The story is told of the late President Garfield that in the heat
of a political campaign one of his lieutenants suggested that he
adopt an exceedingly questionable policy. When Mr. Garfield
objected, his lieutenant replied, "No one will know it." "But I
shall know," was the quick reply.
--"To thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
--_Hamlet, Act I, Sc. 3_.
Wealth and power are worthy goals for which to strive. One of the
first duties of a political party is to capture the offices, for
without them in its power it cannot carry out the principles for
which it stands. The possession of wealth represents vast
possibilities for service. Thousands of tragic experiments have
demonstrated, however, the fallacy of the seductive doctrine that
the end justifies the means. The tragedy that overshadows many of
the seemingly most successful men of to-day is the memory of the
iniquitous methods whereby they have acquired wealth or mounted to
power. Lavish philanthropy and the beneficent use of power can
never wholly blot out from the public mind or from the mind of the
successful man the memory of certain questionable acts that at the
time seemed essential to the realization of a great policy.
A keen, well-informed student of modern economic conditions has
asserted that no man can succeed in business life today and remain
true to the teachings of Jesus. Is this true? Is it true in
professional life? Is it true in politics? One of our most
prominent statesmen has said that he would have found it impossible
to succeed and maintain his independence if he had been compelled
to earn his living. He would have been compelled either to yield
to the boss or quit politics. Who are some of the men in public
life who are gaining success and yet maintaining Christian
principles? If the ultimate ideal of real success is service, is
there any other way in which men may obtain success? Is this true
of every department of human effort? Does this principle make it
possible for every man, however limited his ability and
opportunities, to attain real success?
_Questions for Further Consideration_.
How would you define genius? Edison called it 2% of inspiration
and 98% of perspiration. (But see James, _Talks to Teachers_.)
Is the chief difference between the successful and the unsuccessful
man the ability to recognize and seize opportunities?
Would Joseph's policy in dealing with Pharaoh's subjects meet with
public approval to-day?
Could Joseph have succeeded as well in a republic?
Does Joseph's land policy justify the single tax? Or serfdom such
as Joseph countenanced?
What place does loyalty to humble friends and kinsmen take in the
making of great and noble characters?
Would you say that the ultimate standard of all real success is
service?
Would it be wise for the state to enforce service for the public
good by a heavy, progressive inheritance tax?
What justification is there for such a modification of Joseph's
land policy, as the single tax? (See George, _Progress and
Poverty_; Seligman, _Essays on Taxation_, 64-94.)
Do you think that a man earning his own living can expect to-day to
succeed in politics and maintain his self-respect as an independent
thinker?
_Subjects for Further Study_.
(1) The Origin and Literary Form of the Joseph Narratives. Kent,
_Student's O. T_. I, 126-127; Hastings, _Dict. Bible_ II, 767-769;
Smith, _O. T. History_, 54-55.
(2) Contemporary Parallels to the Joseph of the Biblical
Narratives. Hastings' _Dict. Bible_ II, 772-775.
(3) Compare and Contrast the Achievements of Joseph, Bismarck and
Cecil Rhodes.