The difference between an Aryan democratic aristocracy and Aryan democracy is shown quite clearly in their laws. The legist, Fortescue, contrasted "the Roman law, the inheritance of the Latin peoples, with the English law: the one the work of absolute sovereigns, and wholly inclined to sacrifice the individual; the other the work of the will of the community, and ever ready to protect the individual." Likewise, the modern centralizing political parties have a tendency to reenact the Roman law, while the democratic parties reenact old Aryan laws of Northern Europe. Where the democratic force has full sway, as in America, legal machinery throws every possible guard around the accused, so as to make it impossible to convict the innocent, but the ultimate result is to make it impossible to convict the guilty. Scarcely one per cent, of our murderers are punished. Where the undemocratic centralizing force has checked this tendency, as in Great Britain, the legal machinery is designed to guard the social organism, even if occasionally an innocent man is convicted. Hence, we find that the majority of British murderers are punished, and life is really safer than where the units are so carefully guarded. Unbridled democracy injures itself.
Gustave le Bon points out the natural tendency, where there is racial aristocracy, to look to the government to initiate everything and to assume a paternal attitude, as in Southern and Central Europe. But in England and America, where there is a greater democratic spirit, we find an enormous development of individual enterprise and coordination independent of government control. The stupid peasant cannot think of proper laws but looks to the thinking element. He regards the Czar as the little father, and he is quickly assuming the same attitude here in America. He wants republican protection and yet votes the democratic ticket, giving absolute liberty to his oppressors. The negro votes for republican principles by which he received some liberty, for otherwise the unbridled liberty of Aryan democrats would give him none.
Another phenomenon in all democracies is also explained by these biological laws. The democratic party of every nation, in advocating the prosperity of the units, must find itself in a dilemma every now and then, because different sets of units have opposing interests. For instance, unhampered free trade is a necessary democratic principle both here and in England, yet individual democrats, though desiring free trade in many things, desire protection to their own special interests. Hence, there is a conflict, and the history of democratic parties shows that they are constantly being urged to adopt conflicting policies. This leads to hopeless disruption which has happened time and time again, both to the English liberals and American democrats. For some years now both these parties have been divided into irreconcilable factions, each looking to its own individual interests and not to the national welfare.
Though the policies of both the English conservative and American republican parties have been repeatedly rejected by the people at the elections, yet neither of them has ever been so hopelessly disrupted as were the democratic and liberal parties on the policy of States' rights and home rule respectively. Democrats and liberals were compelled to leave their parties, because the policies advocated, though of advantage to a few units, would have damaged the organism and destroyed many other units and injured all of them in time. "Free silver" was of benefit to a few, and its advocates, by forcing it on the democratic party merely disrupted that party again. A prominent republican politician once said in a joking humor that he never knew two democrats who agreed on any subject. He little knew that he was expressing a great natural law. A solidly united democratic party is, therefore, unnatural. It only succeeds in national elections when the units feel that the centralizing republican policies have gone too far and are injuring all the units too much.
The numerous small political parties in the parliaments of the continent of Europe are, as a rule, mere factions of the greater democratic party. They cannot unite any more than the factions of our democratic party or the British liberals, and therein is the reason why a minority of the nation, the centralizing party, is able to control matters in every country in the world.