"Public opinion," says Buckle, "being the voice of the average man, is
the voice of mediocrity." Is it therefore so very wise and infallible
a guide as to be accepted without other credentials than its name and
fame? Ought we to follow its light and leading with no better assurance
of the character of its authority than a count of noses of those
following it already, and with no inquiry as to whether it has not on
many former occasions let them and their several sets of predecessors
into bogs of error and over precipices to "eternal mock?" Surely
"the average man," as every one knows him, is not very wise, not very
learned, not very good; how is it that his views, of so intricate and
difficult matters as those of which public opinion makes pronouncement
through him are entitled to such respect? It seems to me that the
average man, as I know him, is very much a fool, and something of a
rogue as well. He has only a smattering of education, knows virtually
nothing of political history, nor history of any kind, is incapable of
logical, that is to say clear, thinking, is subject to the suasion of
base and silly prejudices, and selfish beyond expression. That such
a person's opinions should be so obviously better than my own that
I should accept them instead, and assist in enacting them into laws,
appears to me most improbable. I may "bow to the will of the people"
as gracefully as a defeated candidate, and for the same reason, namely,
that I can not help myself; but to admit that I was wrong in my belief
and flatter the power that subdues me--no, that I will not do. And if
nobody would do so the average man would not be so very cock-sure of
his infallibility and might sometimes consent to be counseled by his
betters.
In any matter of which the public has imperfect knowledge, public
opinion is as likely to be erroneous as is the opinion of an individual
equally uninformed. To hold otherwise is to hold that wisdom can be got
by combining many ignorances. A man who knows nothing of algebra can
not be assisted in the solution of an algebraic problem by calling in
a neighbor who knows no more than himself, and the solution approved
by the unanimous vote of ten million such men would count for nothing
against that of a competent mathematician. To be entirely consistent,
gentlemen enamored of public opinion should insist that the text books
of our common schools should be the creation of a mass meeting, and all
disagreements arising in the course of the work settled by a majority
vote. That is how all difficulties incident to the popular translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures were composed. It should be admitted, however
that most of those voting knew a little Hebrew, though not much. A
problem in mathematics is a very simple thing compared with many of
those upon which the people are called to pronounce by resolution and
ballot--for example, a question of finance.
"The voice of the people is the voice of God"--the saying is so
respectably old that it comes to us in the Latin. He is a strange, an
unearthly politician who has not a score of times publicly and solemnly
signified his faith in it But does anyone really believe it? Let us see.
In the period between 1859 and 1885, the Democratic party was defeated
six times in succession. The voice of the people pronounced it in error
and unfit to govern. Yet after each overthrow it came back into the
field gravely reaffirming its faith in the principles that God had
condemned. Then God twice reversed Himself, and the Republicans "never
turned a hair," but set about beating Him with as firm a confidence of
success (justified by the event) as they had known in the years of their
prosperity. Doubtless in every instance of a political party's defeat
there are defections, but doubtless not all are due to the voice that
spoke out of the great white light that fell about Saul of Tarsus. By
the way, it is worth observing that that clever gentleman was under no
illusion regarding the origin of the voice that wrought his celebrated
"flop"; he did not confound it with the _vox populi_ The people of
his time and place had no objection to the persecution that he was
conducting, and could persecute a trifle themselves upon occasion.
Majorities rule, when they do rule, not because they ought, but because
they can. We vote in order to learn without fighting which party is the
stronger; it is less disagreeable to learn it that way than the other
way. Sometimes the party that is numerically the weaker is by possession
of the Government actually the stronger, and could maintain itself in
power by an appeal to arms, but the habit of submitting when outvoted
is hard to break. Moreover, we all recognize in a subconscious way, the
reasonableness of the habit as a practical method of getting on; and
there is always the confident hope of success in the next canvass. That
one's cause will succeed because it ought to succeed is perhaps the most
general and invincible folly affecting the human judgment Observation
can not shake it, nor experience destroy. Though you bray a partisan in
the mortar of adversity till he numbers the strokes of the pestle by the
hairs of his head, yet will not this fool notion depart from him. He is
always going to win the next time, however frequently and disastrously
he has lost before. And he can always give you the most cogent reasons
for the faith that is in him. His chief reliance is on the "fatal
mistakes" made since the last election by the other party. There never
was a year in which the party in power and the party out of power did
not make bad mistakes--mistakes which, unlike eggs and fish, seem always
worst when freshest. If idiotic errors of policy were always fatal, no
party would ever win an election and there would be a hope of better
government under the benign sway of the domestic cow.