Слике страница
PDF
ePub

acter, particularly in the favoured classes, and its drawbacks in the way of inhuman competition, industrial exploitation, wastefulness, and the cultivation of greed, have often been pointed out, and cannot be discussed here. To-day the question is an urgent one

whether democracy is wedded to thoroughgoing individual ism, that is, individualism unbal anced by equally strong social interests; whether "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" inevitably means selfishness established as the reigning order in politics and business."

[ocr errors]

"I

That question may easily go by
default on the individualistic side, if
critical patriotism does not insist
upon a rational decision. Recently,
for example, a cable despatch re
ported Lord Rhondda, food con-
troller in Great Britain, as declaring
that he intends to play socialist for
the remainder of the war, but will
then go back to individualism.
believe," he adds, "that the driving
force in human affairs is selfishness.
No doubt matters were so arranged
by a discerning Providence"!—a re-
mark which shows how easy it is
for a British aristocrat to share the
Kaiser's comfortable assurance that
the order of things which puts him
in the dominant class is divine. It is
curious how this assumption of self-
ishness as the inevitable dynamic of
life persists in the field of practical
politics after it has been overthrown
and banished in the field of ethics.
Men who would scorn the domination
of greed in their own private lives
continue to maintain that of course
other men must be under that domi-
nation. For instance, an American

*If, as is often maintained, selfish indi-
vidualism is, in the last analysis, the real
on our
American policy, then the motto
coins raises the question whether we do not
trust in God (if, indeed, we do!) because we
will not trust one another; and whether it
would not be more honest to express our
real sentiments in the frank maxim, "Every
man for himself."

5

of some prominence in politics, who
before our entry into the war stoutly
championed the idea assumed in
Lord Rhondda's obiter dictum, has
within the past year given two sons
to the cause of the nation and liter-
ally worked himself to death in its
behalf! The actual truth vaguely
apprehended in the common selfish
view appears to be, that men who
have no more interesting goals before
them will naturally take to the ad-
ventures of private gain. Slackers and
other weaklings apart, men must have
an outlet for their energies; and, in
lack of a higher end which has ap-
But the world
peal for them, they will inevitably
pursue a lower one.
abounds in evidence, and perhaps
never more than to-day, that there
are things which men, regardless of
class, value more than the recruiting
of their pockets. The real problem in
both ethics and politics is to bring
these higher interests into the field
of life.

If this is true of men individually,
why should it be different with them
collectively? Is it urged that democ
racies have arisen as reactions from
governmental oppression; that they
are outcomes and expressions of re-
volt from authority, and therefore
stand for the individual as opposed
to the collective interest? This argu-
ment evidently applies only to the
first stages of democratic develop-
ment. It is a pertinent consideration
enough as regards the new Russia;
but what native American is individ-
ualistic through his personal reaction
from tyranny? Whatever may be true
of our adopted citizens, the native-
born appear to be individualists, and
too often thoughtless and selfish in-
dividualists, more through tradition
and suggestion than any other cause.
That kind of life constituted the way
of their fathers; it is the way of the
vicinage; and it is
men in their
adopted and followed with little
enough thought as to whether some
other way may not be more rational.

Without taking up the issue between individualism and socialism, beyond expressing the faith that human intelligence can find a via media preferable to either of these extremes, I wish to point out the need of a supreme national interest, or ideal, as a greatly needed factor in our American life. That a definite aim is needful for success in personal affairs is a familiar truth. "Aimless activity" and "an aimless life" are terms of reprobation in common use. A worthy goal kept in view is what forefends vacillation and waste and what incites, inspires, and releases latent potencies. Teleology, however disputable in cosmology and physics, is firmly established in biology, psy chology, and ethics. Nothing that lives can be adequately accounted for without reference to ends served by its functions. Aristotle long ago made this truth the corner-stone of his ethics; and St. Paul, we remember, declared that "we are saved by hope," that is, through the incitement of a desired and expected end.

Now, a nation is, also, a thing of life, an organism in a real, if not a literal, sense-a great unitary human group with a rational internal structure, far reaching, mutually serving functions, and distinctive needs and purposes. No more than an individual can such an organism thrive without an aim, a seriously chosen end, which shall call forth its energies, direct its course, and satisfy its aspirations. And what is the aim, or ideal, of the United States of America? At present, since we realise (at the eleventh hour) that our liberties and our security are seriously menaced from abroad, we are substantially one in our determination to defend ourselves to the utmost; which, indeed, is well. But in the nature of the case this collective end will be transitory. What shall we live for when the war is over? For mere individual advantage once more? With no higher collective pur

pose than that of keeping our policeman government as decent as possible? Shall we like sheep all go astray again, turning "every man to his own way"? This will quite certainly be the outcome, if we do not take effective means to the contrary; that is, find some effective progressive interest to draw us on to new endeavours.

To what then shall we turn? World peace is an impressive objective just now, but it will not suffice as an abiding aim; for it is a negative interest, and so commanding only in times of stress. Nor is there anything in mere peace to prevent internal decay and rottenness, as we see in the widespread official corruption of China, that most pacific of empires. That the German militarists exaggerate this truth is no proof that it is not a truth. Neither will our great task of the nineteenth century, that of subduing our part of the continent, suffice. Abundant scope for physical progress in our land still exists, of course, but such possible progress is no longer great enough relatively, nor urgent enough, to absorb the nation's energies in a dominant way, and to constitute its prime task to the subordination of other interests.

Certainly no doctrinaire or utopian ideal will meet our needs. AngloSaxons, unlike the French of 1789, and the Russians of 1917, cannot take a dream-born programme seriously, Our objectives must be in some real touch with our experience; they must be the outgrowth of things which we know because we have tried them, and in which in a measure our interest is already aroused. Nor will any predominantly altruistic ideal win and hold the devotion of our people. Egoism-not selfishness, be it observed is strongly intrenched in American life. International altruism would wear the aspect of knighterrantry to our people-something to be relegated to foreign missionaries and an occasional Chinese Gordon.

Even Americans of altruistic temper would perceive that a philanthropic foreign policy would be fruitful in suspicions and antagonisms on the part of other peoples, whereas a policy to be truly American, conceived, let us say, in the spirit of America's welcome to the foreignborn, must be nationally inclusive, with a fraternal welcome for the fellow-activity, whether emulative or co-operative, of other peoples.

Of course, the chosen end must have charm, and that too for all our many diverse classes and racial elements. It must have practical aspects for the men of affairs, promise of social advance and betterment for the progressive-minded, and æsthetic and emotional possibilities for the moral idealists. Moreover, in contrast to the Utopias, it must be a policy rather than an established condition—a line of action toward an onward moving type of life, a type including all our worthy interests and aptitudes, and capable of assimilating new interests as these arise and of adjusting itself to the new facts of a developing world.*

Is such an aim, so variously char. acterised, possible? I venture think that it may be framed by sim

to

*It may be well to add that the national policy should be frankly avowed; for a vague diplomacy is easily regarded by foreign governments as intriguing or even perfidious. There is reason to think that one source of our success with the "Monroe Doctrine" has been our outspokenness, which has enabled other nations to count upon our course with confidence and govern their action accordingly. It is not unlikely that had Great Britain been committed to the defence of Belgium and the support of France in recent and clearly authoritative utterances, the present war would have been averted, at least for a considerable period; and it is highly probable that Germany would not have resorted to ruthless submarine war last year, if the course our nation would take thereupon had been placed beyond doubt in advance. As it was, owing to our unpreparedness and the preva lent doctrinaire pacifism, President Wilson's warnings were not taken seriously.

ply developing the implicit ideals in our past and present interests, and enlarging their scope to correspond with our new national estate, as no longer a provincial people but a world power. Liberty, for example, properly means more than mere absence of external restraint and constraint- -a negative condition. To our new citizens from abroad it means more very emphatically; and, when they do not find that "more," they give a harsh report of us. True liberty stands for something positive, for opportunity, industrial as well as political, for personal achievement and the satisfaction of desires. Democracy, too, is more than the mere rule of the people, a "more" which is suggested in Lincoln's memorable words, "government . for the people." That "for" points to popular welfare, and in the widest, most progressive sense. So in the case of the ideal involved in our fathers' task of subduing the wilderness-the American application of the ancient Biblical commission to "replenish the earth and subdue it, and have dominion" the conception of mindwrought progressive welfare of men and women has been the chief factor. The industrial winning of the land has meant farms and cities and homes-all the satisfactions of civilised life.

What more do Americans need in the way of a national end of endeavour for the future than just these aims enlarged and universalised? They are not ideals which have lost their appeal to human nature; but surely the field of their application has been vastly expanded. Within our own borders our great task is still the full realisation of liberty. The positive and larger meaning of that word must be worked out into fact intelligently and patiently through a system of provisions for ever enlarging individual opportunity in industry and commerce, in science and art. If, when need arises, the body of the

people are to fight for liberty, it must be made sufficiently valuable to them to be worth fighting for. It must stand for precious things in the experience of the average citizen. But this task, while it is in a special sense our own, is not, and should not be, merely for our own benefit. America is the world's great experimental field in freedom, and the interest of the world in our results should never be forgotten.

When we turn to man's conquest of nature, and that conquest of social relations in the interest of all which we call democracy, the world interest is even plainer. We cannot any longer keep to ourselves in easy and often ignoble provincialism. Willing or unwilling we are world citizens. Should we not, then, in loyalty to our best traditions, be progressive citi zens, putting our shoulder manfully and generously to the task of develop ing the world for human welfare? Is it urged that the proposed policy is too ideal to appeal to the majority of our people? The objection holds only when the world development is conceived preponderantly in ethical and abstract outlines. That limitation, however the vision as etching rather than as painting is quite uncalled for. The ethical* factor-the pursuit of the fullest life for all men as determined by the possibilities of their diverse natures must indeed be present and dominant; but, on the other hand, intelligent endeavour in that direction requires that every form of human interest be given adequate scope for expression. The good of man as discerned by constructive mind is necessarily to be achieved

*Is it needful to explain that "ethical" does not necessarily mean or involve either conventional morality or altruism-say, of the St. Francis type? Action for the common good will define the word sufficiently for the present discussion, and that is a prin. ciple which economics magnifies likewise, teaching us that only those forms of industry and commerce which are mutually beneficial can be lasting and progressive.

through roads and railways, ship canals and irrigation ditches, improved methods of farming, manufacture, and trade, as well as through schools and churches, science and art, the forum and the press. There is properly no conflict between the spirit of material progress and the spirit of blessing; indeed, the former may be merely the latter in actionsocial service in jumper and overalls. Of course, material welfare is not identical with the ethical ideal. Nevertheless, as Aristotle long ago pointed out and social workers have rediscovered, some measure of phys ical well-being is for most men the essential condition of a growing and worthy personality; and, when democratically distributed, it is a needful, and at times very potent, agency for enlarged and refined interests. Irrigation canals have, literally enough, been means of mental development and larger life in Egypt and India. In such situations the engineer at times effects more, spiritually, than the missionary. Now, in the promotion of such enterprises, such campaigns for human dominion over nature, if the purpose is only fraternal and democratic and not dominating and exploitative, we have, or may have, a form of internationalism which is in no needful conflict with sound nationalism on the part of the co-operating peoples, and which does assuredly appeal to the constructive mind and swelling energies of practical Americans.

As to the more idealistic classes, those interested in politics, liberal culture, and religion, it seems too obvious to call for discussion that the policy suggested is one to enlist their interest and co-operation. Surely full many among us after the war, espe cially if they are influenced by the fine attitude of President Wilson in his recent state papers, will feel the urge of noblesse oblige, prompting them, as citizens of the richest, strongest, and best situated nation (because

free from the traditional entangle ments and aristocratic counter forces of Europe) to promote, help on, and often lead in the great tasks of reconstruction which, before long, will face mankind. One of the first of these tasks, soon to be urgent, is that of so re-enforcing the rational and democratic forces in the coming peace settlement that there shall be no treaty sanctioning of national or racial or class injustices-roots of future poison trees!-but instead there shall be established, in the words of Arthur Henderson, the English labour leader, some "society of nations pledged to maintain peace and democratic freedom." It is most signifiIt is most significant that some of the best of the Entente leaders look to us for this kind of service. Mr. Hendersonthe accredited representative of interests assuredly practical and not utopian-continues, "European democracy calls to the democracy of America, as the deep calls to the deep, to prevent the war aims of the Allies from being transformed into a programme of conquest and annexation," and to aid "in making the Allied victory a real victory for popular liberty and democratic ideals." And Gilbert Murray, in his New Year's message to us, says that America "will help the great mass in the allied nations, which is also disinterested, against the small and violent sections which are not. She will help us to remember that

we must wage war, not in rage or vainglory, nor in any form of covetousness, but in a burning pity for the wrongs of mankind."

To conclude: the ideal of America which, when her national interests of the past are reinterpreted in the light of her new powers and new

opportunities, rises before the mind for the years to come, is that of a fraternal leader nation in world civilisation; a power quick to co-operate with sister states in the establishment of that full dominion of the earth by man (to which Germany would drive us in order that her own throne may be exalted), and ready, too, to join with like-minded peoples in curbing viciously disposed tribes (even when they boast of their kultur) when these menace the peace and welfare of mankind. It is the vision of America participating whole-heartedly in a future progressive world order primarily concerned with material prosperity achieved through enterprises of law, commerce, and engineering, but so socially animated that all the humanities-arts, sciences, and ethical religions-appear increasingly as its natural expression. The school teacher shall follow the flags of commerce, and find pupils along the new irrigation ditches, and the journalist, the prophet, and the poet traverse civilisation's highways through the jun gles as bearers of friendly incitement to isolated and backward peoples. Such a national aim is the worthy consummation of our past development. To such a national aim may well be applied the words of Washington at the opening of the original constitutional convention: "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair-the event is in the hand of God." Let our motto be, not that narrow and exclusive one favoured by some, America for Americans, but that larger and far more progressive one, The Earth for Man. There will then be no presumption in adding, "In God We Trust."

« ПретходнаНастави »