UC-NRLF 
 
t 
 
 I 
 
 < * 
 
 ON TAKING 
 
 POLITICS 
 SERIOUSLY 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM LOFTUS HARE 
 
 ***:****** 
 .>. 
 .:. 
 
 * * 
 
 g .t 
 
 PRICE THREEPENCE 
 
ON TAKING POLITICS 
 SERIOUSLY 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM LOFTUS HARE 
 
 PRICE THREEPENCE 
 
 LETCHWORTH 
 
 GARDEN CITY PRESS LIMITED 
 PRINTERS 
 19*3 
 
ON TAKING POLITICS SERIOUSLY. 
 SYNOPSIS. 
 
 A. The Nature of Politics. 
 
 1. A popular conception. 
 
 2. Politics a general and necessary vocation. 
 
 3. Aristotle's definition. 
 
 4. Politics founded in Nature. 
 
 5. The impossibility of " non-politics " or Anarchism. 
 
 B. A Question in Philosophy. 
 
 1. What is meant by " Nature "? 
 
 2. Is Chaos or Cosmos primary and fundamental? 
 
 3. The Universe on every plane an expression of Order. 
 
 4. Order is primary; disorder secondary. 
 
 C. The Significance of Order. 
 
 1. In Morality. 
 
 2. In Nature. 
 
 3. In Art. 
 
 4. A definition of Order. 
 
 5. The impulses of Politics are supplied by Nature, they are 
 
 expressed in Society according to Morality. 
 
 D. Ordination in Politics Primary, struggle Secondary. 
 
 1. A true conception of history. 
 
 2. Politics a necessary and continuous extension of the 
 
 positive and primary work of man, which is an adminis- 
 tration to the necessities placed on man by Nature. 
 
 E. Ideal and Actual Politics. 
 
 1. The difficulty of holding to the Ideal. 
 
 2. The psychological basis of party strife. 
 
 3. The criterion of judgment for Politics. 
 
 4. True and false Politics. 
 
 5. Partisans antagonise but statesmen synthesise oppositions. 
 
 6. Threefold interests in contemporary Politics. 
 
 F. Four Aspecis\of Politics^' /; [ ' 
 
 1. Constitutional, or the' structure of Society. 
 
 2. I ndus.trjaJU or* the .maintenance 'bt Society. 
 
 3. Legjsfaliv<e^ pi\f-he pfctffec^itfri of -its order. 
 
 4. Executive, or the expression of its order. 
 
 5. The material basis of all Politics. 
 
 G. Manners in Politics. 
 
 1. Considering things on their merits. 
 
 2. The Good Mind, the Evil Mind. 
 
 3. The long view. 
 
 4. Faith in Politics. 
 
 H. Politics and the Soul. 
 
 1. Politics in evolution. 
 
 2. What Religion demands of Politics. 
 
ON TAKING POLITICS 
 SERIOUSLY. 
 
 THE NATURE OF POLITICS. 
 
 THE general conception of Politics shared by the people of our 
 own day has not, so far as I have observed, included as necessary to 
 its practical part any previous element of theoretical study. A 
 similar observation has been made of ancient states. S'ocrates 
 said of his fellow-citizens that while for every specific art a man 
 needed to be trained, and would not think of interfering until 
 he had undergone the necessary discipline, yet for Politics, everyone 
 was at all times ready to advise on matters of the utmost 
 importance. There is probably a good reason for this readiness 
 for Politics, which, when once perceived, may take the edge off 
 the Socratic criticism. Each of the arts may be regarded as a 
 special and optional vocation, but Politics, because it is an extension 
 of domestic economy, is a universal and necessary vocation. If 
 everyone were to know this at least, politics would rest on a 
 theoretically true basis. 
 
 My first task is to make good the proposition that Politics, to 
 whatever degree it may. have become artificial, is, nevertheless, 
 rooted and grounded in Nature ; and I do this by an appeal to 
 history and philology. 
 
 Just as the history of a word provides a revelation of its 
 meaning, so it is in the case of an institution, or an all-pervading 
 custom ; and we turn naturally to the Greeks for an account of 
 Politics, both the word and the thing. 
 
 In their migrations and settlements, the Greeks were organised 
 in the following manner : The unit of society was the family 
 
 27^810 
 
4 'On- Taking '.Politics Seriously. 
 
 (genos) ; unions of families made the clans (phratriai) ; unions 
 of clans made the tribes (phylai) ; a union of tribes made the 
 city or state (polis) ; and beyond this society all was alien or 
 barbaric. Each family, clan, tribe, and city was an intensely 
 religious and exclusive secret society. In the home, the head of 
 the family ruled absolutely : he was the priest at the family shrine ; 
 he regulated the ritual of worship ; controlled the occupation, 
 property, person, and even the life of each individual member. 
 As the family increased, successive generations branching out, the 
 paternal authority was still maintained, so that there was always 
 a master to the house, a chief for the clan, a leader for the tribe, 
 and a king for .the city. 
 
 Aristotle, one of the most careful and impartial observers of 
 antiquity, admirably defines the nature of the state in his treatise 
 on Politics : " Every state is a community of some kind, and 
 every community is established with a view to some good; for 
 mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think 
 good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or 
 political community, which is the highest of all, and which 
 .embraces all the rest, aims, and in a greater degree than any 
 other, at the highest good." 
 
 " The family is the association established by Nature for the 
 supply of men's everyday wants, and the members of it are called 
 by Charondas * companions of the cupboard, ' and by Epimenides 
 the Cretan 'companions of the manger.' But when several 
 families are united, and the association aims at something more 
 than the supply of daily needs, then comes into existence the 
 village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be 
 that of a colony from the family composed of the children and 
 grandchildren, who are said to be ' suckled with the same milk.' 
 And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally 
 governed by kings ; every family is ruled by the eldest, and 
 therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of govern- 
 ment prevailed, because they were of the same blood." 
 
 " When several villages are united in a single community, 
 perfect and large enough to be nearly or quite self-supporting, the 
 polis comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, 
 and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And 
 therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the 
 state, for it is the end of them, and the (completed) nature is the 
 end. Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, 
 and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by 
 
On Taking Politics Seriously. 5 
 
 nature, and not by mere accident, is without a state, is either 
 above humanity or below it."* 
 
 There can be no doubt that Nature provided not merely the 
 personnel of any primitive state, but that she dictated the chief 
 conditions of existence, and even furnished the Politikos or states- 
 man as the necessary director. It is not perhaps sufficiently 
 noticed that a great part of the life of the average man, namely, 
 his childhood, youth, and old age, is passed in a state of 
 comparative irresponsibility and dependence upon society. These 
 being the conditions that Nature has laid down, we see the 
 necessity for social government of some kind that is, for the 
 State and for Statesmen. Nature has made the polls and politics, 
 and no one can escape from them legitimately until he has escaped 
 from Nature. 
 
 A QUESTION IN PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Before taking our next step, we must make a brief excursion 
 into the domain of philosophy, ask a question there, and, if 
 possible, obtain an answer. Having shown that Politics is 
 founded in Nature, we must inquire what Nature is. Such a 
 query is by no means unreasonable, if alone from the fact that 
 there are offered to us at least two fundamental conceptions of 
 Nature, in seeming opposition. The older, the teleological view, 
 expressed by various ancient mythologies and religions, regards the 
 world and all that is in it as having been constructed with intelli- 
 gence, purpose, and power. The newer view was advanced during 
 the nineteenth century by the great evolutionists Darwin, Spencer, 
 Huxley, and Marx. By these writers the phenomenon of the 
 struggle for existence was seized upon and made fundamental to 
 life, and it was not long before its laws were applied to every 
 department of human experience, including that specially concern- 
 ing us now, namely, Politics. History, said the Marxian 
 materialists, was the record of universal contest, and economics 
 was its subject-matter. Everything could be explained, they said> 
 by the craving for food and the means taken to satisfy it. 
 
 While not desirous of raising, in its original form, an issue 
 that is popularly supposed to have been settled, I nevertheless 
 feel that we must redetermine the problem for ourselves. Is 
 the universe evolved from primitive chaos? Are ordination, 
 subordination, and co-ordination merely incidents occurring in 
 an Armageddon of disorderly elements? Is the work of Nature 
 primarily a warfare, and only secondarily a peace secured by 
 
 * Aristotle's Politics (Jowett) p. 23, 27, 28. 
 
6 On Taking Politics Seriously. 
 
 exhaustion, fear, or degeneration? Does Nature, as exemplified in 
 man, merely heal wounds the better to inflict them? If we say 
 " no " to these questions we must look for an alternative explana- 
 tion of phenomena that bulk so largely in life as to lead many to 
 say "yes." We must advance another hypothesis, namely, that 
 the universe is primarily a cosmos, with some tendencies towards 
 chaos : that it is in the highest degree and on every plane, an expres- 
 sion of order, and whatever declension from order there be is only 
 transitory and secondary ; it ministers to, and calls forth, the 
 greater powers of the cosmos, in which, again and again, it is 
 swallowed up. This view, which we may call the occult view, has 
 often been set forth mythologically, and the time may not be far 
 distant when a scientific demonstration of it may become possible. 
 
 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER. 
 
 Difficult as it is, here and now, to make a demonstration of this 
 general proposition, I will state briefly the elements of what I think 
 would be the line it would take. A definition of order, of whatever 
 rank, has been offered in the following terms : order is the supreme 
 measure of perfection in objects of the same kind. It consists in 
 the adaptation of parts to each other in subserviency to the ends of 
 the whole. 
 
 The three orders of the cosmos that are concerned in Politics 
 are the Order of Nature, the Moral Order, and the Order of Art. 
 
 (a) The Order of Nature is the order of that part of the universe 
 which is subject to generation and corruption the realm of change. 
 Man belongs corporeally to Nature. 
 
 (b) The Order of Art is the totality of distinctly human, i.e., 
 volitional relationships, activities, and productions, together with 
 modifications of natural objects, and arrangements resulting from 
 these being made subservient to man. In the artificial order things 
 are because man thinks them. 
 
 (c) The Moral Order signifies that there is due to each particular 
 thing all that is ordinated to it, and there is due from it the perfect 
 service of that towards which it is ordinated, the contribution of 
 its due share towards the higher order under which it normally 
 falls. 
 
 It is now necessary to summarise the theme set forth above. 
 
 (a) Order (i.e., ordination, subordination, and co-ordination 
 to their highest degrees) is the primary and fundamental fact of 
 life ; it is derived from the deeper metaphysical relationship of all 
 existences in a realm where they are harmoniously united. 
 
On Taking Politics Seriously. 7 
 
 (b) Disorder (i.e., inordination and struggle) is secondary and 
 incidental ; it is a falling away from order, and is derived from 
 the persistent, though possibly diminishing, egoism allowed by 
 Nature to all the existences of its order. 
 
 (c) The struggle derived from pain and the pain dependent 
 upon struggle are indicative of the declension from order and the 
 effort to return thereto. Thus it becomes part of a higher order 
 that includes both it and the order from which the existences in 
 question have fallen or are tending to fall. 
 
 ORDINATION IN POLITICS PRIMARY, STRUGGLE SECONDARY. 
 
 We are now able to return to the mundane realm armed with 
 the reply to our interrogation a reply which is rendered less 
 dogmatic than it might have been had we not ascended in search 
 of it. If we have found truths as to Life, we have found truths 
 as to Politics also; for the greater includes the less. 
 
 Our theory demands a reconsideration of the popular conception 
 of history. Here, again, the positive, primary, and permanent 
 activity of the race is industry rising out of necessity, reaching 
 higher degrees of association and co-ordination, until visible social 
 organisms are produced. Struggle, warfare, and breach of 
 association are negative, secondary, and occasional activities of the 
 race. 
 
 Literary historians have of late recognised that the history of 
 a people is the record of its aspirations, its efforts, the immaterial 
 and material work of its genius, rather than the dramatic display 
 of the acts of its rulers and statesmen. It is therefore an easy 
 transition from history in general to Politics in particular, of 
 which we may repeat the same formulae. I merely ask a question 
 to which the answer will already be anticipated. Is not true 
 Politics the necessary extension of what has been found to be the 
 positive, primary, and continuous work of man? Is it not the 
 effort towards the increase of relation, to the increase of order, and, 
 consequently, to the increase of life? 
 
 But, in view of what we see going on in the political arena, it 
 scarcely seems possible to hold the belief just expressed : a casual 
 glance at modern politics would lead us to a very different con- 
 clusion. We see a striving for individual or class advantage, an 
 egoistic whirlpool, full of deceit, bluff, violence, and hatred; a 
 use of flattery, rhetoric, expediency and falsehood; a grand effort 
 to score victories for family, group, class, trade, nation, or race. 
 These seem to make up the popular conception of Politics. Yet 
 
8 On Taking Politics Seriously. 
 
 these are merely the negative aspect of Politics as positively 
 formulated. 
 
 IDEAL AND ACTUAL POLITICS. 
 
 Politics must be conceived of first in its ideal aspect as the 
 science and art of managing the affairs of the state. This aspect 
 is essentially the concern of the wise and the far-seeing, but they 
 need not necessarily be the few, and it is both desirable and 
 possible that their number should increase. But many such men 
 find themselves precipitated into the turmoil of political strife, 
 in which the ideal aspect of Politics becomes obscured, and the 
 actual aspect alone is perceived. We ought to be able to find 
 an explanation for this. 
 
 The contest of Politics seems to rest on two bases on tempera- 
 ment and on interest. I am by no means certain whether the 
 temperamental distinction is not the more powerful of the two,, 
 so far as the formation and maintenance of parties is concerned. 
 We are familiar with the statement so often made, and so 
 obviously true, that rival " Front Benchers " in all the Parliaments 
 of the world have practically the same material interests. If they 
 are, as generally, drawn from the governing classes, their education 
 and economic status are not the causes of their opposition. Of the 
 rank and file of the parties the same may be said. Landed gentry, 
 financial magnates, capitalists, professional and legal men, not 
 to mention the services, are found distributed more or less evenly 
 in the hostile political camps. ' It cannot be their material interests 
 that divide them, and yet material interests do divide men, as 
 the witness of to-day so abundantly proves. 
 
 It is worth while trying to discover to what extent temperament 
 is responsible for the phenomenon of party warfare. Although 
 rival programmes are from time to time presented to the people, 
 it is not always easy to discern in them fundamentally opposite 
 principles. There seems to be no very clear-cut distinction 
 between the propositions of one great party and those of the other. 
 True, what one advances the other opposes for a time, but on the 
 other hand, the measures carried by each are to a great extent 
 representative of a continuity of policy appropriate to the moral 
 and economic development of a given nation. Often enough the 
 contest is to determine which party shall have the direction of 
 an almost inevitable policy. I think we have to look deeper than 
 the declarations of party leaders if we would gain a true idea of 
 what it is that distinguishes them. Even though they may not 
 
On Taking Politics Seriously. 9 
 
 be aware of it, I believe it is a difference of temperament which 
 separates the older " conservative " tendency from the newer 
 " liberal " one. 
 
 The basic principle of a conservative tendency in any country 
 of which we have knowledge is surely the egoist-national one. 
 Must we not admit that Monarchical Conservative sections of 
 each European nation are frankly, and with a clear moral con- 
 science, egoistic? Self-preservation, preservation of the dynasty 
 and of the dynastic supporters ; conservation of the economic 
 advantages heretofore gained by the classes successful in the 
 struggle for life; conservation, consequently, of the national 
 organisation that has facilitated those successes makes these 
 people essentially "patriotic" and "nationalist," as they are 
 generally called. Their position is easily defended. They are 
 always sure of a response to their call to arms. Militarism is 
 their natural bent. They are troubled by no philosophic or altruistic 
 doubts ; the thoughts of internationalism appear to them to be 
 disruptive and dangerous, and, from their point of view, probably 
 are so. 
 
 On the other hand, the newer temperament that makes itself 
 manifest in life, and consequently in Politics, is rightly called 
 "liberal" all the world -over. It takes certain venturous risks 
 along paths that are by no means sure of success. It usually 
 enfranchises the masses, defends its proposals from a distinctly 
 ethical and sometimes noble elevation, seeing visions and possi- 
 bilities of reformation which either from necessity or from sincerity 
 it attempts to realise. But it has to be admitted that this philosophic 
 temperament is by no means uncorrupted. The egoistic motive 
 in nearly all men is strong and virile, and is so by Nature. 
 Further, the leaders of liberal parties, the world over, if they would 
 gain power to liberalise, dare not leave the main body of egoistic 
 thought and feeling too far behind. To use a military term, it 
 is their "strategic base," from which they occasionally emerge; 
 for even if there are among their ranks visionaries, philosophers, 
 and altruists, many of these, when in power, " toe the line " with 
 the big-navy nationalists. They, however, bring their democratic 
 instincts to the task of reorganisation of the defences of their 
 various national spheres of influence. It is for these reasons that 
 while at root there is a fundamental distinction of philosophic 
 temperament, yet in actual political practice, and still more in 
 party warfare, there is not much that will lead a man of feeling 
 to choose one as his party rather than another. 
 
io On Taking Politics Seriously. 
 
 I may not have been able to convince my readers as to the 
 correctness of the view I take. If not, I throw upon them the duty 
 of explaining what becomes of the undoubted deep divergence of 
 temperament, and all that it signifies in life, the moment that 
 people, so diverse, enter upon political functions. Does it 
 mysteriously disappear? Or do not its impulses reappear and colour 
 the opposition and clash of party warfare? In order to illustrate 
 this point, let us suppose the people of a given nation and epoch to 
 be represented by a cube cut in vertical and horizontal sections. 
 The vertical sections would show degrees of temperamental 
 difference, while the horizontal sections would show degrees of 
 material opposition. Thus there are in actual Politics at least two 
 eternal battles : the struggle of feeling against feeling and of interest 
 against interest. Now, if it be the ideal function of the moral 
 philosopher to conciliate and synthesise the opposing temperaments 
 bequeathed by Nature, is it not also the ideal duty of the statesman 
 to synthesise the rival interests in the battle for material welfare ? 
 If he cannot do this, what is he for? 
 
 We are now able to perceive the point at which ideal and actual 
 Politics touch. Before the eyes of the person who takes Politics 
 seriously there appear 
 
 (1) the ideal of perfect social human co-ordination; 
 
 (2) the fact of imperfect social human co-ordination ; 
 
 (3) the necessity of approximating the actual towards the ideal 
 
 for the sake of life and happiness a demand both of the 
 intuition and the reason ; 
 
 (4) the possibility, out of the circumstances of any given 
 
 moment, of making a certain advance. 
 
 I say this to encourage those people who are always waiting 
 for Utopia, as if nothing could be done till men are perfect by 
 which time, of course, nothing will be necessary. True Politics, 
 so far from necessitating Utopian perfection as a first condition, 
 must come into being in the absence of it. It is because of the 
 tendency of the Nature struggle towards the inordinate that man's 
 intellect and goodwill are set to devise a true polity to correct the 
 blind impulses that Nature supplies. 
 
 What, then, can be a criterion for the person who takes Politics 
 seriously? Not the criterion of Nature against which, in a sense, 
 he is working. Not the survival of the fittest and the few, but 
 
On Taking Politics Seriously. 1 1 
 
 the welfare of the whole society in all its ranks of which, 
 through Nature and institution, he is a member. 
 
 It is not difficult to find a formula expressive of the statesman's 
 nature and duty; but is it easy to find the man to fit the formula? 
 Let us see. The statesman is one who understands the divergent 
 emotional impulses and material interests of different persons, 
 groups, classes, or nations, who turns them inward, synthesises 
 them, makes them contribute towards a higher co-ordination than 
 that hitherto attained. The mere " politician " is one who 
 emphasises and turns outwards into greater opposition the impulses 
 of rival interests and nations, generally with a view to his personal 
 welfare. 
 
 But the statesman's work must be discriminating, and even the 
 partisan may adopt the statesman's role and see beyond the 
 momentary triumph of his cause. Often enough, and particularly 
 now, as I think, the group struggle can be directed towards attain- 
 ing its own ends (in accordance with both justice and necessity), 
 and that of the higher and larger whole as well. 
 
 The true statesman may emphasise the claims of an oppressed 
 class, industry or nation, to subserve both the particular and the 
 general interests. If A and B are struggling in the industrial- 
 political sphere, each for his own hand, the mere partisan will 
 support A or B. But the statesman, guided by an independent 
 status and a longer vision, may support A against B (or vice versa) 
 for the purpose of gaining the general welfare. Thus he follows 
 no mechanical formula, but exercises on each occasion a responsible 
 judgment. Thus the person who takes Politics seriously will by 
 no means be found permanently seated among the contemplative 
 gods, but often in the arena itself. He will always have a 
 longer view than that of mere class or party victory. He is 
 always himself fully aware, and can make it clear to others, that 
 his is the primary activity of creating order, and such a criterion 
 will endue him with wisdom and directness almost infallible. 
 But the moment he corrupts his activity and views with personal 
 ambition or class hatred, using the arrows of passion or sophistry 
 for his own or his group's purposes, he becomes blinded, and 
 wisdom flees from him. In true Politics, honesty is the only 
 policy. 
 
 FOUR ASPECTS OF POLITICS. 
 
 Having, I hope, made clear the main ideas of my theme, I 
 now consider the nature of the society in which Politics operate. 
 
12 On Taking Politics Seriously. 
 
 There is, first, its constitutional framework, which is a matter 
 of growth and change. There is, second, its industrial mainten- 
 ance, which is the first act of man in discovering the necessities 
 which press upon him and the ever-present activity of his existence. 
 The dominant mode of industry determines the nature of the other 
 elements of Politics. It is here that the importance of the right 
 mode appears. Socialists contend that their economic principles 
 are now essential to the maintenance of modern social states. The 
 third aspect of politics is the legislative, and refers to the processes 
 of perfecting the order of society. It may be imagined that the 
 representatives of the people, and they alone, will be able to detect 
 disordination as it occurs, to discuss measures for remedying the 
 evil, and will agree to acts of the legislature by way of correction. 
 I fear, however, it is largely a matter of imagination. Elected 
 representatives neglect their chief function. 
 
 Statute alone is inadequate to meet the need of society for 
 perfecting its order. The term "legislation," in the sense in 
 which I use it, includes the whole body of evolving custom and 
 common law which is supplied by the genius of the people ; the 
 people must become politicians without necessarily being parlia- 
 mentarians; they can, and often do, legislate in a very real sense, 
 without being voted into office. In this respect they have not yet 
 realised their power. 
 
 The fourth aspect of Politics is the executive, and refers to the 
 expression of the social order. The Government, properly con- 
 sidered, are not the rulers of society, but the holders of offices 
 conferred by society. 
 
 The person who takes Politics seriously observes the evolution 
 of industrial and economic processes, recognises that they 
 are the material basis of Politics, and that upon them depends 
 every phase of its life. If either the constitution or the executive 
 hinders the beneficial development of national industry, he seeks 
 to reform them, but always with the primary end in view of 
 liberating industry. He is thus gifted with a wisdom beyond that 
 of mere dynasts or partisans, and his plans do not miscarry, though 
 they may be delayed. 
 
 The political problem overshadowing all others in the modern 
 world is that of industrial unrest. The industry which main- 
 tains the whole of society is the work of the bulk of its adult 
 members. Consequently they should not merely be honoured 
 and maintained, but rather enabled to maintain themselves in 
 
On Taking Politics Serio'usl'y'. 13 
 
 freedom and decency. The w r hole conception of labour needs to 
 be changed. Men do not now need merely the right to sell their 
 'work, but the right to work in response to their necessity. Thus it 
 happens that all modern statesmen are faced with the demand of 
 a class, which they must meet, both for the sake of that class and 
 for the welfare of society. They have not merely to allay or 
 chloroform the unrest, but to find its causes and provide means 
 for their eradication. 
 
 MANNERS IN POLITICS. 
 
 Not the least significant aspect of the ideal scheme of Politics 
 is that of manners. Manners are not superficial ; they are part of 
 the adaptation of social units to social ends. There is a very 
 widespread opinion that people may adopt manners in Politics 
 that are not permitted in other walks of life. If I am right in 
 my contention that Politics is a general and necessary vocation, 
 much wider than parliamentarism, why is it that relatively good 
 behaviour is assumed to be desirable for life, but the worst of 
 manners permissible in Politics? People should discipline them- 
 selves in manners, in feeling, in thinking, in reasoning, in 
 speaking, if they would be truly effective in Politics. But nowa- 
 days the readiest scene-makers get the most notoriety, instead 
 of earning the most disapproval. We want to found a new 
 tradition to replace the old one. Bad manners are bad Politics. 
 The person who takes Politics seriously has faith and vision. He 
 does not mistake violence for power, rhetoric for reason, applause 
 for justification, or success for finality. 
 
 Bad manners in Politics may be traced to a generally diffused 
 Evil Mind, a faculty for seeing and representing things as they 
 are not. Its most popular expression is the imputation of motives 
 other than those declared. A statesman proposes a measure to 
 meet some situation admittedly serious, and gives his reasons for 
 it. Those are immediately exposed as fraudulent, and the battle 
 rages on a new issue that prevents men from judging the original 
 proposal on its merits. In science and commerce the latter way is 
 the only way in life it is the only way ; but politicians have evolved 
 an alternative method of judging legislative proposals by some 
 new criterion, such as whether it will win or lose a by-election, or 
 something else quite unconnected with the proposition. Parlia- 
 ment, the press and the platform are given over now to vituperation 
 and intellectual sabotage. 
 
 Obviously the only remedy for the Evil Mind is the Good 
 Mind. Everyone knows what it is, so I need hardly explain it. 
 To carry the private mind into public affairs is all that is needed. 
 
1 4 On Taking . P-o Hikes- * Seriously. 
 
 The private mind is substantially rational and good. The evil 
 mind misvalues the well-known things. Genuine philanthropy is 
 called " grandmotherly," as if there were no such thing as the 
 sincere love of man. Peacefulness is called "weakness"; 
 impartiality is called " indifference "; and anyone who outfaces his 
 party for a higher cause is called a " traitor." 
 
 POLITICS AND THE SOUL. 
 
 In addition to the outer necessities of man's nature, to which 
 true Politics should minister, there are certain very clamant inner 
 necessities which must be satisfied. There is a relation between 
 politics and religion which appears more clearly when true con- 
 ceptions are formed as to what each of these is. Politics, we 
 have found, is the art of creating order in a limited social sphere, 
 the adaptation of parts to the ends of the whole. Religion is 
 similarly, but more extensively, the adaptation of the soul to the 
 universal order. Religion necessarily demands conditions favour- 
 able to its own consummation. Every great religious movement 
 has with dynamic force striven to create a polity appropriate to 
 its nature, suitable for its persistence. From the highest point 
 of view, Politics is an instrument for the use of the soul. The man 
 who sees this has the longest and truest view, and may say with 
 Whitman : 
 
 Lo ! keen-eyed towering science, 
 
 As from tall peaks the modern overlooking 
 
 Successive absolute fiats issuing. 
 
 Yet again, lo ! the soul above all science, 
 
 For it has history gather 'd like husks around the globe, 
 
 For it the entire star-myriads roll through the sky. 
 
 In spiritual routes by long detours, 
 (As a much-tacking ship upon the sea). 
 For it the partial to the permanent flowing, 
 For it the real to the ideal tends. 
 
GARDEN CITY PRESS LTD, 
 PRINTERS, LETCHWORTH. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 UNIVEESITY OF CALIFOENIA LIBEABY, 
 BEEKELEY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 
 ? i p A r n VO lume , after th e third day overdue, increasing 
 SSJ&3PJK lJ U **S r ? e si ?.'h day.. Books not il 
 
 DEC 10 1131 
 
 HQV4 (96538 
 REC'D 
 
 DEPt- 
 
 75m-8,'31 
 
VP 06 1 79 
 
 M 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY