CORRESPONDENCE.
"Wm are the party leaders P and Why do not more men of leisure take part in politics P are questions often asked by visitors to America. The two may be answered together. Politics would be more attractive to men of means and talent were party leaders visible, as in England ; but in a country
-where there are no followers, there can be no leaders. Counsellors -there are in plenty, but no captains. Our political hierarchy, surmounted by the Premier, and based on Under-Secretaries, has no counterpart. All men being equal, no statesman, how- ever distinguished, is authorised to commit his party on any debatable question, nor, as all men are free, is he bound to assume a colleague's liabilities. The politician owes allegiance to no individual ; the party Convention is his judge, and his constituency the executioner. The Caucus makes the states- man ; but, in depriving him of authority and individual -responsibility, lessens his consequence in the public estimation. Not that the nation is ungrateful for good work done.
'Grant was magnificently rewarded; Lincoln's is a name to conjure by. But having overcome many obstacles, both of mind and matter, a certain elastic confidence pervades the people, and -they grasp tenaciously the sound Republican doctrine, that no man is essential, for what one has done, another can do. The 'English tradition that men of leisure, having more time for -informing themselves and less temptation to sacrifice principle -to popularity, are best fitted to govern, does not commend itself -to the American. He rather suspects than courts such men ; -nor will he hedge-about his lawgivers or his officers with dignity. They are his servants ; he will not make them his
• teachers. His theories and his reforms he can draw from the • newspapers, which, irrepressible and irresponsible, are the great motive force of the country. Consequently, the politician, yielding to the temper of his makers, avoids originality, and, beside an English M.P. of decided opinions, appears almost subservient.
The Congressional methods of business also conspire to quench -the politician's aspirations for fame. He is screened from sight.
The proceedings in Committee are private, and the House is impatient of long speeches, and is as unwilling to hear them as -reporters are to report them. The Congressman must rely on -the judgment of his colleagues, who have, of course, every
opportunity for gauging his capacity. But whatever their verdict be, he mast abide by it ; he cannot appeal to the nation, for he cannot make himself heard. The consequence of this -dependence is shown in his deference to the party Caucus. 'He recognises but one greater authority,—his constituency. Prance and the United States stand at opposite poles in the matter of elections, England betwixt and between, but leaning, according to the last Reform Bill, towards the American system of one-member districts. It is a signal proof of the general interest taken in public affairs, that it is rare to find a country constituency represented by a stranger. By upholding and exercising the right to select their own Members, and by sternly resenting the interference of outside influences, such as clubs and Conventions, the people have opposed an effectual barrier to any dangerous increase of the Caucus power. To the politician, the goodwill of his constituents is vital, for rejected in one district, he has little chance of success elsewhere. If the Congressional system of work permitted the people to over- look their representatives as closely as Englishmen can theirs, Congressmen would probably become little more than recording clerks. So far as local interests are concerned, they can indeed be checked by results, and they are therefore apt to make local wants their first care. Nor are the people at large averse to what we might think reversing the natural order. The spirit which inspired the saying "that the United States could lick Creation," inspires also the belief that the nation is over-strong to be hart by a few political errors.
As the duties required of public men are less agreeable than in England, so are the prizes less important. No individual is so powerful as the Premier, nor, excepting the President, as the other English Ministers. But these drawbacks are not so dis- couraging as the personal and intermittent character of public life On reaching a certain rank, an English statesman is sure of lifelong recognition. It is not so in the United States. In choosing his Cabinet, the President is guided by personal feeling, and his Ministers are not necessarily the most prominent members of his party. A politician may be popular in every other State of the Union ; but if distasteful to his own, he can hardly enter the National Legislature. These possibilities have doubtless deterred many from adopting a profession in which work and worth could not ensure continuous attention, and compelled others—the most distinguished of their time—to regard the years spent at Washington but as stirring interludes to their ordinary life. The nation is, however, content that the complicated gear of her electing machinery needs professional handling, and she accepts it ; but with professional rulers she will have nothing to do. From the plough, the camp, the bar, she summons her governors and her legislators, and after a brief spell of authority, she bide them farewell. Legislation may be less logical, the ship of State may oscillate a little more,
Previous page
