pwipifiKrw
rjpr
V
rq pji'i ifiiip hi
"
y
ernmont controlled by tlio pcoplo and favor politi
cal and legal oquallty." .
Jofferson "was born of refined and well-to-do
parents; ho was oven rich for ono of that period,
and ho was oducated far above tho moat of his as
sociates; ho was a lawyer and his social connec
tions woro favorablo to aristocratic Idbas, but ho
was a democrat, Ho believed inthp brotherhood
ofman; ho asked fpr no priyllogps that could not
bo granted to all; ho claimed no rights that all
did noj; enjoy, and ho sought for himself no gov
ernmental caro that ho did not domand for others.
Ho bqlioved in tho rule of tho people,, in their ca
pacity, for soifTgovornmont and In tholr right to
tho control of their own affairs. Ho did not doubt
that they would make mistakes, but jio know that
$hoy would bear punishment fot; hoir own mis
takes with more, complacency than they would en
dure punishment for tho mistakes of others, and
ho was certain that their errors would
bo unintentional ones. Ho know that,
as. they found no profit In bad law's, they would
strlvo to correct them and would profit by ox
porlonce. Ho was a friend of everything that
helped ,tho , peoplo, and tho unrelenting fpo of
everything that injured them. Ho was identified
with the masses, anil considered tlmt insofar as
by Inheritance or by his own efforts he possessed
any advantago over others ho held that advantage
as a trustoo for thoso less fortunate. Tho peoplo
"loved him because ho first loved them." Ho or
ganized a party that has lived for more than a
century, and ho so Impressod his Ideas upon tho
party that no defeat, however overwhelming,- has
been able to crush Its spirit or disintegrate It.
Thoro can always bo harmony among demo
crats who have tho purpose that Jefferson had
and aro willing to employ tho methods that Jef
ferson employed. Thoro can always bo harmony
among democrats who 'believe In a government
pf tho people and aro willing that all tho de
partments of tho government shall bo qperated
by tho people and for the benefit of the people.
Differences of tho mind can be reconciled; differ
ences of purpose cannot. Between ono who is at
heart an aristocrat and ono who is in reality a
democrat there Is a great .gulf fixed. And, it may
bo added, among tho aristocrats there will be
found tho same division that exists among tho
beasts of prey some have the -courage of tho Hon,
and others the cunning and treachery of tho fox,
but they can hunt together if their object Is
spoil, whether it bo avowed or concealed. Between
those really democratic in purpose there can be no
personal or pormanont alienation, because having
no ulterior motives they aro open to argument?
and .amenable to reason; being honest In purpose,
they have confidence In the triumph of tholr
cause, and aro content to employ honest methods.
They will neither conspire against others nor
against each other. If they make mistakes in
judgment, as all aro liable to do, they are not
only willing, but anxious to correct their mistakes.
In politics, as In religion, there is an essential dif
ference between a doubt of tho head and a doubt
of the heart.
It. is Impossible to secure harmony between
peoplo of opposite sympathies and It is a difficult
thing to change a man's sympathies; It requires a
political regeneration to make a democrat out of
an aristocrat. It is a much easier task to show a
man that the principles ho has been advocating and
tho policies which ho has been supporting aro
aristocratic in their present effect or in thoir'ten
dencies. Tho republican party of today Is aris
tocratic in its policies and tendencies for It is
controlled by a few In the interest of a few, but
thoro are many republicans who remain with
their pary only because they do not understand
the change which has taken place in that "party
within the last few years. When the policy of a
party is controlled by its .voters, then the party
stands for the will of the majority, but when the
party is -dominated by a small minority, then tho
The Commoner.-
organization stands not for tho will of tho ma
jority, but for the will of thoso who dominate it.
Thoro can bo no doubt of the democratic instincts
x of a largo majority of the members of tho republi
can party, but that party today Is so controlled by
organized wealth that tho rank and file of the par
ty aro not consulted about its policies nor are tho
-interests of tho rank and fllo considered by tho
leaders. With tho exception of tho tariff question
tho republican party has not in recent years hon
estly submitted a single important issue 'to tho
arbitrament of the ballot or even td the judgment
of tho members of Its own party. 'It has written
ambiguous platforms and forced its policies
through congress after elections. In 1896 it used a
promise of International bimetallism to conceal
Its teal purpose to fasten the gold standard on
tlio country'. In 1900 It practiced the same decep
tion on imperialism and on the trust question.
Even wl'.LIn a month It' has refused to announce
its pUrpdso'in regard to tho Philippines, and has
put oflf until after November tho passage of the
subsidy bill and the consideration of tho trust
question. Tho leaders of the party show their
lack of vital faith In the doctrine of self-government
by tholr unwillingness to take tho people of
the country, or oven the voters of their own party,
Into their confidence. Tho hope of tho democratic
party lies In bringing this fact to the knowledge
of thoso who havo been In tho habit of voting tho
republican ticket. One aristocratic party in the
country is enough. Democratic success must bo
won, not by imitating the republican party, but by
exposing it not by making the democratic party
aristocratic, but by convincing the peoplo that
it is really democratic and can bo trusted to de
fend democratic ideas and to cultivate democratic
Ideals. As there are many In the republican party
who havo adhered to the party notwithstanding
the change, that tho organization has undergone,
so thoro aro soino who call themselves democrats
who havo themselves undergone a cnange which
has alienated them from the democratic party or
from any party worthy of the name.
To attempt to patch up an apparent harmony
between thoso who aro not In sympathy with
democratic .purposes is not only a waste of time,
but would prove disastrous. The men who de
sorted the party In 1896 may be divided Into two
classes. Those who left because they understood
tho Issue presented and thoso who left because
they did not understand the real nature of tho
contest. Until tho former are completely changed
in their cympathies they cannot return to the
party without injuring it. Tho latter will be
reconciled to the party when they themselves be
come aware of tho real character of the life and
death struggle now being waged between plutoc
racy and democracy. I say plutocracy, because the
aristocracy of today is one of wealth rather than
of birth, and it includes not only those who have
been alienated from the commoU people by tho
possession of greath wealth, but thoso who, al
though without wealth, pander to it and measure
all things by a money standard. Organized wealth
has become so potent In governmental affairs that
some even now despair of applying any effective
remedy. But such underestimate the patriotism of
the peoplo and the strength of tho public con
science. The peoplo havo a remedy within their
power, namely, tho ballot, and with it they can
and will right every wrong and remedy every
grievance.
The democratic party must have a controlling
purpose, unchanged by victory or defeat; it must
stand for that purpose at all times and every
where, unmoved by threats of disaster and unin
fluenced by promise of temporary gain. It must
havo a character, for character is as essential In
a party as it is In an Individual. No ono will
trust an unstable man or ono so without principle
that his position upon any moraj question cannot
be guessed in advance. Neither will the peoplo
trust a party that is willing to write into its plat-
Vol. a, No. 27. , "
form today anything'-,tnat promises to catch a
few votes or strike out of its platform tomorrow
anything that will alienate a few votes. Even JC
it desired to do so our' party could not compete
with the republican party in tho use of money in
campaigns or in the deception or coercion of vot
ers, because large campaign funds can only bo se
cured in return for the promise of favoritism,
and our people are not in a 'position to coerce.
Our jparty must have principles ancl proclaim
them; it must stand by them and defend them, re
lying upon Its faith In tho righteousness of thoso
principles and upon Its faith in the Intie'lligenco
and patriotism of the people.
The struggle between human rights on the ono
side and greed on the other is an unending one.
Our party must take part in the struggle, but that
struggle cannot be permanently settled by this
generation or by any future one. As the children
of Israel, wandering in the wilderness, could not
store bread for the morrow but were compelled to
gather manna each day, so the citizen finds It im
possible to rest upon the achievements of yester-.
day or to frame a government that will run
itself. He must labor today, tomorrow and whilo
life lasts If he would be secure. He must meet
each new problem and examine each new proposi
tion that is submitted to the people, but In doing
so ho will employ the same purposes and apply
tho same general rules. - He cannot tell what
temptations ho may have or of what immediate
gain he may have the promise if he will but sur
render his manhood, but he knows, if he is an up
right man, that he will endeavor to resist every
temptation, and ho will determine to forgo every
advantage that requires a surrender of his man
hood. So with our party. We cannot tell what issues
wo may have to meet; we can only determine to'
meet them in a democratic spirit, to apply to them
democratic principles and to take the people's Bide
always. In 1892 the paramount issue was tariff
reform and the democratic party boldly asserted
its demand for a tariff for revenue only. It fought
the campaign and it won, but its majority was so
narrow that a few senators, disloyal to the party
on this subject, defeated the verdict of the people
rendered at the polls. But the failure of the party
to do all that it promised would not have been
so disastrous but for the fact that the Wilson bill,
unsatisfactory as it was to tariff reformers, had to
bear tho sins of a republican financial system
which was supported by our administration against
the protest of an overwhelming majority of the
voters of the party. The defeat of 1894 was more
disastrous than any that the party has. experienced
since, and it was due to the fact that the ad
ministration deserted the people on the money
question. In 1896 the money question had forged
to the front, made paramount not by the action
of the majority of the democratic party, but by
the attempt of a minority of the party to aid tho
republican party to chain the country to an ap
preciating dollar. Without abandoning its posi
tion on tho tariff question the party met this issue
and took the side of the people. In spite of the de
sertion of many formerly conspicuous in its coun
cils the democratic party polled a million more
votes than it had ever polled before, and would
have won but for the indefensible methods of tho
republican party, whose leaders held nearly all the
protectionist republicans by declaring the tariff
issue to bo paramount mollified the wrath of
most of tho free silver republicans by promising
international bimetallism, and won all the advo
cates of the gold standard by revealing to them
the secret purpose of the party to adopt a European
financial system. But even then we would havo
won but for the fact that borrowers were coerced
and employes intimidated.
In 1900 the action of the republican party in
turning a war commenced for humanityjnto a war
of conquest compelled the consideration of another
question a question so far-reaching in its conso
!
1
-tajLU6
K ". ..rkaffl
