In any common than a generation ago. case, such a choice is not likely to be widely made in a community which has such an historical background of individualism and protestantism as our own. If, instead of choosing an intellectual leader of this type, one proposes to choose a political leader, the problem usually becomes one of a choice of party. Occasionally there arises in the political world a personality who can secure for himself a following which is distinctly personal and can carry a large number of followers with him from one party to another if he chooses, and from one change of policy to another no matter how rapid these changes may be. Such extraordinary personalities, however, are not sufficiently common to change the general fact that the voter in the long run does not choose one leader, but a group of leaders; and these are not individual knights who champion nothing but their own views, but rather the leaders of an organized political body which we call a party. There are three broad principles according to which political parties may be divided. The first is according to sectional interest, the second according to group or class interest, and the third according to some fundamental difference of opinion regarding the principles which should be enacted into legislation for the presumed welfare of all sections and classes. The sectional interest has played a considerable rôle in our past history and, of course, at the present time the complete predominance of the Democratic party in the "solid South" rests largely on the historic grounds of sectional interest which culminated in the Civil War. It is, however, partly maintained by the question of a group interest which is still a critical one; that is, the feeling on the part of many that adherence to the Democratic party is essential to the dominance of the white population. So far no party of real power in the United States has represented group or class interest in any such conscious way as these interests are represented by the political parties in Germany. In that country, for instance, there is a party which distinctly represents the interest of the landowners, one which represents the interests of the commercial group, one which represents the wage-earning group, one which represents the interests of the Catholics, and so on. And to these are added certain smaller parties representing sectional or racial interests. In the main, I think it may be said, although it is frequently difficult to explain what the difference is between the Republican party and the Democratic party in this country, that the division is primarily not one resulting from the clash of sectional or group interests, but is a division representing certain fundamental differences of opinion regarding the proper powers of government and the line of government policy best adapted to securing the welfare of all. That this is to be more the case in the immediate future than it was a decade ago I shall attempt to prove later. Usually in our history we have had only two great parties and most of the voters have made their choice between these. Smaller parties may exist side by side with them, but usually secure few adherents. The average American wants to have his vote count one way or the other. To ally himself with some small, outside party is to make it impossible for his candidates to come into power or carry through their policies. In general it is the idealist and the enthusiast only who is willing to take action of this kind. This does not mean at all, however, that refusal to join such interests as these shows any lack of idealism or any lack of conscience on the part of the voter. Here is one of the questions in the decision of which the voter must search his conscience. Take, for example, the Prohibition party. There are those who feel so strongly that prohibition of the use of alcoholic drinks is so much the most important problem of the country that they must show their allegiance to this cause by maintaining an independent political party for this purpose. Others, however, who feel as strongly on this point and are as anxious to secure the same end, decide conscientiously that the restriction of such traffic can be much better effected by voting for one of the parties which is sure to come into power and by throwing their votes to the party which will do the most toward securing their ends. The relation of the Republican party in Maine to the prohibition question is one of the most interesting illustrations of such a case. The growing socialistic party is another case in point. Its adherents believe that the form of government which they believe in would never be be adopted, or anything approaching it, by one of the established parties. The conscientious conclusion of the member of the socialistic party is that, better than to attempt some slight concession from either ruling party, is to work unceasingly for the growth of a new party which will ultimately dictate terms of its own. These are problems of conscience which you will doubtless have to face in the future. A third or fourth or fifth party may arise at any time, which may have no possibility of immediate success, but which may represent a cause which you believe to be fundamentally just and which you think may triumph in the end through such a new organization. But two of you who believe in the same cause may make different decisions |