THEC )Dul<l<: ROOSEVELT 



761 



many selfish instincts can ever coincide, 

 or that 85,000,000 private selfishnesses 

 can ever be harmonious. O^ course, it 

 goes without saying that most individ- 

 ualist democrats are better than their 

 creed, but there is no room in their 

 theory for the conception of nation- 

 ality or sociality. Individualism con- 

 ceives no entity of the nation. But there 

 is an entity of the nation. It is neither 

 a convenient fiction nor a pleasing 

 dream, nor a formula of words, nor the 

 translucent film of metaphysical cob- 

 webbery, nor yet a trick of the multi- 

 plication table of one multiplied by 

 85,000,000, or thereabouts. There is 

 something abroad in society not ac- 

 counted for in the materialism of indi- 

 vidualism. The cash-nexus of Carlyle 

 will not satisfy us. One cannot name 

 it. But this is certain : whatever it is — 

 what Jesus and Paul called "Charitas," 

 or what Aristotle called "Philia,"' which 

 was something wider than friendship — 

 it is that which binds society together, 

 and makes human society possible. It 

 is the centripetal and not the centrifu- 

 gal forces of life. Its essential prin- 

 ciple is cooperative rather than antago- 

 nistic. It is altruistic rather than ego- 

 istic. It is rational rather than whim- 

 sical. It is ethical rather than selfish. 

 It is not atoms at war, and it is one 

 Wordsworth has caught the idea — 



"As leaves on the trees whereon the.v grow 

 And wither, every generation 

 Is to the being of a mighty nation." 



Thomas Hill Green has taught us. 

 here in this university, that the intro- 

 duction of a doctrine of duties with the 

 doctrine of rights involves the idea 

 of a common life and a common good. 

 This idea of a common life and a corn- 

 man good is the foundation of the poli- 

 tics of this modern Aristotelian. Theo- 

 dore Roosevelt, and in facing the is- 

 sue of the twentieth century he has op- 

 posed sharply the foundations of the 

 Declaration of Independence of all 

 rights and no duties, to the philosophy 

 underlying the Constitution of the 

 United States, which is nationality, in- 

 cluding duties as well as rights ; and he 

 has dragged out of the preamble ^f 



that Constitution a principle long for- 

 gotten, but a principle upon which the 

 very Government was founded and for 

 which it was founded — to promote the 

 general zi'elfare. This principle he ha^ 

 relaid on geographical foundati(~>ns as 

 substantial as the Archaean Ilills. 



It is not claimed by the new poli- 

 tics that legislation will recreate human 

 character or reform the world, or that 

 the State, centralized or decentralized, 

 can ever become what Bentham char- 

 acterized as a "mill to grind rogues 

 honest." The vain regret is as old as 

 the memory of Antisthenes, who im- 

 plored the senate of his time to make 

 horses of asses by official vote. The 

 new democracy of nationalism claims 

 for itself that it offers the forms of a 

 rational association in a sphere of the 

 .State, enlarged and moralized, which 

 will constitute a political environment 

 where everything in the individual that 

 is best and worth preserving will be en- 

 couraged instead of thwarted, and 

 where the kindlier impulses of the hu- 

 man heart, the most of which are being 

 choked in the maelstrom of individual- 

 ism, shall have at least even chances 

 for existence. If the State will offer 

 a political environment which will make 

 the public well-being possible, the pub- 

 lic will look out for itself. The pathetic 

 message of history is that the people 

 have never had a chance. What they 

 want is a chance. An ethical democ- 

 racy would offer them a chance. 

 XA'hether the legislative and economic 

 forces which environ the daily lives of 

 the multittides are rational and ethical 

 and .social determines the limitations, 

 and, to a large extent, the destinies of 

 those lives. Whether they are the 

 archetectonic constructions of rational 

 foresight, or the unplanned or unin- 

 telligent accidents of chance, will decide 

 whether individuals shall walk in blind 

 alleys or open avenues. 



If the scientific and ethical and pliilo- 

 .sophical contribution of Theodore 

 Roosevelt to the I'nited States, to the 

 twentieth century: if his warfare with 

 the billionaire anarchist and his defense 

 of the people's domain succeeds in 

 awakening the national intelligence and 



