Democracy is a new thing in the world; well-developed forms of it have been in practice less than a century. We are still learning what it is and how to operate it. New features are continually being offered and put on trial; no doubt there is a great deal more to be learned about it. We would best handle it as learners, in the humble spirit of one who seeks to know the truth. There are weaknesses in democracy: it is best to recognize them and cope with them in rational ways. One thing which we in this country need to learn is to get over the old Jacksonian notion that any man can fill any public office. We must learn to respect expert knowl-edge; to employ it where necessary, and to depend on it. We must learn to submit to discipline, inspection, surveying, and whatever else is necessary to enable a complicated social organization to do its work efficiently. The frontier democracy with which America has grown up is now for the most part a thing of the past. Perhaps, as Jane Addams says, "the cure for the ills of Democracy is more Democracy,"1 but we must realize that the democracy of the future must face very different conditions from those of the past.

Anciently, individual freedom was the pearl of our social and political diadem . . . excess of freedom, elevated almost to the plane of a national religion in our country, has led through degeneration to an ingrained and inbred complexus of qualities in the American boy which threatens the very roots of our national efficiency. These qualities are disrespect of parents, disrespect of authority, and studied detachment from all traditional and historical institutions. . . .

1 Addams, Democracy and Social Ethics, pp. 11, 12.

The American boy is the flower and quintessence of the anarchic social conditions that his Anglo-Saxon forerunners idealized. - School and Home Education, Vol. 33, pp. 318,319, T. J. McCormack, "Germany, The Modern Educational Shulamite," published May, 1914.

... I have myself, during the last twenty-five years, sat through perhaps three thousand meetings of municipal committees of different sizes and for different purposes, and I am sure that at least half of the men and women with whom I have sat were entirely unaware that any conscious mental effort on their part was called for. They attended in almost exactly the same mental attitude in which some of them went to church - with a vague sense, that is to say, that they were doing their duty and that good must come of it. If they became interested in the business it was an accident. Of the remaining half, perhaps two-thirds had come with one or two points which they wanted to "get through," and meanwhile let the rest of the business drift past them, unless some phrase in the discussion roused them to a more or less irrelevant interruption. - Wallas, The Great Society, p. 276.

... It is probably quite as necessary for the citizens of a democratic state to regard political power as a public trust, to be exercised for the benefit of others, as it is for a monarch or an aristocrat. The acceptance of this responsibility and trusteeship goes with the successful exercise of every kind of freedom - moral, social, or civil. ... - Hadley, Freedom and Responsibility, p. 4.

. . . Fisher Ames expressed the popular security more wisely, when he compared a monarchy and a republic, saying, that a monarchy is a merchantman, which sails well, but will sometimes strike on rock, and go to the bottom; whilst a republic is a raft, which would never sink, but then your feet are always in water. ... - Emerson's Essays, Second Series, "Politics."

. . . We are, however, on the raft for good and all. We must make the best of it; whatever defections may occur, it is unmanly for Americans to be faint-hearted. ... - Hosmer, Life of Thomas Hutchinson, p. xvii.

. . . We do well to fear too glib interpreters of Russian developments, . . . Yet we believe that one moderate inference may safely be drawn from the Russian imbroglio. It is that there is nothing magical about democratic institutions. They do not make it possible for nations to be carried to the skies on flowery beds of ease. They do not work automatically. The necessity of constant and arduous labor is not removed by them. . . .

In a very true sense, autocracy is the "easier" way to rule. It is true in the sense of Cavour's saying, "Anybody can govern under martial law." By it you have swift and resolute decisions, with no questions asked or even allowed. . . .

. . . Ease is not the prime requisite of government. . . . Not for nothing is the democrat sometimes pictured as a man with his sleeves rolled up. He must be ready to pitch in. He has to fight for this cause and attack that movement; to guard here against a danger and there to welcome assistance; to be prepared to talk and argue and attend meetings and sign petitions and vote, year in and year out. . . .

Democracy is noisy, whereas autocracy may go stealthily. Autocratic governments do their work behind closed doors and barred windows; democratic officials have to come out into the open and be clapped on the back by their fellow-citizens. . . . And we must consider, also, the immense effort required to secure political reforms in a democratic country; the outcry, the agitation, the repeated failures before the desired haven is reached. And when it is reached, what then? Only new proposals, fresh excitements, added appeals to the people. . . . But does the true democrat mind this? Not if he remembers that energy is better than stagnation, . . . even an imperfect self-government is better than a seemingly more efficient one imposed from above or without. Let us make no pretence, to Russians or to ourselves, that democracy is the easy way. It is the hard way, comparatively speaking; but it is the hardness that evokes the exertion of the sinewy mind of freedom, and makes those who know what liberty means rejoice as a strong man to run a race. - The Evening Post, N. Y., September 15, 1917, editorial, "Democracy not Easy."