PRES. HADLEY'S ADDRESS

President Arthur Twining Hadley h.'99, of Yale University, lectured last evening in the Living Room of the Union on "Opportunities for Political Influence." The most obvious way of going into public life, President Hadley said, is for a man to take offices to which he is elected and trust to his own powers for advancement as he would in professional or commercial life. This method has the advantage of being fairly easy, provided a man obeys the rules of the game. On the other hand, by going into politics in this way, a man subjects himself to conditions often resulting in the loss of independence. For he commits himself to the platform upon which he is nominated, to perhaps, a series of platforms adopted by his party subsequent to his nomination, and to the recognition of party services when he is called upon to make appointments or to lend his aid in the election of other members of his party.

Much of the disinclination to politics is due, President Hadley said, to unwillingness not to accept office, but to accept these conditions. And many men in the reaction against these conditions, are led to the other extreme. They believe that good men should hold the balance of power and compel the political parties to compete for their support. This independent vote, however, is not often large enough to carry an election, and is almost never able to carry two in succession. Even rarer is the chance of an independent candidate to gain an election independent of all party, for non-partisan government does not work in this country, it being one of the prices of government under our constitution that political parties must do the work of government. An exception to this rule, however, is the case of municipal politics, which should be separated as far as possible from national party influence. The position of an independent voter is thus a negative rather than a positive influence.

There are thus two extremes, the man who goes into politics for a livelihood and loses independence for the sake of influence, and the man, who loses influence for the sake of independence. There is, however, a large middle ground between these positions. No man should make politics his profession unless he is rich enough to be able to withdraw at the times when his judgment does not indorse the actions of his party. For otherwise, there is almost sure to come to a professional politician a crisis when he must choose between his principles, and bread for his children. A man not rich enough to make politics his profession in this manner, should go into a business or profession and then take office when the conditions are such that he agrees with his party, but can also withdraw from politics at such times as he does not. A man having such a profession, should choose a party and a leader to whom he feels that he can give his allegiance. The true basis of such allegiance is having enough in common with the party and the leader to be able to overlook minor differences. In this way a man can take part in politics under the rules of the game as it is now being played in the United States, and can have a much greater opportunity to bring about reform than if he entered as an independent.