Daily Arizona silver belt., 1908-09-03
SOCIALISM AS A CAMPAIGN BoaY

 upon the socialistic bogy that is brought forward at every election to confuse and prejudice the minds of the voters. The public can no longer be frightened into spasms by declarations that this, that, or the other thing is socialism; yet republican writers and speakers still cling to the notion that they have potent campaign argument in the as- sertion, to quote from their national platform, that "the trend of democ- racy is toward socialism" MT. Bryan replies to this that-the democratic party adheres to its ancient faith in individ- ualism, to the extent of standing up for the economic doctrine of competition, doctrine the very antithesis of social istic; while the republican party is rang ing itself on the side of reasonable re- straint of trade and the development, under Federal regulation, of more or less monopolistic interstate corporations.
 He shows also that these great corpor- ations. essentially socialistic in their nature and tendency, have been built up by the republican policy of protection, the mother of trusts; and he might have gone farther to say that protection it. self is socialistic rather than otherwise, inasmuch as it pretends to guarantee high wages to labor and what MT. Taft calls "a reasonable profit to the em- ployer.
 That socialists themselves regard trusts as a part of that economic rev olution which is to usher in the social istic regime is too well known to require demonstration. Of the protectionist theory, Laurence Gronlund, in his ex- position of socialism, says that it 'is so much in harmony with the present tendency of the state in the direction of socialism that we cannot but sympa- thize with it. This view is by no means uncommon, not only among so- cialists, but among economists, who have no sympathy with socialism. If, then, there is any tendency toward so- cialism in our national policies, the re- publican party, as MT. Bryan rightly ob- serves, cannot escape responsibility for it.
 The truth is, of course, that the polit- ical drift of the day is toward social ism, if socialism may be broadly though not very accurately defined as belief in the continuous and indefinite expan- sion of governmental functions, particu- larly those having to do with the regu- lation of economic activities. A belief of this sort is widely prevalent in this country, and while those holding it may stop short of pure socialism, or may be strongly opposed to the entire absorp- tion of productive energies by the state, there can be no question that the steady extension of governmental functions into the economic order, and the con- stantly increasing interference of the state with the industrial and commer- cial operations, have a strong socialistic flavor.
 Writing before his accession to the presidency, MT. Roosevelt predicted that, "as the people of the state may grow more and more intelligent, the state may be able to play larger and larger part in the life of the community, while at the same time, individual effort may be given freer and less restricted movement along certain lines.'' MT. Roosevelt is far from being socialist, yet his presidential policies stand for a centralized control over commerce and industry that certainly will not be con demned by any philosophic socialist. To the extent that Mir. Bryan accepts these policies, or their democratic equivalents, we doubt not he is willing to stand or fall as sociliast with the president. Both believe thoroughly in making use of the legitimate authority of govern ment to combat the recognized evils of industrialism, even if that course does interfere with what used to be considered, narrowly enough, as inalienable rights of person and prop erty.
 It is a rather loose employment of terms, as we promised above, to class every extension of governmental func- tions into the economic order as social. ism. Yet the classification is partially justified by the paradox that such advo 1