New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-05-10
THE DARK HORSE POLICY.

The canvass for the Republican Presidential
nomination has reached a familiar stage About
this time every Presidential year many we'll
meaning members of the party, observing tue
necessarily sharp rivalry of the conflicting IN
terests of prominent candidates, begin to shake
their heads and ask one another whether, on inc
whole. it would not be the part of prudence to
nominate dark horse. These people mistake
cowardice for conservatism, and the policy they
favor il fatal to the growth or durability Of
their party.
For what is this demand for a dark hOrse7 In
the last analysis it is premium upon ncom-
potency. 1t cannot bat result i'll dscOuraging
laudabe ambition for the honorable distinction
in public service which logically should attend
good and faithful service. 1t enforces with a
vengeance the doctrine that the last shall be
first. 1t calls for a unique merit system under
which the men who do nothing shall get the
prizes and the men who do everything the
blanks. Applied i'll the military service during
the late war the dark horse policy would have
sent Grant and Sherman to the rear and given
the command to soldiers who either had
never smelt gunpowder OF were dis
tinguished chiefly for their inability to
win. battles. Obviously it would work
similar disaster if applied to the world of
business. To state the proposition is to expose
its conspicuous injustice But its injustice is not
its worst feature. Let it come to be understood
as the law of American politics that when
President is to be chosen the leaders who have
commended themselves to their party and the
country must stand aside and make room for
second-rate or unknown men, and serious
blow will have been struck at our system Of
popular government. No country can perma-
nentlv thrive that goes about selecting its Chief
Magistrate on the theory of the survival OF the
unfttest
The history of the Democratic party contains
a potent argument against the dark horse
policy. That once strong and compact organ
ization may well date its decline from the day
when it began to replace its prominent men by
nOnentities or obscure candidates. Who were
James X. Polk and Franklin Pierce that they
should have been nominated for PRESIDENT No
man ever lived who cOlld answer that question
Both were dark hOrses-the very darkest That
is the sum total of the account that can be given
of the reason lying back of their candidacy.
Leading candidates were ruthlessly set aside
because they Were leading candidates, and the
two nObodies-in-p particular were called to the
chief place Both nominations insulted genuine
Democratic craftsmanship, and the party to-day
still suffers from the evil then wrought upon it =
lying still, after quarter of century's exile, a
mischievous wreck on the political ocean, desti-
tute of leaders, without principles and incapa-
BILE of progress. The Republican party may
well Law this lesson to heart.
Ingratitudc is the worst of all crimes, the
world over. 1t pays as poorly III politics as
elsewhere. The party that treats its most con-
spicuous members with indignity may fancy that
it is avoiding some enmties; but if So 1t is only
| at the expense of chilling the enthusiasm OF
the great body of its supporters. To tell nine
tenths of the party that they cannot have any
one of their favorites, but must take an unknown
leader in order TO escape attack and so perhaps
sneak through, is not the way to bring out the
vote, or to insure either present victory or the
permanence of the party.