LEADERS, NOT PARTIES

Senator Walsh, in his address before the Liberal Club, reported on another page of this issue, diagnosed to some extent the present political condition of the country. For years the sentiment of the country has wavered between the Republican party and the Democratic party from election to election. Inchoate dissatisfaction against one has thrown the other into power, while revolt against both has sporadicaly brought about the election of a third-party candidate. Such revolt dates farther back than the recent election to Congress of Magnus Johnson in Minnesota, even farther than 1891, when James B. Weaver was presidential candidate of the populists in the same region.

It is certain that such a condition of dissatisfaction exists. But the cause of it is not the apparent convergence of Republican and Democratic party planks. The cause lies in the fact that neither party produces leaders; that instead of electing men who by their positive strength will lead the party and the country, each elects men who will be subordinate to the whims and politics of the party. By the very nature of the party nomination machinery, candidates must be apparently colorless enough to please the majority (or in the Democratic party, two-thirds) of the party delegates. And since each party has come to be afraid of advocating strong, positive policies, lest it fail to please a majority of the total population, the temporary rule of each is a succession of wishy-washy compromises and dodgings.

The prime requisite, therefore, is to get real leaders--men of wide education and ability, men who can understand the feelings of the various sections of the country and yet have the strength to make up their own minds and draw their parties after them. In fact the foundation of liberal and conservative parties to replace the present system, while easy to talk about, is quite impossible to achieve unless leaders arise of such force of character as to amalgamate them by their own efforts. Roosevelt almost made a Progressive party, but with his death, the party died.

In short the nation today wants men who will do something, no matter what party they may belong to. And the party mechanism is not such as to produce such men. Lincolns, Clevelands, Roosevelts have been produced by chance: but as a rule "dark horses" do not make great leaders. Dissatisfaction among the people has existed for years, yet no change has been accomplished. And nothing can be expected of the present machine cogs. The only solution seems to be for the educated cream of the country to for get that gentlemen are not politicians and politicians are not gentlemen, to feel that good government comes ahead of business, and to go into polities with the energy of youth and the clear sight of a real education. Then and then only will parties be reshaped and government take on that natural, national importance which it holds in England and does not hold in the United States.