The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-12-03
THE MEANING OF THE AVALANCHE.
An Independent View of the Astonish- ing Rout of the Democrats and the
 Extraordinary Pluralities Giyan tS, RnOseyelt.


 appears on the editorial page of The New York World. and it has so much merit as the view Of an open-eyed, calm minded observer that The .Adver-
 tiser believes 1t will have value for its I readers:
 Three weeks have passed since the
 election and we are able to measure
 the proportions of the cataclysm. NO | such majorities have ever been known before in American politics. over half
 a million in Pennsylvania, 175,00o in | New York, 300,00O in Illinois, 206,O0O In Michigan, 125,0O0 in Minnesota. 130,000 | in Wisconsin, 126,000 in Kansas, S5,00O
 Tn Nebraska, 240,o0O in ohio, nearly
 100000 in Indiana, 125,000 in Califor- l'nia, 72,000 in Washington, 26,0OO Tn
 Missouri-the figures are bewildering. What does it all mean? Are we 10 un- derstand that the American people are | tired of the Declaration of 1ndepend-
 ence. that they approve of the rule of l distant subjects by armed force, that | they like the big stick and the role of international policemen in South Amer
 iea, that they admire tarin that en. l ables the Steel Trust to sell rails at S20 abroad and $2S at home, that they
 favor the unchecked growth of the trusts under the protection of the Gov l ernment?
 | Not in the least. Theodore Roosevelt was elected because a majority of the people liked his personality and be- cause there was neither a personality nor a clear principle opposed to him. As The, World said when 1t predicted | the collapse of the Republican oppo- sition to the Presidents nomination.: You cannot beat somebody with mo- body I would not intimate for mo- | ment that Judge Parker was nobody but he might as well have been as far as any impression upon the public mind was concerned. It would have been nard enough at best to create within Tour months a popular image compet- n Tn Hxytt ffh h4 Roosevelt had been building up, stroke by stroke. for more than twenty years but Judge Parker never made the at- tempt. His dignifed seclusion, admir- candidate, was maintained until the last two weeks of the campaign, and when election day came the people round themselves confronted with a choice not between two personalities. but between Theodore Roosevelt and the Democratic Party.
 Even that was not the worst. The Democratic Party might have aroused an impersonal enthusiasm If 1t had stood for anything. but 1t did not. The tarin? Its candidate for Vice-Presi- dent was a protectionist. The trusts? The most prominent managers of the campaign in the Presidential candi- dates own State were connected with the Sugar Trust and Standard oil. I'm perialism? The Governor of the Phil ippines was a Democrat, and report from him was cabled over for use as a Republican campaign document. Ex- travagance in government? Every Democratic Senator and Representa- tive had his share of the pork. Public honesty? The Autonomous boss of the open lid in Brooklyn gave the answer.
 There can be no possible doubt of the fact that an enormous part of MT. Roosevelt's vote came from men who accepted him simply for lack of any satisfactory alternative. Most of these men had confidence in him personally. They believed that he was honest and that his impulses were to do the right thing. They had no confidence what ever in his party, but they saw no attraction on the other side. They knew that the country had survived and even prospered through three years and a half of Roosevelt; they felt that 1t could survive four years more, and they simply marked time.
 This election bore curious resem- blance to the one that preceded the death of the Whig Party. That Pierce was elected in November says James Ford Rhodes, surprised few; that his victory should be so overwhelming as- Scott carried only four States-Ver- mont, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Tennessee Pierce had 254 electoral son of Democratic success was because that party unreservedly indorsed the compromise. and in it's approval neith- CT platform nor candidate halted. The business interests of the country were on the side of the Democrats Trade was good, the country was very prosperous, and this state of affairs would likely continue under settled political conditions, of which there appeared to the commercial in- terests greater promise under Demo- cratic than Whig rule
 The Democratic Party stood for, something in 1852; the Whig Party stood for nothing. and it passed away The American people have no use for a party that does not know its own mind and that does not mean what it says.
 Tn 1904 the Democracy was afraid of its own platform. It called protection a robbery of the many to enrich a few, but it did not dare to press that charge home on the stump. It called trust monopoly indefensible and intol- erable, but 1t did not show how 1t would end. It condemned the EXecu- tive pension order, but did not venture to promise economy in pension expendi- lures. It said that large reductions could be made in the cost of Govern ment, but did not specify the items it would cut off.
 President Roosevelt was skillfm enough to gain the support of the trusts and of great proportion of the element element ae fnptqEed the ployers. He held the standpatters and the Republican revenue reformers Somebody is bound to be disappointed, but the votes are counted.
 Tt is a pity that our political ar- engagements afford no means of testing public opinion on any single point. They do not distinguish between the votes cast for Roosevelt by satisfied Republicans and those cast by dissat- isfied Democrats. But there are two signs that show how unstable Is the present balance of parties. One Is the election of Democratic Governors in immense matorities. The other is the fact that the total vote, which in creased very slightly between 1896 and 1900, seems actually to have decreased between 1900 and 1904. That Is to say the vote actually cast has been stationary or declining for eight years, while the voting population has enor- enormous stay-at-home vote. presum- ably Democratic, which may be expect ed to come out when conditions are more satisfactory.
 The lesson of the election for the Democrats is plain. They have proved in three campaigns that the old Dem ocratic Party, as 1t existed down to and including 1892, cannot be held to- gether in an election under modern conditions. They tried it under radi- cal leadership in 1896 and 1900 and failed; they tried it under conservative leadership in 1904 and failed again. The only thing left is to take a con- with it leave once for all and try to make up the loss by recruits from the Republican Party and from the minor parties of discontent. Let the partisan line follow the line of intellectual cleavage, not cut across 1t. Then apa-