WHY THE REVOLUTION DID NOT COME EARLIER.
Absorbed in our talk, we had not heard the steps of Dr. Leete as he
approached.
"I have been watching you for ten minutes from the house," he said,
"until, in fact, I could no longer resist the desire to know what you
find so interesting."
"Your daughter," said I, "has been proving herself a mistress of the
Socratic method. Under a plausible pretext of gross ignorance, she has
been asking me a series of easy questions, with the result that I see as
I never imagined it before the colossal sham of our pretended popular
government in America. As one of the rich I knew, of course, that we had
a great deal of power in the state, but I did not before realize how
absolutely the people were without influence in their own government."
"Aha!" exclaimed the doctor in great glee, "so my daughter gets up early
in the morning with the design of supplanting her father in his position
of historical instructor?"
Edith had risen from the garden bench on which we had been seated and was
arranging her flowers to take into the house. She shook her head rather
gravely in reply to her father's challenge.
"You need not be at all apprehensive," she said; "Julian has quite cured
me this morning of any wish I might have had to inquire further into the
condition of our ancestors. I have always been dreadfully sorry for the
poor people of that day on account of the misery they endured from
poverty and the oppression of the rich. Henceforth, however, I wash my
hands of them and shall reserve my sympathy for more deserving objects."
"Dear me!" said the doctor, "what has so suddenly dried up the fountains
of your pity? What has Julian been telling you?"
"Nothing, really, I suppose, that I had not read before and ought to have
known, but the story always seemed so unreasonable and incredible that I
never quite believed it until now. I thought there must be some modifying
facts not set down in the histories."
"But what is this that he has been telling you?"
"It seems," said Edith, "that these very people, these very masses of the
poor, had all the time the supreme control of the Government and were
able, if determined and united, to put an end at any moment to all the
inequalities and oppressions of which they complained and to equalize
things as we have done. Not only did they not do this, but they gave as a
reason for enduring their bondage that their liberties would be
endangered unless they had irresponsible masters to manage their
interests, and that to take charge of their own affairs would imperil
their freedom. I feel that I have been cheated out of all the tears I
have shed over the sufferings of such people. Those who tamely endure
wrongs which they have the power to end deserve not compassion but
contempt. I have felt a little badly that Julian should have been one of
the oppressor class, one of the rich. Now that I really understand the
matter, I am glad. I fear that, had he been one of the poor, one of the
mass of real masters, who with supreme power in their hands consented to
be bondsmen, I should have despised him."
Having thus served formal notice on my contemporaries that they must
expect no more sympathy from her, Edith went into the house, leaving me
with a vivid impression that if the men of the twentieth century should
prove incapable of preserving their liberties, the women might be trusted
to do so.
"Really, doctor," I said, "you ought to be greatly obliged to your
daughter. She has saved you lots of time and effort."
"How so, precisely?"
"By rendering it unnecessary for you to trouble yourself to explain to me
any further how and why you came to set up your nationalized industrial
system and your economic equality. If you have ever seen a desert or sea
mirage, you remember that, while the picture in the sky is very clear and
distinct in itself, its unreality is betrayed by a lack of detail, a sort
of blur, where it blends with the foreground on which you are standing.
Do you know that this new social order of which I have so strangely
become a witness has hitherto had something of this mirage effect? In
itself it is a scheme precise, orderly, and very reasonable, but I could
see no way by which it could have naturally grown out of the utterly
different conditions of the nineteenth century. I could only imagine that
this world transformation must have been the result of new ideas and
forces that had come into action since my day. I had a volume of
questions all ready to ask you on the subject, but now we shall be able
to use the time in talking of other things, for Edith has shown me in ten
minutes' time that the only wonderful thing about your organization of
the industrial system as public business is not that it has taken place,
but that it waited so long before taking place, that a nation of rational
beings consented to remain economic serfs of irresponsible masters for
more than a century after coming into possession of absolute power to
change at pleasure all social institutions which inconvenienced them."
"Really," said the doctor, "Edith has shown herself a very efficient
teacher, if an involuntary one. She has succeeded at one stroke in giving
you the modern point of view as to your period. As we look at it, the
immortal preamble of the American Declaration of Independence, away back
in 1776, logically contained the entire statement of the doctrine of
universal economic equality guaranteed by the nation collectively to its
members individually. You remember how the words run:
"'We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created
equal, with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes
destructive of these rights it is the right of the people to alter or to
abolish it and institute a new government, laying its foundations on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form as may seem most likely
to effect their safety and happiness.'
"Is it possible, Julian, to imagine any governmental system less adequate
than ours which could possibly realize this great ideal of what a true
people's government should be? The corner stone of our state is economic
equality, and is not that the obvious, necessary, and only adequate
pledge of these three birthrights--life, liberty, and happiness? What is
life without its material basis, and what is an equal right to life but a
right to an equal material basis for it? What is liberty? How can men be
free who must ask the right to labor and to live from their fellow-men
and seek their bread from the hands of others? How else can any
government guarantee liberty to men save by providing them a means of
labor and of life coupled with independence; and how could that be done
unless the government conducted the economic system upon which employment
and maintenance depend? Finally, what is implied in the equal right of
all to the pursuit of happiness? What form of happiness, so far as it
depends at all on material facts, is not bound up with economic
conditions; and how shall an equal opportunity for the pursuit of
happiness be guaranteed to all save by a guarantee of economic equality?"
"Yes," I said, "it is indeed all there, but why were we so long in seeing
it?"
"Let us make ourselves comfortable on this bench," said the doctor, "and
I will tell you what is the modern answer to the very interesting
question you raise. At first glance, certainly the delay of the world in
general, and especially of the American people, to realize that democracy
logically meant the substitution of popular government for the rule of
the rich in regulating the production and distribution of wealth seems
incomprehensible, not only because it was so plain an inference from the
idea of popular government, but also because it was one which the masses
of the people were so directly interested in carrying out. Edith's
conclusion that people who were not capable of so simple a process of
reasoning as that did not deserve much sympathy for the afflictions they
might so easily have remedied, is a very natural first impression.
"On reflection, however, I think we shall conclude that the time taken by
the world in general and the Americans in particular in finding out the
full meaning of democracy as an economic as well as a political
proposition was not greater than might have been expected, considering
the vastness of the conclusions involved. It is the democratic idea that
all human beings are peers in rights and dignity, and that the sole just
excuse and end of human governments is, therefore, the maintenance and
furtherance of the common welfare on equal terms. This idea was the
greatest social conception that the human mind had up to that time ever
formed. It contained, when first conceived, the promise and potency of a
complete transformation of all then existing social institutions, one and
all of which had hitherto been based and formed on the principle of
personal and class privilege and authority and the domination and selfish
use of the many by the few. But it was simply inconsistent with the
limitations of the human intellect that the implications of an idea so
prodigious should at once have been taken in. The idea must absolutely
have time to grow. The entire present order of economic democracy and
equality was indeed logically bound up in the first full statement of the
democratic idea, but only as the full-grown tree is in the seed: in the
one case, as in the other, time was an essential element in the evolution
of the result.
"We divide the history of the evolution of the democratic idea into two
broadly contrasted phases. The first of these we call the phase of
negative democracy. To understand it we must consider how the democratic
idea originated. Ideas are born of previous ideas and are long in
outgrowing the characteristics and limitations impressed on them by the
circumstances under which they came into existence. The idea of popular
government, in the case of America as in previous republican experiments
in general, was a protest against royal government and its abuses.
Nothing is more certain than that the signers of the immortal Declaration
had no idea that democracy necessarily meant anything more than a device
for getting along without kings. They conceived of it as a change in the
forms of government only, and not at all in the principles and purposes
of government.
"They were not, indeed, wholly without misgivings lest it might some time
occur to the sovereign people that, being sovereign, it would be a good
idea to use their sovereignty to improve their own condition. In fact,
they seem to have given some serious thought to that possibility, but so
little were they yet able to appreciate the logic and force of the
democratic idea that they believed it possible by ingenious clauses in
paper Constitutions to prevent the people from using their power to help
themselves even if they should wish to.
"This first phase of the evolution of democracy, during which it was
conceived of solely as a substitute for royalty, includes all the
so-called republican experiments up to the beginning of the twentieth
century, of which, of course, the American Republic was the most
important. During this period the democratic idea remained a mere protest
against a previous form of government, absolutely without any new
positive or vital principle of its own. Although the people had deposed
the king as driver of the social chariot, and taken the reins into their
own hands, they did not think as yet of anything but keeping the vehicle
in the old ruts and naturally the passengers scarcely noticed the change.
"The second phase in the evolution of the democratic idea began with the
awakening of the people to the perception that the deposing of kings,
instead of being the main end and mission of democracy, was merely
preliminary to its real programme, which was the use of the collective
social machinery for the indefinite promotion of the welfare of the
people at large.
"It is an interesting fact that the people began to think of applying
their political power to the improvement of their material condition in
Europe earlier than in America, although democratic forms had found much
less acceptance there. This was, of course, on account of the perennial
economic distress of the masses in the old countries, which prompted them
to think first about the bearing any new idea might have on the question
of livelihood. On the other hand, the general prosperity of the masses in
America and the comparative ease of making a living up to the beginning
of the last quarter of the nineteenth century account for the fact that
it was not till then that the American people began to think seriously of
improving their economic condition by collective action.
"During the negative phase of democracy it had been considered as
differing from monarchy only as two machines might differ, the general
use and purpose of which were the same. With the evolution of the
democratic idea into the second or positive phase, it was recognized that
the transfer of the supreme power from king and nobles to people meant
not merely a change in the forms of government, but a fundamental
revolution in the whole idea of government, its motives, purposes, and
functions--a revolution equivalent to a reversal of polarity of the
entire social system, carrying, so to speak, the entire compass card with
it, and making north south, and east west. Then was seen what seems so
plain to us that it is hard to understand why it was not always seen,
that instead of its being proper for the sovereign people to confine
themselves to the functions which the kings and classes had discharged
when they were in power, the presumption was, on the contrary, since the
interest of kings and classes had always been exactly opposed to those of
the people, that whatever the previous governments had done, the people
as rulers ought not to do, and whatever the previous governments had not
done, it would be presumably for the interest of the people to do; and
that the main use and function of popular government was properly one
which no previous government had ever paid any attention to, namely, the
use of the power of the social organization to raise the material and
moral welfare of the whole body of the sovereign people to the highest
possible point at which the same degree of welfare could be secured to
all--that is to say, an equal level. The democracy of the second or
positive phase triumphed in the great Revolution, and has since been the
only form of government known in the world."
"Which amounts to saying," I observed, "that there never was a democratic
government properly so called before the twentieth century."
"Just so," assented the doctor. "The so-called republics of the first
phase we class as pseudo-republics or negative democracies. They were
not, of course, in any sense, truly popular governments at all, but
merely masks for plutocracy, under which the rich were the real though
irresponsible rulers! You will readily see that they could have been
nothing else. The masses from the beginning of the world had been the
subjects and servants of the rich, but the kings had been above the rich,
and constituted a check on their dominion. The overthrow of the kings
left no check at all on the power of the rich, which became supreme. The
people, indeed, nominally were sovereigns; but as these sovereigns were
individually and as a class the economic serfs of the rich, and lived
at their mercy, the so-called popular government became the mere
stalking-horse of the capitalists.
"Regarded as necessary steps in the evolution of society from pure
monarchy to pure democracy, these republics of the negative phase mark a
stage of progress; but if regarded as finalities they were a type far
less admirable on the whole than decent monarchies. In respect especially
to their susceptibility to corruption and plutocratic subversion they
were the worst kind of government possible. The nineteenth century,
during which this crop of pseudo-democracies ripened for the sickle of
the great Revolution, seems to the modern view nothing but a dreary
interregnum of nondescript, _faineant_ government intervening
between the decadence of virile monarchy in the eighteenth century and
the rise of positive democracy in the twentieth. The period may be
compared to that of the minority of a king, during which the royal power
is abused by wicked stewards. The people had been proclaimed as
sovereign, but they had not yet assumed the sceptre."
"And yet," said I, "during the latter part of the nineteenth century,
when, as you say, the world had not yet seen a single specimen of popular
government, our wise men were telling us that the democratic system had
been fully tested and was ready to be judged on its results. Not a few of
them, indeed, went so far as to say that the democratic experiment had
proved a failure when, in point of fact, it seems that no experiment in
democracy, properly understood, had as yet ever been so much as
attempted."
The doctor shrugged his shoulders.
"It is a very sympathetic task," he said, "to explain the slowness of the
masses in feeling their way to a comprehension of all that the democratic
idea meant for them, but it is one equally difficult and thankless to
account for the blank failure of the philosophers, historians, and
statesmen of your day to arrive at an intelligent estimate of the logical
content of democracy and to forecast its outcome. Surely the very
smallness of the practical results thus far achieved by the democratic
movement as compared with the magnitude of its proposition and the forces
behind it ought to have suggested to them that its evolution was yet but
in the first stage. How could intelligent men delude themselves with the
notion that the most portentous and revolutionary idea of all time had
exhausted its influence and fulfilled its mission in changing the title
of the executive of a nation from king to President, and the name of the
national Legislature from Parliament to Congress? If your pedagogues,
college professors and presidents, and others who were responsible for
your education, had been worth their salt, you would have found nothing
in the present order of economic equality that would in the least have
surprised you. You would have said at once that it was just what you had
been taught must necessarily be the next phase in the inevitable
evolution of the democratic idea."
Edith beckoned from the door and we rose from our seat.
"The revolutionary party in the great Revolution," said the doctor, as we
sauntered toward the house, "carried on the work of agitation and
propaganda under various names more or less grotesque and ill-fitting as
political party names were apt to be, but the one word democracy, with
its various equivalents and derivatives, more accurately and completely
expressed, explained, and justified their method, reason, and purpose
than a library of books could do. The American people fancied that they
had set up a popular government when they separated from England, but
they were deluded. In conquering the political power formerly exercised
by the king, the people had but taken the outworks of the fortress of
tyranny. The economic system which was the citadel and commanded every
part of the social structure remained in possession of private and
irresponsible rulers, and so long as it was so held, the possession of
the outworks was of no use to the people, and only retained by the
sufferance of the garrison of the citadel. The Revolution came when the
people saw that they must either take the citadel or evacuate the
outworks. They must either complete the work of establishing popular
government which had been barely begun by their fathers, or abandon all
that their fathers had accomplished."