praise or blame, making black crosses +on white paper, they have done enough, they +have done all they can do if they help to +make it possible for the reason of other men +to assert itself.</p> + +<p>For when public opinion attempts to govern +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[71]</span>directly it is either a failure or a tyranny. It +is not able to master the problem intellectually, +nor to deal with it except by wholesale +impact. The theory of democracy has not +recognized this truth because it has identified +the functioning of government with the will +of the people. This is a fiction. The intricate +business of framing laws and of administering +them through several hundred thousand public +officials is in no sense the act of the voters +nor a translation of their will.</p> + +<p>But although the acts of government are +not a translation of public opinion, the principal +function of government is to do specifically, +in greater detail, and more continually +what public opinion does crudely, by wholesale, +and spasmodically. It enforces some of +the working rules of society. It interprets +them. It detects and punishes certain kinds +of aggression. It presides over the framing of +new rules. It has organized force which is +used to counteract irregular force.</p> + +<p>It is also subject to the same corruption as +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[72]</span>public opinion. For when government attempts +to impose the will of its officials, +instead of intervening so as to steady adjustments +by consent among the parties +directly interested, it becomes heavy-handed, +stupid, imperious, even predatory. For the +public official, though he is better placed +to understand the problem than a reader of +newspapers, and though he is much better +able to act, is still fundamentally external +to the real problems in which he intervenes. +Being external, his point of view is indirect, +and so his action is most appropriate when it +is confined to rendering indirect assistance to +those who are directly responsible.</p> + +<p>Therefore, instead of describing government +as an expression of the people’s will, it would +seem better to say that government consists +of a body of officials, some elected, some +appointed, who handle professionally, and +in the first instance, problems which come to +public opinion spasmodically and on appeal. +Where the parties directly responsible do not +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[73]</span>work out an adjustment, public officials +intervene. When the officials fail, public +opinion is brought to bear on the issue.</p> + + +<h4>4</h4> + +<p>This, then, is the ideal of public action which +our inquiry suggests. Those who happen in +any question to constitute the public should +attempt only to create an equilibrium in +which settlements can be reached directly +and by consent. The burden of carrying on +the work of the world, of inventing, creating, +executing, of attempting justice, formulating +laws and moral codes, of dealing with the +technic and the substance, lies not upon public +opinion and not upon government but on those +who are responsibly concerned as agents in +the affair. Where problems arise, the ideal +is a settlement by the particular interests +involved. They alone know what the trouble +really is. No decision by public officials or +by commuters reading headlines in the train +can usually and in the long run be so good as +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[74]</span>settlement by consent among the parties at +interest. No moral code, no political theory +can usually and in the long run be imposed +from the heights of public opinion, which +will fit a case so well as direct agreement +reached where arbitrary power has been disarmed.</p> + +<p>It is the function of public opinion to check +the use of force in a crisis, so that men, driven +to make terms, may live and let live.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[75]</span></p> + + <h2 class="nobreak" id="PART_II"> + PART II + </h2> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_76"></a><a id="Page_77"></a>[77]</span></p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_VI"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter VI</span> + <br> + THE QUESTION ARISTOTLE ASKED + </h3> +</div> + + +<p>These conclusions are sharply at variance +with the accepted theory of popular government. +That theory rests upon the belief that +there is a public which directs the course of +events. I hold that this public is a mere +phantom. It is an abstraction. The public +in respect to a railroad strike may be the +farmers whom the railroad serves; the public +in respect to an agricultural tariff may include +the very railroad men who were on strike. +The public is not, as I see it, a fixed body of +individuals. It is merely those persons who +are interested in an affair and can affect it +only by supporting or opposing the actors.</p> + +<p>Since these random publics cannot be expected +to deal with the merits of a controversy, +they can give their support with reasonable +assurance that it will do good only if +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[78]</span>there are easily recognizable and yet pertinent +signs which they can follow. Are there +such signs? Can they be discovered? Can +they be formulated so they might be learned +and used? The chapters of this second part +are an attempt to answer these questions.</p> + +<p>The signs must be of such a character that +they can be recognized without any substantial +insight into the substance of a problem. Yet +they must be relevant to the solution of the +problem. They must be signs which will tell +the members of a public where they can best +align themselves so as to promote the solution. +In short, they must be guides to reasonable +action for the use of uninformed people.</p> + +<p>The environment is complex. Man’s political +capacity is simple. Can a bridge be built +between them? The question has haunted +political science ever since Aristotle first +formulated it in the great seventh book of his +<i>Politics</i>. He answered it by saying that the +community must be kept simple and small +enough to suit the faculties of its citizens. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[79]</span>We who live in the Great Society are unable +to follow his advice. The orthodox democrats +answered Aristotle’s question by assuming +that a limitless political capacity resides in +public opinion. A century of experience compels +us to deny this assumption. For us, +then, the old question is unanswered; we can +neither reject the Great Society as Aristotle +did, nor exaggerate the political capacity of +the citizen as the democrats did. We are +forced to ask whether it is possible for men +to find a way of acting effectively upon highly +complex affairs by very simple means.</p> + +<p>I venture to think that this problem may +be soluble, that principles can be elucidated +which might effect a successful junction +between the intricacies of the environment +and the simplicities of human faculty. It goes +without saying that what I shall present here +is no final statement of these principles. At +most and at best it may be a clue, with some +illustrations, that can be developed by research. +But even that much assurance seems +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[80]</span>to me rash in the light of the difficulties which +the problem has always presented, and so, +following Descartes, I add that “after all, it +is possible I may be mistaken; and it is but a +little copper and glass I take for gold and +diamonds.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_17_17" href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a></p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h4>Footnotes</h4> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[81]</span></p> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_17_17" href="#FNanchor_17_17" class="label">[17]</a> <i>Discourse on Method</i>, Part I.</p></div></div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_VII"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter VII</span> + <br> + THE NATURE OF A PROBLEM + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>Somewhat in the spirit of Descartes, let +us begin by supposing that your whole experience +were confined to one glimpse of the world. +There would be, I think, no better or worse +in your sight, neither good men nor bad, +patriots nor profiteers, conservatives nor radicals. +You would be a perfect neutral. From +such an impression of things, it would never +occur to you that the crest of a mountain +endured longer than the crest of a wave, that +people moved about and that trees did not, +or that the roar of an orator would pass sooner +than the roar of Niagara.</p> + +<p>Lengthen your experience, and you would +begin to notice differences in the constancy +of things. You would know day and night, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[82]</span>perhaps, but not winter and summer, movement +in space, but little of age in time. And +if you then formulated your social philosophy, +would you not almost certainly conclude that +the things you saw people doing then it was +ordained they should do always, and that +their characters as you had seen them that +day would be thus and so forever? And +would not the resulting treatise pass almost +unnoticed in any collection of contemporary +disquisitions on the nations, the races, the +classes or the sexes?</p> + +<p>But the more you lengthened the span of +your impression, the more variability you +would note, until at last you would say with +Heraclitus that all things flow. For when the +very stars and the rocks were seen to have a +history, men and their institutions and customs, +habits and ideals, theories and policies +could seem only relatively permanent. And +you would have to conclude that what at +first glance you had called a constant turns +out after you had watched it longer merely +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[83]</span>to be changing a little more slowly than +something else.</p> + +<p>With sufficiently long experience you would +indeed be bound to conclude that while the +diverse elements that bear upon the life of +men, including the characters of men themselves, +were changing, yet they were not +changing at the same pace. Things multiply, +they grow, they learn, they age, they wear out +and they die at different rates. An individual, +his companions, his implements, his institutions, +his creeds, his needs, his means of satisfaction, +evolve unevenly, and endure unevenly. +Events do not concur harmoniously +in time. Some hurry, some straggle, some +push and some drag. The ranks have always +to be reformed.</p> + +<p>Instead of that one grand system of evolution +and progress, which the nineteenth century +found so reassuring, there would appear +to be innumerable systems of evolution, +variously affecting each other, some linked, +some in collision, but each in some fundamental +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[84]</span>aspect moving at its own pace and on +its own terms.</p> + +<p>The disharmonies of this uneven evolution +are the problems of mankind.</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>Suppose a man who knew nothing of the +history of the nineteenth century were shown +the tables compiled in the <i>Statistical Abstract +of the United States</i> for the period from 1800 +to 1918: He would note that the population +of the world had multiplied two and a half +times; its total commerce 42 times; its shipping +tonnage more than 7 times; its railways 3664 +times; its telegraphs 317 times; its cotton +production 17 times; its coal 113 times; its +pig iron 77 times. Could he doubt that in +a century of such uneven changes men had +faced revolutionary social problems?</p> + +<p>Could he not infer from these figures alone +that there had been great movements of population, +vast changes in men’s occupation, in the +character of their labor, their wants, their +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[85]</span>standards of living, their ambitions? Would +he not fairly infer that the political system +which had existed in 1800 must have altered +vastly with these new relationships, that customs, +manners and morals appropriate to the +settled, small and more or less self-contained +communities of 1800 had been subjected to +new strains and had probably been thoroughly +revised? As he imagined the realities behind +the tables, would he not infer that as men +lived through the changes which these cold +figures summarize they had been in conflict +with their old habits and ideals, that the +process of making new habits and adjustments +must have gone on subject to trial and error +with hopefulness over material progress and +yet much disorder and confusion of soul?</p> + + +<h4>3</h4> + +<p>For a more specific illustration of the nature +of a problem we may examine the problem of +population in its simplest form. When Malthus +first stated it he assumed, for the purposes +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[86]</span>of argument, two elements evolving at +different rates. Population, he said, doubled +every twenty-five years; the produce of land +could be increased in the same time by an +amount “equal to what it at present produces.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_18_18" href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> +He was writing about the year +1800. The population of England he estimated +at seven millions, and the food supply +as adequate to that number. There was then, +in 1800, no problem. By 1825 the population, +according to his estimate of its rate of increase, +would have doubled, but the food +supply would also have doubled. There +would be no problem of population. But by +1850 the population would stand at twenty-eight +millions; the food supply would have +increased only by an amount to support an +additional seven millions. The problem of +excess population, or, if you like, of food +scarcity, would have appeared. For while +in 1800 and in 1825 the food available for +each person would be the same, in 1850, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[87]</span>owing to the uneven rate of growth, there +would be only a three-quarter ration for each +person. And this altered relationship Malthus +rightly called a problem.</p> + +<p>Suppose, now, we complicate Malthus’s +argument a bit by assuming that in 1850 +people had learned to eat less and felt more +fit on the three-quarter ration. There would +then be no problem in 1850, for the adjustment +of the two variables—food and people—would +be satisfactory. Or, on the contrary, +suppose that soon after 1800 people had demanded +a higher standard of living and +expected more food, though the necessary +additional food was not produced. These +new demands would create a problem. Or +suppose, as was actually the case,⁠<a id="FNanchor_19_19" href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> the food +supply increased faster than Malthus had +assumed it could, though population did not. +The problem of population would not arise +at the date he predicted. Or suppose the +increase of population was reduced by birth +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[88]</span>control. The problem, as Malthus first stated +it, would not arise.⁠<a id="FNanchor_20_20" href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> Or suppose the food +supply increased faster than the population +could consume it. There would then be a +problem not of population but of agricultural +surplus.</p> + +<p>In an absolutely static society there would +be no problems. A problem is the result of +change. But not of the change in any self-contained +element. Change would be unnoticeable +unless we could measure it against +some other element which did not change at +the same pace. If everything in the universe +expanded at a mile a minute, or shrank at the +same rate, we should never know it. For all +we can tell we may be the size of a mosquito +one moment in the sight of God, and of an +elephant the next; we cannot tell if mosquitoes +and elephants and chairs and planets change +in proportion. Change is significant only in +relation to something else.</p> + +<p>The change which constitutes a problem +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[89]</span>is an altered relationship between two dependent +variables.⁠<a id="FNanchor_21_21" href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> Thus the automobile is a +problem in the city not because there are so +many automobiles but because there are too +many for the width of the streets, too many +for the number of competent drivers, because +the too narrow streets are filled with too many +cars driven too recklessly for the present +ability of the police to control them. Because +the automobile is manufactured faster than +old city streets can be widened, because some +persons acquire cars faster than they acquire +prudence and good manners, because automobiles +collect in cities faster than policemen +can be recruited, trained or paid for by slow-yielding +taxpayers, there is an automobile +problem made evident by crowding, obnoxious +fumes and collisions.</p> + +<p>But though these evils seem to arise from +the automobile, the fault lies not in the automobile +but in the relation between the automobile +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[90]</span>and the city. This may sound like +splitting hairs, but unless we insist upon it +we never define a problem accurately nor lay +it open successfully to solution.</p> + +<p>The problem of national defense, for example, +can never be stated by a general staff +which draws upon its inner consciousness +for an estimate of the necessary force. The +necessary force can be estimated only in relation +to the probable enemy, and the military +problem whether of peace or of war lies always +in the ratio of forces. Military force is a +purely relative conception. The British Navy +is helpless as a child against the unarmed +mountaineers of Tibet. The French Army +has no force as against fishing smacks in the +Pacific Ocean. Force has to be measured +against its objective: the tiger and the shark +are incomparable one with the other.</p> + +<p>Now a settled and accepted ratio of forces +that might collide is a state of military peace. +A competitive and, therefore, constantly unbalanced +ratio is a prelude to war. The Canadian +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[91]</span>border presents no military problem, +not because Canada’s forces and our own are +equal but because, happily, we do not compare +them. They are independent variables, +having no relation one with the other, and a +change in the one does not affect the other. +In capital ships we are confronted now with +no naval problem in the Atlantic or in the +Pacific, because with Britain and Japan, the +only two comparable powers, we are agreed +on a ratio by treaty.⁠<a id="FNanchor_22_22" href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> But for all types of +ships not subject to the ratio there is a naval +problem in both oceans, and if the Washington +Treaty should lapse the problem which +it settled would recur. It would recur because +the synchronized progress of the three navies +would be replaced by a relatively uneven +progress of each as compared with the +others.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[92]</span></p> + + +<h4>4</h4> + +<p>The field of economic activity is the source +of many problems. For, as Cassel says,⁠<a id="FNanchor_23_23" href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> we +include within the meaning of the word economic +those means of satisfying human wants +which are “usually available only in a limited +quantity.” Since “the wants of civilized +human beings as a whole are,” for all practical +purposes, “unlimited,” there is in all economic +life the constant necessity of reaching “an +adjustment between the wants and the means +of supplying the wants.” This disharmony +of supply and demand is the source of an +unending series of problems.</p> + +<p>We may note at once that the economist +does not claim as his province the whole +range of adjustments between human wants +and the means of satisfying them. He usually +omits, for example, the human need to +breathe air. For since the air is unlimited in +quantity the human need of it is not frustrated, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[93]</span>and the surplus air not required by +men in no way impinges upon their lives. Yet +there may be a scarcity of air, as, for example, +in a congested tenement district. Then an +economic problem is engendered which has +to be met, let us say, by building laws requiring +a certain number of cubic feet of air a +person. The economist, in other words, takes +as his field of interest the maladjustment +between human wants and those means of +satisfying them which are available, but only +in limited quantities. In a world where every +want was satisfied there would be no problems +for him; nor any in a world where men had +no wants; nor any in a world where the only +wants men had could be supplied by a change +on their part of their own states of consciousness. +To create a problem there must be at +least two dependent but separated variables: +wants and the means of satisfaction; and these +two variables must have a disposition to alter +so that an antecedent equilibrium is disturbed.</p> + +<p>In the measure, says Cassel, in which the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[94]</span>economic system succeeds in securing an +adjustment between the wants and the means +of supplying the wants we speak of it as a +sound economy. “This task may be accomplished +in three different ways: first, by +eliminating the less important wants and so +restricting the total wants; secondly, by +making the best possible use of the means +available for the purposes in question; and, +thirdly, by increased personal exertions.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_24_24" href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p> + +<p>Since the problem arises out of the disharmony +of supply and demand, its solution +is to be found by increasing the supply or +restricting the demand. The choice of method +depends first of all on which it is possible in +specific cases to follow, and, second, granting +the possibility, on which is the easier or the +preferred. Either method will give what we +acknowledge as a solution. For when two +variables are in an adjustment which does not +frustrate the expectations of either there is +no problem, and none will be felt to exist.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h4>Footnotes</h4> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_18_18" href="#FNanchor_18_18" class="label">[18]</a> T. R. Malthus, <i>An Essay on the Principle of Population</i>, Chapter II.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_19_19" href="#FNanchor_19_19" class="label">[19]</a> A. M. Carr-Saunders, <i>The Population Problem</i>, p. 28.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_20_20" href="#FNanchor_20_20" class="label">[20]</a> Malthus himself recognised this in a later edition of his book.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_21_21" href="#FNanchor_21_21" class="label">[21]</a> <i>Cf.</i> in this connection W. F. Ogburn, <i>Social Change</i>, <i>passim</i>, but +particularly Part IV, <span class="allsmcap">I</span>, on “The Hypothesis of Cultural Lag.”</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_22_22" href="#FNanchor_22_22" class="label">[22]</a> However, the controversy over gun elevation demonstrates how +difficult it is to maintain an equilibrium of force where so many factors +are variable.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_23_23" href="#FNanchor_23_23" class="label">[23]</a> Gustav Cassel, <i>A Theory of Social Economy</i>, Chapter I.</p></div> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[95]</span></p> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_24_24" href="#FNanchor_24_24" class="label">[24]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 7.</p></div></div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_VIII"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter VIII</span> + <br> + SOCIAL CONTRACTS + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>It is impossible to imagine in the universe +a harmony of all things, each with all the +others. The only harmonies we know or can +conceive, outside of what Mr. Santayana +calls the realm of essences, are partial adjustments +which sacrifice to some one end all +purposes which conflict with it. That the +tree may bear fruit for us, we readily kill the +insects that eat the fruit. So the fruit will +ripen for us, we take no account of the disharmony +we create for innumerable flies.</p> + +<p>In the light of eternity it may be wholly +unimportant whether the harmonies on this +earth are suited to men or to insects. For in +the light of eternity and from the point of +view of the universe as a whole nothing can +be what we call good or bad, better or worse. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[96]</span>All ideas of value are measurements of some +part of this universe with some other part, +and it is no more possible to value the universe +as a whole than it is to weigh it as a whole. +For all scales of value and of weight are contained +within it. To judge the whole universe +you must, like a god, be outside of it, a +point of view no mortal mind can adopt.</p> + +<p>Unfortunately for the fly, therefore, we are +bound to judge him by human values. In so +far as we have power over him, he must submit +to the harmonies we seek to establish. We +may as a sporting matter admit his theoretical +right to establish his own harmonies +against us if he can, and to call them better +if he likes, but for us that only is good which is +good for man. Our universe consists of all +that it contains, not as such, not as the fly +knows it, but in its relation to us. From any +other point of view but man’s, his conception +of the universe is askew. It has an emphasis +and a perspective, it is shaped to a design +which is altogether human. The very forms, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[97]</span>colors, odors and sound of things are dependent +for their quality upon our sense organs. +Their relations are seen and understood +against the background of our necessities.</p> + +<p>In the realm of man’s interests and purposes +and desires, the perspectives are even narrower. +There is no human point of view here, +but only the points of view of men. None is +valid for all human beings, none for all of +human history, none for all corners of the +globe. An opinion of the right and the wrong, +the good and the bad, the pleasant and the +unpleasant, is dated, is localized, is relative. +It applies only to some men at some time in +some place under some circumstances.</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>Against this deep pluralism thinkers have +argued in vain. They have invented social +organisms and national souls, and oversouls, +and collective souls; they have gone for hopeful +analogies to the beehive and the anthill, +to the solar system, to the human body; they +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[98]</span>have gone to Hegel for higher unities and to +Rousseau for a general will in an effort to +find some basis of union. For though men +do not think alike, nor want the same things, +though their private interests are so distinct +that they do not merge easily in any common +interest, yet men cannot live by themselves, +nor realize even their private purposes without +taking into account the behavior of other +people. We, however, no longer expect to find +a unity which absorbs diversity. For us the +conflicts and differences are so real that we +cannot deny them and instead of looking for +identity of purpose we look simply for an +accommodation of purposes.</p> + +<p>When we speak, then, about the solution of +a problem in the Great Society, we may mean +little more than that two conflicting interests +have found a <i>modus vivendi</i>. It may be, of +course, that they have really removed all their +differences, that one interest has yielded to +the other, or both to a third. But the solutions +of most social problems are not so neat +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[99]</span>as this; everything does not fit perfectly as +in the solution of a puzzle. The conflicting +interests merely find a way of giving a little +and taking a little, and of existing together +without too much bad blood.</p> + +<p>They still remain separate interests. The +men involved still think differently. They +have no union of mind or purpose. But they +travel their own ways without collision, and +even with some reliance at times upon the +others’ help. They know their rights and +their duties, what to expect and what will be +expected. Their rights are usually less than +they claim, and their duties heavier than they +like, yet, because they are in some degree enforced, +conduct is rendered intelligible and +predictable, and coöperation exists in spite of +the conflicting interests of men.</p> + +<p>The <i>modus vivendi</i> of any particular historical +period, the system of rights and duties, +has generally acquired some high religious or +ideal sanction. The thinkers laureate of the +age will generally manage to show that the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[100]</span>institutions, the laws, the morality and the +custom of that age are divinely inspired. +These are tiresome illusions which have +been exploded a thousand times. The prevailing +system of rights and duties at any +time is at bottom a slightly antiquated formulation +of the balance of power among the +active interests in the community. There is +always a certain lag, as Mr. Ogburn calls it, +so that the system of rights and duties men +are taught is generally a little less contemporary +than the system they would find most +convenient. But, whether the system is obsolete +or not, in its naked origin, a right is +a claim somebody was able to assert, and a +duty is an obligation somebody was able to +impose.</p> + + +<h4>3</h4> + +<p>The prevailing system of rights and duties +is designed to regulate the conflicting purposes +of men. An established right is a +promise that a certain kind of behavior will +be backed by the organized force of the state +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[101]</span>or at least by the sentiment of the community; +a duty is a promise that failure to respect the +rights of others in a certain way will be punished. +The punishment may be death, imprisonment, +loss of property, the nullification +of a right, the expression of disapproval. In +short, the system of rights and duties is the +whole system of promises which the courts +and public sentiment will support. It is not +a fixed system. It varies from place to place, +and from time to time, and with the character +of the tribunals and the community. But +none the less it makes the conduct of men +somewhat rational, and establishes a kind +of union in diversity by limiting and defining +the freedom with which conflicting purposes +can be pursued.</p> + +<p>Sometimes the promises are embodied in +coercive law: Thou shalt, on penalty of this, +do that; thou shalt not do so and so. Sometimes +the promise is based on a contract +between two parties: there is no obligation to +make the contract, but, once made, it must be +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[102]</span>executed or a certain penalty paid. Sometimes +the promise is based on an ecclesiastical +code: it must be followed or the wages of sin +will be visited either in fact or in anticipation +upon the sinner. Sometimes the promise is +based on custom: it must be respected or the +price of nonconformity, whatever it may +happen to be, must be paid. Sometimes the +promise is based on habit: it must be executed +or the disturbance faced which men feel when +they break with their habits.</p> + +<p>The question of whether any particular +right or duty shall be enforced, the question +of how it shall be enforced, whether by the +police, by public criticism or private conscience, +will not be answered by reasoning +<i>a priori</i>. It will be answered by the dominant +interests in society, each imposing to the +limit of its powers the system of rights and +duties which most nearly approximates the +kind of social harmony it finds convenient +and desirable. The system will be a reflection +of the power that each interest is able to exert. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[103]</span>The interests which find the rule good will +defend it; the interests which find it bad will +attack it. Their arguments will be weapons +of defense and offense; even the most objective +appeal to reason will turn out to be an appeal +to desert one cause and enlist in another.</p> + + +<h4>4</h4> + +<p>In the controversies between interests the +question will be raised as to the merits of a +particular rule; the argument will turn on +whether the rule is good, on whether it should +be enforced with this penalty or that. And +out of those arguments, by persuasion or +coercion, the specific rules of society are made, +enforced and revised.</p> + +<p>It is the thesis of this book that the members +of the public, who are the spectators of action, +cannot successfully intervene in a controversy +on the merits of the case. They must judge +externally, and they can act only by supporting +one of the interests directly involved. It +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[104]</span>follows that the public interest in a controversy +cannot turn upon the specific issue. On +what, then, does it turn? In what phase of +the controversy can the public successfully +interest itself?</p> + +<p>Only when somebody objects does the +public know there is a problem; when nobody +any longer objects there is a solution. For +the public, then, any rule is right which is +agreeable to all concerned. It follows that +the public interest in a problem is limited to +this: that there shall be rules, which means +that the rules which prevail shall be enforced, +and that the unenforceable rules shall be +changed according to a settled rule. The +public’s opinion that John Smith should or +should not do this or that is immaterial; the +public does not know John Smith’s motives +and needs, and is not concerned with them. +But that John Smith shall do what he has +promised to do is a matter of public concern, +for unless the social contracts of men are +made, enforced and revised according to a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[105]</span>settled rule, social organization is impossible. +Their conflicting purposes will engender unending +problems unless they are regulated by +some system of rights and duties.</p> + +<p>The interest of the public is not in the rules +and contracts and customs themselves but +in the maintenance of a régime of rule, contract +and custom. The public is interested +in law, not in the laws; in the method of law, +not in the substance; in the sanctity of contract, +not in a particular contract; in understanding +based on custom, not in this custom +or that. It is concerned in these things to the +end that men in their active affairs shall find +a <i>modus vivendi</i>; its interest is in the workable +rule which will define and predict the behavior +of men so that they can make their +adjustments. The pressure which the public +is able to apply through praise and blame, +through votes, strikes, boycotts or support +can yield results only if it reinforces the men +who enforce an old rule or sponsor a new one +that is needed.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[106]</span></p> + +<p>The public in this theory is not the dispenser +of law or morals, but, at best, a reserve force +that may be mobilized on behalf of the method +and spirit of law and morals. In denying that +the public can lay down the rules I have not +said that it should abandon any function +which the public now exercises. I have merely +said that it should abandon a pretense. +When the public attempts to deal with the +substance it merely becomes the dupe or +unconscious ally of a special interest. For +there is only one common interest: that all +special interests shall act according to settled +rule. The moment you ask what rule +you invade the realm of competing interests +of special points of view, of personal, and +class, and sectional, and national bias. The +public should not ask what rule because it +cannot answer the question. It will contribute +its part to the solution of social problems +if it recognizes that some system of +rights and duties is necessary, but that no +particular system is peculiarly sacred.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[107]</span></p> + + + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_IX"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter IX</span> + <br> + THE TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE THE PUBLIC + </h3> +</div> + + +<p>The multitude of untroubled rules that men +live by are of no concern to the public. It +has to deal only with the failures. Customs +that are accepted by all who are expected to +follow them, contracts that are carried out +peaceably, promises that are kept, expectations +fulfilled, raise no issue. Even when there +has been a breach of the rule, there is no public +question if the breach is clearly established, +the aggression clearly identified, the penalty +determined and imposed. The aggressor +may be identified because he pleads guilty. +He may be identified by some due process +though he denies his guilt. The rule, a term +under which I mean to include the method +of detection, interpretation and enforcement, +as well as the precept, is in either case intact. +The force of the public can be aligned without +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[108]</span>hesitation on behalf of the authorities who +administer the rule.</p> + +<p>There is no question for the public unless +there is doubt as to the validity of the rule,—doubt, +that is to say, about its meaning, its +soundness or the method of its application. +When there is doubt the public requires simple, +objective tests to help it decide where it will +enlist. These tests must, therefore, answer +two questions:</p> + +<p>First, Is the rule defective?</p> + +<p>Second, How shall the agency be recognized +which is most likely to mend it?</p> + +<p>These are, I should maintain, the only two +questions which the public needs to answer +in order to exert the greatest influence it is +capable of exerting toward the solution of +public problems. They are not, please note, +the only questions which anybody has to +answer to solve a problem. They are the only +questions which a member of the public can +usefully concern himself with if he wishes to +avoid ignorant meddling.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[109]</span></p> + +<p>How then shall he know the rule is defective? +How shall he recognize the reformer? +If he is to answer those questions at all, he +must be able to answer them quickly and +without real understanding of the problem. +Is it possible for him to do that? Can he act +intelligently but in ignorance?</p> + +<p>I think this apparently paradoxical thing +can be done in some such way as the next +four chapters describe.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[110]</span></p> + + + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_X"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter X</span> + <br> + THE MAIN VALUE OF PUBLIC DEBATE + </h3> +</div> + + +<p>The individual whose action is governed +by a rule is interested in its substance. But +in those rules which do not control his own +action his chief interest is that there should +be workable rules.</p> + +<p>It follows that the membership of the public +is not fixed. It changes with the issue: +the actors in one affair are the spectators of +another, and men are continually passing +back and forth between the field where they +are executives and the field where they are +members of a public. The distinction between +the two is not, as I said in Chapter III, an +absolute one: there is a twilight zone where +it is hard to say whether a man is acting +executively on his opinions or merely acting +to influence the opinion of some one else who +is acting executively. There is often a mixture +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[111]</span>of the two types of behavior. And it is this +mixture, as well as the lack of a clear line of +distinction in all cases, which permits a very +large confusion in affairs between a public +and a private attitude toward them. The +public point of view on a question is muddied +by the presence in the public of spurious members, +persons who are really acting to bend the +rule in their favor while pretending or imagining +that they are moved only by the common +public need that there shall be an acceptable +rule.</p> + +<p>At the outset it is important, therefore, to +detect and to discount the self-interested +group. In saying this I do not mean to cast +even the slightest reflection on a union of +men to promote their self-interest. It would +be futile to do so, because we may take it +as certain that men will act to benefit themselves +whenever they think they conveniently +can. A political theory based on the expectation +of self-denial and sacrifice by the +run of men in any community would not +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[112]</span>be worth considering. Nor is it at all evident +that the work of the world could be done +unless men followed their private interest +and contributed to affairs that direct inner +knowledge which they thus obtain. Moreover, +the adjustments are likely to be much +more real if they are made from fully conscious +and thoroughly explored special points +of view.</p> + +<p>Thus the genius of any illuminating public +discussion is not to obscure and censor private +interest but to help it to sail and to make it +sail under its own colors. The true public, +in my definition of that term, has to purge +itself of the self-interested groups who become +confused with it. It must purge itself not +because private interests are bad but because +private interests cannot successfully be adjusted +to each other if any one of them +acquires a counterfeit strength. If the true +public, concerned only in the fact of adjustment, +becomes mobilized behind a private +interest seeking to prevail, the adjustment +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[113]</span>is false; it does not represent the real balance +of forces in the affair and the solution will +break down. It will break down because the +true public will not stay mobilized very long +for anything, and when it demobilizes the +private interest which was falsely exalted +will find its privileges unmanageable. It will +be like a man placed on Jack Dempsey’s chest +by six policemen, and then left there after the +policemen have gone home to dinner. It +will be like France placed by the Allies upon +a prostrate Germany and then left there +after the Allies have departed from Europe.</p> + +<p>The separation of the public from the self-interested +group will not be assisted by the +self-interested group. We may be sure that +any body of farmers, business men, trade +unionists will always call themselves the +public if they can. How then is their self-interest +to be detected? No ordinary bystander +is equipped to analyze the propaganda +by which a private interest seeks to associate +itself with the disinterested public. It is a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[114]</span>perplexing matter, perhaps the most perplexing +in popular government, and the bystander’s +only recourse is to insist upon debate. +He will not be able, we may assume, +to judge the merits of the arguments. But +if he does insist upon full freedom of discussion, +the advocates are very likely to expose one +another. Open debate may lead to no conclusion +and throw no light whatever on the +problem or its answer, but it will tend to +betray the partisan and the advocate. And +if it has identified them for the true public, +debate will have served its main purpose.</p> + +<p>The individual not directly concerned +may still choose to join the self-interested +group and support its cause. But at least +he will know that he has made himself a +partisan, and thus perhaps he may be somewhat +less likely to mistake a party’s purpose +for the aim of mankind.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[115]</span></p> + + + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_XI"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter XI</span> + <br> + THE DEFECTIVE RULE + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>A man violates a rule and then publicly justifies +his action. Here in the simplest form +is an attack upon the validity of the rule. It +is an appeal for a public judgment.</p> + +<p>For he claims to have acted under a new +rule which is better than the old one. How +shall the public decide as between the two? +It cannot, we are assuming, enter into the +intrinsic merits of the question. It follows +that the public must ask the aggressor why +he did not first seek the assent of those concerned +before he violated the rule. He may +say that he did not have time, that he acted +in a crisis. In that event, there is no serious +question for the public, and his associates will +either thank him or call him a fool. But since +the circumstances were admittedly exceptional +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[116]</span>they do not really establish a new rule, +and the public may be satisfied if the parties +at interest peaceably make the best of the +result. But suppose there was no emergency. +Suppose the innovator had time to seek assent, +but did not on the ground that he knew what +was best. He may be fairly condemned; the +objections of the other parties may be fairly +sustained.</p> + +<p>For the right of innovation by fiat cannot +be defended as a working principle; a new +rule, however excellent in intention, cannot +be expected to work unless in some degree it +has been first understood and approved by +all who must live according to it. The innovator +may reply, of course, that he is being +condemned by a dogma which is not wholly +proved. That may be admitted. Against +the principle that a new rule requires assent +historic experience can be cited. There have +been many instances where a régime has been +imposed on an unwilling people and admired +later by them for its results. The dogma that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[117]</span>assent is necessary is imperfect, as are most +principles. But, nevertheless, it is a necessary +assumption in society. For if no new rule +required assent every one could make his own +rule, and there would be no rules. The dogma +therefore must be maintained, softened by +the knowledge that exceptional times and +exceptional men of their own force will make +way with any dogma. Since the rules of +society cannot be based on exceptions the +exceptions must justify themselves.</p> + +<p>The test, therefore, of whether a rule has +been justifiably broken is the test of assent. +The question, then, is how in applying the +test of assent a member of the public is to +determine whether sufficient assent has been +given. How is he to know whether the +régime has been imposed by arbitrary force +or in substance agreed to?</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>We wish to know if assent is lacking. We +know it is lacking because there is open protest. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[118]</span>Or we know it because there is a widespread +refusal to conform. A workable rule, +which has assent, will not evoke protest or +much disobedience. How shall we, as members +of the public, measure the significance of +the protest or the extent of the disobedience?</p> + + +<h4>3</h4> + +<p>Where very few persons are directly involved +in the controversy the public does +best not to intervene at all. One party may +protest, but unless he protests against the +public tribunals set up to adjudicate such +disputes, his protest may be ignored. The +public cannot expect to take part in the +minutiæ of human adjustments however +tragic or important they may be to the individuals +concerned. The protest of one +individual against another cannot be treated +as a public matter. Only if the public tribunal +is impugned does it become a public +matter, and then only because the case may +require investigation by some other tribunal. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[119]</span>In such disputes the public must trust the +agencies of adjustment acting as checks upon +each other. When we remember that the +public consists of busy men reading newspapers +for half an hour or so a day, it is not +heartless but merely prudent to deny that +it can do detailed justice.</p> + +<p>But where many persons are involved in the +controversy there is necessarily a public matter. +For when many persons are embroiled +the effects not only are likely to be wide but +there may be need of all the force the public +can exert in order to compel a peaceable +adjustment.</p> + +<p>The public must take account of a protest +voiced on behalf of a relatively large number +of persons. But how shall the public know +that such a protest has been made? It must +look to see whether the spokesman is authorized. +How shall it tell if he is authorized? +How can it tell, that is to say, whether the +representative is able to give assent by committing +his constituency to a course of action? +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[120]</span>Whether the apparent leader is the real leader +is a question which the members of a public +cannot usually answer directly on the merits. +Yet they must answer in some fashion and +with some assurance by some rule of thumb.</p> + +<p>The rule of thumb is to throw the burden +of proof on those who deny that the apparent +leader, vested with the external signs of office, +is the real leader. As between one nation +and another, no matter how obnoxious the +other’s government may be, if there is no +open rebellion, public opinion cannot go +behind the returns. For, unless a people is to +engage in the hopeless task of playing politics +inside another’s frontiers, there is no course +but to hold that a nation is committed by the +officials it fails to discharge. If there is open +rebellion, or that milder substitute, an impending +election, it may be wise to postpone +long term settlements until a firm government +has been seated. But settlements, if they +are made at all, must be made with the government +in office at the other nation’s capital.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[121]</span></p> + +<p>The same theory holds, with modifications, +for large bodies of men within a state. If the +officials of the miners’ union, for instance, take +a position, it is perfectly idle for an employer +to deny that they speak for the union miners. +He should deny that they speak for the nonunion +miners, but if the question at issue requires +the assent of the union, then, unless the +union itself impeaches the leaders, the public +must accept them as authorized.</p> + +<p>But suppose the leaders are challenged +within the union. How shall the importance +of the challenge be estimated by the public? +Recall that the object is to find out not +whether the objectors are right but simply +whether the spokesmen can in fact commit +their constituents. In weighing the challenge +the public’s concern is to know how far the +opposition can by virtue of its numbers, or +of its strategic importance, or its determination, +impair the value of an assent. But if we +expected the public to make judgments of +this sort we should be asking too much of it. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[122]</span>The importance of an opposition can be +weighed, if at all, only by rough, external +criteria. With an opposition that does not +challenge the credentials of the spokesmen, +which criticizes but is not in rebellion, the +public has no concern. That is an internal +affair. It is only an opposition which threatens +not to conform that has to be considered.</p> + +<p>In such a case, if the spokesmen are elected, +they can be held competent to give a reliable +assent only until a new election has been +held. If the spokesmen are not elective, and +a rebellious opposition is evident, their assent +can only be taken as tentative. These criteria +do not, to be sure, weigh the importance of an +opposition, but, by limiting the kind of settlement +which can reasonably be made in face +of an opposition, they allow for its effect.</p> + +<p>They introduce the necessary modification +to make workable the general principle +that the test of assent by large bodies of +men is simply that their spokesmen have +agreed.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[123]</span></p> + + +<h4>4</h4> + +<p>The test of conformity is closely related to +the test of assent. For it can be assumed that +open criticism of a rule, a custom, a law, an +institution, is already accompanied by or +will soon be followed by evasion of that rule. +It is a fairly safe hypothesis that the run of +men wish to conform; that any body of men +aroused to the point where they will pay the +price of open heresy probably has an arguable +case; more certainly that that body will +include a considerable number who have +passed over the line of criticism into the +practice of nonconformity. Their argument +may be wrong, the remedy may be foolish, +but the fact that they openly criticize at +some personal risk is a sign that the rule is not +working well. Widespread criticism, therefore, +has a significance beyond its intellectual +value. It is almost always a symptom on +the surface that the rule is unstable.</p> + +<p>When a rule is broken not occasionally +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[124]</span>but very often the rule is defective. It simply +does not define the conduct which normally +may be expected of men who live under it. +It may sound noble. But it does not work. +It does not adjust relations. It does not +actually organize society.</p> + +<p>In what way the rule is defective the public +cannot specifically determine. By the two +tests I have suggested, of assent and of conformity, +the public can determine the presence +of a defect in the rule. But whether that +defect is due to a false measure of the changing +balance of forces involved, or to neglect +of an important interest or some relevant +circumstance, or to a bad technic of adjustment, +or to contradictions in the rule, or to +obscurity, or to lack of machinery for its interpretation +or for the deduction of specific rules +from general ones, the public cannot judge.</p> + +<p>It will have gone, I believe, to the limits of +its normal powers if it judges the rule to be +defective, and turns then to identify the +agency most likely to remedy it.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[125]</span></p> + + + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_XII"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter XII</span> + <br> + THE CRITERIA OF REFORM + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>The random collections of bystanders who +constitute a public could not, even if they had +a mind to, intervene in all the problems of +the day. They can and must play a part +occasionally, I believe, but they cannot take +an interest in, they cannot make even the +coarsest judgments about, and they will not act +even in the most grossly partisan way on, all +the questions arising daily in a complex and +changing society. Normally they leave their +proxies to a kind of professional public consisting +of more or less eminent persons. Most +issues are never carried beyond this ruling +group; the lay publics catch only echoes of +the debate.</p> + +<p>If, by the push and pull of interested parties +and public personages, settlements are made +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[126]</span>more or less continually the party in power +has the confidence of the country. In effect, +the outsiders are arrayed behind the dominant +insiders. But if the interested parties cannot +be made to agree, if, as a result, there is disturbance +and chronic crisis, then the opposition +among the insiders may come to be considered +the hope of the country, and be able +to entice the bystanders to its side.</p> + +<p>To support the Ins when things are going +well; to support the Outs when they seem +to be going badly, this, in spite of all that has +been said about tweedledum and tweedledee, +is the essence of popular government. Even +the most intelligent large public of which we +have any experience must determine finally +who shall wield the organized power of the +state, its army and its police, by a choice +between the Ins and Outs. A community +where there is no choice does not have popular +government. It is subject to some form +of dictatorship or it is ruled by the intrigues +of the politicians in the lobbies.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[127]</span></p> + +<p>Although it is the custom of partisans to +speak as if there were radical differences +between the Ins and the Outs, it could be +demonstrated, I believe, that in stable and +mature societies the differences are necessarily +not profound. If they were profound, +the defeated minority would be constantly +on the verge of rebellion. An election would +be catastrophic, whereas the assumption in +every election is that the victors will do +nothing to make life intolerable to the vanquished +and that the vanquished will endure +with good humor policies which they do not +approve.</p> + +<p>In the United States, Great Britain, Canada, +Australia and in certain of the Continental +countries an election rarely means +even a fraction of what the campaigners +said it would mean. It means some new faces +and perhaps a slightly different general tendency +in the management of affairs. The +Ins may have had a bias toward collectivism; +the Outs will lean toward individualism. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[128]</span>The Ins may have been suspicious and non-coöperative +in foreign affairs; the Outs will +perhaps be more trusting or entertain another +set of suspicions. The Ins may have favored +certain manufacturing interests; the Outs +may favor agricultural interests. But even +these differing tendencies are very small as +compared with the immense area of agreement, +established habit and unavoidable necessity. +In fact, one might say that a nation +is politically stable when nothing of radical +consequence is determined by its elections.</p> + +<p>There is, therefore, a certain mock seriousness +about the campaigning for votes in well-established +communities. Much of the excitement +is not about the fate of the nation but +simply about the outcome of the game. +Some of the excitement is sincere, like any +fervor of intoxication. And much of it is +deliberately stoked up by the expenditure of +money to overcome the inertia of the mass of +the voters. For the most part the real difference +between the Ins and the Outs is no +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[129]</span>more than this: the Ins, after a term of power, +become so committed to policies and so entangled +with particular interests that they +lose their neutral freedom of decision. They +cannot then intervene to check the arbitrary +movement of the interests with which they +have become aligned. Then it is time for +the Outs to take power and restore a balance. +The virtue of the Outs in this transaction is +that they are not committed to those particular +policies and those particular interests +which have become overweighted.</p> + +<p>The test of whether the Ins are handling +affairs effectively is the presence or absence +of disturbing problems. The need of reform +is recognizable, as I pointed out in the chapter +before this one, by the test of assent and the +test of conformity. But it is my opinion that +for the most part the general public cannot +back each reformer on each issue. It must +choose between the Ins and Outs on the basis +of a cumulative judgment as to whether problems +are being solved or aggravated. The +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[130]</span>particular reformers must look for their support +normally to the ruling insiders.</p> + +<p>If, however, there is to be any refinement +of public opinion it must come from the +breaking up of these wholesale judgments +into somewhat more retail judgments on the +major spectacular issues of the day. Not all +of the issues which interest the public are +within the scope of politics and reachable +through the party system. It seems worth +while, therefore, to see whether any canons +of judgment can be formulated which could +guide the bystanders in particular controversies.</p> + +<p>The problem is to locate by clear and coarse +objective tests the actor in a controversy +who is most worthy of public support.</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>When the rule is plain, its validity unchallenged, +the breach clear and the aggressor +plainly located, the question does not +arise. The public supports the agents of the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[131]</span>law, though when the law is working well the +support of the public is like the gold reserve +of a good bank: it is known to be there and +need not be drawn upon. But in many fields +of controversy the rule is not plain, or its +validity is challenged; each party calls the +other aggressor, each claims to be acting for +the highest ideals of mankind. In disputes +between nations, between sectional interests, +between classes, between town and country, +between churches, the rules of adjustment +are lacking and the argument about them is +lost in a fog of propaganda.</p> + +<p>Yet it is controversies of this kind, the +hardest controversies to disentangle, that +the public is called in to judge. Where the +facts are most obscure, where precedents are +lacking, where novelty and confusion pervade +everything, the public in all its unfitness is +compelled to make its most important decisions. +The hardest problems are those which +institutions cannot handle. They are the +public’s problems.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[132]</span></p> + +<p>The one test which the members of a +public can apply in these circumstances is +to note which party to the dispute is least +willing to submit its whole claim to inquiry +and to abide by the result. This does not +mean that experts are always expert or impartial +tribunals really impartial. It means +simply that where the public is forced to +intervene in a strange and complex affair, +the test of public inquiry is the surest clue +to the sincerity of the claimant, to his confidence +in his ability to stand the ordeal of +examination, to his willingness to accept +risks for the sake of his faith in the possibility +of rational human adjustments. He +may impugn a particular tribunal. But he +must at least propose another. The test +is whether, in the absence of an established +rule, he is willing to act according to the forms +of law and by a process through which law +may be made.</p> + +<p>Of all the tests which public opinion can +employ, the test of inquiry is the most generally +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[133]</span>useful. If the parties are willing to accept +it, there is at once an atmosphere of +reason. There is prospect of a settlement. +Failing that there is at least a delay of +summary action and an opportunity for the +clarification of issues. And failing that there +is a high probability that the most arbitrary +of the disputants will be isolated and clearly +identified. It is no wonder that this is the +principle invoked for the so-called nonjusticiable +questions in all the recent experiments +under the covenant of the League of Nations⁠<a id="FNanchor_25_25" href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> +and the Protocol for the Pacific Settlement +of International Disputes.⁠<a id="FNanchor_26_26" href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> For in +applying this test of inquiry, what we affirm +is this: That there is a dispute. That the +merits are not clear. That the policy which +ought to be applied is not established. That, +nevertheless, we of the public outside say +that those who are quarreling must act as +if there were law to cover the case. That, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[134]</span>even if the material for a reasoned conclusion +is lacking, we demand the method and spirit +of reason. That we demand any sacrifice +that may be necessary, the postponement of +satisfaction of their just needs, the risk that +one of them will be defeated and that an injustice +will be done. These things we affirm +because we are maintaining a society based +on the principle that all controversies are +soluble by peaceable agreement.</p> + +<p>They may not be. But on that dogma +our society is founded. And that dogma +we are compelled to defend. We can defend +it, too, with a good enough conscience, +however disconcerting some of its immediate +consequences may be. For, by insisting in +all disputes upon the spirit of reason, we shall +tend in the long run to confirm the habit of +reason. And where that habit prevails no +point of view can seem absolute to him who +holds it, and no problem between men so +difficult that there is not at least a <i>modus +vivendi</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[135]</span></p> + +<p>The test of inquiry is the master test by +which the public can use its force to extend +the frontiers of reason.</p> + + +<h4>3</h4> + +<p>But while the test of inquiry may distinguish +the party which is entitled to initial +support, it is of value only where one party +refuses inquiry. If all submit to inquiry, it +reveals nothing. And in any event it reveals +nothing about the prospects of the solution +proposed. The party seeking publicity may +have less to conceal, and may mean well, but +sincerity unfortunately is no index of intelligence. +By what criteria are the public then +to judge the new rule which is proposed as a +solution?</p> + +<p>The public cannot tell whether the new rule +will, in fact, work. It may assume, however, +that in a changing world no rule will always +work. A rule, therefore, should be organized +so that experience will clearly reveal its defects. +The rule should be so clear that a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[136]</span>violation is apparent. But since no generality +can cover all cases, this means simply that +the rule must contain a settled procedure +by which it can be interpreted. Thus a +treaty which says that a certain territory +shall be evacuated when certain conditions +are fulfilled is quite defective, and should be +condemned, if it does not provide a way of +defining exactly what those conditions are +and when they have been fulfilled. A rule, +in other words, must include the means of +its own clarification, so that a breach shall be +undeniably overt. Then only does it take +account of experience which no human intelligence +can foresee.</p> + +<p>It follows from this that a rule must be +organized so that it can be amended without +revolution. Revision must be possible by +consent. But assent is not always given, +even when the arguments in favor of a change +are overwhelming. Men will stand on what +they call their rights. Therefore, in order +that deadlock should be dissoluble, a rule +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[137]</span>should provide that subject to a certain +formal procedure the controversy over revision +shall be public. This will often break +up the obstruction. Where it does not, the +community is pretty certain to become engaged +on behalf of one of the partisans. This +is likely to be inconvenient to all concerned, +and the inconvenience due to meddling in +the substance of a controversy by a crude, +violent and badly aimed public opinion at +least may teach those directly concerned not +to invoke interference the next time.</p> + +<p>But although amendment should be possible, +it should not be continual or unforeseen. +There should be time for habit and +custom to form. The pot should not be made +to boil all the time, or be stirred up for some +comparatively insignificant reason, whenever +an orator sees a chance to make himself +important. Since the habits and expectations +of many different persons are involved +in an institution, some way must be found of +giving it stability without freezing it <i>in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[138]</span>statu quo</i>. This can be done by requiring +that amendment shall be in order only after +due notice.</p> + +<p>What due notice may be in each particular +case, the public cannot say. Only the parties +at interest are likely to know where the +rhythm of their affairs can be interrupted +most conveniently. Due notice will be one +period of time for men operating on long commitments +and another for men operating on +short ones. But the public can watch to see +whether the principle of due notice is embodied +in the proposed settlement.</p> + +<p>To judge a new rule, then, the tests proposed +here are three: Does it provide for its +own clarification? for its own amendment +by consent? for due notice that amendment +will be proposed? The tests are designed +for use in judging the prospects of +a settlement not by its substance but by +its procedure. A reform which satisfies +these tests is normally entitled to public +support.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[139]</span></p> + + +<h4>4</h4> + +<p>This is as far as I know how at present to +work out an answer to the question which we +inherit from Aristotle: can simple criteria +be formulated which will show the bystander +where to align himself in complex +affairs?</p> + +<p>I have suggested that the main value of +debate is not that it reveals the truth about +the controversy to the audience but that it +may identify the partisans. I have suggested +further that a problem exists where a rule +of action is defective, and that its defectiveness +can best be judged by the public through +the test of assent and the test of conformity. +For remedies I have assumed that normally +the public must turn to the Outs as against +the Ins, although these wholesale judgments +may be refined by more analytical tests for +specific issues. As samples of these more +analytical tests I have suggested the test of +inquiry for confused controversies, and for +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[140]</span>reforms the test of interpretation, of amendment +and of due notice.</p> + +<p>These criteria are neither exhaustive nor +definitive. Yet, however much tests of this +character are improved by practice and reflection, +it seems to me there always must +remain many public affairs to which they +cannot be applied. I do not believe that the +public can intervene successfully in all public +questions. Many problems cannot be advanced +by that obtuse partisanship which +is fundamentally all that the public can +bring to bear upon them. There is no reason +to be surprised, therefore, if the tests I have +outlined, or any others that are a vast improvement +upon them, are not readily applicable +to all questions that are raised in the +discussions of the day.</p> + +<p>I should simply maintain that where the +members of a public cannot use tests of this +sort as a guide to action, the wisest course for +them is not to act at all. They had better +be neutral, if they can restrain themselves, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[141]</span>than blindly partisan. For where events +are so confused or so subtly balanced or so +hard to understand that they do not yield to +judgments of the kind I have been outlining +here, the probabilities are very great that the +public can produce only muddle if it meddles. +For not all problems are soluble in the present +state of human knowledge. Many which +may be soluble are not soluble with any force +the public can exert. Some time alone will +cure, and some are the fate of man. It is not +essential, therefore, always to do something.</p> + +<p>It follows that the proper limits of intervention +by the public in affairs are determined +by its capacity to make judgments. +These limits may be extended as new and +better criteria are formulated, or as men +become more expert through practice. But +where there are no tests, where such tests as +these cannot be used, where, in other words, +only an opinion on the actual merits of the +dispute itself would be of any use, any +positive action the bystanders are likely to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[142]</span>take is almost certain to be more of a nuisance +than a benefit. Their duty is to keep an open +mind and wait to see. The existence of a +usable test is itself the test of whether the +public ought to intervene.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h4>Footnotes</h4> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_25_25" href="#FNanchor_25_25" class="label">[25]</a> Articles XIII, XV.</p></div> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[143]</span></p> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_26_26" href="#FNanchor_26_26" class="label">[26]</a> Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10.</p></div></div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_XIII"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter XIII</span> + <br> + THE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC OPINION + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>The tests outlined in the preceding chapters +have certain common characteristics. They +all select a few samples of behavior or a few +aspects of a proposal. They measure these +samples by rough but objective, by highly +generalized but definite standards. And they +yield a judgment which is to justify the public +in aligning itself for or against certain actors +in the matter at issue.</p> + +<p>I do not, of course, set great store upon my +formulation of these tests. That is wholly +tentative, being put out merely as a basis of +discussion and to demonstrate that the formulation +of tests suited to the nature of public +opinion is not impracticable. But I do attach +great importance to the character of +these tests.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[144]</span></p> + +<p>The principles underlying them are these:</p> + +<p>1. Executive action is not for the public. +The public acts only by aligning itself as the +partisan of some one in a position to act +executively.</p> + +<p>2. The intrinsic merits of a question are +not for the public. The public intervenes +from the outside upon the work of the insiders.</p> + +<p>3. The anticipation, the analysis and the +solution of a question are not for the public. +The public’s judgment rests on a small sample +of the facts at issue.</p> + +<p>4. The specific, technical, intimate criteria +required in the handling of a question are +not for the public. The public’s criteria are +generalized for many problems; they turn +essentially on procedure and the overt, external +forms of behavior.</p> + +<p>5. What is left for the public is a judgment +as to whether the actors in the controversy +are following a settled rule of behavior or +their own arbitrary desires. This judgment +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[145]</span>must be made by sampling an external aspect +of the behavior of the insiders.</p> + +<p>6. In order that this sampling shall be +pertinent, it is necessary to discover criteria, +suitable to the nature of public +opinion, which can be relied upon to distinguish +between reasonable and arbitrary +behavior.</p> + +<p>7. For the purposes of social action, reasonable +behavior is conduct which follows a +settled course whether in making a rule, in +enforcing it or in amending it.</p> + +<p>It is the task of the political scientist to +devise the methods of sampling and to define +the criteria of judgment. It is the task of +civic education in a democracy to train the +public in the use of these methods. It is +the task of those who build institutions to +take them into account.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[146]</span></p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>These principles differ radically from those +on which democratic reformers have proceeded. +At the root of the effort to educate +a people for self-government there has, I believe, +always been the assumption that the +voter should aim to approximate as nearly +as he can the knowledge and the point of view +of the responsible man. He did not, of course, +in the mass, ever approximate it very nearly. +But he was supposed to. It was believed that +if only he could be taught more facts, if only +he would take more interest, if only he would +read more and better newspapers, if only he +would listen to more lectures and read more +reports, he would gradually be trained to +direct public affairs. The whole assumption +is false. It rests upon a false conception of +public opinion and a false conception of the +way the public acts. No sound scheme of +civic education can come of it. No progress +can be made toward this unattainable ideal.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[147]</span></p> + +<p>This democratic conception is false because +it fails to note the radical difference between +the experience of the insider and the outsider; +it is fundamentally askew because it asks the +outsider to deal as successfully with the substance +of a question as the insider. He cannot +do it. No scheme of education can equip him +in advance for all the problems of mankind; +no device of publicity, no machinery of enlightenment, +can endow him during a crisis +with the antecedent detailed and technical +knowledge which is required for executive +action.</p> + +<p>The democratic ideal has never defined the +function of the public. It has treated the +public as an immature, shadowy executive of +all things. The confusion is deep-seated in a +mystical notion of society. “The people” +were regarded as a person; their wills as a +will; their ideas as a mind; their mass as an +organism with an organic unity of which the +individual was a cell. Thus the voter identified +himself with the officials. He tried to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[148]</span>think that their thoughts were his thoughts, +that their deeds were his deeds, and even +that in some mysterious way they were a +part of him. All this confusion of identities +led naturally to the theory that everybody +was doing everything. It prevented democracy +from arriving at a clear idea of its own +limits and attainable ends. It obscured for +the purposes of government and social education +the separation of function and the +specialization in training which have gradually +been established in most human activities.</p> + +<p>Democracy, therefore, has never developed +an education for the public. It has merely +given it a smattering of the kind of knowledge +which the responsible man requires. It has, +in fact, aimed not at making good citizens +but at making a mass of amateur executives. +It has not taught the child how to act as a +member of the public. It has merely given +him a hasty, incomplete taste of what he +might have to know if he meddled in everything. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[149]</span>The result is a bewildered public and +a mass of insufficiently trained officials. The +responsible men have obtained their training +not from the courses in “civics” but in the +law schools and law offices and in business. +The public at large, which includes everybody +outside the field of his own responsible knowledge, +has had no coherent political training +of any kind. Our civic education does not +even begin to tell the voter how he can reduce +the maze of public affairs to some intelligible +form.</p> + +<p>Critics have not been lacking, of course, +who pointed out what a hash democracy was +making of its pretensions to government. +These critics have seen that the important +decisions were taken by individuals, and +that public opinion was uninformed, irrelevant +and meddlesome. They have usually concluded +that there was a congenital difference +between the masterful few and the ignorant +many. They are the victims of a superficial +analysis of the evils they see so clearly. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[150]</span>The fundamental difference which matters +is that between insiders and outsiders. Their +relations to a problem are radically different. +Only the insider can make decisions, not because +he is inherently a better man but because +he is so placed that he can understand and +can act. The outsider is necessarily ignorant, +usually irrelevant and often meddlesome, because +he is trying to navigate the ship from +dry land. That is why excellent automobile +manufacturers, literary critics and scientists +often talk such nonsense about politics. Their +congenital excellence, if it exists, reveals +itself only in their own activity. The aristocratic +theorists work from the fallacy of +supposing that a sufficiently excellent square +peg will also fit a round hole. In short, like +the democratic theorists, they miss the essence +of the matter, which is, that competence +exists only in relation to function; that men +are not good, but good for something; that +men cannot be educated, but only educated +for something.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[151]</span></p> + +<p>Education for citizenship, for membership +in the public, ought, therefore, to be distinct +from education for public office. Citizenship +involves a radically different relation to +affairs, requires different intellectual habits +and different methods of action. The force +of public opinion is partisan, spasmodic, +simple-minded and external. It needs for +its direction, as I have tried to show in these +chapters, a new intellectual method which +shall provide it with its own usable canons +of judgment.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_152"></a><a id="Page_153"></a>[153]</span></p> + + + <h2 class="nobreak" id="PART_III"> + PART III + </h2> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_154"></a><a id="Page_155"></a>[155]</span></p> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_XIV"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter XIV</span> + <br> + SOCIETY IN ITS PLACE + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>A false ideal of democracy can lead only to +disillusionment and to meddlesome tyranny. +If democracy cannot direct affairs, then a +philosophy which expects it to direct them +will encourage the people to attempt the impossible; +they will fail, but that will interfere +outrageously with the productive liberties +of the individual. The public must be +put in its place, so that it may exercise its +own powers, but no less and perhaps even +more, so that each of us may live free of the +trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>The source of that bewilderment lies, I +think, in the attempt to ascribe organic +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[156]</span>unity and purpose to society. We have been +taught to think of society as a body, with a +mind, a soul and a purpose, not as a collection +of men, women and children whose minds, +souls and purposes are variously related. Instead +of being allowed to think realistically +of a complex of social <em>relations</em>, we have had +foisted upon us by various great propagative +movements the notion of a mythical entity, +called Society, the Nation, the Community.</p> + +<p>In the course of the nineteenth century +society was personified under the influence +largely of the nationalist and the socialist +movements. Each of these doctrinal influences +in its own way insisted upon treating +the public as the agent of an overmastering +social purpose. In point of fact, the real +agents were the nationalist leaders and their +lieutenants, the social reformers and their +lieutenants. But they moved behind a veil +of imagery. And the public was habituated +to think that any one conforming to the +stereotype of nationalism or of social welfare +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[157]</span>was entitled to support. What the nationalist +rulers thought and did was the nation’s +purpose, and the touchstone for all patriots; +what the reformers proposed was the benevolent +consciousness of the human race moving +mysteriously but progressively toward perfection.</p> + +<p>The deception was so generally practised +that it was often practised sincerely. But to +maintain the fiction that their purposes were +the spirit of mankind, public men had to +accustom themselves to telling the public +only a part of what they told themselves. +And, incidentally, they confessed to themselves +only a part of the truth on which they +were acting. Candor in public life became +a question of policy and not a rule of life.</p> + +<p>“He may judge rightly,” Mr. Keynes +once said of Mr. Lloyd George,⁠<a id="FNanchor_27_27" href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> “that this +is the best of which a democracy is capable,—to +be jockeyed, humbugged, cajoled along +the right road. A prejudice for truth or for +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[158]</span>sincerity as a method may be a prejudice +based on some æsthetic or personal standard +inconsistent, in politics, with practical good. +We cannot yet tell.”</p> + +<p>We do know, as a matter of experience, that +all the cards are not laid face up upon the +table. For however deep the personal prejudice +of the statesman in favor of truth as +a method, he is almost certainly forced to +treat truth as an element of policy. The +evidence on this point is overwhelming. No +statesman risks the safety of an army out +of sheer devotion to truth. He does not +endanger a diplomatic negotiation in order +to enlighten everybody. He does not usually +forfeit his advantages in an election in order +to speak plainly. He does not admit his own +mistakes because confession is so good for +the soul. In so far as he has power to control +the publication of truth, he manipulates it +to what he considers the necessities of action, +of bargaining, morale and prestige. He may +misjudge the necessities. He may exaggerate +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[159]</span>the goodness of his aims. But where there +is a purpose in public affairs there are also apparent +necessities which weigh in the balance +against the indiscreet expression of belief. The +public man does not and cannot act on the +fiction that his mind is also the public mind.</p> + +<p>You cannot account for this, as angry +democrats have done by dismissing all public +men as dishonest. It is not a question of +personal morals. The business man, the +trade-union leader, the college president, the +minister of religion, the editor, the critic and +the prophet, all feel as Jefferson did when he +wrote that “although we often wished to go +faster we slackened our pace that our less +ardent colleagues might keep pace with us +... [and] by this harmony of the bold with +the cautious, we advanced with our constituents +in undivided mass.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_28_28" href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p> + +<p>The necessity for an “undivided mass” +makes men put truth in the second place. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[160]</span>I do not wish to argue that the necessity is +not often a real one. When a statesman tells +me that it is not safe for him to disclose all +the facts, I am content to trust him in this +if I trust him at all. There is nothing misleading +in a frank refusal to tell. The mischief +comes in the pretense that all is being +told, that the public is entirely in the confidence +of the public man. And that mischief +has its source in the sophistry that the public +and all the individuals composing it are one +mind, one soul, one purpose. It is seen to be +an absurd sophistry, once we look it straight +in the face. It is an unnecessary sophistry. +For we do well enough with doctors, though +we are ignorant of medicine, and with engine +drivers, though we cannot drive a locomotive; +why not, then, with a Senator, though we +cannot pass an examination on the merits +of an agricultural bill?</p> + +<p>Yet we are so deeply indoctrinated with +the notion of union based upon identity, +that we are most reluctant to admit that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[161]</span>there is room in the world for different and +more or less separate purposes. The monistic +theory has an air of great stability about +it; we are afraid if we do not hang together +we shall all hang separately. The pluralistic +theory, as its leading advocate, Mr. Laski, +has pointed out, seems to carry with it “a +hint of anarchy.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_29_29" href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> Yet the suggestion is +grossly exaggerated. There is least anarchy +precisely in those areas of society where +separate functions are most clearly defined +and brought into orderly adjustment; there +is most anarchy in those twilight zones between +nations, between employers and employees, +between sections and classes and +races, where nothing is clearly defined, where +separateness of purpose is covered up and +confused, where false unities are worshiped, +and each special interest is forever proclaiming +itself the voice of the people and +attempting to impose its purpose upon everybody +as the purpose of all mankind.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[162]</span></p> + + +<h4>3</h4> + +<p>To this confusion liberalism has with the +kindest intentions contributed greatly. Its +main insight was into the prejudices of the +individual; the liberal discovered a method +of proving that men are finite, that they +cannot escape from the flesh. From the so-called +age of enlightenment down to our +day the heavy guns of criticism have been +used to make men realize that they submit, +as Bacon said, the shadows of things to the +desires of the mind. Once the resistance was +broken by proof that man belonged to the +natural world, his pretensions to absolute +certainty were attacked from every quarter. +He was shown the history of his ideas and +of his customs, and he was driven to acknowledge +that they were bounded by time +and space and circumstance. He was shown +that there is a bias in all opinion, even in +opinion purged of desire, for the man who +holds the opinion must stand at some point in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[163]</span>space and time and can see not the whole +world but only the world as seen from that +point. So men learned that they saw a +little through their own eyes, and much more +through reports of what other men thought +they had seen. They were made to understand +that all human eyes have habits of +vision, which are often stereotyped, which +always throw facts into a perspective; and +that the whole of experience is more sophisticated +than the naïve mind suspects. For its +pictures of the world are drawn from things +half heard and of things half seen; they deal +with the shadows of things unsteadily, and +submit unconsciously to the desires of the +mind.</p> + +<p>It was an amazing and unsettling revelation, +and liberalism never quite knew what +to do with it. In a theater in Moscow a +certain M. Yevreynoff carried the revelation +to one of its logical conclusions. He produced +the monodrama.⁠<a id="FNanchor_30_30" href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> This is a play in which +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[164]</span>the action, the setting and all the characters +are seen by the audience through the eyes +of one character only, as the hero sees them, +and they take on the quality which his mind +imagines they possess. Thus in the old +theater, if the hero drank too much, he +reeled in the midst of a sober environment. +But in M. Yevreynoff’s supremely liberal +theater, if I understand Mr. Macgowan’s +account of it correctly, the drunkard will +not reel about the lamppost; two lampposts +will reel about him, and he will be dressed, +because that is the way he feels, like Napoleon +Bonaparte.</p> + +<p>M. Yevreynoff has troubled me a good deal, +for he seemed to have finished off the liberal +with a fool’s cap, and left him sitting in a +world that does not exist, except as so many +crazy mirrors reflecting his own follies one +upon the other. But then I recalled that M. +Yevreynoff’s logic was defective and make-believe. +He had all the time stood soberly +outside his own drunken hero, and so had his +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[165]</span>audience; the universe had not after all gone +up in the smoke of one fantasy; the drunken +hero had his point of view, but, after all, there +were others, just as authentic, with which in +the course of his career he might collide. +There might be a policeman, for example, +with fantasies to be sure, but his own, who +would break in upon the monodrama and +remind the hero, and us, that when we submit +the shadows of things to the desires of the +mind we do not submit the things themselves.</p> + +<p>But while all this does vindicate the sanity +of the liberal criticism, it does not answer the +question: since every action has to be taken +by somebody, since everybody is in some +degree a drunken hero with two lampposts +teetering about him, how can any common +good be furthered by this creature who is +dominated by his special purposes? The +answer was that it could be furthered by +taming his purposes, enlightening them and +fitting them into each other as the violin and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[166]</span>the drum are fitted together into the orchestra. +The answer was not acceptable in the +nineteenth century, when men, in spite of +all their iconoclasm, were still haunted by +the phantom of identity. So liberals refused +to write harmonious but separate parts for +the violinist and the drummer. They made, +instead, a noble appeal to their highest instincts. +They spoke over the heads of men +to man.</p> + +<p>These general appeals were as vague as +they were broad. They gave particular men +no clue as to how to behave sincerely, but +they furnished them with an excellent masquerade +when they behaved arbitrarily. Thus +the trappings of liberalism came into the +service of commercial exploiters, of profiteers +and prohibitionists and jingoes, of charlatans +and the makers of buncombe.</p> + +<p>For liberalism had burned down the barn +to roast the pig. The discovery of prejudice +in all particular men gave the liberal a +shock from which he never recovered. He +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[167]</span>was so utterly disconcerted by his own discovery +of a necessary but perfectly obvious +truth, that he took flight into generalities. +The appeal to everybody’s conscience gave +nobody a clue how to act; the voter, the +politician, the laborer, the capitalist had to +construct their own codes <i>ad hoc</i>, accompanied +perhaps by an expansive liberal sentiment, +but without intellectual guidance from liberal +thought. In time, when liberalism had lost +its accidental association with free trade and +<i>laissez faire</i>, through their abandonment in +practice, it sadly justified itself as a necessary +and useful spirit, as a kind of genial spook +worth having around the place. For when +individual men, guided by no philosophy but +their own temporary rationalizations, got +themselves embroiled, the spook would appear +and in a peroration straighten out the more +arbitrary biases they displayed.</p> + +<p>Yet even in this disembodied state liberalism +is important. It tends to awaken a milder +spirit; it softens the hardness of action. But +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">[168]</span>it does not dominate action, because it has +eliminated the actor from its scheme of +things. It cannot say: You do this and you do +that, as all ruling philosophies must. It can +only say: That isn’t fair, that’s selfish, that’s +tyrannical. Liberalism has been, therefore, +a defender of the under dog, and his liberator, +but not his guide, when he is free. Top dog +himself, he easily leaves his liberalism aside, +and to liberals the sour reflection that they +have forged a weapon of release but not a +way of life.</p> + +<p>The liberals have misunderstood the nature +of the public to which they appealed. The +public in any situation is, in fact, merely +those persons, indirectly concerned, who might +align themselves in support of one of the +actors. But the liberal took no such uninflated +view of the public. He assumed +that all mankind was within hearing, that +all mankind when it heard would respond +homogeneously because it had a single soul. +His appeal to this cosmopolitan, universal, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[169]</span>disinterested intuition in everybody was +equivalent to an appeal to nobody.</p> + +<p>No such fallacy is to be found in the political +philosophies which active men have lived +by. They have all assumed, as a matter +of course, that in the struggle against evil +it was necessary to call upon some specific +agent to do the work. Even when the thinker +was out of temper with the human race, +he had always hitherto made somebody the +hero of his campaign. It was the peculiarity +of liberalism among theories which have +played a great part in the world that it attempted +to eliminate the hero entirely.</p> + +<p>Plato would certainly have thought this +strange: his <i>Republic</i> is a tract on the proper +education of a ruling class. Dante, in the +turmoil of thirteenth century Florence, seeking +order and stability, addressed himself +not to the conscience of Christendom but to +the Imperial Party. The great state builders +of modern times, Hamilton, Cavour, Bismarck, +Lenin, each had in mind somebody, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[170]</span>some group of real people, who were to realize +his program. The agents in the theory have +varied, of course; here they are the landlords, +then the peasants, or the unions, or the military +class, or the manufacturers; there are +theories addressed to a church, to the ruling +classes in particular nations, to some nation +or race. The theories are always, except +in the liberal philosophy, addressed to somebody.</p> + +<p>By comparison the liberal philosophy has +an air of vague unworldiness. Yet the regard +of men for it has been persistent; somehow +or other with all the lapses in its logic +and with all its practical weaknesses it touches +a human need. These appeals from men +to man: are they not a way of saying that +men desire peace, that there is a harmony +attainable in which all men can live and let +live? It seems so to me. The attempt to +escape from particular purposes into some +universal purpose, from personality into something +impersonal, is, to be sure, a flight from +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[171]</span>the human problem, but it is at the same time +a demonstration of how we wish to see that +problem solved. We seek an adjustment, as +perfect as possible, as untroubled as it was +before we were born. Even if man were a +fighting animal, as some say he is, he would +wish for a world in which he could fight perfectly, +with enemies fleet enough to extend +him and not too fleet to elude him. All men +desire their own perfect adjustment, but they +desire it, being finite men, on their own terms. +Because liberalism could not accommodate +the universal need of adjustment to the permanence +and the reality of individual purpose, +it remained an incomplete, a disembodied +philosophy. It was frustrated over +the ancient problem of the One and the Many. +Yet the problem is not so insoluble once we +cease to personify society. It is only when we +are compelled to personify society that we are +puzzled as to how many separate organic +individuals can be united in one homogeneous +organic individual. This logical underbrush +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[172]</span>is cleared away if we think of society not as +the name of a thing but as the name of all +the adjustments between individuals and +their things. Then, we can say without +theoretical qualms what common sense plainly +tells us is so: it is the individuals who act, not +society; it is the individuals who think, not +the collective mind; it is the painters who +paint, not the artistic spirit of the age; it is +the soldiers who fight and are killed, not the +nation; it is the merchant who exports, not +the country. It is their relations with each +other that constitute a society. And it is +about the ordering of those relations that the +individuals not executively concerned in a +specific disorder may have public opinions +and may intervene as a public.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h4>Footnotes</h4> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_27_27" href="#FNanchor_27_27" class="label">[27]</a> John Maynard Keynes, <i>A Revision of the Treaty</i>, p. 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_28_28" href="#FNanchor_28_28" class="label">[28]</a> In a letter to William Wirt, cited by John Sharp Williams, <i>Thomas +Jefferson</i>, p. 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_29_29" href="#FNanchor_29_29" class="label">[29]</a> Harold J. Laski, <i>Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty</i>, p. 24.</p></div> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[173]</span></p> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_30_30" href="#FNanchor_30_30" class="label">[30]</a> Kenneth Macgowan, <i>The Theatre of Tomorrow</i>, pp. 249–50.</p></div></div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_XV"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter XV</span> + <br> + ABSENTEE RULERS + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>The practical effect of the monistic theories +of society has been to rationalize that vast +concentrating of political and economic power +in the midst of which we live. Since society +was supposed to have organic purposes of its +own, it came to seem quite reasonable that +these purposes should be made manifest to +a people by laws and decisions from a central +point. Somebody had to have a purpose revealed +to him which could be treated as the +common purpose; if it was to be accepted it +had to be enforced by command; if it was +really to look like the national purpose, it had +to be handed down as a rule binding upon all. +Thus men could say with Goethe:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">“And then a mighty work completed stands,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">One mind suffices for a thousand hands.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_31_31" href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></div> + </div> + </div> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[174]</span></p> + +<p>In this fashion the eulogies of the Great +Society have been made. Two thousand years +ago it was possible for whole civilizations +as mature as the Chinese and the Greco-Roman +to coexist in total indifference to one +another. Today the food supplies, the raw +materials, the manufactures, the communications +and the peace of the world constitute +one great system which cannot be thrown +severely out of balance in any part without +disturbing the whole.</p> + +<p>Looked at from the top, the system in its +far-flung and intricate adjustments has a +certain grandeur. It might, as some hopeful +persons think, even ultimately mean the brotherhood +of man since all men living in advanced +communities are now in quite obvious fashion +dependent upon one another. But the individual +man cannot look at the system steadily +from the top or see it in its ultimate speculative +possibilities. For him it means in practice, +along with the rise in certain of his +material standards of life, a nerve-wracking +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[175]</span>increase of the incalculable forces that bear +upon his fate. My neighbor in the country +who borrowed money to raise potatoes which +he cannot sell for cash looks at the bills from +the village store asking for immediate cash +payments, and does not share the philosophic +hopeful view of the interdependence of the +world. When unseen commission merchants +in New York City refuse his potatoes, the +calamity is as dumfounding as a drought or a +plague of locusts.</p> + +<p>The harvest in September of the planting +in May is now determined not only by wind +and weather, which his religion has from +time immemorial justified, but by a tangle +of distant human arrangements of which only +loose threads are in his hands. He may live +more richly than his ancestors; he may be +wealthier and healthier and, for all he knows, +even happier. But he gambles with the +behavior of unseen men in a bewildering way. +His relations with invisibly managed markets +are decisively important for him; his own +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[176]</span>foresight is not dependable. He is a link in a +chain that stretches beyond his horizon.</p> + +<p>The rôle that salesmanship and speculation +play is a measure of the spread between the +work men do and the results. To market the +output of Lancashire, says Dibblee,⁠<a id="FNanchor_32_32" href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> “the +merchants and warehousemen of Manchester +and Liverpool, not to mention the marketing +organizations in other Lancashire towns, have +a greater capital employed than that required +in all the manufacturing industries of the +cotton trade.” And, according to Anderson’s +calculations,⁠<a id="FNanchor_33_33" href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> the grain received at Chicago +in 1915 was sold sixty-two times in futures, +as well as an unknown number of times in +spot transactions. Where men produce for +invisible and uncertain markets “the initial +plans of enterprisers”⁠<a id="FNanchor_34_34" href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> cannot be adequate. +The adjustments, often very crude and costly, +are effected by salesmanship and speculation.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[177]</span></p> + +<p>Under these conditions neither the discipline +of the craftsman who controls his process from +beginning to end nor the virtues of thrift, +economy and work are a complete guide to a +successful career. Defoe in his <i>Complete +English Tradesman</i>⁠<a id="FNanchor_35_35" href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> could say that “trade is +not a ball where people appear in masque and +act a part to make sport ... but is a plain, +visible scene of honest life ... supported by +prudence and frugality” ... and so “prudent +management and frugality will increase +any fortune to any degree.” Benjamin Franklin +might opine that “he that gets all he can +honestly, and saves all he gets (necessary expenses +excepted) will certainly become rich, +if that Being who governs the world, to whom +all should look for a blessing on their honest +endeavors, doth not in His wise providence, +otherwise determine.” Young men were until +quite recently exhorted in the very words of +Defoe and Franklin, though Franklin’s rather +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[178]</span>canny allowance for the whims of the Almighty +was not always included. But of +late the gospel of success contains less about +frugality and more about visions and the +message of business. This new gospel, beneath +all its highfalutin cant, points dimly +though excitedly to the truth that for business +success a man must project his mind over an +invisible environment.</p> + +<p>This need has bred an imperious tendency +to organization on a large scale. To defend +themselves against the economic powers of +darkness, against great monopolies or a devastating +competition, the farmers set up +great centralized selling agencies. Business +men form great trade associations. Everybody +organizes, until the number of committees +and their paid secretaries cannot be computed. +The tendency is pervasive. We have +had, if I remember correctly, National Smile +Week. At any rate we have had Nebraska +which discovered that if you wish to prohibit +liquor in Nebraska you must prohibit it +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[179]</span>everywhere. Nebraska cannot live by itself +alone, being too weak to control an international +traffic. We have had the socialist +who was convinced that socialism can maintain +itself only on a socialist planet. We have +had Secretary Hughes who was convinced +that capitalism could exist only on a capitalist +planet. We have had all the imperialists who +could not live unless they advanced the backward +races. And we have had the Ku Klux +Klansmen who were persuaded that if you organized +and sold hate on a country-wide scale +there would be lots more hate than there was +before. We have had the Germans before 1914 +who were told they had to choose between +“world power or downfall,” and the French for +some years after 1919 who could not be +“secure” in Europe unless every one else was +insecure. We have had all conceivable manifestations +of the impulse to seek stability in an +incalculable environment by standardizing for +one’s own apparent convenience all those who +form the context of one’s activity.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[180]</span></p> + +<p>It has entailed perpetual effort to bring +more and more men under the same law +and custom, and then, of course, to assume +control of the lawmaking and law-enforcing +machinery in this larger area. The effect has +been to concentrate decision in central governments, +in distant executive offices, in caucuses +and in steering committees. Whether this +concentration of power is good or bad, permanent +or passing, this at least is certain. +The men who make the decisions at these +central points are remote from the men they +govern and the facts with which they deal. +Even if they conscientiously regard themselves +as agents or trustees, it is a pure fiction +to say that they are carrying out the will of +the people. They may govern the people +wisely. They are not governing with the +active consultation of the people. They can +at best lay down policy wholesale in response +to electorates which judge and act upon only +a detail of the result. For the governors see +a kind of whole which obscures the infinite +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[181]</span>varieties of particular interests; their vices +are abstraction and generalization which +appear in politics as legalism and bureaucracy. +The governed, on the contrary, see +vivid aspects of a whole which they +can rarely imagine, and their prevailing vice +is to mistake a local prejudice for a universal +truth.</p> + +<p>The widening distance between the centers +where decisions are taken and the places where +the main work of the world is done has undermined +the discipline of public opinion upon +which all the earlier theorists relied.⁠<a id="FNanchor_36_36" href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> A +century ago the model of popular government +was the self-sufficing township in which the +voters’ opinions were formed and corrected +by talk with their neighbors. They might +entertain queer opinions about witches and +spirits and foreign peoples and other worlds. +But about the village itself the facts were not +radically in dispute, and nothing was likely +to happen that the elders could not with a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[182]</span>little ingenuity bring under a well-known +precedent of their common law.</p> + +<p>But under absentee government these +checks upon opinion are lacking. The consequences +are often so remote and long delayed +that error is not promptly disclosed. +The conditioning factors are distant; they do +not count vividly in our judgments. The +reality is inaccessible; the bounds of subjective +opinion are wide. In the interdependent +world, desire, rather than custom or objective +law, tends to become the criterion of +men’s conduct. They formulate their demands +at large for “security” at the expense +of every one else’s safety, for “morality” at +the expense of other men’s tastes and comfort, +for the fulfillment of a national destiny that +consists in taking what you want when you +want it. The lengthening of the interval +between conduct and experience, between +cause and effect, has nurtured a cult of self-expression +in which each thinker thinks about +his own thoughts and has subtle feelings about +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[183]</span>his feelings. That he does not in consequence +deeply affect the course of affairs is not surprising.</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>The centralizing tendencies of the Great +Society have not been accepted without +protest, and the case against them has been +stated again and again.⁠<a id="FNanchor_37_37" href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> Without local +institutions, said de Tocqueville, a nation +may give itself a free government, but it does +not possess the spirit of liberty. To concentrate +power at one point is to facilitate the +seizure of power. “What are you going to +do?” Arthur Young asked some provincials +at the time of the French Revolution. “We +do not know,” they replied; “we must see +what Paris is going to do.” Local interests +handled from a distant central point are +roughly handled by busy and inattentive +men. And in the meantime the local training +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">[184]</span>and the local winnowing of political talent are +neglected. The overburdened central authority +expands into a vast hierarchy of bureaucrats +and clerks manipulating immense stacks +of paper, always dealing with symbols on +paper, rarely with things or with people. The +genius of centralization reached its climax +in the famous boast of a French minister of +education, who said: It is three o’clock; all +the pupils in the third grade throughout +France are now composing a Latin verse.</p> + +<p>There is no need to labor the point. The +more centralization the less can the people +concerned be consulted and give conscious +assent. The more extensive the rule laid +down the less account it can take of fact and +special circumstance. The more it conflicts +with local experience, the more distant its +source and wholesale its character, the less +easily enforceable it is. General rules will +tend to violate particular needs. Distantly +imposed rules usually lack the sanction of +consent. Being less suited to the needs of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">[185]</span>men, and more external to their minds, they +rest on force rather than on custom and on +reason.</p> + +<p>A centralized society dominated by the +fiction that the governors are the spokesmen +of a common will tends not only to degrade +initiative in the individual but to reduce to +insignificance the play of public opinion. +For when the action of a whole people is concentrated, +the public is so vast that even the +crude objective judgments it might make on +specific issues cease to be practicable. The +tests indicated in preceding chapters by +which a public might judge the workability +of a rule or the soundness of a new proposal +have little value when the public runs into +millions and the issues are hopelessly entangled +with each other. It is idle under such circumstances +to talk about democracy, or about the +refinement of public opinion. With such +monstrous complications the public can do +little more than at intervals to align itself +heavily for or against the régime in power, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[186]</span>and for the rest to bear with its works, obeying +meekly or evading, as seems most convenient. +For, in practice, the organic theory of society +means a concentration of power; that is, the +way the notion of one purpose is actually +embodied in affairs. And this in turn means +that men must either accept frustration of +their own purposes or contrive somehow to +frustrate that declared purpose of that central +power which pretends it is the purpose of all.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h4>Footnotes</h4> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_31_31" href="#FNanchor_31_31" class="label">[31]</a> <i>Faust</i>, Part II, Act v, scene 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_32_32" href="#FNanchor_32_32" class="label">[32]</a> Dibblee, <i>The Laws of Supply and Demand</i>, cited by B. M. Anderson, +Jr., <i>The Value of Money</i>, p. 259.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_33_33" href="#FNanchor_33_33" class="label">[33]</a> B. M. Anderson, Jr., <i>The Value of Money</i>, p. 251.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_34_34" href="#FNanchor_34_34" class="label">[34]</a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_35_35" href="#FNanchor_35_35" class="label">[35]</a> <i>Cf.</i> Werner Lombart, <i>The Quintessence of Capitalism</i>, Chapter +VII.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_36_36" href="#FNanchor_36_36" class="label">[36]</a> <i>Cf.</i> my <i>Public Opinion</i>, Chapters XVI and XVII.</p></div> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[187]</span></p> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_37_37" href="#FNanchor_37_37" class="label">[37]</a> In a convenient form by J. Charles Brun, <i>Le Régionalisme</i>, pp. +13 <i>et seq.</i> <i>Cf.</i> also Walter Thompson, <i>Federal Centralization</i>, +Chapter XIX.</p></div></div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h3 class="nobreak" id="Chapter_XVI"> + <span class="smcap">Chapter XVI</span> + <br> + THE REALMS OF DISORDER + </h3> +</div> + + +<h4>1</h4> + +<p>Yet the practice of centralization and the +philosophy which personifies society have +acquired a great hold upon men. The dangers +are well known. If, nevertheless, the +practice and the theory persist, it cannot be +merely because men have been led astray +by false doctrine.</p> + +<p>If you examine the difficulties enumerated +by the sponsors of great centralizing measures, +such as national prohibition, the national +child labor amendment, federal control +of education or the nationalization of +railroads, they are reducible, I think, to one +dominating idea: that it is necessary to extend +the area of control over all the factors +in a problem or the problem will be insoluble +anywhere.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[188]</span></p> + +<p>It was to this idea that Mr. Lloyd George +appealed when he faced his critics at the end +of his administration. While his words are +the words of a skilful debater, the idea behind +them might almost be called the supreme +motive of all the imperial and centralizing +tendencies of the Great Society:</p> + +<p>“Lord Grey sought to make peace in the +Balkans. He made peace. That peace did +not stand the jolting of the train that carried +it from London to the Balkans. It fell to +pieces before it ever reached Sofia. That +was not his fault. The plan was good. The +intentions were excellent. <i>But there were +factors there which he could not control.</i> He +tried to prevent the Turks from entering +the war against us, a most important matter. +German diplomacy was too strong for him. +He tried to prevent Bulgaria from entering +the war against us. There again German +diplomacy defeated us. Well, now I have +never taunted Lord Grey with that. I do +not taunt him now, but what I say is that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[189]</span>when you get into the realm of foreign affairs +there are things I will not say you cannot +visualize, because you do, but there are factors +you cannot influence.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_38_38" href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p> + +<p>Mr. Lloyd George might have said the same +of domestic affairs. There, too, factors abound +which you cannot influence. And as empires +expand to protect their frontiers, and then +expand further to protect the protections to +their frontiers, so central governments have +been led step by step to take one interest after +another under their control.</p> + + +<h4>2</h4> + +<p>For the democracies are haunted by this +dilemma: they are frustrated unless in the +laying down of rules there is a large measure +of assent; yet they seem unable to find solutions +of their greatest problems except through +centralized governing by means of extensive +rules which necessarily ignore the principle +of assent. The problems that vex democracy +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[190]</span>seem to be unmanageable by democratic +methods.</p> + +<p>In supreme crises the dilemma is presented +absolutely. Possibly a war can be fought +for democracy; it cannot be fought democratically. +Possibly a sudden revolution may be +made to advance democracy; but the revolution +itself will be conducted by a dictatorship. +Democracy may be defended against its +enemies but it will be defended by a committee +of safety. The history of the wars +and revolutions since 1914 is ample evidence +on this point. In the presence of danger, +where swift and concerted action is required, +the methods of democracy cannot be employed.</p> + +<p>That is understandable enough. But how +is it that the democratic method should be +abandoned so commonly in more leisurely +and less catastrophic times? Why in time of +peace should people provoke that centralization +of power which deprives them of control +over the use of that power? Is it not a probable +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[191]</span>answer to say that in the presence of +certain issues, even in time of peace, the +dangers have seemed sufficiently menacing +to cause people to seek remedies, regardless +of method, by the shortest and easiest way at +hand?</p> + +<p>It could be demonstrated, I think, that +the issues which have seemed so overwhelming +were of two kinds: those which turned on +the national defense or the public safety and +those which turned on the power of modern +capitalism. Where the relations of a people +to armed enemies are in question or where +the relations of employee, customer or farmer +to large industry are in question the need +for solutions has outweighed all interest +in the democratic method.</p> + +<p>In the issues engendered by the rise of the +national state and the development of large +scale industries are to be found the essentially +new problems of the modern world. For +the solution of these problems there are few +precedents. There is no established body of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">[192]</span>custom and law. The field of international +affairs and the field of industrial relations +are the two great centers of anarchy in society. +It is a pervasive anarchy. Out of the national +state with its terrifying military force, and +out of great industry with all its elaborate +economic compulsion, the threat against +personal security always rises. To offset +it somehow, to check it and thwart it, seemed +more important than any finical regard for +the principle of assent.</p> + +<p>And so to meet the menace of the national +state, its neighbors sought to form themselves +into more powerful national states; to tame +the power of capitalism they supported the +growth of vast bureaucracies. Against powers +that were dangerous and uncontrolled they +set up powers, nominally their own, which +were just as vast and just as uncontrolled.</p> + + +<h4>3</h4> + +<p>But only for precarious intervals has security +been attained by these vast balances of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">[193]</span>power. From 1870 to 1914 the world was +held in equilibrium. It was upset, and the +world has not yet found a new order. The +balances of power within the nations are no +less unsteady. For neither in industry +nor in international affairs has it yet been +possible to hold any balance long enough +to fix it by rule and give it an institutional +form. Power has been checked by power +here and there and now and then but +power has not been adjusted to power and +the terms of the adjustment settled and +accepted.</p> + +<p>The attempt to bring power under control +by offsetting it with power was sound enough +in intention. The conflicting purposes of +men cannot be held under pacific control +unless the tendency of all power to become +arbitrary is checked by other force. All the +machinery of conference, of peaceful negotiation, +of law and the rule of reason is workable +in large affairs only where the power of the +negotiators is neutralized one against the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">[194]</span>other. It may be neutralized because the +parties are in fact equally powerful. It may +be neutralized because the weaker has invisible +allies among the other powers of the +world, or in domestic affairs among other +interests in society. But before there can +be law there must be order, and an order is +an arrangement of power.</p> + +<p>The worst that can be said of the nationalists +and collectivists is that they attempted to +establish balances of power which could not +endure. The pluralist at least would say +that the end they sought must be attained +differently, that in place of vast wholesale +balances of power it is necessary to create +many detailed balances of power. The people +as a whole supporting a centralized government +cannot tame capitalism as a whole. +For the powers which are summed up in the +term capitalism are many. They bear separately +upon different groups of people. The +nation as a unit does not encounter them all, +and cannot deal with them all. It is to the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[195]</span>different groups of people concerned that we +must look for the power which shall offset +the arbitrary power that bears upon them. +The reduction of capitalism to workable law +is no matter of striking at it wholesale by +general enactments. It is a matter of defeating +its arbitrary power in detail, in every +factory, in every office, in every market, and +of turning the whole network of relations +under which industry operates from the +dominion of arbitrary forces into those of +settled rules.</p> + +<p>And so it is in the anarchy among nations. +If all the acts of a citizen are to be treated as +organically the actions of that nation, a stable +balance of power is impossible. Here also it +is necessary to break down the fiction of +identity, to insist that the quarrel of one +business man with another is their quarrel, +and not the nation’s, a quarrel in which each +is entitled to a vindication of his right to +fair adjudication but not to patriotic advocacy +of his cause. It is only by this dissociation +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[196]</span>of private interests that the mass +of disputes across frontiers can gradually be +brought under an orderly process. For a +large part, perhaps the greatest part, of the +disputes between nations is an accumulated +mass of undetermined disputes between their +nationals. If these essentially private disputes +could be handled, without patriotic +fervor and without confusing an oil prospector +with the nation as a whole, with governments +acting as friends of the court and not +as advocates for a client, the balance of power +between governments would be easier to +maintain. It would not be subject to constant +assault from within each nation by +an everlasting propaganda of suspicion by +private interests seeking national support. +And if only the balance of power between +governments could be stabilized long enough +to establish a line of precedents for international +conference, a longer peace might +result.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[197]</span></p> + + +<h4>4</h4> + +<p>These in roughest outline are some of the +conclusions, as they appear to me, of the +attempt to bring the theory of democracy +into somewhat truer alignment with the +nature of public opinion. I have conceived +public opinion to be, not the voice of God, +nor the voice of society, but the voice of the +interested spectators of action. I have, therefore, +supposed that the opinions of the spectators +must be essentially different from those +of the actors, and that the kind of action they +were capable of taking was essentially different +too. It has seemed to me that the public +had a function and must have methods of its +own in controversies, qualitatively different +from those of the executive men; that it was +a dangerous confusion to believe that private +purposes were a mere emanation of some +common purpose.</p> + +<p>This conception of society seems to me +truer and more workable than that which +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[198]</span>endows public opinion with pantheistic +powers. It does not assume that men in +action have universal purposes; they are denied +the fraudulent support of the fiction +that they are the agents of a common purpose. +They are regarded as the agents of special +purposes, without pretense and without embarrassment. +They must live in a world +with men who have other special purposes. +The adjustments which must be made are +society, and the best society is the one in +which men have purposes which they can +realize with the least frustration. When men +take a position in respect to the purposes of +others they are acting as a public. And the +end of their acting in this rôle is to promote +the conditions under which special purposes +can be composed.</p> + +<p>It is a theory which puts its trust chiefly +in the individuals directly concerned. They +initiate, they administer, they settle. It +would subject them to the least possible interference +from ignorant and meddlesome outsiders, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[199]</span>for in this theory the public intervenes +only when there is a crisis of maladjustment, +and then not to deal with the substance of +the problem but to neutralize the arbitrary +force which prevents adjustment. It is a +theory which economizes the attention of +men as members of the public, and asks them +to do as little as possible in matters where +they can do nothing very well. It confines +the effort of men, when they are a public, to a +part they might fulfill, to a part which corresponds +to their own greatest interest in any +social disturbance; that is, to an intervention +which may help to allay the disturbance, +and thus allow them to return to their own +affairs.</p> + +<p>For it is the pursuit of their special affairs +that they are most interested in. It is by the +private labors of individuals that life is enhanced. +I set no great store on what can +be done by public opinion and the action of +masses.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[200]</span></p> + + +<h4>5</h4> + +<p>I have no legislative program to offer, no +new institutions to propose. There are, I +believe, immense confusions in the current +theory of democracy which frustrate and +pervert its action. I have attacked certain +of the confusions with no conviction except +that a false philosophy tends to stereotype +thought against the lessons of experience. +I do not know what the lessons will be when +we have learned to think of public opinion as +it is, and not as the fictitious power we have +assumed it to be. It is enough if with Bentham +we know that “the perplexity of ambiguous +discourse ... distracts and eludes +the apprehension, stimulates and inflames +the passions.”</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h4>Footnotes</h4> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">[201]</span></p> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_38_38" href="#FNanchor_38_38" class="label">[38]</a> Speech at Manchester, October 14, 1922.</p></div></div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h2 class="nobreak" id="INDEX"> + INDEX + </h2> +</div> + + +<ul class="index"> + <li class="ifrst">Absentee rulers defined, <a href="#Page_173">173–186</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Action, public, defined, <a href="#Page_73">73–74</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Agencies defined, <a href="#Page_125">125–142</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">fact-finding, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Agent, public not, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Agents and bystanders defined, <a href="#Page_40">40–53</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Anarchy, <a href="#Page_161">161</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Anderson, Jr., B. M., <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Arbitrary force, neutralization of, <a href="#Page_63">63–74</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Aristotle, <a href="#Page_77">77–80</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Assent, defined, <a href="#Page_117">117–123</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Bacon, Francis, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Balkans, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Behavior, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68–69</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">reasonable, defined, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Bentham, Jeremy, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Bergson, Henri, <a href="#Page_32">32–33</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Birth control, its relation to food supply, <a href="#Page_87">87–88</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Bismarck, Prince von, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Brun, J. Charles, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Bryan, William Jennings, <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Bryce, James, <a href="#Page_18">18–19</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Bulgaria, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Business, new gospel of, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Bystanders and agents defined, <a href="#Page_40">40–53</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Capitalism, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, + <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Carr-Saunders, A. M., <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Cassel, Gustav, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Cats, mice and clover, <a href="#Page_31">31–32</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Cavour, Count di, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Centralization of government. <i>See</i> Government</li> + + <li class="indx">Change, unnoticeable, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Chanticleer, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Chicago mayoral election, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Chinese and Greco-Roman civilizations, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Citizen, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, + <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, + <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, + <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Citizenship, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Civic duty, derision for, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Civil rights, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Civilization, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Clover, cats and mice, <a href="#Page_31">31–32</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Competence, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Conduct, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Conformity, test of, defined, <a href="#Page_123">123–124</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Conscience, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Contracts, social, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95–106</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">defined, <a href="#Page_101">101–102</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104–105</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Control, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Controversy, <a href="#Page_77">77</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Coöperation, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Corruption, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Criteria of reform defined, <a href="#Page_125">125–142</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Criticism, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Crises, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Crisis, public opinion reserve force in, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Dante, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Darwin, Charles, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Debate, public value of, defined, <a href="#Page_110">110–114</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Defective rule defined, <a href="#Page_115">115–124</a></li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[202]</span>Defoe, Daniel, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Delbrück, Hans, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Democracy, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35–37</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146–151</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, + <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197–200</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Democratic theory, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Democrats, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Derision of citizens, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Descartes, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Dibblee, G. B., <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Dictatorship, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Disenchanted man defined, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> + + <li class="indx">“Disorder, idea of,” <a href="#Page_32">32–33</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">realms of, defined, <a href="#Page_187">187–200</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Dogma of assent, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Duties and rights. <i>See</i> Rights and duties.</li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Economic problem defined, <a href="#Page_92">92–94</a>.</li> + + <li class="indx">Education, <a href="#Page_22">22–23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">public, defined, <a href="#Page_146">146–147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148–151</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Election, defined, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Elections, defined, <a href="#Page_127">127–130</a></li> + + <li class="indx">England, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Enterprise, Macaulay on, <a href="#Page_49">49–50</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Enterprisers, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Environment, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Erickson, E. M., <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Eugenics, <a href="#Page_34">34–35</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Evasion of law, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Evils of democracy, <a href="#Page_35">35–36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173–186</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Evolution, <a href="#Page_81">81–84</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Executive action, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Expectations, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Exploiters, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Fable of professor, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Food supply, <a href="#Page_86">86–87</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Franklin, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_177">177–178</a></li> + + <li class="indx">French security, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li> + + <li class="indx">French Revolution, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Frugality, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Function, government, defined, <a href="#Page_70">70–73</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">relation to competency, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">German diplomacy, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Germans, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Goethe, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Gosnell, Harvey Foote, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Government, vii, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, + <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173–186</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">defined, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">function defined, <a href="#Page_70">70–73</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Grant, Madison, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Great Society, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, + <a href="#Page_188">188–189</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Greco-Roman and Chinese civilizations, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Grey, Lord, vii, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Guedalla, Philip, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Gun elevation, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Hamilton, Alexander, vii, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Hegel, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Hegelian mystery, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Hertzen, Alexander, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Hughes, Charles Evans, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Human values defined, <a href="#Page_95">95–97</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">“Idea of disorder,” <a href="#Page_32">32–33</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Ideal, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Idealization, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Ideals, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Ideas, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Imperial Party, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Initiative and referendum, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Innovation, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Inquiry, test of, defined, <a href="#Page_130">130–135</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Intelligence, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Jefferson, Thomas, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Justice, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Keynes, J. M., <a href="#Page_157">157–158</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Knowledge, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Ku Klux Klan, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">[203]</span>Lancashire goods, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Laski, Harold J., <a href="#Page_161">161</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Latin America, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Latin verse, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Law, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, + <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191–192</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Laws, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">assent to, defined, <a href="#Page_117">117–122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">defective, defined, <a href="#Page_125">125–142</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">test of, defined, <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Leaders, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> + + <li class="indx">League of Nations, <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Lenin, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Liberal defined, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Liberalism defined, <a href="#Page_162">162–172</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Liberals, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Liberties of men defined, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Liberty, spirit of, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Lloyd George, David, <a href="#Page_157">157–158</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188–189</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Lombart, Werner, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Lowell, Lawrence A., <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Macaulay, Lord, <a href="#Page_49">49–50</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Macgowan, Kenneth, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Majority, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">rule defined, <a href="#Page_57">57–58</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Malthus, T. R., <a href="#Page_85">85–87</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Man, disenchanted, <a href="#Page_13">13–21</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Manchester, Lloyd George at, <a href="#Page_188">188–189</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Mayoral election in Chicago, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Merriam, Charles Edward, <a href="#Page_17">17–18</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Methods of public men, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Mice, cats and clover, <a href="#Page_31">31–32</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Michelet, Simon, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Michels, Robert, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22–23</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Minorities, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Monistic theory, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Monodrama, <a href="#Page_163">163–165</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Moral code, <a href="#Page_29">29–30</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Moral codes, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Moralists, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Morality, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Morrow, Dwight, <a href="#Page_59">59–60</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Morse, Prof., <a href="#Page_59">59–60</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Napoleon III., <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> + + <li class="indx">National defense, problem defined, <a href="#Page_90">90–91</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Nationals, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Nationalism, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Neutralization of arbitrary force, <a href="#Page_67">67–74</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Neutralized power, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Newspapers, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Nonvoting, <a href="#Page_17">17–18</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Officials, government, <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Ogburn, W. F., <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Omnicompetency of citizens, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> + + <li class="indx">One and Many problem, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Opinion, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Opinion, public. <i>See</i> Public opinion</li> + + <li class="indx">Opinions defined, <a href="#Page_44">44–49</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Opposition parties, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Party government, <a href="#Page_59">59–60</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Party in power, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Party system, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Parties, political, <a href="#Page_127">127</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Partisanship, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Pawlow, Ivan Petrovich, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> + + <li class="indx">People, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">Macaulay on, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, + <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> + + <li class="indx">People’s will defined, <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Physical force in South, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Plato, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Pluralistic theory defined, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Political capacity, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Political evils, agents against, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Political leaders, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Political system changes, <a href="#Page_84">84–85</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Political talent neglected, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[204]</span>Political theories defined, <a href="#Page_22">22–39</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Politicians, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Politics, truth in, <a href="#Page_157">157–158</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Policy, public, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Population, problem of, defined, <a href="#Page_85">85–87</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Power, arbitrary, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">balance of, defined, <a href="#Page_192">192–196</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">of public opinion, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Principles of public opinion, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Problem, nature of, <a href="#Page_81">81–94</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">of One and Many, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Problems of citizen defined, <a href="#Page_13">13–16</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, + <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81–94</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, + <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Professor, fable of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Public, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">powers defined, <a href="#Page_49">49–52</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54–62</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">relation to public affairs defined, <a href="#Page_63">63–66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, + <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">debate, value of, defined, <a href="#Page_110">110–114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, + <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, + <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, + <a href="#Page_145">145</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">education defined, <a href="#Page_146">146–151</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">in any situation defined, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">dangers to, defined, <a href="#Page_189">189–191</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Public affairs, <a href="#Page_13">13–21</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, + <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, + <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Public judgment, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Public life, candor in, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Public men, methods of, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Public office, education for, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Public opinion, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">and public affairs, <a href="#Page_55">55–56</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">defined 65–70, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">function of, defined, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">principles of, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">tests of, defined, <a href="#Page_144">144–145</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197–200</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Publicity, <a href="#Page_43">43</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Publics, random, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Question Aristotle asked, <a href="#Page_77">77–80</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Questions, two, <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Realms of disorder, <a href="#Page_187">187–200</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Reason, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Reform Bill, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Reform, criteria of, <a href="#Page_125">125–142</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Reform, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">test of, defined, <a href="#Page_135">135–138</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Reformer, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Registered voters, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Revivalists, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Revolution, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Revolution, French, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Rights, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Rights and duties defined, <a href="#Page_100">100–107</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Rousseau, J. J., <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Rule, <a href="#Page_68">68–69</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">defective, defined, <a href="#Page_115">115–124</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Rules. <i>See</i> Laws</li> + + <li class="indx">Rules of society, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Rulers, absentee, defined, <a href="#Page_173">173–186</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Santayana, George, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Schlesinger, A. M., <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li> + + <li class="indx">School, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Self-government, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Settlements, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Shaw, G. Bernard, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Smith, Logan Pearsall, <a href="#Page_15">15–16</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Social contracts defined, <a href="#Page_95">95–106</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Socialism, theory of, defined, <a href="#Page_37">37–38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Socialists, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Society, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, + <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, + <a href="#Page_134">134</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">functions defined, <a href="#Page_155">155–161</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">defined, <a href="#Page_155">155–172</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> + + <li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[205]</span>Socrates, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Sovereign people, <a href="#Page_18">18–19</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Sovereignty, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Standards, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Statesmanship defined, <a href="#Page_155">155–161</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Steffen, Gustaf F., <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Stoddard, Lothrop, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Submission, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Supply and demand, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li> + + <li class="indx">System, economic, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">prevailing, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>;</li> + <li class="isub1">of rights and duties, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Teachers, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Theory, citizen reigns in, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Thomson, J. Arthur, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Times (London), <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Tocqueville, de, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Trade, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Truth, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Turks, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Tyranny, <a href="#Page_70">70–71</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Unattainable ideal, <a href="#Page_22">22–39</a></li> + + <li class="indx">United States government, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Validity of laws, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Value is measurement, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Value of public debate defined, <a href="#Page_110">110–114</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Values, human, defined, <a href="#Page_95">95–97</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Virtue, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Voice of public opinion defined, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Vote, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Voter, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Voters, <a href="#Page_16">16–17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18–19</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Voting, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">War, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Williams, John Sharp, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Wirt, William, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Woman suffrage, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Work, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> + + <li class="indx">World, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li> + + <li class="indx">“World power or downfall,” <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li> + + + <li class="ifrst">Yevreynoff, <a href="#Page_163">163–164</a></li> + + <li class="indx">Young, Arthur, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> +</ul> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76966 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + diff --git a/76966-h/images/cover.jpg b/76966-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b76e479 --- /dev/null +++ b/76966-h/images/cover.jpg |
