The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1904-11-19


reconcile itself to the loss of certain
members who have no sympathy witt
Liberal principles. 1t must stop try
= ing to please them in it's platforms AND
it's nominations. 1t must adopt a def
mite policy by which it is prepared tc
stand in victory or in defeat. 1t must
not make it's platforms to catch votes
but it must make the platforms it be-
lieves in and then try to convince a
majority of the voters that they are
right
Mr.. Bryan absurdly resented the
ttdisloyalty" of certain Democrats who
refused to vote for him and free silver
in 1896 and 1900. The question of
''loyalty" has no proper place in party
relations. \ party is a voluntary asso-
citation of citizens who think that GER
tain policies are best for the country.
A citizen who does not believe those
policies best naturally ceases to act
with the party. A party that depends
on discipline instead of on conviction
to keep it's members in line is in a bad
way. What the Democracy needs is a
body Of genuine principles, in which
it honestly believes and upon which it
can make an intelligent appeal to the
judgment of the country
In boldly taking the Liberal plunge,
the Democrats would have this fact
to reassure them: The Liberal party
in modern country is normally the
majority party; the Conservative
party is normally in the minority.
This is so from the very nature of
things, because the people who profit
by the abuses which it is the mission
Of Conservative party to maintain
are necessarily few in comparison with
those who suffer from those abuses.
The Conservative party may often win
elections by good organization. sllilful
leadership. money, and opposition
plumbers, but it never rests on the
broad base of popular sympathy and
confidence. The Republicans have been
a minority party in this country ever
since the close of the Civil War period.
They were minority party in 1896.
when a million Gold Democrats let
them into power on single temporary
issue. They are minority party to-
day, and Theodore Roosevelt, notwith-
standing the fact that he has received
the votes of hundreds of thousands of
citizens who have no sympathy with
his political associations, is minority
president. The Democrats, Populists,
and Socialists. all Republican ele-
ments, could have beaten him easily
if their forces had not been divided.
What the Democracy needs is to find
some way of combining most of the
citizens who are travelling in the same
direction and cut loose from those who
want to travel somewhere else. Demo-
Gratis, Populists, and Socialists all
agree that the powers of government
ought not to be used to enrich Il few
at the expense Of the many. The Pop
d. ulists would do Il great deal further,
L
there is no reason why they should
not ride on the Democratic car as far
as it runs But if they should find the
car off the track and humping toward
the Republican terminal, naturally
they would see no advantage in board
ing it.
AS true Liberal party the Democ-
racy would have to expect Il consider
able shrinlage in the available sources
of campaign funds. 1t would not.
however, be by any means destitute
of rich men. Not wealth, but the
abuses of wealth. would be in the line
of it's fire. 1t would be easy to pick
out a half Il dozen men, With fortunes
aggrega ting at least hundred million
home in a party pledged to the equal
enforcement of the laws. the abolition
of all partnerships between the gov
eminent and favored capitalists, and
the maintenance of the public rights
in every form Of public property. No
man who would lobby for a tariff sub
sidy from the nation or steal Il fran
chise from city has any business in
a Liberal party, but the millionaire
who is a citizen first and Il rich man
afterward, could join such party
without finding his fortune any in
cumbrance.
The difference between the Social
lists and Populists on one hand and a
liberalized Democracy on the other
would be the difference between a
theory and an attitude. Socialism is a
cult, and it's followers have a complete
system of dogma. Democracy, as a
practical governing party, could have
no thoroughgoing theory. It's policy
would have to be opportunist. But it
would have an attitude-the attitude
of sympathy with all reasonable at
tempts TO promote the public welfare.
This would determine it's course
toward each concrete proposition that
came before it, Suppose, for instance,
the question related to a parcels post.
The Socialist would say: is this a
step toward the Cooperative Common
wealth? If so, l am for it." The Dem
ocrat would say: "Nill this promote
the general convenience? If so, l