114 THE farmer's relationships. 



tible to the influence of political deception is the farming 

 class. Whether right or wrong, this opinion is practically 

 universal among political managers, and party platforms are 

 framed, and political addresses delivered to rural audiences, 

 upon the assumption that those audiences are easily deceived. 

 Public questions are almost never fairly presented by political 

 speakers, and it is rare that political platforms unequivocally 

 pledge parties to definite courses of action on strongly con- 

 troverted topics. The art of drawing a political platform 

 consists largely in skill to frame language in such a way as 

 to appear to be very binding, while in reality it leaves 

 candidates elected nearly free to do as they please. 



The relation, therefore, of the farmer to the politician 

 should be one of profound distrust. He must be recognized 

 as one who means first of all to win if he can, and who 

 believes the surest way to success is rather to excite and play 

 upon prejudice than to appeal to reason. He probably will 

 not lie outright, for this is bad policy, and hence not good 

 politics, but if he can deceive without actually lying he will 

 do so freely where he thinks it desirable, and if he does 

 his work skilfully, he will stand the higher in the councils 

 of his party. Of course many politicians in heated campaigns 

 do not hesitate to lie outright, but tliese are always the small 

 fry, and in the long run they fail. But the farmer must 

 never expect a fair presentation of a public question from any 

 political orator or political journal. What he must expect, 

 and what, in nine cases out of ten, he will get from Doth 

 these sources is, first, flattery, to gain his good-will, and, next, 

 rhetorical appeals, more or less effective, according to the 

 ability of the s})eaker or writer, to his passions, and his 

 l)rejudice. The first thought of the political orator is to 

 arouse enthusiasm — to " bring the house down;" now candid 

 argument can never have this effect, while rhetorical praise 

 or denunciation always has it. It is natural, therefore, that 

 those who desire to win over an audience or excite it to 

 greater endeavor, should employ the means which experience 

 has shown to be successful, rather than to emplo}^ others 

 which are known to be less productive of results. All popular 



