APATHY IN CITIZENSHIP.
In England the idea of an American citizen is of one who is always
talking politics, canvassing, bustling about to make proselytes abroad,
buried in newspapers at home, and hurrying to vote on election days.
There is another side to the object. A learned professor of a western
college told me abundance of English news, but declared himself ignorant
of everything that had passed in the home portion of the political
world. He never took any interest in politics. What would be the use of
his disturbing himself? How far does one man's vote go? He does more
good by showing himself above such affairs.
It was communicated to me that there are more modes of political action
than one: and that, though this professor does not vote, he uses his
utmost influence with the students of his college, in favour of his own
political opinions; and with entire success. If this be true, the
gentleman falls short of his duty in one respect, and exceeds it in
another.
A clergyman in the north was anxious to assure me that elections are
merely personal matters, and do not affect the happiness of the people.
It matters not to him, for instance, who is in office, and what party in
politics is uppermost: life goes on the same to him. This gentleman had
probably never heard of the old lady who said that she did not care
what revolutions happened, as long as she had her roast chicken, and her
little game at cards. But that old lady did not live in a republic, or
perhaps even she might have perceived that there would have been no
security for roast chickens and cards, if all were to neglect political
action but those who want political power and profit. In a democracy,
every man is supposed to be his own security for life and property: and,
if a man devolves his political charge upon others, he must lay his
accounts for not being so well taken care of as he might be. So much for
the selfish aspect of the case;--the view which might have been
presented, with illustrations, to the old lady, if she had happened to
live in a republic.
The clergyman ought to see further. He ought to see, in virtue of his
office, how public morals must suffer under the neglect of public duty
by respectable men. If such men were to perform the duties of citizens
as conscientiously as they do those of husbands, fathers, and pastors,
and leave it to the knaves to neglect the duties of citizenship, the
republic might go on as well as a republic with knaves in it can go on.
But if the case is reversed,--if the knaves are eager to use their
political rights for selfish purposes, and the conscientious in other
respects are remiss in the duties of citizenship, the pastors may almost
as well leave off preaching. All good pastoral influence will be borne
down by the spread of corruption. The clergy may preach themselves
hoarse to little purpose, if they live, and encourage others to live, in
the avowed neglect of the first duty of any one relation; and the
exercise of the suffrage is the first duty of republican citizenship.
A naval officer, a man of an otherwise sound head and heart, told me,
very coolly, that he had never voted more than twice in his life. His
defence, in answer to my remonstrance, was, that he had served his
country in other ways. In as far as this might be meant to convey that
he could not vote at New York when in India, the excuse must be admitted
as valid: but, if it was meant to apply to elections going on before his
eyes, it was much the same as if he had said, "there is no occasion for
me to be a good father, because I have been a good son."
A member of Congress gave me instances of what would have been the
modifications of certain public affairs, but for the apathy of the
minority about the use of their suffrage. If citizens regulate their
exertions by the probabilities of immediate success, instead of by their
faith in their own convictions, it is indeed no wonder if the minority
leave everything to their adversaries; but this is not the way for men
to show themselves worthy of the possession of political rights. This is
not the way that society has advanced. This is not the way that security
for life and property has been obtained for those idle citizens who are
now leaving that security to the mercy of those whom they believe to be
the enemies of society.
A public man told me that it would be a great point gained, if every
citizen could be induced to vote, at least once a year. So far is it
from being true that all Americans are the bustling politicians the
English have been apt to suppose. If such political bustle should be
absurd, the actual apathy is something worse. If it were only borne in
mind that rulers derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed, surely all conscientious men would see the guilt of any man
acquiescing in the rule of governors whom he disapproves, by not having
recorded his dissent. Or, if he should be in the majority, the case is
no better. He has omitted to bear his testimony to what he esteems the
true principles of government. He has not appointed his rulers; and, in
as far as he accepts their protection, he takes without having given, he
reaps without having sown; he deprives his just rulers of a portion of
the authority which is their due--of a portion of the consent of the
governed.
There is another cause for the reluctance to vote which is complained of
by the best friends of the people; but it is almost too humbling and
painful to be discussed. Some are afraid to vote!
This happens not in the country, nor among the strength of the
population in the towns: but among the feeble aristocracy. There is not,
in the United States, as with us, a system of intimidation exercised by
the rich over the poor. In the country, there are no landlords and
tenants at will. In the towns, the tradesmen do not stand in need of the
patronage of the rich. Though they vote by ballot, and any man who
chooses it may vote secretly, (and many do upon occasion,) there is
rarely any need of such protection. But there is no reason why the
gentry, who may be afraid of hurting one another's feelings, should not
use their power of secret voting, rather than neglect the duty of giving
their suffrage. If the educated and principled men of the community, as
they are esteemed, fall back into idleness and silence, when the time
comes for a struggle for principles, and there is a danger of
disappointing expectations, and hurting feelings, their country has
little to thank them for. They are the men from whom the open discharge
of duty is looked for; they are the men who should show that political
obligation is above private regards. If they have not the virtue to do
this, and take the consequences, let them avail themselves of the
secrecy of the ballot-box, which in England is desired for the
protection of those whom bad arrangements have made dependent for bread
on the rich and powerful. At all events, let them vote, or be ashamed to
accept the privileges of citizenship without having discharged the
duties.
The fear of opinion sometimes takes the form of an almost insane dread
of responsibility. There are occasions when public men, unable to judge
for themselves of particular classes of circumstances, are obliged to
ask advice of their friends and supporters. Happy he who obtains a full
and true answer from any one! The chances against this are in proportion
to the importance of the case. I knew of one such instance, the result
of which more than one is, I trust, now grieving over in his inmost
heart. An eminent statesman was hesitating whether to offer himself as a
candidate for a very high office. He requested the opinion and advice of
a number of gentlemen in public life, his supporters. All were of the
same opinion; that he should not stand. No one of them chose to take the
responsibility of telling him so. Some of them wrote ambiguous answers,
hoping that he would infer that they thought ill of his chance. Others
rather encouraged the enterprise. The illustrative details which might
be given,--showing the general uniformity, with particular diversity, of
the conduct of the advisers,--would be amusing if they were not too sad.
Suffice it that no one, as far as I could learn, could get over his fear
of responsibility so as to be faithful. They allowed their idol to make
a fool of himself. If he should henceforth be sunk in political
scepticism, perhaps these gentlemen may find that in shunning one kind
of responsibility, they have incurred another, far heavier.
It is felt, and understood, in the United States, that their near future
in politics is indiscernible. Odd, unexpected circumstances,
determining the present, are perpetually turning up. Almost every man
has his convictions as to what the state of affairs will be, in the
gross, a century hence. Scarcely any man will venture a conjecture as to
what will have happened next spring. This is the very condition, if the
people could but see it, for the exercise of faith in principles. With a
dark and shifting near future, and a bright and fixed ultimate destiny,
what is the true, the only wisdom? Not to pry into the fogs and thickets
round about, or to stand still for fear of what may next occur in the
path; but to look from Eden gate behind to heaven gate before, and press
on to the certain future. In his political as in his moral life, man
should, in the depth of his ignorance and the fallibility of his
judgment, throw himself, in a full sense of security, upon principles;
and then he is safe from being depressed by opposition, or scared by
uncertainty, or depraved by responsibility.