THE DESPOTISM OF DEMOCRACY. 497 



than that ; they must represent their hearers as omniscient. 

 " When/' said an orator in the last presidential campaign, discuss- 

 ing the most complex of political issues, " I see a person who says 

 it is too difficult for the people, I find some one who says it is too 

 deep for him. No question is too deep for the people." * Had 

 any sycophant of Nero's time pretended to more knowledge than 

 the tyrant himself, he would have lost his life. In these days of 

 humane societies, however, the penalty is less severe but not less 

 summary. Howls of derision and certain defeat await the suitor 

 for popular favor that neglects to burn the incense so pleasing to 

 the many, and dares to say that they not only do wrong but often 

 do miost grievous wrong ; that universal suffrage, however lauded 

 as a cure for political and social ills, never insures the choice of 

 the most fit to rule ; f that there is a deal of ignorance and crime 

 that masquerades under the name of democracy. As well might 

 the scoffer at the divine right of kings or the infallibility of 

 Popes two centuries ago have expected to be received with honor 

 and cordiality at the Vatican or the palace of Versailles. 



When the power of democracy is increased that is, when gov- 

 ernment assumes more functions, thus emulating the " universal " 

 parent of Sir Robert Filmer's political philosophy the more des- 

 potic, intolerant, and barbarous it becomes. J More offices and 

 privileges are thrown into the political arena to be fought for. 

 Party organization grows stronger, and party feeling more bitter 

 and savage. The pursuit of politics becomes a form of civil war, 

 giving rise to its ethics and its evils. Division of the people into 

 hostile camps follows. Military discipline, transferred to civil life, 



* William J. Bryan. Speech in Pittsburg, Pa., August 10, 1896. 



f It was cited against an eminent American scholar and diplomatist, who was once men- 

 tioned for the governorship of New York, that he had written a paper in favor of a restric- 

 tion of suffrage as a measure to improve the government of American cities. 



\ No one will forget the fierce but senseless resentment shown toward Minister Bayard 

 by the press and Congress for his remarks on democracy in Boston, England, August 2, 

 1895, and in Edinburgh, Scotland, November 7, 1896. What he said was the exact truth. 

 " The President," he said at Boston, " stood in the midst of a strong, self-confident, and 

 oftentimes violent people, men who sought to have their own way. It took a real man to 

 govern the people of the United States." The riots at Homestead, Chicago, Cleveland, Buf- 

 falo, and Pittsburg justify every word. " In my own country," he said at Edinburgh, " I 

 have witnessed an insatiable growth of a form of socialism styled protection, which has 

 done more to corrupt public life, to banish men of independent mind from public councils, 

 and to lower the tone of national representation than any other cause. . . . It . . . has 

 sapped the popular conscience by giving corrupting largesses to special classes, and it 

 throws legislation into the political market, where jobbers and chafferers take the place of 

 statesmen." Observe what has been going on in Washington since the introduction of the 

 Dingley bill. But the only mistake Mr. Bayard made was in not distmguishing clearly be- 

 tween democracy as a form of political government and democracy as a condition of free- 

 dom under moral control. It is the former and not the latter that is responsible for the 

 evils that he describes so accuratelv. 



