business of Politics to traffic in public positions, and Politics possesses the power to monopolize that dynastic business because it owns and operates the instrumentalities of nominations.

My citizenship, and yours, is not real, or vital, so long as there is a denial of our inherent right to vote for whom and what we desire.

And certainly it is not democracy to compel me, and you, to compete with a political trust in the building of an organization through which to express our convictions concerning the common welfare.

The answer, and I do not believe that there is any other answer, is to take away from politics the instrumentalities, both of nominations and elections, and establish them as the most important part of the machinery of government.

All public officials, excepting those connected with policy-making, should be nonpartisan.

Neither the administration nor the interpretation of law should have any relation to partisanship. Those functions have nothing to do with the making of policies. They are not to be exercised by or for any group, but impartially in the interest of the whole American people.

All public officials who have to do with enactment ought to be nonpolitical, but they should be partisan as to policies. All public officials whose duties are either executive or judicial should be both non-political and unpartisan. That distinction would sinplify the problem of proper governmental machinery for the selective process with respect to executive and judicial public servants, from the President down.

To illustrate, a dozen groups might make nominations for legislative representation. The machinery with respect to each list of such nominations would be the same, but a dozen separate uses of that common machinery would be necessary. For all other elective positions not connected with legislation, nominations should be accomplished, not only through a single officialized mechanism, but also in a single proceeding.

No parties would be involved, nor any program. Presidential candidates should have no platforms. Only policy-makers should have platforms. Your executive officials ought to be chosen solely because of administrative talent and personal character.

Such candidacies might be initiated in several ways-by petition, by state legislatures, by Congress, by groups, or by individuals themselves. Then, at the proper time and place, which would be one time and place, three and possibly more should be nominated, in order that direct, preferential voting could be employed by the people in making a choice.

If, then, it would be easy to substitute official instrumentalities for political machinery in the selection of legislators, it would be easier to achieve that change with respect to all other elective public positions, because no group elements would deserve or require attention at the nominating stage.

As a matter of fact, with a detailed diagnosis of causes and conditions before us, no phase of this problem of governmentalized political machinery would present any great difficulties. But, even though it were the most complex and perplexing puzzle ever to be faced, it will have to be solved. Otherwise representative government can never endure, nor be worthy to endure.

This truth, and all else that I have said to you, can be restated in a sentence: if any experiment with democracy is permanently to be successful, there are two steps to be taken. We, in America, took only one. We created a public sovereignty; we did not officialize its functioning.

To that failure, directly or indirectly, can be traced every condition, every tendency, every result, that is away from democracy.

The longer reconstruction is delayed, the more difficult will it become.

First, there ought to be a survey, complete and exhaustive, of everything connected with both politics and government, from this new point of view, stressing especially the procedural element as applied to elections and legislation. It would not be sufficient to include only the operations of politics, because the procedure of politics and the procedure of government are inextricably interwoven.

Then, upon the bed-rock basis of all the facts thus disclosed, the best brains of America should formulate and dramatize a reconstructive program.

I am convinced and determined concerning the public need of thorough reconstruction. I see clearly, and yet without dismay, the difficulties of the task. There is little in history to guide us. The past is largely a panorama of failures because always the paramount factor was missing. Never has any human experience with democracy placed proper emphasis upon the all-important element of functioning agencies. The fundamental idea of institutionalized and legalized politics is new, and untried. It may still be untested after we are gone; but, a century hence, when our successors shall long since have supplied the missing link, they will look back, through the eyes of history, and marvel that any generation could be so incredibly incompetent in statesmanship as to expect a national success upon a foundation of popular sovereignty, with the whole superstructure of instrumentalities unrelated, either institutionally or officially, to that foundation.

can.

...

"I have lost faith in the intelligence of the average Ameri.. There seems little hope for much betterment." Mrs. Charlotte C. Heineman, of Pasadena, California, writes:

"To me the great menace in this country is the apathy of the people. No one seems to care that there is corruption in government, dishonesty in politics and decline in agriculture, if they themselves are comfortable."

From Mrs. Alice W. Burton, Ojai, California:

"Too much depends on the will and whim of the President, whoever he may be. For a remedy we must look to the people. They alone have the power; but the will, the wisdom and the courage-especially the courage-I fear are yet afar off."

This comes from E. L. Elliott, of Klamath Falls, Oregon:

"There is no difficulty in ascertaining the fact that there is something radically wrong with this country at the present time. Just what it is and how to overcome it may be a difficult proposition."

The first big fact for Mr. Elliott and all others to face is this:

We have attempted to establish democracy upon a foundation of a thousand years of monarchistic thinking. The result, of course, has been either dynastic adaptations or developments that lead directly and inevitably to some form of dynastic power.

Correcting a Mistake

An error should be noted in our last issue. Its serial number was given as 11, whereas it should have been 10. Therefore this edition is made No. 11, so that subscribers will receive their full year of SEARCHLIGHTS.

THE SEARCHLIGHT ON CONGRESS WASHINGTON, D. C.

LENOX BUILDING