bers of the League"; and Article XVI, which provides that the members shall join in severing diplomatic relations with members who refuse to abide by the terms of the Covenant, shall sever all trade and financial relations, and shall, in case of necessity, "contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League." Although the important nations of the world, with but a few exceptions, joined the League soon after its formulation, the Senate of the United States, returning to the former theories of isolation and national independence, rejected both the Covenant and the treaty of peace. Objections were raised principally to Article X and to the obligations which it was thought the League involved in the way of rendering military assistance in the maintenance of peace and order in Europe. The election of Senator Harding, the nominee of the Republican party, to the office of President, on a platform which practically condemned the League of Nations and asserted again a policy of national isolation or the principle of entering into an association of nations largely dictated in its terms and conditions by the United States, raises anew the question whether the American nation should aim to act to a large degree independent in its foreign interests and obligations or whether international co-operation should be fostered and extended. It may well be asked whether the policy of isolation which was the aim of some American statesmen in the early part of the nineteenth century is compatible with the new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, with the colonial expansion of the United States in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and with mutual international obligations previously assumed. It remains, then, to be determined whether with increasing international co-operation in commercial and industrial affairs, in education, art, and literary attainments, in labor and economic conditions, and in travel and social intercourse, it is good policy for the United States to hold itself aloof from a full and frank policy of international political co-operation. SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS JOHN BASSETT MOORE, The Principles of American Diplomacy (Harper & Brothers, 1918). CARL RUSSELL FISH, American Diplomacy (Henry Holt & Co., 1915). America as a World Power, American Nation Series, Vol. XXV (Harper & Brothers, 1907). The United States and Latin America (Doubleday, Page & Co., 1920). ALBERT BUSHNELL HART, The Monroe Doctrine: An Interpretation (Little, Brown & Co., 1916). A. C. COOLIDGE, The United States as a World Power (The Macmillan Company, 1908). CHAPTER IV WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT? PARTIES AND THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT THOUGH the subjects considered in the previous chapters are of special significance in the organization and operation of modern governments, many other principles and problems worthy of consideration have had to be omitted, necessarily, in the compass of a single volume. Before concluding this survey it is necessary, however, to present a short account of one of the fundamental issues as to the purpose and scope of the entire process of government. This issue has engaged the attention of political thinkers and practical statesmen ever since the organization of governments. Differences of opinion on this and related issues have led to the formation of parties whose aim it has been to secure government control to carry into effect their respective views. This cleavage can best be understood by a comparison of the general basis of political divisions in Europe and America. 1 The party circle is based on the practice in European legislative chambers (the seats of which are frequently arranged in a semicircle) for the parties to be seated in groups with the conservatives on the right and the radicals on the left. 2 Normally the center, or the bloc, is the dominant group in European Though the Democrats or Republicans, or parties corresponding to these designations, have been in continuous control of state and Federal governments in the United States, the dominant center, or bloc, has been influenced at all times by the extremes in the party circle, the individualists, on the one hand, and the liberals, or socialists, on the other. It is necessary, therefore, to undertake a brief analysis of the political doctrines of these extreme groups and to trace some effects of their doctrines in the formulation of governmental policies.2 Individualism.-The doctrine of individualism is an ancient one and has been a dominant motive behind the policies of government since the middle of the eighteenth elective chambers and, with an adhesion of support either from the Liberals and Radicals or from the Conservatives, can control the policies of the government. In France the Radicals and Moderate Socialists, with the support of the left center, have for a long time maintained control in the Chamber of Deputies. In Germany the bloc with the Moderate Conservatives has been the controlling party. The chief differences in parties in European countries are that the number of groups varies considerably and that the nations differ especially as to the strength of the Syndicalists and Socialists on the one hand and the Extreme Conservative groups on the other. 1 The dominant party group in the United States has been almost invariably the center, or bloc, the policies of the controlling party shifting on occasion either to the liberal left or to the more conservative right. The Democratic party began as a liberal and radical party and the Federalists were the Conservatives. For a long time, due to peculiar conditions, sectional feeling, race problems, etc., the standard division of parties along liberal and conservative lines was overshadowed by somewhat unnatural party groupings. A return to the former grouping seems to be indicated in the tendency for factions to develop in each of the major parties, the basis of division apparently being conservatism, otherwise known as "standpatism" and liberalism-a liberal and a conservative wing being found in each party. 2 Cf. part ii, chap. ii, for consideration of parties and party methods. century. It was for a long time the official creed of the leading governments of the world, and was defended by some of the greatest political thinkers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.1 According to this theory the state was to interfere as little as possible with the individual in the enjoyment of his rights and privileges. It was to impose few, if any, restrictions upon his business and commercial activities. The theory of non-interference grew into a government philosophy which was widely accepted and practiced in Europe at the time governments were established in America. "It was thought that the rivalry between individuals would develop strength of character and would stimulate originality by offering the rewards of wealth and fame; society would thereby be the gainer, for it would lead to an increased production of wealth." The theory became associated with and was looked upon as a corollary to the developing doctrine of popular sovereignty. In America the doctrine of natural and inherent rights beyond state control served as a basis for a corresponding theory of civil liberty which proposed to limit the functions of government to a minimum necessary to keep the peace. Jefferson characterized the prevailing view in the dictum "that government is best which governs least." At this time "strong emphasis was laid on the value of individual enterprise, the importance of initiative, upon the significance of self-reliance and responsibility as factors in the growth of the community. It was asserted that these were the typical qualities upon which American prosperity had been based." The theories of independence, individual 1 Among the leading exponents of individualism were Adam Smith, whose work on The Wealth of Nations, and Jeremy Bentham, whose Principles of Legislation served as a philosophic basis for later theories. The doctrines of individualism were chiefly advanced by the Manchester School of Economics under the leadership of such noted writers as David Ricardo, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Robert Malthus. 2 J. Selwyn Schapiro, Modern and Contemporary European History (Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1918), p. 42. C. E. Merriam, American Political Ideas (The Macmillan Company, 1920), p. 314. |