THE RADICAL MOVEMENT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

AFTER the passing of the issues which were settled by the Civil War, and until the campaign of 1896, party lines in this country were drawn less and less upon opposing vital principles. Since 1896 a radical difference of policy has been apparent in the platforms of the chief contending parties. Inasmuch, however, as the Democratic party has been defeated in two national campaigns, it to-day faces the future in a condition of uncertainty. The verdict of 1900 has disposed of the free-silver issue ; Mr. Bryan will not again be a candidate; and the proposition that the party return to the principles and leaders of the Cleveland régime is being systematically suggested through editorials, reviews, after-dinner speeches, and authorized interviews of many advocates. Doubtless, these utterances represent a considerable public opinion; but the student is likely to be disappointed in much of the argument offered, in that it attempts no calm, judicial relating of the recent party changes to the modern conditions of industry or to contemporary politics in our competitor nations.

We are, however, in no position to measure the significance of these changes unless we appreciate that they have come to pass in sympathy with great age tendencies, which may manifest themselves extravagantly, but which, nevertheless, are the inevitable product of the social and industrial evolution of the century, and, as such, bound to persist until their cause is removed. No other explanation is adequate. We have to deal with an unparalleled condition. In 1896 the Democratic party met in National Convention with the machinery of government in its hands, and a Democratic President in the chair of state. This President, with his advisers, had had immense facilities for influencing the personnel of the convention; and yet the latter met only to repudiate the President's leadership, to declare for radical and revolutionary principles, and to recognize leaders comparatively unknown in the party history.

To ascribe the action of the Chicago Convention to the influence of Mr. Bryan, and to say lightly, as certain campaign orators have said, that the body was virtually hypnotized by the "cross of gold" speech, is

to ignore the fact that the convention was committed to radical views before Mr. Bryan spoke upon its floor, and to magnify unduly his personality. To say, similarly, that the action of the convention was due to a merely temporary manifestation of Populism is not satisfactory: first, because of the arbitrary assumption that the manifestation is merely temporary; and, second, because it fails to state why Populism should be so mighty or Democracy so weak that the former should capture the latter. It is, however, significant that the candidate of the Democratic party in 1896, and again in 1900, was acceptable to the Populist party, and that the sympathies of the two parties have been united since the Chicago Convention. And this means that a study of the present Democratic party and its policy must give respectful attention to the development and meaning of Populism.

The Populist party was born in a period of business depression, and has been from its inception avowedly a party of discontent. It has made its appeal to those who are dissatisfied with present-day social and economic conditions, and has sought to remedy the evils complained of through the enlarged entrance of the state as a factor in matters of industry and social relations. First organized as a national party in 1891, it was the political successor of the movement known as the "Farmers' Alliance." In the following year its candidate for the Presidency received more than 1,000,000 votes; being nearly twenty per cent of the number received by the successful Democratic candidate. This vote carried four States, secured twenty-two votes in the Electoral College, and placed eight members in the House and five in the Senate. In 1896 the party became virtually merged into the Bryan Democracy and practically ceased to be an independent factor.

The Populist party is interesting as a party, not only because of its swift rise in popular support, but also as the first political movement of large importance in this country to show clearly the influence of the modern Socialistic agitation. And it is, indeed, the contention of this article that the real significance of Populism and of the Bryan democracy, as political forms in our age evolution, is to be found in their Socialistic tendencies. This is not to say that either the Democratic or the Populist party now occupies, or is likely to occupy, in every essential, the position taken by the avowedly Socialistic writers and leaders. While the people may welcome a party influenced in its practical programme by Socialistic results, they will not trust the visionary and impracticable forces which take to themselves the name of Socialists. The academic Socialism, for example, with its complete theory of an ideal

state, its materialistic conception of history, its mistaken psychology, and its intolerance of all present social conditions, involves too much that is new and untried to be approved by the popular vote. Its practical function is to persist as an agitation until that which is true in its reasoning shall impress the mass of the people. Thereafter a part at least of its programme will be taken up and exploited by one of the more conservative parties, which to this extent will show "Socialistic tendencies," although not necessarily committing itself in regard to the abstract theories of the Socialistic philosophy.

In this sense the Populist party is, and always has been, a party of Socialistic tendencies. It does not commit itself to any theory of complete Socialism; its platform contains no demand for a radically new social order; and the Socialistic party does not recognize it as expressing its ideals. Nevertheless, in its demand for government ownership of railroads, for municipal ownership of public utilities, and, in the language of the anti-trust plank of the 1900 platform, which declares that “the one remedy for the trusts is that the ownership and control be assumed and exercised by the people," the Populist party discloses itself as the propagandist of the political idea of paternalism; and if its programme were carried out, it would be as great a step toward Socialism as the Socialistic party itself would be willing to bring to pass in its inaugural control of the government. Thus, also, the free-silver Republican party, another ally of the Bryan democracy, in its last national platform declares for municipal ownership of public utilities, and demands an enlargement of the sphere of government action in respect to the control of railroads.

The Democratic party, then, in the recent campaign, and in the earlier campaign of 1896, appeared in public alliance with parties having pronounced Socialistic tendencies; and while the Democratic party does not in its national platform declare for any of these distinctively Socialistic ideas, in many of its State platforms it uses language and expresses views which show its sympathy with its allies. This is also shown in the conduct of the two late campaigns, in which for the first time in our national history the spokesmen of a principal party have made social and financial inequality the basis of many of their arguments; appealing to the jealousy of the poor toward the rich, and borrowing their manner of speech, although not their formal statement of principles, from the Socialistic agitator.

The question now arises whether this tendency is likely to persist, or whether it should be regarded as something merely temporary; and the answer will be determined not by a theory, but by a condition. If

the Socialistic propaganda impresses so many of our citizens that, measured by the standard of practical politics, it becomes desirable for a great party to support it, then the tendency will persist; otherwise it will disappear. The reason for this conclusion is found in the logical working of the two-party system. Under this system, although it may be hard to measure and define the progress of new political ideas, it is certain that so soon as a theory takes a fast hold on any considerable number of people, so as to control or tend to control their political activity, one party will be moved toward its support and the other toward its opposition. On a priori grounds, therefore, for the very reason that it has made its appearance, it may be argued that the tendency will persist, modified, from time to time, according to circumstances.

Further, a study of the politics of our competitor nations shows that the spirit of Socialism is universally gaining ground. So remarkable, indeed, is its progress that it is not too much to say that the most distinctive and interesting phenomenon in recent European politics is the rise and growth of the Socialistic parties. The record of this rise and growth may be shown in tabular form, although it would be possible through long and careful analysis only, to show the influence and extent of the Socialistic movement as it has modified and indirectly influenced the political programme of other parties than those which bear its

Conditions in civilized nations in this age are so similar that from such a table we are justified in assuming that the movement shown

1 "The Growth of Socialism," Gunton's Magazine, July, 1899. "The Progress of Socialism Since 1893," Prof. R. T. Ely, Chautauquan, October, 1899.

is not local, but universal in its character. We must expect to find in this country many affected by it; and, applying the rule already laid down for a nation divided on the two-party system, we must expect that this movement will be recognized; that one of our parties will tend to become radical and Socialistic in its tone, and the other conservative and individualistic.

Advancing now a step further, not only do the facts show that the present age views the advance of Socialistic philosophy with increasing favor, but a study of recent industrial evolution makes it plain that this favor is not bestowed as a matter of chance, but in sympathy with welldefined changes of condition in economic production and distribution, which have come to pass during the century just closed. These changes have stimulated the spirit of Socialism not only in politics, but also in the academic field of theory. The Individualistic, or British, School of Economics is to-day fighting a losing battle to maintain its authority, and must soon pass into the background of the merely historic. For nearly a century after the publication of "The Wealth of Nations,” in 1776, Adam Smith and his followers held the undisputed leadership of economic thought. The people found in their fundamental doctrine of free competition, resting upon the principles of personal liberty, private property, private inheritance, and freedom of contract, the best practical plan for the general betterment of the material life.

Within a comparatively recent period the external conditions of commercial and industrial endeavor have been so far changed that many of the laws upon which is based the British economic system are no longer applicable. Adam Smith, for example, recognized the evils of a private monopoly of any life necessity; but he demonstrated that free competition would make monopoly impossible. And so long as landcarriage of goods was by means of horses and "broad-wheeled waggons

fifty wagons, one hundred men, and four hundred horses to every two hundred tons of goods so long, indeed, were the transportation costs and inconveniences prohibitory for land trade over great distances. Thus in each centre were developed local industries, competing healthfully with similar institutions in relatively near territory, but not desirous or capable of supplying more than a limited market. With the introduction of the modern transportation system this condition passed away. Not only has it become possible, in the case of many commodities, to supply a world market from one central point of production; but, in addition, owing to increased specialization and use of machinery, with necessary increase of capital, it has become economical to turn