Causes of the Republican Defeat
By Editor
One Cause.—One great contributing cause of the defeat is the constantly rising high prices, in which the high tariffs, for which the Republican party has stood, have been a factor, and many have felt that the great party did not keep its pre-election pledges; hence the Insurgent movement, hence the landslide to Democracy in so many states. California elected an Insurgent governor, Hiram W. Johnson, altho his opponent, Theodore A. Bell, stood for strongly progressive principles. Mr. Johnson's anti-Southern Pacific slogan caught the hearts of the people. In many cases the present tariff favors California. But in the East the trend was strongly Democratic. Another Cause.—Mr. Roosevelt's "new nationalism" also seemed to have a tremendous influence in a direction not anticipated by its energetic sponsor. Good men in his party did not believe that the principles of the advocated régime were safe, nor was the man who stood for them; that in power he was a menace to the safety of the republic, and his aggressiveness, to use a mild term, was resented. This is shown in New York, his own state, in the convention and campaign of which he took personal direction; and Mr. Stimson, his candidate, went down to utter defeat. Mr. Hughes's plurality of 70,000 was turned to one on the other side at last report of 66,000. Many felt that Mr. Roosevelt's career was altogether too undignified, and smacked too strongly of the common stump politician. The results in New York were certainly a rebuke to his ambitions; and it is stated that in the very districts where he spoke in Ohio, Mr. Harmon received an increased vote. Mr. Beveridge's loss to the Senate of the United States will be sincerely regretted. Would his political chances have been better if he had not received Mr. Roosevelt's support? Many think so. What Do These Things Mean?—We wish our readers to note that we are not in politics. These notes but chronicle results, and state conceded causes. We wish also to exhort our readers to be ready for disappointment. An unsettled condition may result in good. If in the people the great principles of equity, justice, liberty, probity, are dominant, if the people were thoughtfully intelligent regarding men and measures, such conditions as we now see might work out for stability in government, and justice and economy in its administration. But if it is expected that these political revolutions will bring the millennium, we shall be sadly disappointed. A mere change of name and men will not transform greed into generosity, bossism into wise leadership, corruption into cleanness, or policy into principle. Such changes may stay the evil harvest for a time; but the grace of God only can change hearts. If men look to the change alone for favorable results they will be disappointed, and will change again. They will begin to look for a Moses to lead them out of the Egypt of graft and greed and dissatisfaction, while in the early desert wanderings they will be as willing to set him aside as they have set aside Mr. Roosevelt, and will choose a worse demagog, or political "boss." And the end?—The sure end of an unthinking, irresolute people, looking largely for loaves and fishes, is the loss of self-government, and a king. This is what J. Pease Norton, Professor of Economics in Yale University, looks for in about 1950. We will quote next week what he says. But things move rapidly now, and 1950 may be 1920. The Lesson.—There is one great all-important lesson, which ought, to thinking men, to be all-dominant, and that is to know the will of God and do it, to place one's "citizenship in heaven," where Christ reigns, who will sometime come thence to this world, when His reign of righteousness will forever be maintained undisturbed by political cabals, parties, conspiracies, revolutions. Submission to His will, righteousness in Him, makes for peace, quietness, godliness now, and assures eternal life and blessedness to come.