Essay on the American Contribution and the Democratic Idea

Winston Churchill

Description

Though often confused with the renowned British statesman of the same name, the Winston Churchill who penned this volume of essays was an American author who was one of the most popular writers of his era. Based on his travels in Europe during World War I, Churchill reflects on America's role in the conflict in a series of insightful long-form pieces.

Sujets

• Histoire
• Military history

Informations

• Publié par: The Floating Press
• Date de parution: 01 mai 2015
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781776587971
• Langue: English

Extrait

AN ESSAY ON THE AMERICAN CONTRIBUTION AND THE DEMOCRATIC IDEA
* * *
WINSTON CHURCHILL
 
*
An Essay on the American Contribution and the Democratic Idea First published in 1918 Epub ISBN 978-1-77658-797-1 Also available: PDF ISBN 978-1-77658-798-8 © 2014 The Floating Press and its licensors. All rights reserved. While every effort has been used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information contained in The Floating Press edition of this book, The Floating Press does not assume liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions in this book. The Floating Press does not accept responsibility for loss suffered as a result of reliance upon the accuracy or currency of information contained in this book. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Many suitcases look alike. Visit www.thefloatingpress.com
Contents
*
I II III IV V
I
*
Failure to recognize that the American, is at heart an idealist isto lack understanding of our national character. Two of our greatestinterpreters proclaimed it, Emerson and William James. In a recentaddress at the Paris Sorbonne on "American Idealism," M. Firmin Rozobserved that a people is rarely justly estimated by its contemporaries.The French, he says, have been celebrated chiefly for the skill of theirchefs and their vaudeville actors, while in the disturbed 'speculummundi' Americans have appeared as a collection of money grabbers whosephilosophy is the dollar. It remained for the war to reveal the truenature of both peoples. The American colonists, M. Roz continues, unlikeother colonists, were animated not by material motives, but by thedesire to safeguard and realize an ideal; our inherent characteristictoday is a belief in the virtue and power of ideas, of a national,indeed, of a universal, mission. In the Eighteenth Century we proposeda Philosophy and adopted a Constitution far in advance of the politicalpractice of the day, and set up a government of which Europe predictedthe early downfall. Nevertheless, thanks partly to good fortune, andto the farseeing wisdom of our early statesmen who perceived that thesuccess of our experiment depended upon the maintenance of an isolationfrom European affairs, we established democracy as a practical form ofgovernment.
We have not always lived up to our beliefs in ideas. In our dealingswith other nations, we yielded often to imperialistic ambitions andthus, to a certain extent, justified the cynicism of Europe. We tookwhat we wanted—and more. From Spain we seized western Florida; theannexation of Texas and the subsequent war with Mexico are acts uponwhich we cannot look back with unmixed democratic pride; while more thanonce we professed a naive willingness to fight England in order topush our boundaries further north. We regarded the Monroe Doctrine asaltruistic, while others smiled. But it suited England, and her seapower gave it force.
Our war with Spain in 1898, however, was fought for an idea, and,despite the imperialistic impulse that followed it, marks a transition,an advance, in international ethics. Imperialistic cynics were notlacking to scoff at our protestation that we were fighting Spain inorder to liberate Cuba; and yet this, for the American people at large,was undoubtedly the inspiration of the war. We kept our promise, we didnot annex Cuba, we introduced into international affairs what is knownas the Big Brother idea. Then came the Platt Amendment. Cuba was free,but she must not wallow near our shores in an unhygienic state, orborrow money without our consent. We acquired valuable naval bases.Moreover, the sudden and unexpected acquisition of Porto Rico and thePhilippines made us imperialists in spite of ourselves.
Nations as well as individuals, however, must be judged by theirintentions. The sound public opinion of our people has undoubtedlyremained in favour of ultimate self-government for the Philippines, andthe greatest measure of self-determination for little Porto Rico; it hasbeen unquestionably opposed to commercial exploitation of the islands,desirous of yielding to these peoples the fruits of their labour indeveloping the resources of their own lands. An intention, by theway, diametrically different from that of Germany. In regard to ourprotectorate in the island of San Domingo, our "semi-protectorate" inNicaragua, the same argument of intention may fairly be urged. Germany,who desired them, would have exploited them. To a certain extent, nodoubt, as a result of the momentum of commercial imperialism, we arestill exploiting them. But the attitude of the majority of Americanstoward more backward peoples is not cynical; hence there is hope that ademocratic solution of the Caribbean and Central American problem maybe found. And we are not ready, as yet, to accept without furtherexperiment the dogma that tropical and sub-tropical people will notultimately be able to govern themselves. If this eventually, prove to bethe case at least some such experiment as the new British Labour Partyhas proposed for the Empire may be tried. Our general theory that theexploitation of foreign peoples reacts unfavourably on the exploiters isundoubtedly sound.
Nor are the ethics of the manner of our acquisition of a part of Panamaand the Canal wholly defensible from the point of view of internationaldemocracy. Yet it must be remembered that President Roosevelt wasdealing with a corrupt, irresponsible, and hostile government, and thatthe Canal had become a necessity not only for our own development, butfor that of the civilization of the world.
The Spanish War, as has been said, marked a transition, a developmentof the American Idea. In obedience to a growing perception that dominionand exploitation are incompatible with and detrimental to our system ofgovernment, we fought in good faith to gain self-determination for analien people. The only real peril confronting democracy is the arrestof growth. Its true conquests are in the realms of ideas, and hence itcalls for a statesmanship which, while not breaking with the past, whiletaking into account the inherent nature of a people, is able to dealcreatively with new situations—always under the guidance of currentsocial science.
Woodrow Wilson's Mexican policy, being a projection of the American Ideato foreign affairs, a step toward international democracy, marks thebeginning of a new era. Though not wholly understood, though opposed bya powerful minority of our citizens, it stirred the consciousness of anational mission to which our people are invariably ready to respond.Since it was essentially experimental, and therefore not lacking inmistakes, there was ample opportunity for a criticism that seemed attimes extremely plausible. The old and tried method of dealing with suchanarchy as existed across our southern border was made to seem the safeone; while the new, because it was untried, was presented as disastrous.In reality, the reverse was the case.
Mr. Wilson's opponents were, generally speaking, the commercial classesin the community, whose environment and training led them to demanda foreign policy similar to that of other great powers, a financialimperialism which is the logical counterpart in foreign affairs of thecommercial exploitation of domestic national resources and domesticlabour. These were the classes which combated the growth of democracy athome, in national and state politics. From their point of view—notthat of the larger vision—they were consistent. On the other hand, thenation grasped the fact that to have one brand of democracy at home andanother for dealing with foreign nations was not only illogical but, inthe long run, would be suicidal to the Republic. And the people at largewere committed to democratic progress at home. They were struggling forit.
One of the most important issues of the American liberal movement earlyin this century had been that for the conservation of what remainsof our natural resources of coal and metals and oil and timber andwaterpower for the benefit of all the people, on the theory that theseare the property of the people. But if the natural resources of thiscountry belong to the people of the United States, those of Mexicobelong to the people of Mexico. It makes no difference how "lazy,"ignorant, and indifferent to their own interests the Mexicans at presentmay be. And even more important in these liberal campaigns was the issueof the conservation of human resources—men and women and children whoare forced by necessity to labour. These must be protected in health,given economic freedom and a just reward for their toil. The Americandemocracy, committed to the principle of the conservation of domesticnatural and human resources, could not without detriment to itselfpersist in a foreign policy that ignored them. For many years ourown government had permitted the squandering of these resources byadventurous capitalists; and gradually, as we became a rich industrialnation, these capitalists sought profitable investments for theirincreasing surplus in foreign lands. Their manner of acquiring"concessions" in Mexico was quite similar to that by which they hadseized because of the indifference and ignorance of our own people—ourown mines and timber lands which our government held in trust. Sometimesthese American "concessions" have been valid in law though the lawitself violated a democratic principle; more often corrupt officialswinked at violations of the law, enabling capitalists to absorb bogusclaims.
The various rulers of Mexico sold to American and other foreigncapitalists the resources belonging to the people of their country, andpocketed, with their followers, the proceeds of the sale. Their controlof the country rested upon force; the stability of the Diaz rule,for instance, depended upon the "President's" ability to maintain hisdictatorship—a precarious guarantee to the titles he had given. Hencethe premium on revolutions. There was always the incentive to theupstart political and mil