« FöregåendeFortsätt »
voters at Washington sought first to remove all women's legal disabilities, and protect maternity and childhood. They were of course against war. Later, we confidently expect they will take a strong stand for law enforcement, for divorce reform, for the suppression of gambling, and for the investigation and regulation of motion pictures.
There is great hope they will refuse to follow extreme partisanship; that they will repudiate the "spoils system" and insist on civil service reform, and clean candidates, and progressive platforms; and especially will reject the hateful “patriotism” of insolated nationalism, and in due time lead us back to stand in some international association with our Allies for world-wide purity and peace and prosperity.
It is fitting to close with a sonnet of Henry Van Dyke:
WHAT IS AMERICANISM
To Follow Up Chapter VIII In 1919, John T. McCutcheon put into a single cartoon in the Chicago Tribune, as by a flashlight, a whole volume on Americanism in industry. “Conservative Labor"
stands thoughtfully as a Samson between the pillars of “National Prosperity" and "National Industries,” while below him a wild-eyed, bewhiskered fanatic, labeled "Radical Labor Element," shouts: "Push! Show 'Em Your Strength.” “Conservative Labor" shows no disposition to obey the mad cry that would destroy Capital and Labor and the Public; but neither does “Conservative Labor" spurn his "radical" associate. He stands hesitant, thinking, as in Rodin's statue.
For years these two elements have mingled and struggled for leadership in American labor unions. Strange to say many of this foreign revolutionary element in American labor unions hold to their theory of getting a labor millennium by revolution, despite the Russian fiasco. Three million frozen, unburied corpses on the plains of Russia teach them nothing. Perhaps some nation had to suffer to show even the intellectual revolutionists that
"Some must follow and some must lead
Though all be made of clay.” It would be high comedy if it had not been deep tragedy, the way the Russian peasants have put "heels over head." When the Czar was dethroned everybody was supposed to be equal to anybody, not only in rights but in mental capacity. Artemus Ward's "army of brigadier generals” became a tragic fact. The soldiers confronting an opportunity to crush Austria, and so Germany, and emancipate the world from the supreme autocrat, held an army “town meeting” and decided to quit fighting straightway and hurry home to be on hand for the general confiscation that would give each farmer his long-hoped for "forty acres and a mule," and the city fellows each a share in the ownership and democratic control of a factory. They decided there was no need of captains in war or at sea, much less in industry. “Tom, Dick and Harry” could manage a factory, and do the work at the same time. Heads were entirely superfluous. Souls and hearts also. Hands and stomachs were enough. Let religion go hang. Away with sts and all the "intelligencia." Let wives be owned in common, and children raised by the socialistic state.
But they could not even get rid of captains in politics. Lenine and Trotsky outdid all the Czars in ruthless des
potism. Revolutionists were often too lazy to work, and by way of warning a lot of them were shot. If anyone did not approve of confiscation and soviet dictatorship, off went his head. Factories run by a mob were soon on the scrap heap. The hated “intelligencia” were hired to run them. Foreign capital and charity were both invited. Trotsky has very frankly explained his despotism and opportunism in two books.
Russia has demonstrated negatively, as the United States has positively, that prosperous industry depends on “the square deal,” whose four sides are: Superintendence, Labor, Capital, the Public.
THE SQUARE DEAL Not one of these elements in industry can intelligently say to any other, “I have no need of thee.”
Even Conservative Capital and Labor Too
Inconsiderate of God and Public Off against labor's greatest fizzle, the breakdown of a manual labor despotism in Russia, we set as labor's highest pinnacle, the plan of world reorganization adopted
by British Labor during the World War. Lloyd George made a noble plan, Woodrow Wilson "went him one better." Then British Labor, in whose ranks brain workers were enrolled as well as handworkers, outwent them both in a scheme of world betterment. This British labor plan of a "new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness” affords cheering proof that in the ranks of organized labor there are clear and broad thinkers, and it would seem that the "way out” of industrial troubles is for Superintendence and Capital and the Public, and especially those in a position to think impartially, and indulge in frank and friendly free speech, to reinforce intelligent and conservative labor leaders in their efforts to hold their impatient followers to the slow and sure path of progress by legal and constitutional methods—the methods by which British Labor, under such great leaders as Lord Shaftsbury and John Burns, and Arthur Henderson and men less known in Australasia, has achieved political influence far above that of organized labor in the United States.
Christian Social Workers the Very Ones to Show
Labor Its Mistakes There is a group of Protestant Christian social leaders which has taken a brave stand in various utterances very favorable to labor, and some church conferences, and the Young Women's Christian Association in a national convention, have bravely endorsed these views, despite the fact that organized labor is very largely composed of Catholic workmen of foreign birth or parentage. There are many mechanics and unskilled laborers in Protestant churches but they are mostly unorganized. In these brave Christian utterances alert readers miss a lack of due emphasis on two of the most important facts about labor