_Secretary People’s Party National Committee_
There are phenomena a-plenty, said the _New York World_ editorially
(December 31), “which unmistakably foretell a new party and a new issue
in American affairs. It comes in a multitude of shapes and clothed in a
multitude of garments.”
Coming from the source it does, this utterance is significant. There is
no doubt about the existence of the phenomena, but your conservative
usually delights in playing ostrich. Personally I would like to question
the accuracy of the _World’s_ forecast—for I contend that we have now
more political parties than economic conditions warrant—but regard for
truth requires affirmation instead of denial. The new party is bound to
come.
“Mr. Bryan,” the _World_ continued, “has already defined it (the new
party) in terms of triple state socialism—city ownership, State ownership
and national ownership of all public utilities.”
Granting that this is correct, it is not hard to see that a new party
is superfluous, for the People’s Party now covers this ground; and the
Democratic Party has in places adopted a portion of the program.
The public mind, however, is thinking of a new party—and that settles it.
The arguments of a few feeble individuals cannot change public opinion.
So let us accept the inevitable and try to make the best of it.
The new party, it is safe to say, will pre-empt a large portion of the
ground now occupied by the People’s Party. It will declare for true
democracy. It will adopt one of two methods in making its declarations.
It may, in a few well worded paragraphs, state fundamental principles of
democracy, avoiding the peculiar isms of the various factions which will
be brought together in the new organization; or it may attempt to frame a
plank acceptable to each of the factions. It is needless to say that the
former will lay the foundation for success, while the latter will give
rise to dissensions and result, finally, in disintegration.
But I do not wish to suggest a platform for the new party. Able men will
be present at its birth, and they will know what to do. I do wish to be
heard, however, on the question of name for the infant party.
Populists well know that for the past four years I have fought
persistently against changing the People’s Party name. I have freely
admitted its faults, but have insisted that a faulty name is less
dangerous than a change. The organization of a new party presents a
different problem. A new name is necessary.
What shall it be?
Viewed superficially there are many good names which might be adopted;
but when subjected to careful analysis, the number dwindles down to a
very few. I take it that the name should indicate the predominant feature
of the party; that it should be but one word, and that word short,
preferably of three syllables, not explosive or difficult to pronounce,
but capable of being uttered easily; that whether used as noun or
adjective no change is necessary; that it should not be an unusual or a
newly coined word, but one the meaning of which, in its generic sense, is
now well understood by, or at least familiar to the public.
A year or so ago a writer in _The Public_ (Chicago) suggested Isocrat,
one who believes in equal rule; and Orthocrat, one who believes in
good rule—both charming names but violating what I believe to be very
important: that the name should not be unusual, newly coined, or
unfamiliar to the public. Isocrat, isocratic, isocracy; orthocrat,
orthocratic, orthocracy. Ingenious inventions, but hardly suited to our
purpose.
Several persons in the past few years, notably Rev. John V. Potts,
of Ohio, have made good arguments in favor of “The People’s
Democratic-Republican Party.” I shall not discuss this further than to
suggest that a 27-letter name is too long; and that to designate a member
of the party would require a hopeless amount of circumlocution.
“Home Rule,” “American,” etc., have been suggested; but a little thought
will disclose their weak points.