The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1916-01-05

x181W OF UU0S0112 3100
one year ........... ...... ......$l.oO
Paper sent to foreign country zoo
0o1n21Ro1D1101
COMMUNICATIONS relating to news and
editorial matter should 10 addressed
Denison Review.
THE NEED or COMPROMISE.
Has 1t come about that q man who
proposes compromise in the interest
of party harmony must be regarded as
an undesirable citizen? If SO, we may
be prepared to throw party govern.
ment to the scrap pile. The record
of party government in the main is
a series Of compromises. Without
compromise it is impossible to develop
enough conference to hold together q
party of any consequence.
After z party has attracted more
than one member, 1t is Impossible to
have nnanimity OF sentiment on
everything. In q very large party It, is
virtually impossible to avoid division
Of opinion on anything. In the case
of a party organized to carry out q
single idea, there, may be unaninity OF
purpose at the outset. but differences
soon arise as to ways and means of
attaining the common object. And
after the first goal OF, the party has
been gained; the Organization which
has proved SO effective along. one line
naturally turns It's energies to other
lines. Its members have proved that
they can pull together for the common
good. But they must do lot of com.
promising among themselves before
the process of, party readjustment is
completed. And every time it Is pro.
posed to add new article to the party
confession of faith, pains must be
taken to see that its addition will not
weaken the party. II this is not done,
the party loses it's coherent strength
and is no longer effective as practi-
cal organization for accomplishing
good.
4 There is only one exception to the
rule that political party must COM
promise within itself to remain an
effective working force. 1t IS illus
trated in the party which has rallied
around a leader OF such great ability
and prestige that all of his followers
are willing to trust him implicitly and
follow. blindly wherever he may lead.
/. There have been such parties, but they
have not got very far. I, Such I leader
worship is not good either for leaders
or following. It makes for exasSerated
ego on the part Of the one and even
tually loss ofself respect on the part OF
the other. II 1t Is suggested that ex-
ception should be made In the case Of
tho "boss ridden" party. the suggestion
Is not accepted. There never was al
cessful boss power, carelessly attrib.
of compromising. Much Of the sue.
cessf1 boss power. carelessly attrib-
uted to phenomenal personal force or
gross corruption, may be explained by
his canhy facility for doing only things
that can be done without interfering
with party solidarity.
In any well conducted party the
majority always can rule. but we'll
led majority does not ride roughshod]
over q minority Of respectable pro-
portions. In two party politics the
minority of either party holds the bal.
ance Of power in the final accounting.
When party majority has outraged
what the minority believes to be its
vital interests" the minority reluct.
antly takes its votes and moves over
TO the opposing party, deciding to sub
ordinate its preferences in straight
politics to indignant desire to punish
the injury that has been done by It's
former friends and supporters. And
thus does the great primary or con.
ventiOn victory of the triumphant
majority become as sounding brass or
tinkling cymbals.
The republican party had q chance
to compromise when compromise was
needed at Chicago in 1912. According
to story that was generally believed.
President Taft sat for hours with q
long distance trahsmitter within reach
ready TO announce his withdrawal
upon receipt of message that q
compromise candidate had been
agreed upon. In that instance. it was
the minority, not the majority, that
proved Obdurate. Rather than accept
anything less than its full pound of
flesh, the minority would fight the
majority. The challenge was accepted
and the party as an efficient organize
tion' ceased to be.
II the republican party should not
profit by the moral Of its 1912 lesson
IL 1t should In 1916 repeat its previous
failure to pull together. serious ques-
ton as to possible continuance of its
Unity would at once be raised.