Back to the Republic/Chapter12
POLITICAL PARTIES
IT IS difficult to formulate just the best and most effective method of applying the usefulness of political parties to the best interests of a Republic.
It is a puzzling question to determine whether there should be two permanent political parties or whether the welfare of a Republic requires that a new political party must be born periodically to meet a crisis and advocate a clear, clean-cut issue.
This much, however, is certain. The motto of any political party worthy of continuance should be: A political party can afford to lose if it deserves to win, better than the party can afford to win if it deserves to lose.
I wish everyone who is active in politics or aspires to leadership in the public service would read the above sentence several times and think it over very carefully.
That attitude was characteristic of Alexander Hamilton in the early days of the Republic, and of Daniel Webster in later years. It was the position taken by Abraham Lincoln in 1858 and by William McKinley in 1892; and they and their party finally triumphed and rendered great service to the Republic.
Experience has shown that the tendency of political parties, as they advance in years, has been to try to survive on the weaknesses of other parties, instead of striving to live on their own strength; and for the managers of political parties to become cowardly opportunists instead of leaders with real convictions; to become demagogues rather than statesmen.
The leaders in all of our political parties during recent years have given too much time and thought to the question, How can we win; and too little to the question, How can we serve the Republic. In the selection of candidates the leaders have considered too much the question, Will the candidate take orders; and too little the question, Is the candidate well qualified. The leaders have been guided in their selection of candidates too much by the question, Can the candidate be used; and too little by the question, For what does the candidate stand.
Candidates who are the strongest on promise are generally the weakest on performance. Candidates with the longest platforms of isms and class appeal are generally the shortest on achievement for the public good.
The purpose of a political party should be to succeed by giving the people what they need rather than to succeed by trying to give the crowd what the crowd thinks it wants.
A political party should be a moulder of public sentiment, not a mere echo of popular fallacies.
It was hoped that with the granting of suffrage to women, they would begin seriously to study the science of government and equip themselves for the duties of citizenship, but they have given little encouragement in that direction thus far.
When the boys get back from over there we may find that the experiences they have had, the scenes they have witnessed, and the knowledge they have acquired has developed in them a civic consciousness that will make them a constructive force for stemming the tide of radicalism and shielding this Republic from the dangers of democracy.
There should be at least one political party in this country that believes in the Constitution and that will be guided by its wise provisions; that believes in the Republic as the best form of government the world has ever known and that will adhere strictly and literally to it. Whether some political party now in existence can throw off its weaknesses and infections and rise to the occasion, or whether a new party must spring forth to meet the situation is a question the future alone must answer.