|
Democracy
at Trial
by James Hayden Tufts
Whether democracies in Europe and the Americas
are to be permitted to retain any of the progress
gained in freedom, welfare, equality, and peace
seems likely to be decided, not by reason but by
arms. But in the faith that right makes might we
may at least consider what internal policies and
course of action will tend to safeguard from
destruction not only our way of life but also what
we have come to hold as right and good.
As regards our institutions and organizations,
how can we be safe from the rise of despotic power?
The outstanding lessons from Communism and National
Socialism would seem to be the danger of
concentration of all power in a single organization
as contrasted with such pluralism, or division of
power, as is found, for instance, in Scandinavian
countries and the United States. Power is a
necessary instrument of civilization. The
preservation and advancement of moral ideals need
the support of collective agencies as do trade,
industry, and the administration of justice. But
power, either over natural forces or over actions
and minds of men is now seen to be, if possible,
more dangerous than ever, to freedom and to life
itself. History has seen various attempts to resist
oppressive power, but effective restraint of power
wielded by collective organization has usually been
secured only the collective strength of some other
organization. Both Communism and National Socialism
are totalitarian states. They are systems of
absolute power. They permit no counterbalancing or
restraining agency. No opposition may organize.
Secret police are vigilant to prevent even the
beginnings of questioning. Neither organized wealth
nor organized labor is allowed to influence. No
opposition party appears at the polls.
In the free democracies, on the contrary, are
numerous collective agencies, not only for manifold
educational. philanthropic, recreational, and
social purposes, but for representing interests or
groups of those who wish to influence or even to
oppose government. In the United States there are a
chamber of commerce, a manufacturers' association,
two labor unions, a farm group, various religious
groups, scientific and educational associations.
All these inform or shape public opinion, secure or
oppose legislation, influence national policies. At
times, indeed, it has been charged that organized
wealth was writing tariffs or controlling the
press, or that organized labor was carrying
elections. And at times government has seemed to be
unable to act promptly in emergencies because of
the numerous checks and balances provided by the
cautious founders. Yet, on the whole, we have both
kept our freedom and advanced justice. In the light
of what totalitarian governments are doing we may
well think that we have built better than we knew
in encouraging such a variety of organized groups.
Pluralism seems safer than totalitarianism.
Yet pluralism is no sure reliance for
maintenance of rights or for ensuring advance in
moral ideals or moral standards. It affords
agencies through which the spirit may act, but if
the spirit is dead or lacking, the agencies are
dead likewise. The spirit which must preserve moral
gains is the same spirit which has won them; it
lives only as it grows. Life for institutional as
for individual morality must combine stability with
change. Reverence for what we hold right, just, and
good, must be matched with open-minded
sensitiveness to new claims by or for those who
hitherto have had small share in the vast increase
in goods provided by science, invention, and mass
production. Moral dilemmas are experienced when
older morals and institutions fail as yet to meet
new situations. Hard resistance to just changes
provokes either violence or despair or apathy.
Certain forces of the day, notably the power of
mass -- in industry, in business, in social and
political pressure groups, in subtler forms of
propaganda -- make for disintegration of older
moral structures. Family and religious influence
has suffered. On the other hand, in the present
century we have made daily steady progress in
protection against disease, ignorance, hunger,
industrial accidents, excessive hours of labor in
factories, waste of natural resources. We have made
provision for old age, have given legal standing to
collective bargaining, and have recognized the
plight of the farmer caught between low prices for
his products and high prices for what he must buy.
We have not yet learned how to prevent business
depressions, but we have at least come to see that
the moral injury of prolonged unemployment for
workmen and of closed opportunity for youth is a
more serious and difficult problem than that of
bodily hunger. It is hard to believe that the
enormous advances in means of communication through
transport, electricity, and radio will not
ultimately lower older barriers between peoples and
make for better international understanding.
But there is no prospect of Utopia, either for
individuals or for peoples. Moral life will
continue to need alertness, courage, faith in the
good cause, and at times sacrifice. A new invention
like the airplane may place at the disposal of
ruthless force a terrible weapon; a new idea like
that of Lebensraum may touch off with
explosive violence a new train; an economics of
force may change the problem of just distribution.
What we may hope for, if the present threat to all
our rights and values can be met, is the
opportunity to work out further the promise of free
American life.
Excerpted from Twentieth
Century Philosophy
|
Selected
Writings of James Hayden Tufts
Studies
in Philosophy and Psychology, by James Hayden
Tufts
|