Editorial Comment on the Opening Address
THE FOLLOWING clippings from newspapers have been selected from the widespread press comment that appeared immediately after President Hopkins' annual address was given at the opening of College, September 22.
A VOICE FROM THE HILLS
No MORE refreshing and challenging word has been spoken in these days of confused and confusing voices than that of President Hopkins of Dartmouth College at the opening of the academic year. He is aware that many of his assertions are "more definitely in the controversial field than is ordinarily appropriate to an academic address," but the times will not let him keep silent. As he was once an ardent Bull Mooser, his views are of especial interest.
The most serious danger threatening civilization today, in his view, is "the rapid development of a perverted sense of democ- racy" both at home and abroad, which encourages public opinion not only to accept but to idealize mediocrity and which allows public opinion to be ostentatiously arrogant in its indifference to intelligence and antagonistic toward any process of thought in its leaders which rises above its own average mental capacity.
Himself a firm believer in democracy, his argument is against an undisciplined and irresponsible form of it. Left to itself it "breeds down" to mediocrity, and to intolerance toward those possessed of the higher attributes. "Public confidence and public applause are given most largely not to those who are capable of raising the level upon which we live and think and act, but to those who stoop to the average and pander to the common." On the other hand, the number who have had formal education, sup- plemented by the host who without it have high intelligence and good-will, is great enough to assert itself effectively "in the crea- tion of a new spirit toward government and in the establishment of a new social order," and to mobilize for cooperative action.
Dr. Hopkins dares to recall a chapter in history which is not pleasant reading at the present moment but of which everybody can see the bearing:
The Praetorian Guard was originally recruited to safeguard home affairs and was selected from men distinguished for valor in foreign service and for their keen sense of patriotism. For a time these legions were the pride of Rome. Insidiously, however, a class consciousness of their potential power sprang up among the legions and an acquisitiveness for preferential treatment which led to demand after demand upon the State for gratuities. Culti- vating their power in deciding elections, they secured what they sought in each successive demand. Gradually their appetite for extravagant subsidy became so voracious that they turned to the use of force and assassination, overthrew the government, and called for competitive bids for their favor, promising to make him Emperor who would distribute among them the largest money grants. Going from one bidder to another and holding the election open until the highest possible offer had been secured, sale of the position was made to a member of the Roman Senate who even- tually made payment from the public treasury at a cost of millions to the State.
However, this college president ends by saying that there was never a generation more to be envied than the one now coming on, "if only it will impose upon itself the requirement to develop itself to the limit of its capability." But it must be prepared to "endure hardness."
—New York TimesSeptember 23, 1932.
"TODAY" BY ARTHUR BRISBANE
PRESIDENT HOPKINS of Dartmouth College fears that the bonus might result in an oligarchy with blocs of special privilege. And those blocs might interfere with independence of thought among the people's representatives. The learned president surely knows that we have several "special privilege blocs" now, and that they have a considerable control on the thoughts of the people's representatives. One more such bloc wouldn't make any great difference, espe- cially if it should result in distributing, widely, money that must be distributed before the country can start real recovery.
—Cleveland NewsSeptember 2j, 1932.
THE COMMENT OF A COLLEGE PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT ERNEST M. HOPKINS of Dartmouth College is not among those who believe that the American experiment in government by the people has failed, but he is among those who fear that it will fail unless the drift toward direct democracy is checked.
"In the United States today," said President Hopkins, in an address at the opening of his school this year, "intelligent consideration of the question of political leadership cannot be given without consideration likewise of the rapidity with which we are being transformed from a republic, administered by highly capable citizens, to a pure democracy, intolerant of independence of thought and antagonistic to independence of action in its representatives. The inevitable trend of pure democracy in practice is toward concentration of power in aggressive blocs seeking special privileges and thus in the eventual establishment of an oligarchy, heedless of common welfare."
In a country as large and as populous as the United States there must be an extensive delegation of authority to elected representatives in order for democratic methods to be effectual. The men sent to Washington must be allowed sufficient independence to enable them to be national in their viewpoint. Congress cannot act intelligently as long as its members are mere errand boys from their respective districts and states.
"Particularly," says President Hopkins, "in the transfer of power for electing United States senators from the state legislatures to the whole electorates of the respective states and then in the replacement of the convention system by the direct primary, the tendency is plain of subordinating to popular passion or temporary caprice the independence of thought and action possible to the people's representatives."
The simple fact is that our constitutional set-up of government is not workable with pure democracy. Unless we return to the representative plan of action we shall find it necessary to change to the parliamentary system. Under present conditions it is impracticable for our senators and representatives to be elected for fixed terms.
—Dallas (Texas) Times HeraldOctober 1, 1932.
AREN'T WE ALL?
ASSAILING no particular party, but holding voters up at the end „ of a pair of tongs, President Hopkins of Dartmouth rips wide open another controversy when he says:
"Under the spurious standards of our present-day democracy enthusiasm is reserved largely for the common man who remains common rather than for the common man who makes himself uncommon. . . . Public confidence and popular applause are given most largely not to those who are capable of raising the level upon which we live and think and act but to those who stoop to the average and pander to the common."
We would have you know that President Hopkins is a firm believer in the principle of democracy, but he says the system is wrong that gives men privileges who refuse to accept the responsibilities that go with them. President Hopkins believes that man is not naturally democratic, that for a democracy to succeed, citizens must practise self-discipline. He tells his students that "herein lies a vital function of education—to cultivate a willingness for self-discipline."
If President Hopkins were a newspaper man his experiences and observation would have borne out his theory. We of the press have seen the public make heroes of men and have wonderd how soon the popular idol would be dethroned. Look through history. Heads rise above the crowd and are cheered for awhile, like a vaudeville act. Then the throng turns, tears down its heroes and turns to others.
Is it because we, as human beings, resent being reminded for too long a period of the existence of another human being greater than the rest of us? Do we insist upon dragging him down to our own level?
—Boston TravellerSeptember 23, 1932.
BLOC GOVERNMENT
PRESIDENT HOPKINS of Dartmouth College points out that "the inevitable trend of pure democracy is toward concentration of power in aggressive blocs." The drive now being made for immediate payment of the World War veterans' bonus appears as just one example of a trend under the existing spirit and methods in national and state affairs.
That this constitutes a distinct departure from the lines on which our Government was founded is so plain as to require no supporting argument. In fact, bloc government is diametrically opposed in principle to representative government, the plan to which the Nation's founders pinned their faith. In the one case stands a massed minority, invoking every means and influence available to further the objects to which that minority is committed. In the other case are representatives chosen from all classes and districts, pledged to the fulfilment of justice and the advancement of the welfare of the general population.
As between these opposing theories there must be eventually a distinct cleavage when it comes to an attempt to settle moot issues. There are lengths to which Nation and State cannot go in the attempt to ride two horses of such strikingly different spirit and color.
In recent years we have ridden some distance along the highway of pure democracy, and we have bumped against large-sized rocks on the way. Whether to continue along that route or work back to the representative system traditional with us, has been for some time a subject of concern. It is a question that is likely to command more interest as developments progress.
—Springfield (Mass.) UnionSeptember 24, 1932.
DISCIPLINED DEMOCRACY
PRESIDENT HOPKINS of Dartmouth sees great need of a better disciplined democracy in this country. Thoughtful citizens doubtless will agree with him. His observations were imparted to the college group at the annual opening exercises at Dartmouth this week but they well deserve a wider audience.
Disciplined democracy depends, of course, upon citizens who have themselves become disciplined. New conditions of adversity call for men of stable character and sound judgment who see in cruel misfortune a rare challenge to build a better civilization. It is no time to listen to defeatists who lack faith in a better economic and social future.
Nor can we afford to be at the mercy of those who, unappreciative of the seriousness of the present crisis, insist upon fulfilment of their own selfish and transient desires to the detriment of democracy's best interests. President Hopkins cites the record of the Praetorian Guard in Rome. Chosen on the basis of merit as defenders of the State, they gradually lost their discipline and became attackers of the institution they were selected to defend. He sees a parallel in the attitude of those now clamoring for the bonus, as indeed in the attitude of all those who are more closely bent on extracting gratuities than they are on disciplining themselves for intelligent service either in or out of public office.
Both the defeatist and the gratuity seeker are hindrances to the attainment and the maintenance of a disciplined democracy. Neither can contribute to the conquest of our present difficulties.
President Hopkins well laments the fact that the nature of our political democracy is likewise an obstacle to solution of difficult problems thrust upon us as a consequence of adversity. It has become too cumbersome and too unwieldy. We have departed from our early republican principles. We have drifted far in the direction of pure democracy. The further we have drifted the less disciplined have we become.
We have made such radical changes in the use of the Electoral College and in the method of selection of public representatives that we have practically forfeited an opportunity to exercise discriminating judgment even if we had disciplined ourselves enough to choose with wisdom and discernment. We put too much premium on unintelligent and undisciplined leadership and too often we hold in scant regard men of ability and character who offer themselves for public service.
Furthermore, President Hopkins contends, we are rapidly developing a perverted sense of democracy wherein public opinion glorifies mediocrity and the commonplace and is arrogantly indifferent to intelligence and unusual mental capacity. "Under the spurious standards of our present-day democracy," he says, "enthusiasm is reserved largely for the common man who remains common rather than for the common man who makes himself uncommon. . . . Public confidence and popular applause are given most largely not to those who are capable of raising the level upon which we live and think and act but to those who stoop to the average and pander to the common."
Disciplined democracy, President Hopkins reminds us, requires cooperation on the part of intelligent citizens. Able leaders are largely helpless unless they have the support of an intelligent constituency.
The timeliness of such wholesome philosophy is apparent. Changed economic and social conditions coupled with the imperative need for better discipline offer a special challenge to college youth, to be sure, but they merit no less earnest consideration by maturer minds.
The discouraging fact is the growing public indifference to achievement of the objective set forth by Dartmouth's President. So many men and women come out of college oblivious to the need of this kind of discipline. And even that portion of the college group which appreciates the need so often loses its early enthusiasm for attainment. It is levelled to mediocrity by the crowd and by forces of materialism which it is either powerless to resist or dares not oppose. We have travelled faster and further away from the ideal of disciplined democracy during the period when our colleges have been pouring forth their greatest number of graduates.
Certainly it is essential now as never before to stress quality instead of quantity. Likewise it becomes increasingly desirable to attain that sort of discipline which at least tends to make an educated man synonymous with an intelligent man.
—Providence JournalSeptember 24, 1932.
OUR LACK OF DISCIPLINE
INSERTED NEAR the middle of President Hopkins's address yesterday at the opening of Dartmouth's new year was a remark that, we suspect, struck closer home than any of the others. Perhaps it is unfair to Mr. Hopkins to single it out for emphasis here, but it so well illuminates the dominating thought of his discussion of contemporary America that it should not be overlooked. He was saying, "parenthetically," that every college man takes keen satisfaction in the high standing and reputation of the institution with which he is or was associated. "Nevertheless," he went on to say a bit wryly, "Dartmouth would become an exception of all institutions of its kind if it could expect complete cooperation from its undergraduates to enhance its reputation by scholarly endeavor and responsible personal conduct."
It is that common, and indeed commendable, desire on the part of Americans to see good things started and their equal unwillingness to make the personal sacrifices necessary to get them done, that Mr. Hopkins lamented again and again in his address. If all the people who originally voted for or indorsed prohibition had loyally obeyed the law, would it not now be a success? If all the citizens who demand economy in government were willing to forego the little perquisites and favors that they now enjoy, would extravagance still persist? Or, if all those who perennially clamor for clean politics were prepared to conduct themselves and their affairs scrupulously in accord with the law, would not most of our crime and corruption be largely solved?
The answer is, of course, that we Americans still believe that laws, and other forms of cooperative effort, exist largely for other people. Most of us vote, Mr. Hopkins might have said, not for good men in office, but for men who are likely to be good to us personally. In other words, we are not yet ready to undergo the discipline that we warmly advocate for others. Mr. Hopkins quite frankly conceded that, because democracy depends on self-discipline, "the spirit of democracy is not a natural instinct for mankind." It is, he asserted, an acquired characteristic that must be cultivated through education, "for left to itself, democracy breeds down to a standard of mediocrity and to a standard of thought intolerant towards those possessed of attributes above the average and capable of accomplishments beyond the ordinary man."
Pessimistic as this sounds, President Hopkins is confident that the colleges and other educational institutions can inculcate in their young people sufficient sense of self-discipline to lift the common mass occasionally above itself. Certainly no better time was more propitious for teaching self-control and self-denial than the present!
—Boston HeraldSeptember 23, 1932.
THE DANGER OF THE MEDIOCRE
THUS FAR, AMONG addresses at college openings, that of President Ernest Hopkins of Dartmouth has attracted most attention, first because it likens the American Legion to the Praetorian guards of Rome which became a privileged class that contributed to the downfall of the state, but secondly because in his address Dr. Hopkins pointed out certain weaknesses in democracy today of which the bonus agitation is a sign.
Self discipline, which is the only means by which democracy can survive, is at low ebb. If it were not, such things as the "attitude of sponsors for ever increasing gratuities to World War veterans" would not show themselves as unpleasant symptoms. Reverting to his call, made ten years ago, for "an aristocracy of brains," President Hopkins holds that some force is going to be dominant in American life, and if not the qualities of superior intelligence, what shall it be? After a decade, he concludes:
"Now, I am prepared to go much further and to contend that the most serious danger threatening civilization today is the rapid development of a perverted sense of democracy at home and abroad, which encourages public opinion not only to accept but to idolize mediocrity and which allows public opinion to be ostentatiously arrogant in its indifference to intelligence and antagonistic towards any process of thought in its leaders which rises above its own average mental capacity."
It is the worst part of mass production that it reduces many things and many persons to a dead level. It would make people as much alike in what they wear, and eat, and do, and think as it makes machines so that the parts of one motor car will fit any one of a million other motor cars. It is all right for machines, but it is bad business to try to standardize humanity.
If the country ever disintegrates it will not be due to outside invasion, but to internal weakness among people in whom "public confidence and public applause are given most largely not to those who are capable of raising the level upon which we live and think and act, but to those who stoop to the average and pander to the common."
While the address was made to students in Dartmouth College, the speaker was whipping the whole country over the shoulders of students. This is not the only severe indictment that is being brought these days. A great deal of self-searching is going on. Colleges ought to take the lead in exposing national weaknesses, and in raising up a race of men who shall prove leaders.
—Schenectady (N. Y.) Union-StarSeptember 24, 1932.
