p. 75 | Political Cowards

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Oct 1888

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 3, No. 10.

Political Cowards.

POLITICAL courage is a quality which in the present day seems to be applied only to the heroes of the past. We revere the sterling bravery of Washington, the calm determination of Lincoln, and the dogged tenacity of Grant, but when we look about us to-day, to whom of our leading men can we apply the epithet “courageous”? In a democracy, of all forms of government, courage is the quality above all others which should command the respect of the people and lead to successful results. In a government of the people the man should rule who has the courage of his convictions, and will boldly outline a policy and defend his views to the end. Unfortunately, in the anomalous condition of the politics of this country, the man who is usually most successful is he who best understands the manipulation of the factions, and not he who throws down the gauntlet of his convictions and stands ready to champion his views without regard to personal expediency or consequence. This is an age of little men and tricksters; the great leaders of the past decade are fast disappearing, and those who survive have passed the time of political activity. . . .

The political developments of late years tend to show that the less courage a man possesses the more sure he is of political preferment. The man who stands for his convictions is respected for his bravery by the honorable, thinking members of the community; but the party managers will have none of him, as he is sure to be offensive to this faction, or cannot be manipulated by that clique. The man with a record must of necessity have made enemies, and for that reason is considered an impossible political candidate. By the time a man has been found who is unobjectionable to the Fiji element—who is sure of the Hottentot vote, and can command the support of the Hindoo influence—all that remains is a mediocral negation as much resembling the ideal statesman as the fabled ass in the lion’s skin is like to the monarch of the forest. Pure partisanship is always the most circumspect of courses, and the only road to greatness is to strike out a bold and independent line of conduct. Parties are the exponents of principles, and leaders must be the inaugurators of progression, else party and leaders will sink into negative inaction. . . .

This lack of courage amongst politicians does not signify that the American nation is without courageous men; it merely means that under the influence of our heterogeneous democracy the politicians have constructed a monstrous bugbear, in the form of what they are pleased to term public opinion, and which, to their view, possesses as many eyes as Argus, each ready to scrutinize every act which may be considered offensive to the multifold interests of the community. So accustomed are politicians to cower before this self-constructed terror of public opinion—which, in reality, is but the divisional interests of the machine managers—that they dare not risk initiating a new policy, which they believe to be essential to the nation’s safety, and progressive

enough to depart from the stereotyped traditions of their partisan organization. Democracy itself is not responsible for this state of affairs, as the real public opinion—and by this is meant the view of the nation at large—is quick to praise any aggressive action tending toward needed reform; but the political oligarchy which stands between the people and the would-be reformer has so surrounded itself with demagogical power that it unhesitatingly slaughters any would-be reformer before he can appear before the people and demand their suffrage.—America.