|
|
| & etc |
FEEDBACK
(C)1998-2012
All Rights Reserved.
Site last updated
13 January, 2012
|
|
|
|
Bryan or McKinley? The Present Duty of American Citizens.
XI. What Ought a Gold Democrat to Do?
by North American Review, The
|
The unenviable position in which the Democratic party was
left, after the adoption of the platform and the nomination of
Mr. Bryan as a Presidential candidate foar years ago, made
inevitable the withdrawal from affiliation with the organization as
newly constituted, of a very large number of men who, until then,
had been not only believers in the principles of the party, but
staunch supporters of its candidates. They refused their support
from neither political pique nor thwarted personal ambition, but
wholly because they saw in the new order of things, proclaimed
under the guise of Democracy, a perversion of all those teachings
and practices for which the Democratic party had stood in the
past. To them, the candidacy of Mr. Bryan for the executive
office was not that of a Democrat, but of one who had nothing in
common with the principles of the party. The movement to
stand for something Democratic, which found its origin among a
few men before the Chicago Convention adjourned, its
development at Indianapolis, and its fruition in the defeat of Mr. Bryan
at the polls, was a movement for conscience sake, and in the true
order of things it ought not to end until Democracy and Bryanism
are not thought of as synonymous terms, and the difference
between them has become so clear that "he who runs may read."
The Democrats who stood sponsor for the protest against the
Bryanized Democracy of 1896 did so both for the good of their
country and the betterment of their party. They knew that in
serving the best interests of the former they conld best serve those
of the latter. The great majority of them had been Democrats
always, making np in a large measure the membership of the
directing force of the organization, and contributing the means
of carrying on its campaigns. In refusing to indorse the
vagaries of the Chicago platform and the candidate standing upon it,
they did not become Republicans, nor accept as political truth
Republican doctrines, nor approve of Republican candidates.
They had in mind always that the first essential necessity, in
saving the Democratic party, was the complete rout of those who
had made it not only a reproach and a by-word, but an agency
for evil to the best interests of the country.
In accepting Republican candidates now, they assume no other
attitude than that which they took in the first instance. They
justify their course now as they did then, believing that their
highest duty, as citizens as well as party men, makes any other
action impossible. They have not gone into, nor do they intend.
to go into, the Republican party, because they cannot reconcile
themselves to the tenets of that party, which stand in direct
opposition to principles which they have long held to be essential
to a true and safe system of governmental control. Many of
them then supported and voted for President McKinley, in spite
of an antagonism to a large number of things for which he had
stood in the past, because they felt that there were elements of
conservatism in the organization and following of his party which
could minimize the harmful force of the things to which they
objected, on the one hand, and maximize those of which they
approved, on the other. Undoubtedly, some of the men who
aided in the Gold-Democratic movement of the last Presidential
campaign have been disappointed in the President and his party
in both directions; bnt I believe an unbiased consideration of all
that has been done by the Administration, taken by and large, will
lead to the conclusion that their effort in that behalf was at least
worth while, and that much has been accomplished of great benefit
to the country in many of its varied and important interests. It
has been successful at least in establishing the gold standard
through enacted law, and in refunding much of the public debt.
It has maintained the public credit and accomplished something
toward the improvement of the country's banking law. If it has
not gone as far in this direction as the friends of better banking
facilities wish, it at least gives promise of taking no backward
step. If the country has not been fully satisfied with its
administration of foreign affairs, that fact is not a new one in the history
of administrations. The conduct of the State Department,
acting in conjunction with that of the Executive, is always a subject
of general criticism on the part of the political organization out
of power. Things are never just right, so far as the public is
concerned, for the reason that the very nature of the conduct of
state affairs precludes the taking of the public into full
confidence. And yet it can be truthfully said that the foreign affairs
of each Administration have shown in their conduct much of
wisdom and great patriotism. The Administration has been
severely criticised more than once for many things growing out of
the Spanish-American war, but the war was one for which all
political parties in the country stand responsible, and for the
consequences of which none is more to blame than the
Democratic Presidential candidate himself. He urged his party into
it, entered the ranks of the soldiery himself and when it was over
made himself largely responsible for the ratifying of the Treaty
of Peace which brought the Philippine Islands into our
possession, with all the attendant troubles which have followed them.
The extravagances of which complaint is made in the matter
of governmental expenditures have been the extravagances which
too frequently accompany the carrying on of war. It is to be
doubted, however, whether under the same circumstances Mr.
Bryan and those who are associated with him would have made a
record meriting greater approval. The spirit of militarism
pointed to by the opponents of imperialism grew in large measure
out of the war which the two great political parties vied with one
another in bringing on, and to which Mr. Bryan went as a
commissioned officer. There is nothing, in either past or present
events, to create a fear that the people of this country, even
though the standing army has been enlarged and new military
undertakings have been entered upon, will ever either jeopardize
its liberties or encroach upon them by such a departure.
Militarism may bring extravagances and cause demoralization among
those who become actively identified with army life in foreign
fields; but it is beyond the range of possibilities that such a thirst
for military glory and power can be fostered among those
intrusted with the control of the army as to cause them to make an
assault upon the peoples rights for personal aggrandizement.
Unfortunately for the country, and doubly unfortunately for
the Democratic party, neither is rid of Mr. Bryan and his
advocacy of the pernicious doctrine of which he is the leading
champion. We are in the midst of another campaign, with a great
number of Democrats again placed under the embarrassment of
having to choose between an emasculated and tainted Democracy
and a distasteful Republicanism. There is no middle ground,
nor can any course be pursued by the independent Democrat or
Republican other than to support Republican candidates, until the
things which have made Mr. Bryan a possible factor in American
public life are completely eradicated. It will not do simply to
scotch his doctrines at each recurring election. They must be
killed, and the country must be rid of teachings that are a
disturbing element in its social and political life. The question
which confronted Democrats after the action of the party's
representatives at Chicago four years ago comes to them now only
with greater emphasis, since the gathering at Kansas City. The
ailment which then bade fair to be but a passing spasm now
seems to have taken on the virulence and distressing evil of a
deep-seated disease. If heroic measures seemed requisite then, they
are more so now, if any vestige of Democratic principles worth
the saving is to be preserved as an element of good to the people
in the administration of the country's affairs. The answer to
the question as to what a Democrat ought to do, in the light of
the circumstances which surround his party, is not difficult to
render. He ought to exert himself to defeat Mr. Bryan, and
make impossible thereby a future Populistic Presidential
candidate and Populistic platform, masquerading under a
Democratic party name. The salvation of the Democratic party lies wholly
in such a course. Any other course means a continuance in
control of those who have wrought loss, dishonor and disorganization
to it. The principles of the party, stricken nigh unto death by
Altgeld, Tillman and Weaver in 1896, have not been restored to
their former virtuous vigor by these same men in 1900, and they
can never be. The thoughtful Democrat, who will have regard to
an analysis of his partys condition as it is, under the
manipulation of Mr. Bryan and his friends, will see nothing either in it or
the condition of the country which warrants him in now
sanctioning the things which were repugnant to his sense of public good
and party loyalty four years ago. I cannot conceive of any lapse
of time sufficiently great to make either economically or morally
sound the vicious heresies announced as the embodiment of
Democratic principles at the time of Mr. Bryans first nomination, and
reaffirmed in subservience to his dictation when he is now again
presented to the countrys electorate. The possibility of such a
thing ranks with that never accomplished effort of the alchemist
to transmute the basest into the finest of metals. Such a change
cannot be brought about until a point is reached in the world's
history when disapproval of the enforcement of law, repudiation
of the sacred right of public and private contract and the
nonintegrity of courts of justice are recognized as the cardinal
principles in a properly adjusted system of governmental economy.
The actions of the Democratic party, without Mr. Bryan and
his isms, despite its lapses at times, throughout a long number
of years, made for the country's good. It had been a generous
contributor to the list of great names which have added lustre to
the nations history. Since the advent of Mr. Bryan as a leader,
however, all this has changed, and the Democratic party has
become the open advocate of discontent, strife and class prejudice.
Its leaders to-day are men ill-acquainted with political history,
arid strangers to a serious effort to ascertain the origin and basis
of economic truth. They are mere declaimers, who, taking their
cue from their accepted leader, have produced nothing from their
superficial familiarity with the writers of political economy but
rhetoric, none of which stands the test of analysis. It is due to
the country that, once for all, it be rid of such leaders of political
fractions and proponents of unwholesome ideas. The hope which
Democrats indulge that, somehow and in some way, the party can
outgrow Mr. Bryan and still tolerate his leadership is wholly
illusive. Mr. Bryan and his views and the Democratic
organization and its platform are interchangeable terms, as long as
there is not direct and unequivocal repudiation of both by
Democrats who have a care for their party's future. The same
treatment must be accorded to Mr. Bryan, in a political sense, as was
applied in a physical way by one of the early rulers of Persia to
an unjust judge. This ruler flayed the despoiler and placed his
skin over the chair of justice which he once occupied, so that every
one who should sit therein in future might take warning from
the fate of his iniquitous predecessor - a circumstance that led one
of the great Bishops of England, centuries later, to declare in
that country of certain leaders who wronged the people that "it
will never be merry in England until we have the skins of such."
So, too, it will never be merry in the Democratic party until we
have the political skins of such as Mr. Bryan, to place in the seats
of Democratic leadership, as a warning to all who, to advance the
ends of personal ambition, willingly despoil the history,
principles, traditions and standing of a great, political party.
As long as Mr. Bryan leads Democracy, it is hopelessly wedded
to a money standard which means repudiation of the nations
obligations and the impairment of the nations credit, if once it
should be powerful enough to accomplish such a result. It will
not do to lull ourselves into a supposed security from danger on
this score because Mr. Bryan has seen fit to cease talking on the
money question. The people must not flatter themselves that
Mr. Bryan has changed his views on this subject. He has not,
and he will not. His erroneous views are fixed. He has only
found it politic for the present to conceal them, and Mr. Bryan
is nothing, if not politic in his demagogy. He was the strenuous
advocate of silver until he had gotten through with the Populist
and Silver Conventions; but, once they were over, the advocacy
of something else being necessary to bring votes and support,
silver is made to give way to the issues of anti-imperialism and
so-called anti-militarism. When it is once realized that Mr.
Bryan is not a statesman but a charlatan and demagogue, who
loves public applause and servile flattery, he will stand stripped
of many of his supposed Spartan virtues. His craving is always
for notoriety, and there is no means that is at hand that he will
not avail himself of. He has never read beyond the elementary
in his study of political economy; and, as a result, the consistency
of his statements, one with the other, does not concern him. He
is equally indifferent to the contradiction, by the course of events,
of assertions which he has made and predictions which he has
put forth.
It is urged that he is intellectually honest. The acceptance
of this statement as truth by one who follows Mr. Bryan from
day to day, in all his thousands of words, requires unbounded
assurance as to either the simplicity of his nature or the density
of his ignorance. Mr. Bryan has been regarded by many as
belonging in sympathy to what is termed the common people. That
is a false view. He has led too many of the common people into
grievous error by the sophistry and eloquence of his speech, and
that, too, for his own political advantage and not to their
advancement as a class. The establishment of any close bond of
union between the workmen of the country and their employers
would mean the loss to Mr. Bryan of every vestige of the support
of the workmen, and, therefore, we find him continually a sower
of strife between capital and labor. Any considerable exhibition
of fraternity of feeling between this and other nations, sanctioned
by general consent, would deprive him of another means of
appealing to prejudice, and always we find him scouting such
relations with other peoples. He inveighs against everything that is,
and applauds something which might be, always having in view
the bringing to himself the benefit which might accrue in a
political struggle from a situation based on discontent and a desire for
change.
I do not believe such a man can make a safe Chief Executive
of a nation whose population is as varied as is that of the United
States. We have here elements which, under a careful,
thoughtful and intelligent leadership, always can be depended upon to
stand for conservatism, but which, once guided by a leader who
depends for his following wholly upon the gifts of oratory and
flattery, with whom political expediency is political duty, become
elements of danger. The country may, at times, doubt the entire
sincerity of a leader who is so frank as to confound frankness
itself, and it may to-day well doubt Mr. Bryan. The friends of
the Democratic Presidential candidate are wont to excuse him
on the ground that, once intrusted with power, he would find the
conserving influence of the great office to which he aspires
sufficient to restrain him from undertaking to enforce the radical
theory which he advocates. There is, undoubtedly, a conserving
force in the responsibility of office, which would cause a man of
ordinary thought and action to hesitate from pressing measures
that might cause great disaster. But Mr. Bryan is not of this
class. He is not a man who thinks deeply or who acts wisely.
He is always radical, and a careful investigation of his
utterances, both in public and private, would reveal that element as the
predominant characteristic of his nature. It is as noticeable in
his most carefully prepared addresses as it is in his
extemporaneous ones. He has no intiniates but the radicals of his own party,
and even they are not on such terms with him as are the leaders
of the Populists and Silver Republicans. It would be impossible
for him as President to construct a Cabinet made up of men of
temperate views on any public question. Any Cabinet which he
would form would be as much of a menace as Mr. Bryan himself,
because the only difference in views between them would be in
degree of radicalism and not in principle. Heretofore,
Democracy has sometimes affiliated with other political organizations,
but it has never before lost its identity. It has swallowed them,
but Mr. Bryan, reversing this order of things, has aided and
abetted the conspiracy which aims to have Democracy absorbed by the
Populists and Socialists. Whatever isms have found lodgment
in the party have been controlled in the past, but this is not now
the case. They control the Democratic party entirely, with the
full approval of its candidate. Many rallying cries are put forth
to disguise their meaning and purpose; but, back of them all,
when they stand revealed in their full nakedness, is a socialism
which is at war with property interests, great and small.
It is because of this fact, shown in many ways, that all
business elements, of every character, importance or location, are
against Mr. Bryan and the party which he leads. They do not
wish to evade any legal responsibility, to pay less than their just
proportion of taxes, to treat unjustly their employees or to deal
unfairly with the public. They want only stability in money,
equity in law, and wisdom of word and action in the Executive.
They distrust Mr. Bryan, because he has made it impossible for
them to trust him through his advocacy of things which their
business knowledge and experience have proven to them would
be disastrous, if once they were enforced. They distrust him not
because he is a Democrat, but because he is not one. They know
that Democratic principles, rightly interpreted and enforced, are
productive of good. So, too, they know equally well that
Socialistic doctrines, presented and incorporated into governmental
affairs by a demogogue intrusted with power, could not but work
out widespread loss and ruin. If Mr. Bryan, then, is not a
Democrat but a Populist, why should any Democrat aid in his
election? That he was named by the machinery of the party, so
long as that machinery was used simply to ratify the action of
another convention and the principles of another party, means
nothing. What possible good can come to the country by having
Democracy, as now constituted and controlled, intrusted with
power? What reform could it inaugurate and carry to a
successful issue? It is impossible, in the very nature of its present
organization, that Democracy could accomplish any remedial
legislation that would benefit the people. On the other hand, it
would, by its attempt to give the force of enacted law to the isms
to which it is pledged, breed constant uncertainty and distrust.
By the pronouncement of its own platform, it is against the gold
standard and in favor of the silver one. It would, if given the
power, abrogate the right of private contract, and thereby put a
premium on dishonesty and evasion of just obligations. It does
not believe in the enforcement of order by the lawfully
constituted authorities, as against the will of mob law, if it speaks its
true beliefs in its party preachment. It is against the country's
courts of justice and the majesty of law, as that majesty finds
expression in the Supreme Court, according to a platform once
announced and many times reaffirmed. It has no use for a civil
service which takes from the party worker the spoils of office,
despite the fact that it gives to the tax-paying public a better
return for the wage which the public provides. It means nothing
on the question of a wisely adjusted tariff system, because it is
swallowed up in the heresy of protection through its free silver
doctrine. It has no force and effect when it speaks on the
subject of class legislation, for Populism and Silver have made it
wholly a party of special interest, promising each, through the
be it enacted of legislation, special relief and privileges. Its
denunciation of Trusts is a sham, branded so by placing the Trust-
supporting and Trust-supported leaders of Tammany high in
Democratic councils. In short, Mr. Bryan has brought the
Democratic party to that unhappy condition where it can work
injury to all and good to none.
As against all this, it is urged that Gold Democrats ought to
support Mr. Bryan, because he does not believe in what is known
as imperialism and militarism. There is nothing relative to the
conduct of our colonial possessions that Mr. Bryan can possibly
do within reason, that President McKinley will not do. The
statement that Mr. Bryan makes that he will at once, if elected
President, convene Congress to create a stable government for the
Philippines and establish a Monroe doctrine protectorate over
them, is wholly idle. He knows that it is impossible to do so,
until conditions as to education, guarantee of property rights and
as to safety of personal rights, warrant such action. However
many the blunders made which wrought the condition that now
presents itself, the country is not willing, off-hand and
unpreparedly, to set adrift - though retaining a full protecting
responsibility for their acts - any peoples who have come to us through
the Spanish war. Mr. Bryan misjudges popular sentiment if he
thinks that, upon such an issue, he can blind the electors to those
things which, affecting our own country, are more paramount
than any involved in the issue he is now attempting to create.
The Democrat who really wishes to serve his country best will
serve it and his party by voting for President McKinley's
re-election. He will not do so as a Republican advocate of
Republican principles, but as a Democratic protestor against Bryanistic
heresies. There is no half-way house, nor is any good to be
accomplished by refraining from voting. It is a case where the
surgeon must cut, and cut deeply. When Mr. Bryan is driven
from power the patriotic Democrat can go back into a full
fellowship with his party; for, when that time comes, the Democratic
party will stand for something with the advocacy of which the
patriotic Democrat will be glad to be associated. As long,
however, as the present status is maintained, he can have neither
part nor lot with those who map out the policies of the Democratic
party and control its acts.
JAMES H. ECKELS.
|
|
| |
