POLITICAL JUDGMENT. T HERE is no question more vitally related to
the future welfare of the British nation than that which is suggested, if not definitely stated, in Lord Rosebery's interesting address on Monday last at the opening of one of the excellent public libraries and reading-rooms at Edinburgh due to the enlightened testamentary munifi- cence of the late Mr. Thomas Nelson. We mean the question whether the faculty of sound, independent judgment in regard to public affairs is being strengthened and developed in this country among citizens of all classes, or is rather on the decline. It is quite possible that by a kind of instinct—a process virtually automatic rather than deliberative—the British nation might be preserved from many grave perils both at home and abroad for a considerable time after the faculty of judgment had decayed. But if the possession of the power of coming to a definite decision in view of given facts were to become rarer, or if that power, though originally possessed, were to become more or less atrophied through disuse, the persistence of the corresponding instinct could by no means be relied on. Now there can be no judgment without attentive thought, and the point in regard to which there seems to us to be no small cause for anxiety is the influence of the Press in saving people the trouble of thought. The danger lies very largely in the singular excellence of our Press,—the very efficiency with which it does the work it sets itself to do. Its conductors have recognised more and more completely of late years that it is an immense convenience to the public not only to have news full and abundant, but to have it thoroughly sorted and clearly labelled, so that with the least possible expenditure of time the busy man may attain both a general apercu of the events of the previous twenty- four hours, and a detailed and graphic view of the matters which happen to interest him particularly. In all this there is much which is not only extremely con- venient, but really useful. If the Press, as to a much larger extent used to be the case, were to leave the public to do their sorting and grouping of news for themselves, a great many people would have either to abandon the hope of being at all clearly and fully informed about the current affairs of the world, or to sacrifice the study of permanent for that of ephemeral literature. Even as it is, there are not a few people who definitely adopt the latter alternative. Lord Rosebery drew a picture, half humorous and half pathetic, of many of his friends who are so resolutely determined to know everything about the events of the day and to read everything that can be said on every side of every disputed public question in daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly journals, that he never sees them either enjoying recreation or pursuing their private busi- ness. These may be extreme cases, but probably all of us are acquainted with persons who approximate to the type described by Lord Rosebery. In its way it is a fine type. The affairs of the human race of to-day are eminently worthy of the best study of the beat minds ; but, as Lord Rosebery points out, they cannot be studied to full ad- vantage except in the light shed by a knowledge of past history and past thought.
By far the more common case, however, is that of the person at the opposite extreme, who reads his newspaper, indeed, with some care, but who, from steadily looking to it for the saving of his time, by guidance in regard to the arrangement of the news of the day and classification of its items according to their relative importance, comes to look to it also for ready-made opinions upon those items. And thus we are presented with the other type mentioned by Lord Rosebery,—the citizen whose utterances on public affairs are more or less close echoes of the views set forth in one or other of the newspapers of the day. That is by no means a fine type, but we fear that it is a very numerous one. No doubt those who illustrate it have a good deal to say for themselves. Many of them would, indeed, at first in- dignantly deny that before giving expression, in a slightly varied form, to the opinions of their favourite newspaper, they had omitted the duty of thinking the questions con- cerned out for themselves. Then, when convicted by their own consciences of that omission, they would excuse themselves by dwelling on the shortness of the time which their business allowed them day by day to apply to the consideration of public affairs, and the deference which it is reasonable to pay to experts who devote their lives to the consideration of those affairs, and with whose general principles and tone of thought they (the humble readers) have satisfied themselves that it is well to be associated. And there is not only plausibility but truth in this line of defence, up to a certain point. The trained journalist is an expert in the rapid consideration of the changing phases of public questions, and frequently his opinion, formed in the light of much knowledge of all the ante- cedent phases and surrounding circumstances, deserves great respect. But, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the conditions under which his work is done are not seldom of such a kind as to preclude the hope that he has done more that hurriedly apply a parti prig to an essentially modified situation. Too often, competent as be very possibly might be to take that " large, calm, unbiassed view" which, as Lord Rosebery says, is of the essence of sound judgment, with regard to some L4-:w element introduced into a public problem, he practically holds a brief, to the ends of which he is constrained to utilise everything which can be made to serve that purpose. He is counsel, according as it may happen, for the prosecu- tion or the defence, and it may well be that the were doubtful his case the greater the confidence and emphasis of the tone of his advocacy.
If that is recognised, it is all very well. But the mis- chief is that, in practice, it is often not recognised, and that a large, and we fear an increasing, number of citiz ns adopt, first, on their tongues, and from their tongues absorb into their minds, a set of opinions on pu t■lic affairs which, in large measure, are purely forensic. They save time, no doubt, by this practice, but at a heavy, it may be a disastrous, cost to themselves and their country. They are at once uttering a debased coinage in opinion, which is even touch more injurious to a nation than a debasing of the means of material exchange, and they ate paralysing the best faculty given them by Providence for the fulfilment of civic service, at any rate under a demo- cratic system of government. Every time that a man adopts and reissues as his own, without honestly taking the trouble to make them so by genuine intellectual effort, the opinions of his newspaper, whatever newspaper it may be—or, for that matter, the opinions of any other person —he is guilty of an offence against patriotic duty similar in kind to that of the conscript who wilfully damages his sword-arm or his trigger-finger. If the truth of this is not immediately apparent, it is only because the offence has become so lamentably common. In the long-run democracy can only succeed just in so far as the individual citizen recognises that it is his business to give his real mind to the consideration of public affairs as distinctly as he gives it to the considera- tion of his private business. He is bound, indeed, to get all the help and guidance possible in the discharge of his public, as of his private, responsi- bilities. And there is no country in which such efficient help and guidance are available to the citizen from the Press as in England. But, as we contend, the very excel- lence and efficiency of the English Press as the provider and classifier of trustworthy news, and of clear, informing comments from practised thinkers on public affairs, make it a danger when those skilled, but too often biassed, counsellors are treated as authorities who can dispense those who consult them from the duty of independent thought. To say truth, we are inclined to think that the practice of so treating them is more prevalent among the better-educated classes than among those who earn their livelihood by the work of their hands. It is among the former that the need of hurry is chiefly felt, The constant use of the telegraph and telephone in connection with commerce and professional work produces an atmosphere unfavourable to calm deliberation on any subject. The growing desire among the working class, on the other hand, for shorter hours, although it may have its undesirable aspects, undoubtedly makes for the increase of leisure and of consequent opportunities for the quiet consideration of public questions. That those opportunities where they have been, and may yet be more largely, won will often be neglected is only too probable ; but there is, for all that, in many cases, a serious- ness and sobriety about the thought of artisans on social, industrial, and political questions which encourage the hope that among the masses of the voters, though information is frequently lacking, the exercise of indepen- dent judgment is by no means relatively rare, and that it tends to increase rather than to diminish. If so, the call upon those sections of the community who might naturally hope, from their social and educational advantages, to exercise an influence upon the politics of their humbler fellow-citizens, becomes all the more evident. It is a call to think their own thoughts, in the best light they can obtain, on the questions of the day. Only by so doing, and not by the retailing of second-hand and undigested opinions, can they reasonably expect to wield the share which ought to be, and may be, theirs in the guidance of the home and foreign policy of their country.
Previous page
