THE NEW POLITICAL SCHOOL 



By THOMAS ELMER WILL 



MR. J. ARTHUR EDDY, tempo- 

 rary president of the (Denver) 

 National Public Domain League, 

 pays the conservationists the compli- 

 ment of calling theirs the ' 'new- 

 thought' political school." Mr. Eddy may 

 be building better than he knows. 



There is, developing in the United 

 States, a new political school. 



It is not attached to any party; its 

 representatives are scattered through 

 or located outside of all political parties. 



This school represents a revolt against 

 individualism and laissez-faire. 



And how are we to understand these 

 terms? 



Mr. Eddy regards an attack on in- 

 dividualism as suicidal. Note Webster's 

 definition of "individualism:" "An e-- 

 cessive or exclusive regard to one's per- 

 sonal interest ; self-interest ; selfishness." 



This is exactly what the Denver 

 school stands for ; likewise, it is exactly 

 the thing against which the conserva- 

 tionists protest. 



What do we understand by laissez- 

 faire ? 



The phrase originated in France in 

 the years preceding the revolution of 

 1789. It characterized the economic 

 philosophy of the Physiocrats. 



In their day, the Physiocrats were 

 reformers, "radicals," "dreamers," 

 "cranks," representatives of a new era 

 whose thought, combined with other 

 men's actions, was to make that era a 

 fact. 



They were the protestants against de- 

 cadent feudalism, the prophets of the 

 new regime of modern business. 



Feudalism, then on its last legs, 

 meant paralysis to industry. That the 

 new order might be born, the old had 

 to be overthrown. 



To be overthrown, its weaknesses had 

 to be understood, and the superiority of 

 the new gospel made plain. 

 696 



This task fell to the philosophers 

 the Rousseaus, Voltaires, Diderots, and 

 D'Alemberts and to the economists 

 the Mirabeaus, Turgots, Quesnays, and 

 Gournays. 



These men protested against the old 

 restrictions in thought and action, and 

 demanded liberty. 



The liberty the economists preached 

 was, however, primarily that of the 

 business man ; the man protesting 

 against internal tariff restrictions which 

 forbade him to transport his goods from 

 one portion to another of the kingdom 

 without having them eaten up by dues 

 and charges. 



It was a protest against royal orders 

 prescribing the styles of goods to be 

 manufactured, their qualities, sizes, ma- 

 terials, shapes, and other features. 



It was a demand that the dying order 

 should take its hands off the newly aris- 

 ing one, and give it an opportunity to 

 establish itself and render its service to 

 the world. 



Adam Smith, who revolutionized 

 British economic thought, studied these 

 doctrines at first hand in France, and 

 his book became the bible of statesmen 

 at home. 



William Pitt swore by it, and sought, 

 in so far as practicable, to put it into 

 effect. 



Barring occasional exceptions, the 

 gospel of Adam Smith's Wealth of Na- 

 tions was the gospel of laissez-faire: 

 hands off, leave industry and commerce 

 alone ; let each work its will ; let the 

 business man buy in the cheapest mar- 

 ket and sell in the dearest ; give him a 

 free field and no favors ; unshackle 

 trade, abolish monopoly, and let wealth 

 flow as freely from point to point, 

 within or without the nation, as the 

 waters flow from shore to shore of the 

 mighty sea. 



