Back to the republic; the golden mean: the standard form of government

Front matter

BACK £? C_, REPUBLIC

The Golden Mean-. the standard fc .nment

CDEffilGHT OEPGSm

Preface

r T*HE three words uppermost in the minds of the people throughout all the world to-day are "autocracy," "democracy" and "republic"

What do you mean when you use the word "autocracy" ?

What do you mean when you use the word "democracy" ?

What do you mean when you use the word "republic"?

Write down your own definitions of those three words, stop the first hundred people you meet and ask each of them the above three questions. Compile their replies, and you will have a compilation that would win a prize in a museum of curiosities.

If you should journey to the national capital and, beginning with the President, ask the hundred men who are most prominently identified with the national government those same three questions, you would have material for a scrapbook the reading of which would be confusing to the mind.

vii viii Preface

If you should visit the State capitals, and, beginning with the Governor, ask the hundred men most prominently identified with the State government in each commonwealth these same three questions, and have their replies compiled, you would have a volume of interesting contradictions.

If you should go still farther and visit the capitals of all the Allied countries, of the Central Powers and of the so-called neutral countries, and ask the hundred men most prominently identified with the government of each country those same three questions, and have their replies compiled, you would have several volumes of exceedingly interesting contradictions.

If you were disposed to gratify your curiosity still further and should turn to the various dictionaries, encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers, and countless volumes on political science and government, and make a collection in book form of the various definitions that have been given and the uses that have been made of the words "autocracy," "democracy" and "republic" you would have compiled the greatest curio of them all.

The purpose of this book is:

(1) To make clear the meaning of the words "autocracy," "democracy" and "republic/ 1

Preface ix

(2) To encourage a more accurate use of governmental terms, and

(3) To urge the importance of avoiding the dangers of the extremes of both autocracy and democracy, and the vital need of adhering strictly and literally to the fundamentals of the republic, which is the golden mean between autocracy and democracy.

Chapter I

HP HE trend of government may be presented in graphic form as follows :

From earliest times to 1788 A.D.

Experimental failures.

Progress.

Retrogressive tendencies.

During the thousands of years prior to 1788 A.D. the pendulum of government was swinging back and forth from one extreme to the other: from the mob leader to the mob; from the mob to the monarch; from the monarch to democracy; from democracy to the demagogue;

from the demagogue to mobocracy; from mobocracy to autocracy; from feudalism to communism ; from bondage to license.

Tyranny, conquest, militarism, lawlessness, mobmindedness, riot, persecution, oppression, rebellion — these are the words that describe the long-continued panorama of unsuccessful efforts and experimental failures in government for approximately seven thousand years.

Now and then a ray of light and hope appeared in Greece, Rome, Holland, Switzerland, England and elsewhere, but during all that period of time no government was devised that could secure for its people any one of the great fundamental privileges for which government is primarily organized.

In all those thousands of years there was no government that secured for its people religious freedom, or civil liberty, or freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or security of individual rights, or popular education, or universal franchise.

It is a startling statement, but an indisputable fact, that in reviewing the centuries of history prior to the founding of the republic of the United States of America we find no country to which the historian can point and truthfully say : There was a government that worked well.

In 1788 a group of real statesmen of great physical vigor, mental acumen, thorough knowledge, practical wisdom, far-sighted vision and moral courage assembled in Philadelphia and after months of discussion and deliberation produced the Constitution which provided for the republic of the United States of America.

These men were equal to the opportunity, rose to the occasion, and builded better than they knew; for they established the golden mean and evolved the standard form of government.

Following the adoption of the Constitution and the founding of the republic of the United States of America there began the first great era of progress governmentally that the world had ever known.

We began to solve problems and to secure privileges that had baffled philosophers and statesmen for ages. Within a century we had secured all of the seven fundamental privileges for which government is primarily organized. We developed a larger galaxy of great statesmen (because they were thinking and working along standard lines) than has been developed by all other governments in the history of mankind. We organized into a splendid and loyal citizenship people of many nationalities, coming to our shores with varying ambitions and ideals. We

16 Back to the Be public

stood the strain of the great Civil War and came out of it stronger and better.

The governmental atmosphere of individual security seemed to stimulate individual effort toward discovery and invention, so that we made material and commercial progress that has had no parallel in history. We advanced from the wooden spade to the steam plow, from the oxcart to the freight train, from the blacksmith shop to the great manufacturing plant, from the flail to the steam thresher, from the cradle to the self-binder, from the needle to the sewing-machine, from the spinning-wheel to the great textile mills, from the stage coach to the Pullman palace car, from the messenger boy on foot or horseback to the telephone and telegraph, from the prairie schooner to the automobile. And equal progress has been made along many other lines since the founding of this republic.

While doing all this we advanced from the education of the few to the great public-school system, from slavery to political equality, from religious bondage to religious liberty.

Other nations of the world were struck with awe and admiration by the marvelous manner in which the new republic was solving its problems and securing to its people political privileges such as the world theretofore had not known.

Awe and admiration on the part of the people of foreign countries merged into emulation, and they began to modify their ideals and ideas of government, gradually becoming more tolerant of religious freedom, more zealous of civil liberty, more lenient toward freedom of speech and of the press, more considerate of inherent individual rights, more active toward popular education, and more favorable toward universal franchise.

We radiated over all the world the rays of light, of hope, of progress, of justice, of common sense and of scientific governmental procedure; and while making that matchless record, and wielding that splendid world influence, we made for the United States of America the undisputed leading place among the nations, not because of our great army, our great navy, our vast possessions, or our many people, but because we were enjoying the blessings of the best form of government mankind had ever known.

Gradually, however, we began to modify our national government through the appointment of boards and commissions, and the creation of various governmental agencies that made it impossible for the government to function in accordance with the plan of the Constitution.

The various States modeled their constitutions less and less after the plan of the Federal Constitution and included in them much that should properly have been statutory material. In their constitutions they provided for the election of officials other than the executive and members of the legislative bodies. More and more we drifted away from the moorings of the Constitution toward the whirlpools of a democracy.

Demagogues and propagandists, blinded with egomania, kept up a constant campaign of agitation in the various States for the initiative, referendum, recall, boards, commissions, city managers, socialistic doctrines and anarchistic heresies, until we may truthfully say that for some years we have been passing through an age such as Alexander Hamilton had in mind when he said: "There are seasons in every country when noise and impudence pass current for worth, and in populous communities especially the clamor of interested and factious men is often mistaken for patriotism."

In his popular work, "The American Commonwealth," written about thirty years ago, when boards and commissions were not so prevalent and we were still adhering more strictly to the standard form of government, Mr. Bryce wrote as the opening sentence in Chapter I : " 'What do you think of our institutions?' is the question addressed to the European traveler in the United

States by every chance acquaintance." That question was asked with an unusual degree of pride. Imagine, if you can, an intelligent American of today making, with any degree of pride, the following inquiries of European travelers :

What do you think of our Ohio and Oklahoma State constitutions?

What do you think of presenting a ballot to the voter containing the names of 334 candidates, or a ballot over six feet long covered with printed matter upon which a vote is to be cast within two minutes of time?

What do you think of having 128 boards and commissions in a single State in addition to an executive, two legislative bodies and seven other elective officials ?

What do you think of our more than doubling the expenses of government in nearly every State in the Union during the decade from 1903 to 1912?

What do you think of spending over $2,000,- 000 of the taxpayers' money on primaries and elections in Cook County, Illinois, in the single year of 1916, aside from the personal expenses of the horde of candidates?

What do you think of our enacting over 62,000 new statutes in this country during the five-year period from 1909 to 1913, inclusive, and of our having over 65,000 decisions of courts of last resort during those same five years, and compiling 631 large volumes of decisions?

These are only a few of the many questions that might be asked because we have been drifting away from the plan of a republic.

The conditions that have been wrought through these departures, this reckless agitation, and the enactment of approximately fifteen thousand new statutes each year, have had a disastrous effect upon this country and resulted in greatly lessening our influence for good in other countries. We have drifted from the republic toward democracy; from statesmanship to demagogism; from excellent to inferior service. It is an age of retrogressive tendencies.

Chapter II

'THE present great war crisis has aroused the A world to serious thought about government and the best form of its administration.

If the people of all nations could be awakened to the tremendous truth that a republic is the onlyform of government that has solved governmental problems successfully and given wholesome and desirable results, it would compensate in part for the awful sacrifice and carnage of this tragic time.

One of the serious aspects of present-day tendency is the reckless and inaccurate use of governmental terms. Almost daily Russia is spoken of as "the new republic." That phrase is as inaccurate as it would be to speak of a drunken man as a new example of temperance. To speak of Mexico as a "republic" is as inaccurate as it would be to speak of fanaticism as a new form of reverence. To call China a "republic" is as farfetched as it would be to speak of insomnia as a new form of rest.

China, Mexico and Russia at the present time are all types of democracy. In each instance the pendulum swung all the way from the extreme of autocracy to the extreme of democracy. It did not stop at the golden mean. These countries are not republics.

England, Italy, Belgium and France are frequently spoken of as "the allied democracies of Europe;" yet with one exception each country supports a royal family at a tremendously large expense, which is one of the elements of autocracy.

It would create considerable confusion of thought in the medical world if we should speak of disease as health; if, in the realm of law, we should speak of crime as a contract; if, in the realm of nature, we should speak of a cyclone as a sea breeze; if, in the commercial world, we should speak of a bankrupt as a business success ; if, in the religious world, we should speak of a dime novel as the Bible; yet these are fair illustrations to parallel the inaccuracy that prevails in the present-day use of governmental terms.

The terms "republic 33 and "democracy" are thoughtlessly and inaccurately used almost synonomously in dictionaries, in encyclopedias and in political literature and discussion. This country is frequently spoken of as a democracy, and yet the men who established our government made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy, gave very clear definitions of each term, and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.

Surely no one has more valid authority to use governmental terms, or to make definitions of those terms, than the men who evolved the best form of government the world has ever known. The statements of Hamilton and Madison, who were designated as the spokesmen and interpreters of the work of the Constitutional Convention, make it absolutely clear that the founders of the republic had in mind a very marked distinction between these two forms. In The Federalist Madison says:

"What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitutions of different states, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions."

The above quotation indicates how forcefully Madison called attention to the gross misuse of the word "republic" in his day. He was very jealous of the use of the term. He was extremely conscious and justly proud of having played an important part in helping to found the first republic of history. He knew the difference between an autocracy and a republic and he objected to having autocracies spoken of as republics.

He also understood quite clearly the difference between a republic and a democracy. Again, in The Federalist, he said :

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their professions, their opinions and their passions. ... A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. . . . The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest ; secondly, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government. . . . The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. . . . Hence, it clearly appears that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy consists in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice. ... In fine, it consists in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority. ... If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. . . . The true distinction between these forms is that in a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person. In a republic they assemble and administer it by their representative agents. . . . The first question that offers itself is whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican? It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the American people."

On September 18th, 1803, Hamilton wrote to Pickering:

"The plan of a constitution which I drew up while the convention was sitting, and which I communicated to Mr. Madison, . . . was predicated upon these bases :

"1. That the political principles of the people of this country would endure nothing but republican government.

"2. That in the actual situation of the country it was in itself right and proper that the republican theory should have a full and fair trial.

"3. That to such a trial it was essential that the government should be so constructed as to give all the energy and stability reconcilable with the principles of that theory.

"These were the genuine sentiments of my heart, and upon them I acted."

In his great and exhaustive work on "Political Science and Constitutional Law," John W. Burgess, after analyzing minutely the forms of government of the four leading countries, makes the following deductions:

"I do not believe it is Utopian to predict that the republican form will live after all other forms have perished. . . . It is a hazardous venture to prophesy what the form of the future will be. It seems to me, however, that that form will be a republic. ... It seems to me evident that the destiny of history is clearly pointing to the United States as the great world organ for the modern solution of the problem of government as well as of liberty."

Article 4, Section 4, of the Constitution provides: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." It is inconceivable that the Fathers would guarantee a republican form of government to every State in the Union without the absolute intent of providing that same form of government for the nation.

It would seem that the founders of this republic, after a careful survey of the governments of history, concluded that autocracy resulted in tyranny and democracy merged into mobocracy, and they strove to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy by establishing the golden mean and founding a republic.

The new form of government provided for by the Constitution and evolved in 1788 A.D. was the first republic the world had ever known, and it may be clearly defined as follows :

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who, working together in a representative capacity, have all power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenues and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create

(3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize

(4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

In an autocracy authority is derived through heredity, regardless of character, capacity or conduct. Rulers are chosen by virtue of their membership in the royal family; the people have no choice in their selection.

In a democracy authority is derived through mass-meeting, the initiative, the referendum, instructed delegates, or any other form of direct popular expression.

In a republic authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials to represent them.

The attitude of autocracy toward property is feudalistic. This is unjust and results in protest, and finally in rebellion, on the part of the people.

The attitude of democracy toward property is communistic or socialistic. This negates property rights and results in chaos, mobmindedness and riot, finally terminating in destruction of the very property itself.

The attitude of the republic toward property is that of individual ownership, resulting in thrift, respect for law, individual rights, and orderly, sensible, economic procedure.

The attitude of autocracy toward law is that the will of the royal ruler shall prevail, regardless of reason or consequences.

The attitude of democracy toward law is that the will of the majority shall prevail, regardless of whether it be based upon deliberation or is governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

The attitude of the republic toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence and with strict regard to consequences.

There is no such thing as a representative democracy. To use that expression is equivalent to speaking of a "temperate drunkard." The very essence of democracy is that the people speak direct. There is no such thing as a "democratic republic. 33 To use that expression is equivalent to speaking of "gluttonous nourishment." The very essence of a republic is that the people speak through representatives. If there is such a thing as a democratic republic, what other kinds of republics are there? There is no such thing as a democratic autocracy. To use that expression is equivalent to speaking of gluttonous starvation.

This line of reasoning will be clarified in the following chapter on "The Golden Mean. 33

The expressions "representative democracy," "democratic republic 33 and "democratic autocracy" are among the most dangerous and misleading in current use.

The only qualifying terms that can properly be used to describe an autocracy or a democracy are bad, worse, worst. There are no good ones. The only qualifying terms that can properly be used to describe a republic are good, better, best. When a republic ceases to be good it is no longer a republic; it has merged into either a democracy or an autocracy. Just as in the realm of food the only qualifying adjectives that can be used to describe starvation or gluttony are bad, worse, worst, the only qualifying adjectives that can be used to describe nourishment are good, better, best. When nourishment ceases to be good, it has merged into either starvation or gluttony.

England today is known as an autocracy with a mixed government. It has some of the elements of a republic and some of the elements of a democracy. The unwritten constitution, the existence of the royal family, even though somewhat muzzled, the House of Lords, and the limitation on the reviewing of legislation by the courts, are all elements of autocracy. The House of Commons is a republican branch. The mercurial method of changing the cabinet in haste, on the impulse of the moment, at the behest of the mob spirit, is of the essence of democracy.

France is a democracy with a mixed government containing some republican elements and some of the elements of an autocracy.

Almost all of the autocracies and democracies of the world have mixed governments; that is to say, they have modified the form to include elements of one or both of the two other forms.

The first republic the world had known was the republic of the United States, which, until we began modifying it, was a true republic.

We should return at once, with all of the humility and penitence of the prodigal son, to a strict and literal adherence to the republic, the golden mean between autocracy and democracy, and encourage the people of each of the other countries of the world to go forward from the form of government that they now have to a republic.

Chapter III

HpHE golden mean is a concept almost as old as humanity itself. Confucius wrote interestingly about the mean. Horace gave expression to the phrase "aurea me&iocritas."

The mean that is golden is that middle point or degree in any quality, state or activity which avoids the dangers or errors of either extreme by the striking of a well balanced medium.

In the study of any science or of any problem we can learn much by observing the laws of nature. If in sowing grain we use too little seed, the crop will be small. If sufficient is sowed, the best possible crop will result. If too much is sowed, there will be no mature crop, because the plants will be too crowded to secure the proper nourishment, light and air. Again, if too little moisture falls upon the soil, you have a drought and little crop; if sufficient moisture, the best crop; if too much moisture, the field is flooded, the plants rot, and you have no crop.

In no sphere of activity do we find the dangers of the two extremes more disastrous, and on the other hand the value of the golden mean more beneficial, than in the realm of government. Too little participation by the people means autocracy, which results in tyranny. On the other hand, too much participation by the people means democracy, which results in mobocracy. It is the golden mean, the republic — the standard form of government, strictly and literally adhered to — which gives just the right amount of participation by the people in governmental affairs and causes the political plant to thrive and reach its best development and its full fruition.

Aristotle made the most valuable contributions to political science that were made prior to the founding of this republic. He was the first writer to undertake a classification of the forms of government. As a philosopher he knew that there must be three degrees for an accurate classification, and he divided government into three forms. He knew that there should be two extremes and a form corresponding to the golden mean in the realm of government as in other fields of activity. He named monarchy as one extreme and defined it as government of one. He named democracy as the other extreme and defined it as government of the masses ; but, the standard form not having been evolved, the golden mean not having been worked out in his day, he could not include the republic as the golden mean. He was therefore forced in his classification to do what we are frequently called upon to do when we cannot find the thing we need — namely, to use the best substitute available — and in lieu of the golden mean he chose aristocracy and defined it as government of the minority. Aristocracy, however, has the same elements and is of the essence of autocracy. It has the element of heredity, the element of class, the element of privilege, and generally the element of militarism, and deserves no classification separate and apart from autocracy, any more than bread deserves a classification separate and apart from food.

There have been several crude classifications of forms of government, and a mere statement of them is sufficient to demonstrate how shallow had been the thinking upon political science previous to the founding of this government.

Von Mohl classified the forms of government as patriarchal, theocratic, despotic, classic, feudal, and constitutional. The classification of Von Mohl is an apt illustration of the loose thinking and inaccurate use of governmental terms. It results only in confusing the mind.

Bluntschli followed the classification of Aristotle and added "Idiokratie," which he defined as a state in which the supreme ruler is considered to be God, or some superhuman spirit, or an idea. Most writers on political science since the time of Aristotle have followed his classification of forms of government, and modern writers on political science in the main still follow blindly the incorrect classification of forms of government suggested by Aristotle, although the founding of this republic made necessary a revision in order to make a correct classification. It was reserved for the founders of this republic,, the framers of the Constitution of the United States, to arrest the erratic swing of the pendulum of government and to point it to the golden mean, which made necessary a revision of the classification of Aristotle by striking out aristocracy, which is an essence of autocracy, and substituting republic, which is the mean that is golden, as follows :