A WEEKLY COMMENTARY
Year Twenty-One ... Number Twenty-Four ... June 14, 1974
THE CONTRIVED EVOLUTION
OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
PART SEVEN
SOCIALISM OR EMPIRE?
As early as 1905, Col. Ed. F. Browne was convinced that "the present socialistic tendency to build up the executive power can only end in one of two things, i.e., a socialistic tyranny through legislation, or an imperiator." He considered this in 1905, "the most serious question presented to the American people since the abolishment of slavery" and the question "is not receiving due consideration."
So, Col. Browne wrote an important book, the publication of which "was withheld until after the fall elections of 1906 because it was not desired to have it appear to be an argument intended to influence political action during that campaign." In the campaign of 1906, only Congressional seats were involved. Theodore Roosevelt was President at that time, would remain so until 1908, when he would be succeeded by William Howard Taft, another Republican. Col. Browne was of the opinion that it made little difference whether Republicans or Democrats were in power in Washington, because "at the present time there is no 'conservative' party in the United States. Each one of the parties appear to be vieing with the other, in an attempt to get nearer the beliefs of socialism than its opponent."
There seems to be such a striking political parallel between conditions which existed in 1905 and conditions which exist in 1974, that we believe what Col. Browne wrote in 1905 about conditions in 1905, is far superior to anything we might write in 1974 about conditions which existed in 1905. An "on the spot" report is available, a friend has made available to us pertinent parts of Col. Browne's important book, which he titled Socialism or Empire. His explanation of the beginnings of socialism in the United States is noteworthy; therefore, we quote at length from the preface to Col. Browne's book, which was published in 1906, but still remains timely and instructive:
There is an undercurrent of political thought today in the United States, which drifts toward socialism, and this unconscious drift leads up to a grant of power to our Executive Department quite necessary under a socialistic government, but which creates a danger to our institutions. Successive grants of power to an executive have always ended in Empire with Republics of the past, and usually the additional power has been given at the instance of the "common people." While the theory of socialism is a beautiful one, human nature must be changed to make it a success. There are two well defined classes of socialists: the educated theorist who claims to have eliminated greed from his nature, and who prates of the equality of man; and the uneducated socialist who thinks it wrong for any man to have more than himself. The Theorist is a fraud, and should be watched by the police, as mild forms of lunacy soon drift to violence. His only danger is in injury to himself and the advice he gives to others.
It is but a step from the theory that it is only right to work entirely for the public good, to the position that the public should receive the benefit of all personal endeavor.
The theoretical socialist talks of the beauties of socialism from the standpoint of the "giver," while his ignorant followers interpret this to mean that the public should have the power to "take." The unfortunate thing about this agitation is the fact that the latter class is gaining the most headway.
This undercurrent of thought is so sweeping that I have been surprised in conversation with Senators, Congressmen and Managing Editors of several of our great dailies, when I have suggested that this agitation was'a tendency toward socialism, to hear the expression that "possibly it was coming."
If public men and great newspapers fear to attack this argument for fear of loss of popularity, a political question more vital to our future prosperity than any which has been presented since the abolition of slavery may not receive proper consideration.
There is no doubt but that this socialistic tendency is gaining strength and that the disposition on the part of the public to take power not consistent with true political economy is growing.
Weak men and designing politicians are accepting part of the theories of socialism either because they know no better, or they desire to take advantage of the political agitation for personal ends ....
The demand that the "public" should control, regulate, and investigate everything and everybody who is making money, with a view of seizing any profit over and above a rate of interest that they (the public) think fair, is only the worst form of socialism (Ralph Nader please note-Ed.)
The clamor in some quarters that the public should own utilities, and that the government should regulate and control insurance, railroads, trusts, and other great private business ventures is nothing more or less than socialism, which would undoubtedly end in Despotism or Empire.
It cannot be that the American people wish to change our form of government, and these recommendations mean a change so radical that we would place back in the hands of an executive of our own selection a power we took away from the executive by the war of the Revolution. We are asked to place in the hands of our executive department the power claimed by kings and emperors, and to give to our executive officers the same form of control over business affairs from which we released ourselves by that long and bloody struggle ....
The idea of the government "doing things" has grown very rapidly and the evident willingness on the part of our lower branch of congress to turn over to the executive every power requested, is quite in line with the history of Republics which have merged into Empire.
The lower branch of congress (the peoples representatives) has already built up the power of the executive department to such an extent that the congress itself is fast losing its independence and were it not for the Senate our political institutions would be in danger. But this semi-socialistic agitation proposes to give more and more power to the Executive and all of the reforms now apparently so popular are pointing to a change in the form of government laid down by our Fathers.
In Monarchies or Empires the people have not had the constitutional protection from inquisition, control and regulation which we possess, and this has been our greatest freedom.
My object in writing this book is to show the danger of departing from the written constitution in these matters ....
Col. Browne, writing the above for publication immediately after the election campaigns of 1906, continually stresses the danger of drifting away from the strict guidelines laid down in the Constitution, or of saddling it with Amendments that would alter the basic nature of the Constitution. He insisted that "if we cut loose from our constitutional moorings which have bound us to individual liberty and personal rights, we cannot fail to drift toward the sands of Socialism or the rock of Empire; there is no open channel between these danger points."
In order to better understand the "mood of the times" in that first decade of this present twentieth century, we should like to quote from the conclusion to Col. Browne's book, wherein he summarizes the political dangers which faced the Nation at that time. In reading the following you may gain the impression that history seems to be repeating itself. We quote:
Thousands of voters who have taken an active part in politics (in the campaigns of 1906 -- Ed.) failed to see expressions in any of the party platforms which represented their political beliefs. It developed that at the present time there is no "conservative" party in the United States. Each one of the parties appears to be vieing with the other, in an attempt to get nearer the beliefs of socialism than its opponent. The leaders who framed the platform expressions appear to have lost their political bearings.
It is strange to see in a democratic platform a demand that the central national government should control private business ventures owned by citizens. It is far more strange to see in a democratic platform a demand that the national government should control, regulate and possibly purchase our railroads, which have been chartered by the several states and owned by private citizens. It is ridiculous to see a democratic endorsement of a civil service reform which has already created a "class" of office holders four hundred thousand strong. Recommendations such as these would cause Jefferson to disclaim the title of democrat, and a demand that the central government take control of the paper issues of currency instead of leaving that function to banks owned by citizens, should cause the ghost of Jackson to haunt the framer of such a resolution.
The natural concentration of power in the hands of an executive which these demands would bring about would but repeat the mistake of the democracy which made a Caesar possible. Can it be that the democrats have learned nothing in two thousand years and now wish to repeat the error that destroyed the first republic? Representative democrats should know that these things are not democratic principles, and that they are only inserted in their platforms to catch the votes of imperialists or socialists ....
From appearances the conservative democrats have been "spewed out" of their party, as Mr. (William Jennings) Bryan expresses it.
The tendency and desire of democratic orators have been to create the impression that their party represents the man without money, and one branch of that party attempts to create popularity by inciting the indigent against the rich. Madison in the constitutional convention frankly stated that with universal suffrage this class of voters would outnumber the other and it is good political economy for some party to guide this class of voters if it is done through representative selections and in American ways.
In politics as well as legislation it is well to have an opposition; it creates a balancewheel in our governmental machinery. Unfortunately at the present time the socialistic trend of thought drifts parallel to democratic beliefs and the democratic party has adopted many socialistic heresies in the hope of attaching that element to it. It would be better for the believers in the theories mentioned if they would join together either as socialists or democrats, and release the conservative element now associated with the democratic party ....
Again, for forty years, either the intuitive or expressed knowledge that the democratic party hoped to represent the poor in antagonism to the rich, has had the effect of driving the greater portion of the commercial element into the republican party. The commercial and stockholding classes have assisted the republican party, and it cannot be denied that the party has protected these interests. The party did not protect these interests as against the poor, because the protection extended has created the greatest prosperity, and enabled the laborer to receive better pay than in any other country. So that this protection has been the greatest assistance our poor people have received. But in the last campaign the party, through unwise leadership, advocated reforms which ... did not come from the people up to the government, but originated in the government itself, and the untried leaders of the party attempted to engraft these ideas -- inspired. in Washington -- into party platforms. So that we find in republican platforms a demand for the government to regulate and control the greater business ventures of our citizens ...
If it is the desire of socialism that the government operate all of the business of the country and that no man should be better paid or better off than his fellow, and that the most ignorant citizen should have as much to say in government as the ablest; it is well to have the expression placed in, their platform and every man who holds that belief, vote for it. Let him vote the socialist ticket and be done with it.
If the democrats believe in free trade, in states' rights, and that all the laws should be passed in the interest of the poor, or, as they express it, "the greatest good to the greatest number," it is right to put it in their platform.
But the party leaders who place expressions in a democratic platform favoring (government) ownership of public utilities, control of railroads and regulation of trusts, are practicing a deceit on their followers who do not study political conditions, and are leading them into socialism.
The republican who advocates that the government should regulate, control and investigate privately owned investments with an avowed determination of limiting the profits to a certain percentage to be determined by political parties or "the people," is adopting socialism in an indirect form.
There is no difference between a seizure of profits and a robbery of property. The only object in the ownership of property is to receive the benefits in the form of profit.
Unless one of the parties now in existence ... takes the conservative side in this issue socialism will be an assured fact, or the hardship of a financial panic will be necessary to bring the people back to reason .... The majority of the people do not believe in these proposed reforms, and the fall elections prove it conclusively.
Are we to drift to socialism .... or are we building up a power in our Executive Department so strong and comprehensive that some ambitious man when President will cast aside the precedent established by Washington and assume to rule not only eight years, but a lifetime?
If we cut loose from our constitutional moorings which have bound us to individual liberty and personal rights, we cannot fail to drift toward the sands of Socialism, or the rock of Empire; there is no open channel between these danger points.
The foregoing should give us a good view of the political mood of the people and their party leaders in the first decade of this century. It should be noted that Col. Browne did not fear the bomb-throwing anarchists, the violence-prone communists, the strikefomenting syndicalists, or the socialists who formed political parties and declared themselves to be socialists seeking to overthrow our form of government. His fear was concentrated on those socialists who masqueraded as "liberal" Democrats or Republicans and who infiltrated and polluted the parties and inserted socialistic planks in, otherwise conservative platforms. He feared the kind of socialist described by George Bernard Shaw when he spoke of himself and declared:
"... the true Fabian is not, and never can be, a party man or woman. My Party, right or wrong, is not our slogan. All Fabians have their price, which is always the adoption of Fabian measures, no matter what party."
It was the British historian, G. M. Trevelyan, who first identified publicly and wrote openly of this form of collectivism that was to socialize England, and later the United States also. At the turn of the century, Trevelyan wrote:
"The third current of fin de siecle Socialism, and the most important, was the Fabian doctrine .... The Fabian Society was founded in 1883. Its name recalls a Roman General whose motto was 'slow but sure.' Eschewing revolution and intent on the actualities of England at the end of the nineteenth century Fabians exonerated socialists from the heavy obligation of reading Karl Marx.
Without dogmatizing as to the ultimate future of industrial organization, they preached practical possibilities, here and now -- municipal socialism and state control of conditions of labor. Equally far from Marx and Morris, they left the New Jerusalem alone, and sought to impregnate the existing forces of society with collectivist ideas. The Fabians became experts in bringing electoral, journalistic, and personal pressure to bear on local bodies, and on the Liberal or Conservative Government of the hour .... The Fabians were intelligence officers without an army -- there was no Fabian party in parliament -- but they influenced the strategy and even the direction of the great hosts moving under other banners."
It was this same Fabian doctrine, moving across the Atlantic to America, which captivated the "progressives" and the "liberals" in colleges and universities in the United States, and succeeded eventually in changing this Republic into a Welfare State.
DON BELL REPORTS & CLOSER-UP are privately circulated Newsletters accenting the Christian American point of view. Complete service: $24 per year. Extra copies: 10 cents each. Please address all orders to: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. Box 2223, Palm Beach, Florida 33480