The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1916-01-29
ROOSEVELT
A Consideration OF Their Policies
Which Is More Likely To
Lead To War?
(From Coliiers)

If public opinion on our foreign re-
lations is new swinging around 10
Roosevelt, ad focusing upon him in
such striking way as to make him
the one nti-Administration leader in
the country, and very likely Presi-
dental nominee of the Republican
party. it must be said that he deserves
the reward. Mr.. Roosevelt took a
course on our foreign policy which is
squarely opposed to President Will
sons. He took it at the beginning,
when President Wilson's course was
popular, and his was not. He has
maintained it forcibly and consistent
ly, and now the country is coming
around to him. Meantime President
Wilson has felt compelled to abandon
much of his attitude and adopt at
least portion of Mr.. Roosevelt,s.
The one point in which Mr.. Roose-
welt has been less fortunate has been
in making himself clear, in making
the public understand just what his
course would have been. The New
Republic has done Mr.. Roosevelt
service in printing an intelligent state
ment of the distinction between the
policies of the two men. 1t is from
the New Republics article that the
following sentences are taken:
"There is neither paradox or casu
istry in the statement that in the long
run the Wilson method leads to war
and the Roosevelt method leads 10
peace.
"Did Mr.. Wilson come to terms with
Germany without the use or threat of
force? Not in the least, His first
note about strict accountability was
a threat. Germany paused,
for the United States had appeared rs
a possible enemy. Now, what
were the decisive elements in Mr.. Will
sons diplomacy? A threat several
times repeated; calculation in Ger
many as to the reality of the threa+,
and the role which the United States
could play as a belligerent.
"To call this a triumph of diplomacy
is to ignore the facts. Mr.. Wilson did
not argue Germany out of her policy;
Mr.. Wilson used the old-fashioned
method of threats. There was
no magic in his notes, but the threat
of war. His words were backed by the
possible strength of the United States.
There was nothing new about
Mr.. Wilson's diplomacy. 1t merely
proved again that an international
policy rests upon ornaments.
"The chief difference between the
Wilson and the Roosevelt conception
of diplomacy is not that Mr.. Roose-
welt doesn't use words. or that Mr..
Wilson doesn't use guns They both
use words and they both use guns.
/! 10th cases the final sanction of
words is guns. Where they differ is
in this. When Mr.. Roosevelt uses
words. the guns are already visible;
when Mr.. Wilson uses words his op.
ponent Is still kept guessing about the
guns. If his opponent guesscs
that perhaps guns will never be used,
he is melted to go on committing out
RACES AID piling up Invitations which
in the end will make war inevitable.
THE Roosevelt method eliminates
the period of guessing. 1t consists in
using words at their full value, and
making the opponent realize from the
start that they mean exactly what
they say. There is only one respect
in which this method is more danger
Gus than Mr.. Wilson's. 1t does not
trust to luck. On the other hand. It
has the great advantage that it cat
ches the lawbreaker when he is young
and easier to deal with.
"The Wilson method is to watch and
wait for things to happen, and then to
try and find way. The Roosevelt
method is to act decisiveIy when
things are going to happen.
$50 far as we can see. there is
nothing in the Roosevelt method which
increases the real risks of war. 1t is
far more likely to decrease them. II
trying to explain his point of view,
Mr. Roosevelt has come to overstata
it. But in the long run the Roosevelt
methods, not the Roosevelt magazine
articles, are likely to prove the meth
DDS Of genuine internationalism.