New-York tribune., 1916-07-11

From tn. PhAadeiph North American
great many Progressives find it impossl-
bic to reconcile themselves to the abandon
ment of the party organization. For the
most part they commend Colonel Roosevelt's
course as patriotic and necessary under the
circumstances and they admit that they can
not suggest a rational alternative; but they
still feel that the elimination of the party is
an irreparable loss to the nation.
A far greater number deplore it because
OF the effect which they are assured it will
have upon a considerable group of patriotic
citizens in the South.
The Progressive party was in truth a ma
tional party, and for that reason it had pos
sibilties for service which one of more linn
tied appeal cannot possess. Before its crea
ton only one of the parties the Democratic
was of national scope; it carried the South
and could count upon substantial support in
the North. But the Republican party, since
the Civil War, has had only a sectional
status; it never has carried the South and
never will.
The result is that there are many South
erners whose political beliefs arc the same
as those of men in the North, who yet find
i. impossible TO vote with them.
Most competent observers hold, therefore,
that the need is for two national parties, one
Of them liberal, progressive and constructive,
the other conservative and non-constructive.
And they insist that the Republican party
never can become either, because it cannot
become national.
During its brief existence the Progressive
party, they say, gave striking proof Of the
soundness of this view. In 1912 it polled
strong vote throughout the South, yet as
whole the attitude of that region was one Of
reserve Since then, however the movement
has steadily gained in vgor there; more and
more there has been revealed desire among
representative citizens of the South to shake
off their sentimental allegiance TO Demo
cratic tradition and cast their ballots with
Americans in the North and East and West
with whose views regarding economic and
constructive policies they are in sympathy.
The views we have summarized above are,
we believe, sound; and agree that the
Republican party, because of its ineradicable
character Of sectionalsm, will never be able
completely or efectualy to serve the needs
of the nation in its coming expansion.
Its inadequacy. in our judgment, will be-
come clear in the not distant future The
Republican party for years able to over
come the handicap of "the solid South" be-
cause of the reservoirs of support it could
command in the opening West. That region
was developed by pioneers of whom large
part were soldiers Of the Civil War and other
citizens from Republican states in the East,
and the party solidifed its power during the
period of Industrial expansion stimulated by
the Republican tariff.
Yet even with these sources of strength
the party found it necessary to create states
from sparsely settled territories in order to
maintain its control in the Electoral College
and in Congress.
Now the pioneering Of the West is over and
the impetus of its early development has sub
sided; the great expansion during the next
quarter of century is sure TO be in the
South. Hence the balance will sway against
the Republican party. And if there is ever
to be real contest against Democratic
ascendency in the South, it will be necessary
to have national party in opposition. which
the Republican party never can be.
The argument that eventually there must
be division into political groups represent
ing policies of liberalism and conservatism is
supported by the experience of all history
II Is by these standards that political thought
IN all enlightened countries is classified. and
the same separation inevitably will replace
here the unnatural illogical and obstructive
division based upon sectionalism.