Ireland: Democracy and Heredity 



361 



(d) That the general mating — • 

 through the pressure of social propin- 

 quity — of the more intelligent with the 

 more intelligent, and of the less with 

 the less, tends to make talented strains 

 more talented and to depress other 

 strains further and further below the 

 line of mediocrity. 



The central idea of my article was 

 that, if my biological statements were 

 true, the conclusion was inescapable 

 that efficiency in government could not 

 arise from or be made to depend upon 

 its democratic quality, the word "demo- 

 cratic"' being employed by me, of course, 

 to express democratic experience during 

 the past twenty centuries, and not demo- 

 cratic hopes for the next twenty. 



Of the four articles which discuss 

 the views here advanced, two are writ- 

 ten by men whose professional work 

 has made them specially familiar with 

 biology, and two by men who, from 

 similar causes, are specially familiar 

 with affairs. The biologists endorse the 

 greater part of my biological statements, 

 whilst strongly dissenting from my ap- 

 plication of them, and the men of af- 

 fairs endorse the greater part of my 

 statements on government. The satis- 

 faction with which I contemplate this 

 situation may be measured by consid- 

 ering the position I would have been 

 in if the principal support for my views 

 on government had come from the biol- 

 ogists, and for my views on l)iology 

 from the men of affairs. 



I do not suggest that a biologist may 

 not have studied government to good 

 purpose, or a man of affairs biology ; 

 and, in common with all readers of the 

 Journal, I am aware that Mr. Madi- 

 son Grant, the lawyer, enjoys an inter- 

 national reputation as an anthropolo- 

 gist, and that Professor Cook, the bot- 

 anist, is well known as an authority on 

 African colonization. 



Before taking up those points on 

 which the discussion has disclosed 

 marked differences of opinion it is ad- 

 visable to refer to one on which there 

 seems to be substantial agreement, 

 namely, the extremely unsatisfactory 

 state of American democracy after 

 nearly a century and a half of free op- 



eration under conditions more favor- 

 able in most respects than those under 

 which any other democracy has ever 

 functioned. 



As Professor Conklin opens his reply 

 to me with a reference to his article on 

 "Biology and Democracy" in the April, 

 1919, issue of Scribner's Magaaine, I 

 may quote from it his description of 

 present-day democracy in this country : 



"Our lack of specialization is re- 

 flected in our contempt for specialists 

 and experts of every sort. The belief 

 is widespread that one man's opinion is 

 as good as another's and that expert 

 knowledge is merely another way of 

 fooling the people. We intrust educa- 

 tion to those who can find no other 

 occupation, apparently with the idea 

 that anyone can teach. We leave the 

 control of food, fuel, clothing, and 

 other necessaries of life to speculators 

 and middlemen, and the health, hap- 

 piness, and employment of the people to 

 Providence or to selfish exploiters. . . . 

 We elect demagogues and grafters to 

 political office so frequently that the 

 very name 'politician' has come to be 

 a reproach. We send narrow partisans 

 to Congress, and, by stupid adherence 

 to party regularity, men wholly un- 

 trained in statesmanship are frequently 

 put into the most important pu1)lic 

 places." 



After reading the foregoing descrip- 

 tion of American democracy as it ap- 

 peared to Professor Conklin's observa- 

 tion in April, 1919, it was not without 

 astonishment that I read his jndgnicnt 

 of American democracy as expressed, 

 also in April, 1919, in the Journal of 

 Heredity, where he concludes his re- 

 ply to me with these words: "After 

 all the merits of any system of gov- 

 ernment should be measured by its ac- 

 tual results on society as a whole, over 

 long periods of time, and measured in 

 this way democracy has no cause as 

 yet to be fearful of the results." 



If the results to date of .American 

 democratic government, as Professor 

 Conklin describes them, are no cause 

 for fear; it is not easy to imagine 

 upon what kind of results a just ap- 

 prehension might be founded. 



