88 THE FARMER AND THE NEW DAY 



policy in a specific field of rural endeavor, he will almost 

 always give you a program or project and at that 

 a program of methods to be used rather than a list of 

 goals to be achieved. If one were to keep an accurate 

 time slip of subject matter of discussion in the typical 

 state Grange meeting, he would probably find that not 

 less than three-fourths of the time had been spent in 

 dealing with the machinery of the organization against 

 one-fourth in considering the problems which the or- 

 ganization is intended to help the farmer solve. These 

 tendencies are in a measure simply the danger common 

 to all associated effort, what the sociologist calls " in- 

 stitutionalism." School and church and government 

 and all collective agencies are tempted to magnify the 

 institution itself, rather than its real purpose. One of 

 the most powerful arguments for the development of a 

 definite policy is that it will tend to substitute aims or 

 purposes for methods, to emphasize ends rather than 

 means, the grist rather than the mill. We might well 

 endorse Lloyd George when he said, " I deal not with 

 plans, not with details, and above all not with pro- 

 grams. I deal with objectives." We must define our 

 agricultural objective. 



In the best, truest and most important sense we do 

 not now have an American rural policy; we should have 

 one and we should have it soon. 



A FEW QUERIES 



It is quite possible that some influential leaders of 

 our various agricultural enterprises still remain uncon- 

 vinced of the need of a policy for rural affairs, or as- 

 sert that we have such a policy. A few questions may 

 perhaps serve to bring out more clearly the fact that 

 we are trying to establish. 



