THEl )!)( >KF. K0( )SK\ ELT 



761 



many selfish instincts can ever coincide, 

 or that 85,000,000 private selfishnesses 

 can ever be harmonious. Of 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- 

 u-ebbery, 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 they grow 

 And wither, even'- generation 

 Ts 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 of 



that Constitution a principle l<ng for- 

 gotten, but a principle upon which the 

 very Government was founded and for 

 which it was founded to promote the 

 general -welfare. This principle he has 

 relaid <>n geographical foundations as 

 substantial as the Archaean Hills. 



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 w r ill 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. 

 Whether the legislative and economic 

 forces which environ the daily lives of 

 the multitudes 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 philo- 

 sophical contribution of Theodore 

 Roosevelt to the United 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 



