T has become rather a commonplace occurrence in recent years, in groups where political subjects are discussed, to hear the remark: "Oh, there is very little difference between the parties. I vote for the man rather than for the party." And, truth to tell, there is a great deal more independent voting to-day than at any time in the past. Moreover, the proportion of eligible voters who actually cast their ballots is constantly decreasing-to the great alarm of those who think they see in this fact a sign of waning interest in public affairs.

I place occurrence in recent ye

Almost as many different reasons are given for this state of affairs as there are observers. Some profess to see the cause in the direct primary, and they deplore the breakdown of party lines as though the safety of the republic were dependent upon the preservation of partisanship. Others work themselves to a great pitch of excitement over the absentee voter, believing that lack of interest in elections marks a deterioration of the moral fibre of the nation. And yet, if it be true that there is little difference between the two great parties, does that fact not explain both the increase of independent voting and the decrease of voting in general?

If political campaigns are to resolve themselves into mere contests for supremacy between rival groups of officeseekers striving for power, what great compelling motive is there to arouse the enthusiasm of the voters who have no real interest in the exaltation of either faction? And surely they are not to be condemned for ignoring a contest in which there seems to be no real principle involved. But just let some issue be advanced that is close and vital to those voters-something that bears directly upon their own and their children's welfare-and see how their interest will be quickened! Or let there come into the field some personality who captures the imagination of the public, and immediately indifference will give place to militant activity.

The explanation of the present status of things political is not to be found in declining intelligence on the part of the people nor in any real lack of concern for public welfare. It is rather to be found in the fact that the old parties are no longer clearly differentiated along lines of policy, and because of the disposition, even among outstanding political leaders, to resist whatever programme the opposition party happens to adopt, even though in doing so they

violate the historic principles of their own party.

A striking example of this tendency was afforded in the opposition of some Democratic members of Congress at the last session to Secretary Mellon's policy of using the Treasury surplus for the reduction of the national debt rather than for the reduction of taxes. The announcement of his programme was the signal for a score of Democrats to set up a clamor for a reduction of corporation taxes. What could be more inconsistent than for Democrats to urge lower taxes for the corporations just because a Republican secretary of the treasury happened to espouse for the moment a financial policy of Thomas Jefferson?

It was the very fact of divergent and irreconcilable opinions upon this question of public debt that determined in large measure, in the beginning, the alignment of the parties. Hamilton is recognized as the patron saint of the Republican party and Jefferson of the Democratic. Hamilton believed that public debt is a public blessing, but Jefferson threw all the weight of his influence against such a doctrine.

In a memorandum addressed to President Washington in 1792, Jefferson

wrote:

"No man is more ardently intent to see the public debt soon and sacredly paid off than I am. This exactly marks the difference between Colonel Hamilton's views and mine, that I would wish the debt paid to-morrow; he wishes it never to be paid, but always to be a thing wherewith to corrupt and manage the legislature."

The point of view thus indicated by Jefferson is still good Democratic doctrine, and, instead of abandoning it just for the pleasure of always opposing Mr. Mellon, the followers of Jefferson

should rather have rejoiced at the temporary conversion of the man who dominates the financial policy of the admin

istration.

This tendency to subordinate public interest to partisan expediency is again illustrated in the attitude of New York legislatures toward the constitutional reform programme of Governor Alfred E. Smith. My understanding is that that programme has consisted chiefly of propositions that during previous administrations were enthusiastically supported by Republican leaders. Yet Republican legislature after legislature, during his régime, has permitted itself to be driven into opposition to an obviously salutary reform programme for no greater reason than political hostility to the Democratic governor. And thus, abandoning principle themselves, they have only served to drive into Governor Smith's fold many thousands who refused to follow their blind leadership, and thereby they materially increased his majorities.

Perhaps the most lamentable example that modern American history affords of this willingness to change principle for the sake of apparent partisan expediency is found in the story of Woodrow Wilson, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the League of Nations. Without doubt many Republican friends of the League to Enforce Peace, who honestly believed that the plan of Woodrow Wilson held healing for the nations, were transformed into foes of the League of Nations merely because a President of the opposing party had become the leader of the cause.

If party principles are no more stable than indicated by the examples I have given, how can we criticise the element of our citizenship that recoils from tisan politics and refuses to become

par

identified with it? The only justification for the existence of political parties is that they afford citizens a medium through which they may give expression to their views of the policies upon which government should be conducted. If there is to be no clear differentiation, then there is nothing to hold the voter except the name. And that is the condition which has existed for some time in the United States. The old issues which divided our fathers no longer claim our interest, and upon the new issues the pros and the cons are to be found in both parties.

In the West there are thousands of citizens, and scores of leaders even, who call themselves Republicans but who have no place on present-day issues -in the same party with ultraconservative Republicans like Coolidge, Mellon, and Hughes. Their allegiance is maintained only by considerations of practical politics. Hope springs eternal in the human breast! The lure of possible control of the party organization some time in the future is what holds them in line. Western farmers who are supporting Governor Lowden for the Republican nomination for the presidency hope, by winning control of the convention, to make the party progressive and at the same time to retain the fealty of the unthinking who follow the party name no matter what it stands for.

The situation is no different with the Democrats-with the exception that most of the Democratic leaders are progressive, while most of the Republicans are conservative. It is certain that if those members of both parties who hold progressive and liberal views could align themselves in the same political organization, so that one party would be wholly conservative and one wholly

progressive, it would immediately eliminate all ground for complaint that there is no difference between the parties. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished, and, if the signs of the times are read aright, it is not unlikely that by slow process a complete political realignment is even now taking place, and it is quite within the realms of possibility that by the time the next presidential campaign is waged the division between the two great parties may again have become clear.

Fundamentally the Democratic party stands, or stood, for a liberal policy. Its founder, Thomas Jefferson, laid down the principle that government may be confidently and safely intrusted to the ultimate good sense and virtue of the people, as opposed to the theory of Hamilton that the nation would be best served by class government. The party of Hamilton, of course, was wholly destroyed in his own lifetime, but his philosophy still guides the conservative.

The lines which separated Jefferson and Hamilton are the only lines upon which parties may logically divide. Throughout our history the political struggle has always been between the progressive and the conservative. The conservative thinks first of property interests, the liberal of human interests. The conservative eschews that which is new, the liberal tries it. There is merit in both attitudes. The liberal policy is necessary to achieve progress, the conservative to hold it after it has been won. Both camps have the vices of their virtues. The danger to the conservative is the tendency to tolerate exploitation by selfish interests; to the liberal radicalism presents a peril. However, it must be recognized that every great achievement in this country has been won by progressives, and the American

people are essentially a progressive people.

The so-called forces of reaction have from time to time in the past dominated both parties, but during the last fifteen or twenty years the leaders of the Republican party have been gradually growing more and more conservative and those of the Democratic party more and more progressive, while the rank and file in both parties have been asserting more independence.

This fact is the explanation of the repeated efforts that have been made to make the Republican party wholly progressive. Theodore Roosevelt almost succeeded while he was President, but even he, master statesman and political strategist that he was, failed to accomplish his purpose. The Republican convention of 1912 was the scene of the triumph of the conservative. Under Wilson the Democratic party accomplished most, if not all, of the legislative aims of the Progressives and became entitled to inherit the strength of that movement. But love of party, like love of country, is a strong motive, and Republican progressives returned to the old camp-fires, hoping to gain control again within the party. The La Follette independent movement in 1924 was another sign of the failure, and the veto of the McNary-Haugen bill by President Coolidge may yet go down in history as the turning-point in this slow process of realignment.

Not that the terms of this bill are generally understood, or that in itself it is the ark of the covenant of progressivism in the Republican party. It is merely a symbol of an attitude of mind. Its supporters are those who believe that the first consideration of government is the welfare of the masses. Its opponents are those who believe that government

should first protect the interests of Big Business. The Coolidge veto has made farm relief the issue in the Republican party. Governor Lowden and VicePresident Dawes are the heirs of the progressive aspiration in the Republican party, and that two such men, who owe their fortunes to Big Business, should now be counted among the leaders of the last feeble liberal movement in the Republican party is in itself a very striking proof of how weak and thin has become the Roosevelt spirit in the party he once dominated.

Neither of these gentlemen has aroused any enthusiasm among the independent Westerners who elect the La Follettes, the Norrises, the Brookharts, and without that enthusiasm it is difficult to imagine that they can be successful in turning back those eminently practical Republican strategists who control the party in Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts. The next Republican convention, then, is likely to see the complete collapse of the progressive movement within the Republican party. The Democratic party will then be in position to come into its own, to become once more, all the country-North, South, East, and West-the party of Jefferson, the party of those who are dedicated to the conviction that the government should be administered at all times for the benefit of all the people and not for any particular class or group.

for

There are at the present time vital problems of a political and economic nature, national and international in scope, that properly challenge the immediate attention of all our people— problems the settlement of which cannot be justifiably deferred. Corruption in public office, the debauching of elections, international peace, the conserva

tion of natural resources, and others are matters of such importance to every group of society that their consideration should not be neglected or postponed.

The opportunity which now presents itself to the Democratic party to define a programme and to offer a candidate who will appeal to the progressive sentiments of the country may be entirely lost and these great issues will become obscured, if the leaders of the party insist upon concentrating public attention upon a moral question that is already settled and has been settled since the Eighteenth Amendment was adopted.

The record of my private and official life entitles me to classify myself as a "dry." Though my personal experience as governor has taught me how difficult it is to enforce prohibition successfully, and notwithstanding the failure of the present national administration and other agencies to cope with violations of the law, I still believe that it should and will be maintained. Even in the present unsatisfactory state of things with respect to enforcement, I am convinced that a large element of our population has been benefited-chiefly the underprivileged poor who cannot afford to buy the execrable bootleg product that is destroying the health and morals of countless thousands of our people, young and old. Still, speaking as a convinced dry, I cannot believe that prohibition is or should be made a partisan

issue.

It is my conviction that those dry Democrats who insist that the Democratic nomination for President shall hinge upon a declaration of the personal views of the candidate upon the merits or efficacy of prohibition are serving neither the cause of prohibition nor the best interests of the Democratic party.

My own position as a dry Democrat is that when some Democrat presents his candidacy to the party on a wet platform, then and then only will it be time for dry Democrats to take up the cudgels against him. Let us not forget that dry enthusiasts in the Republican party have never yet demanded that any presidential candidate in that party declare himself a convinced dry. So far as I know, President Coolidge has never yet stated where his sympathies lie with reference to prohibition, and, now that he has eliminated himself from further consideration as a candidate, no demands have been made of Messrs. Lowden, Hughes, Hoover, Dawes, Longworth, or any other Republican "possibility" that he declare himself. And properly so the Republican "dry" is content to have a candidate who is a Republican, whether he is personally wet or dry. The Republican voters are concentrating their attention on the conflicting views with respect to farm relief that distinguish the Western and Eastern wings of the party, and the Democratic leader who imagines that the Democratic the Democratic party has the slightest chance of winning the next election on the prohibition issue is, in my judgment, a victim of self-deception.

To be successful in a presidential election, the Democratic party must induce a considerable defection from Re

publican ranks. This it cannot do merely by nominating a convinced dry. If the Democratic party ever could have won an election on the dry issue, it would have done so with Bryan, for there never was a more zealous dry Democrat. But surely no one will dispute the statement that, had Bryan made such a race, the Republican drys would have applauded his views— while voting for their own candidate.