07.04.2013 Views

PUBLIC OPINION by WALTER LIPPMANN TO FAYE LIPPMANN ...

PUBLIC OPINION by WALTER LIPPMANN TO FAYE LIPPMANN ...

PUBLIC OPINION by WALTER LIPPMANN TO FAYE LIPPMANN ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

that wizardry which popular leaders like Roosevelt, Wilson, or Lloyd<br />

George possess, none of that histrionic gift <strong>by</strong> which such men<br />

impersonate the feelings of their followers. From that aspect of<br />

politics he was <strong>by</strong> temperament and <strong>by</strong> training remote. But yet he knew<br />

<strong>by</strong> calculation what the politician's technic is. He was one of those<br />

people who know just how to do a thing, but who can not quite do it<br />

themselves. They are often better teachers than the virtuoso to whom<br />

the art is so much second nature that he himself does not know how he<br />

does it. The statement that those who can, do; those who cannot,<br />

teach, is not nearly so much of a reflection on the teacher as it<br />

sounds.<br />

Mr. Hughes knew the occasion was momentous, and he had prepared his<br />

manuscript carefully. In a box sat Theodore Roosevelt just back from<br />

Missouri. All over the house sat the veterans of Armageddon in various<br />

stages of doubt and dismay. On the platform and in the other boxes the<br />

ex-whited sepulchres and ex-second-story men of 1912 were to be seen,<br />

obviously in the best of health and in a melting mood. Out beyond the<br />

hall there were powerful pro-Germans and powerful pro-Allies; a war<br />

party in the East and in the big cities; a peace party in the middle<br />

and far West. There was strong feeling about Mexico. Mr. Hughes had to<br />

form a majority against the Democrats out of people divided into all<br />

sorts of combinations on Taft vs. Roosevelt, pro-Germans vs.<br />

pro-Allies, war vs. neutrality, Mexican intervention vs.<br />

non-intervention.<br />

About the morality or the wisdom of the affair we are, of course, not<br />

concerned here. Our only interest is in the method <strong>by</strong> which a leader<br />

of heterogeneous opinion goes about the business of securing a<br />

homogeneous vote.<br />

"This _representative_ gathering is a happy augury. It means the<br />

strength of _reunion._ It means that the party of _Lincoln_<br />

is restored...."<br />

The italicized words are binders: _Lincoln_ in such a speech has<br />

of course, no relation to Abraham Lincoln. It is merely a stereotype<br />

<strong>by</strong> which the piety which surrounds that name can be transferred to the<br />

Republican candidate who now stands in his shoes. Lincoln reminds the<br />

Republicans, Bull Moose and Old Guard, that before the schism they had<br />

a common history. About the schism no one can afford to speak. But it<br />

is there, as yet unhealed.<br />

The speaker must heal it. Now the schism of 1912 had arisen over<br />

domestic questions; the reunion of 1916 was, as Mr. Roosevelt had<br />

declared, to be based on a common indignation against Mr. Wilson's<br />

conduct of international affairs. But international affairs were also<br />

a dangerous source of conflict. It was necessary to find an opening

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!