A PROPERLY QUALIFIED ELECTORATE WILL REMOVE THE CAUSES OF THE
PREVALENT POPULAR DISSATISFACTION AND SERVE AS A DEFENSE AGAINST
THE PRESENT MENACE OF BOLSHEVISM.
The institution of unlimited suffrage is favorable to the various
radical, anti-social movements which for convenience sake may here be
conjointly designated as Bolshevism. It is thus favorable in three
important particulars, one being a matter of principle and the two
others matters of practice. The error in principle is the adoption of
the theory of numbers as the sole source of political authority, in
direct disregard of the just claims of property and property rights, and
resultingly to the detriment of efficiency, justice and civilization.
That the scheme of government by mere numbers is Bolshevik in character
is plain enough. It had its origin in the French Terror which was a
Bolshevik regime. It accords no direct representation or place in
government to property or the rights of property; which are left to take
their chance in the shuffle of politics. As long as property is deprived
of its proper place in the constitution of our government and is denied
representation in the electorate, it is an alien, without security for
its existence; and only here by sufferance. Bolshevism, which actually
deprives private property of all right to exist, goes further than
unlimited suffrage which merely ignores it, but both are upon the same
track, and move in the same direction. The second particular in which
manhood suffrage has favored Bolshevism is by corrupting and degrading
the operations of American democracy and bringing into disrepute as has
been shown. And third, it has aided Bolshevism by admitting an
anti-social element into the electorate and thus decreasing the
offensive and defensive power of the democratic régime, as has also
been shown.
And now that we are under the menace of Bolshevism, let us for one
moment consider the extent and the character of that menace. It has
seized a large part of Russia; it has found a lodging in Germany,
France, Italy, Spain and the United States, and threatens every
democratic nation where democracy is inefficient. It is an organized and
widespread attempt at the destruction of property and of all who own
property; of society and civilization and of all who support society and
civilization. It is not a new or a momentary phenomenon. Though
operating under new names it is as old and persistent as ignorance and
brutality. Over five centuries ago it appeared in England in Wat Tyler’s
insurrection identical in spirit with the French Revolutionary Terror
which from 1789 to 1798 ravaged France and has been the source of nearly
all her subsequent misfortunes. By its violent actions and reactions it
became the indirect yet certain cause of the despotic rule and constant
wars of the time of Napoleon I. and of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870,
which left France again almost ruined; and it reappeared in the horrors
of the Paris commune in 1871. Let not the reader of moderate means and
large selfishness solace himself with the thought that, should it obtain
here, though our great capitalists may suffer, he will escape. The
finish of capitalists is the end of capital; and the end of capital is
the finish of us all. And the reader’s interest in this matter measured
by the extent of his personal peril is probably nearly equal to that of
any of his richer neighbors. In France in 1793 the Terrorists spared no
one who was respectable. The only safety was to go in rags or to join
the revolutionary army. People were slain because they were clergymen or
nuns; because they were prosperous; because their friends were
prosperous; because they were conservative in opinion or well dressed;
because they were religious; because they were suspected of any of these
things. Some of the Reds of that day were planning to butcher half of
France, when stopped by Napoleon’s timely usurpation. The Bolsheviki of
today are if possible more ignorant, cruel, brutal and murderous than
the French radicals of a century ago. It is their declared intention to
do away with all but the laboring classes, who they say should alone
enjoy the fruits of the earth. They repudiate all private property
rights, and consider property owners, great and small, as public
enemies. The right to own and hold private property is therefore now
openly and fiercely challenged throughout the world, and the challenge
must be accepted just as Germany’s challenge was accepted. The entire
structure of our civilization is endangered by this attack. Without
private property neither the home nor the family can exist; when private
property is abolished chaos will come again.
Bolshevism has obtained a lodgment in the United States. We must
disabuse our minds of the notion that this is a foreign menace which can
be got rid of by deporting a hundred or a few hundred aliens a year.
Bolshevism is a theory; a state of mind likely to appear in any race of
people under certain circumstances. The so-called Independent Workers of
the World (I.W.W.s) are largely native Americans. Under the present or
any other social system including the ownership of private property, the
capable, saving and industrious will have, and the others will lack; and
as those who lack are frequently deficient in morals and judgment as
well as in prudence and industry, there will be envy, covetousness and
discontent; which being joined to a profound ignorance of economic law,
will produce Bolshevism. All these elements are here in America, where
the enemies of society have sometimes shown themselves in force, even in
the last century; for instance, in Shay’s rebellion in Massachusetts in
the year 1790. Heretofore, their numbers have been small, owing to our
peculiar circumstances, notably our immense land offerings to all
corners; but times have changed, and American Bolshevism is here under
conditions which make it a serious menace.
Let not the reader fool himself with the prophecy that the spirit of
Bolshevism will disappear from Europe with the advent of spelling books
and newspapers into the homes of European laborers, artisans and
peasants. Quite the contrary. As well expect good family morals to come
from reading obscene literature, as expect good business or political
principles to issue from most of the rubbish printed by the decadents of
today. The Bolshevik leaders are often literary men. It is not the lack
of spelling and reading, but the want of sound economic principles that
characterizes the assassins of Society; and the only school which
provides popular instruction in true economics is the school of
business, which Bolshevism is determined utterly to destroy.
Neither must we count on Bolshevism dying out of itself here, for lack
of congenial soil or atmosphere. People love to imagine miracles, and we
hear a lot of nonsense about America’s wonderful power of assimilating
foreigners; as if there was some marvelous quality in our air to change
the ideas and disperse the prejudices of immigrants. The fact is, that
many of the so-called American qualities are merely such human
characteristics as develop everywhere under conditions of well-repaid
industry. The acquisition of property operates very quickly in every
country, to modify the habits and character of any man previously poor;
and the real cause of the personal changes referred to under the phrase
“national assimilation” is material prosperity. In this new and open
country, just as in Australia and South America, there has been great
opportunity to turn energy into cash; and the foreigners whom we readily
assimilated were those who made money, and became very like prosperous
Americans. They have been educated in the business school, and they will
never be Bolshevists. But the class of immigrants who remain paupers
will not be so easily converted to a doctrine which offers them nothing;
and they will find leaders in the group which, though acquainted with
books, is inefficient in business, unsuccessful and discontented. And
the pauperized, defeated, shiftless classes of Americans are likely to
turn to Bolshevism, for the same reasons as foreigners under the same
circumstances. Men who are failures in life, no matter what their
nationality, are not to be trusted to do justice to the successful ones,
nor to vote to protect property or property rights. Wherever the
principles of political economy are not understood, there is a field for
Bolshevism; and they are not understood by the working classes in the
United States. The propaganda of organized discontent is very active
among us; and its activities are not likely to diminish. Thousands of
Americans, disappointed in life, are also disappointed at seeing their
government in the clutches of an oligarchy of sordid politicians. And
these conditions may grow worse with the growth and expansion of
industry and commerce, with the increase of legislative meddling with
business, and the increasing tendency of business acting in
self-protection to endeavor to improperly control legislation and
politics. If nothing be done to remedy this state of things who knows
how many Americans will be found to be on the side of the Bolsheviki
when the time comes for a settlement of the question between us and
them?
There is cause for a serious apprehension of an attack by organized
Bolshevism upon our democracy if proper measures are not adopted to
further protect property rights, and if the present political
oligarchical misgovernment is permitted to continue unchecked. In that
day it may be that in the large cities the enemies of the social order
will be championed by one or two yellow newspapers, and their cause be
taken up by one of the political organizations. The result might be such
as to make the property classes regret their apathy. The material for an
efficient radical political army already exists in the organized
controllables who now manage the primaries under direction of the
bosses; in the politically unattached hordes of irresponsible city
voters; in the village loafers; in the immense number of irresponsible
women politically and economically ignorant and easily moved to violent
emotion. There are at this moment in every city in the United States
hundreds of writers, school teachers, and college educated youths of
both sexes, superficial, fluent of speech, ambitious, ready for
anything; and as ignorant of economic law as a common laborer. Of such
would be the leaders of the Bolsheviki movement. On the other hand the
able youth of America, the well-educated, gifted young business men,
those of high ideals, patriotic, disinterested, energetic; those of the
class upon whom every country should rely for its working leadership in
civics, are mostly unavailable to defend society in such an emergency,
because they are untrained in public affairs, unknown to the public;
have been kept in the rear out of sight; not permitted to seek public
employment; the places they ought to fill occupied by the cheap tools of
the machine; most of them indifferent to politics; despising its
incidents; scarcely willing to vote. From them no quick help could be
expected in such a case.
As for the political oligarchical managers at present in power, from
them no aid can ever be expected in any good cause. They are mere
time-servers. In fact the politician is the natural enemy of the
propertied and capitalistic class. Already, there are plain indications
that the universal suffrage governing oligarchy stands ready to
sacrifice American property rights. For example, the Vice President of
the United States once said in a public speech in the hearing of the
writer that there is no natural right in children to inherit from their
parents. Here is a glimpse of a politician’s heaven; where all the
property in this country will be at the behest of these organized
brigands. In fact, a step in the direction of confiscation of private
property has already been taken, both here and in England, by the
enactment of the lately invented Inheritance Tax Laws. Consider how that
so-called tax can be made a ready means of Mexicanizing the nation by
confiscating a large part of its accumulated capital, and by destroying
at the same time much of the incentive to future accumulations. A nation
which is supported by inheritance taxes is like a spendthrift living off
his capital whose ultimate ruin is therefore sure. Let a large fortune
pass three times through the Probate Court, which might easily happen in
twenty years, and about half of it is gone in taxes, to be dissipated,
squandered and stolen by politicians. The taste of blood is good to a
hungry beast. After despoiling large fortunes they are already beginning
to attack smaller ones. A full treasury encourages waste, and so it goes
on. How many of the ne’er do wells whom universal suffrage calls to the
polls, are aware or could possibly be made to realize, the value of
stored up capital, or to understand that the accumulations of money
called private fortunes which are thus being broken up and wasted, are
the only sources from which enterprise is daily being fed, and millions
of workmen and workwomen employed and paid?
Under a universal suffrage régime, government leadership in opposition
to Bolshevism cannot be relied upon, and without such leadership it is
doubtful if proper resistance to Bolshevism can be expected at the hands
of the American people. They are utterly destitute of political power,
are without organization and guidance or the material for either. They
have never been able to effectually resist the bosses; politically they
are a lot of sheep, accustomed to say “baa” and to follow the old bell
wethers. It is probable that any party organization having control of
the election and governmental machinery could speedily, if it chose, put
the proletariat in possession of the government of the manufacturing
states, such as New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Illinois. In
case of government ownership of transportation and intelligence
utilities, the party in power might, in aid of this purpose, get control
of a couple of million additional votes. After that, who knows what
next? It might then be too late for us to throw off the yoke; like the
French of 1793, like the Russians of today, we might find ourselves a
subjugated people. People say that in the end truth and justice must
triumph; but that phrase “in the end” is portentous. The end of
Bolshevism might be delayed for a half century of wasteful struggle,
wherein the immediate generation and most of its belongings would
probably perish.
To successfully meet the Bolshevist attacks whether made by propaganda
or violence, we should thoroughly cleanse our politics and restore our
government to its original high place in the respect of the people. It
was said in our first chapter that the American democracy has not
fulfilled its early promise of creating a government popular in the
sense of good and economical public service. Had the political record of
the first forty years of the Republic been equalled by that of the
following ninety, it is possible that our example would have saved the
world from organized Bolshevism. We may choose to shut our eyes to the
story of corruption and inefficiency outlined in the foregoing pages,
but the rest of the world has not failed to read it and to comment on
it. Large numbers of the discontented classes of Europe have interpreted
that dismal chronicle to mean the failure of democracy, and have turned
to red radicalism. It is notorious that the principal leaders of Russian
Bolshevism are native Russians who have lived in America; and the
accounts of the falling off of democracy within this country, which were
carried back home by them, and by thousands of their countrymen here, no
doubt featured largely in the spread of Bolshevik doctrines there. They
had heard the praises of American democracy trumpeted abroad, and they
came here to see and take part in its perfect work; they found the
country in the hands of sordid, corrupt and inefficient politicians, and
they turned from democracy in despair. Seeing the misuse of money in our
politics, they decided that the power of money should be abolished
altogether. Like ourselves, they overlooked completely the fact that the
real cause of the diseased condition of our American political life is
not the purchasing power of money, but the existence of a purchasable
electorate. Recently a man wrote to a New York daily paper, urging that
the way to win immigrants to love America, was to teach them the lessons
of patriotism found in American history. This patriotic writer only
thought of history as found in the school treatises, and utterly
ignored the fact that these immigrants are actually learning
contemporary American history every day from our newspapers. He wanted
them, he said, to be told of Washington, Franklin and Robert Morris. But
the immigrant soon learns that not only are those great men dead, but
that their successors in power are and are likely to continue to be, a
lot of ignorant, greedy and unscrupulous modern politicians. As well
tell the modern Greek to be satisfied with political rascality there,
because Aristides the Just lived in Athens thousands of years ago.
No one can doubt that a similar feeling of political disappointment with
the workings of our government, of hatred and contempt for our oligarchy
of politicians, of want of faith in the honesty, integrity, ability and
earnestness of those in power, is largely responsible for the progress
of American socialism, for other organized protests against the
democratic system and for that phenomenon frequently referred to as
“popular unrest.”
Elihu Root in the _North American Review_ for December, 1919, refers to
Roosevelt, when president about twelve years ago, as recognizing the
existence of this popular dissatisfaction, that “a steadily certainly
growing discontent was making its way among the people of our country”
and that millions were “then beginning to feel that our free
institutions were failing.” But Roosevelt was too much of a politician
himself to dare to touch the real sore spot, or to propose to cut out
the cancer, and neither Root nor Roosevelt, nor any other noted
politician has assigned any adequate cause for the unrest of these
times. The fact is that the public has come to despise in its heart a
political system in which weakness and rascality are so prominent.
Roosevelt went up and down, says Root, making frantic appeals for
obedience to law. The American people, of whom there are millions just
as honest and common-senseful as Roosevelt, know that the law must be
obeyed as a practical rule of business; but they refuse to implicitly
believe in the wisdom, honesty or sanctity of statutes and ordinances
promulgated by an oligarchy of place-hunting politicians. There is no
substantial difference between the attitude towards this oligarchy taken
by the thrifty honest working class and that of the honest mercantile or
professional class; they are all dissatisfied with our governmental
system for the same reason; namely, because it is morally and
intellectually unworthy of the American people. Jealousy of great
fortunes has been mentioned as a possible cause of the popular
discontent. But the bulk of the American people are not so meanly and
stupidly envious as that suggestion would imply. They are no more
inclined to envy a man his honestly acquired wealth than his superior
health, strength, musical talent or the acquisition of a foreign
language. The honest rich live plainly; they work hard and they give
munificently and wisely; they are not in power; the people know it and
would much prefer them to the ruling horde which now afflicts us.
Roosevelt himself was in the eyes of the masses a rich man, but he was
very popular and all the more so because he was known to be pecuniarily
independent. The cause of the public dissatisfaction is not the doings
of the rich, but the misdoings of the grafting politicians. The latter
go about wondering at the cause of what they call “unrest,” when they
themselves are that cause. The intelligent workers of modest incomes,
farmers, mechanics, traders, professional men, clerks, etc., see with
their own eyes a lot of ignorant, sordid knaves obtain undeserved public
offices and honors and graft themselves into wealth, and they partly
envy and completely dislike and despise the whole lot. Thence it follows
that transactions between the politicians and business men of all kinds
become distrusted by the public, who are ready to suspect all railroad
and other corporations, all importing and manufacturing interests which
are affected by legislation or governmental action, whether tariff,
taxation, rate regulation or otherwise, of bribery, fraud and corruption
in all transactions with government or wherein government officials are
concerned. The people are also dissatisfied because the office-holding
class is weak and lacking in dignity and firmness. The attitude of a
public official with his ear to the ground is low and brings him into
contempt. The public finds too much smartness and cleverness and too
little manly pride and directness in our machine-made rulers. They find
that they lack courage to do affirmative justice with due speed; that
they are able to do nothing without first being assured of a majority at
their backs. Their decisions are governed not by the application of
principles but by a process of additions and subtractions; they are not
leaders of the people but followers of the rabble. And this slavish
cowardice has been increased since the votes of women are being sought
by new forms of pandering. If we want the people to respect and love the
government we must give them one worthy of respect and love. To ensure
the loyalty and devotion of the immigrant as well as of the native, we
must make our political institutions as nearly perfect as possible; we
must offer for the support of the American people a government like that
of the Fathers; pure, patriotic and efficient, one that can command
respect as well as enforce obedience.
We have reaffirmed our belief in democracy as a method of government and
have asked the rest of the world to accept it, and we are therefore
called upon to point to a method for its practical operation. The only
method heretofore found practical, the only one we are prepared to
offer, is representative government. Unless that system can be made to
work well the experiment of democracy will have been a practical
failure. We are bound to see to it that this does not happen, that
representative government be made a working success, that it operate
with justice, efficiency, economy and humanity. That it has not
heretofore operated here or in any part of the world with anything near
perfect satisfaction is admitted by its strongest supporters. The
friends of democracy are therefore called upon to correct the situation;
in the slang of the day, “it is up to us to make good.” This is a part
of the national and world work which we Americans have undertaken; it is
a continuation of the enterprise of making the world “safe for
democracy.” Should it fail hereafter it will be as though it had failed
in the German war, and the world would be left to Autocracy, Socialism
and Bolshevism to divide between them. It is the claim of the enemies of
representative democracy, who are numerous, and many of them very
intelligent, that it never can be made successful; that it has failed
not only in France, Italy, Spain and Greece but in Great Britain and the
United States; and that its failure is due to lack of quality in the
electorate, that is to say, in the mass of the population. And these
critics are no doubt so far right, that whatever may be the practical
shortcomings of the system of representative government they are due to
that very cause. Therefore, it is plainly our business to make
representative government a success by the only method practicable or
possible, namely, by a reform, elevation and purification of the
electorate.
Our second step in the way of preparation to meet the menace of
Bolshevism is to take a definite stand for property rights, based upon
the plain doctrine that our government is designed and intended to
protect American civilization expressed as all civilization is
expressed, in terms of property. If we did not believe that, if it were
not true, then we might as well at once surrender to Bolshevism. But it
is not enough that it is accepted as true by all the wise and thoughtful
among us. To meet the exigency now before us we must formulate that
doctrine, proclaim it, make a creed of it, and teach it to our children
and to the ignorant. We cannot expect to destroy Bolshevism by merely
using strong language about it. Its strength is partly due to its
courage and consistency. To oppose it we must be courageous and
consistent. We must meet the attack on property by arming property with
weapons of self-defense. Political attack must be met by political
action. When fundamentals are assailed foundations must be strengthened.
We must weave property rights into the very fabric of our political life
and make them an essential part of Americanism. Seven-eighths of our
adult men are owners of or interested in property. They should take
steps to make their rights therein absolutely secure by creating a
private property electorate. Universal suffrage, manhood suffrage, and
every other similar anti-social heresy should be expunged from our
statute books. Manhood suffrage which formerly spelled merely thievery
and plundering, now spells destruction. And female suffrage is even
worse, a plain, palpable, odious and contemptible humbug and
abomination, a malignant source of peril. The fight against Bolshevism
can only be conducted on principles which exclude from the ballot box
every form of practical inefficiency. There is no place for ignorance,
dependency, and sentimentalism, feminine or other, in an efficient
democracy.