What I Saw in America — Chapter 08 Part 1 Presidents and Problems

_Presidents and Problems_ All good Americans wish to fight the representatives they have chosen.

All good Englishmen wish to forget the representatives they have chosen.

This difference, deep and perhaps ineradicable in the temperaments of the two peoples, explains a thousand things in their literature and their laws.

The American national poet praised his people for their readiness 'to _rise_ against the never-ending audacity of elected persons.'

The English national anthem is content to say heartily, but almost hastily, 'Confound their politics,' and then more cheerfully, as if changing the subject, 'God Save the King.'

For this is especially the secret of the monarch or chief magistrate in the two countries.

They arm the President with the powers of a King, that he may be a nuisance in politics.

We deprive the King even of the powers of a President, lest he should remind us of a politician.

We desire to forget the never-ending audacity of elected persons; and with us therefore it really never does end.

That is the practical objection to our own habit of changing the subject, instead of changing the ministry.

The King, as the Irish wit observed, is not a subject; but in that sense the English crowned head is not a King.

He is a popular figure intended to remind us of the England that politicians do not remember; the England of horses and ships and gardens and good fellowship.

The Americans have no such purely social symbol; and it is rather the root than the result of this that their social luxury, and especially their sport, are a little lacking in humanity and humour.

It is the American, much more than the Englishman, who takes his pleasures sadly, not to say savagely.

The genuine popularity of constitutional monarchs, in parliamentary countries, can be explained by any practical example.

Let us suppose that great social reform, The Compulsory Haircutting Act, has just begun to be enforced.

The Compulsory Haircutting Act, as every good citizen knows, is a statute which permits any person to grow his hair to any length, in any wild or wonderful shape, so long as he is registered with a hairdresser who charges a shilling.

But it imposes a universal close-shave (like that which is found so hygienic during a curative detention at Dartmoor) on all who are registered only with a barber who charges threepence.

Thus, while the ornamental classes can continue to ornament the street with Piccadilly weepers or chin-beards if they choose, the working classes demonstrate the care with which the State protects them by going about in a fresher, cooler, and cleaner condition; a condition which has the further advantage of revealing at a glance that outline of the criminal skull, which is so common among them.

The Compulsory Haircutting Act is thus in every way a compact and convenient example of all our current laws about education, sport, liquor and liberty in general.

Well, the law has passed and the masses, insensible to its scientific value, are still murmuring against it.

The ignorant peasant maiden is averse to so extreme a fashion of bobbing her hair; and does not see how she can even be a flapper with nothing to flap.

Her father, his mind already poisoned by Bolshevists, begins to wonder who the devil does these things, and why.

In proportion as he knows the world of to-day, he guesses that the real origin may be quite obscure, or the real motive quite corrupt.

The pressure may have come from anybody who has gained power or money anyhow.

It may come from the foreign millionaire who owns all the expensive hairdressing saloons; it may come from some swindler in the cutlery trade who has contracted to sell a million bad razors.

Hence the poor man looks about him with suspicion in the street; knowing that the lowest sneak or the loudest snob he sees may be directing the government of his country.

Anybody may have to do with politics; and this sort of thing is politics.

Suddenly he catches sight of a crowd, stops, and begins wildly to cheer a carriage that is passing.

The carriage contains the one person who has certainly not originated any great scientific reform.

He is the only person in the commonwealth who is not allowed to cut off other people's hair, or to take away other people's liberties.

He at least is kept out of politics; and men hold him up as they did an unspotted victim to appease the wrath of the gods.

He is their King, and the only man they know is not their ruler.

We need not be surprised that he is popular, knowing how they are ruled.

The popularity of a President in America is exactly the opposite.

The American Republic is the last mediaeval monarchy.

It is intended that the President shall rule, and take all the risks of ruling.

If the hair is cut he is the haircutter, the magistrate that bears not the razor in vain.

All the popular Presidents, Jackson and Lincoln and Roosevelt, have acted as democratic despots, but emphatically not as constitutional monarchs.

In short, the names have become curiously interchanged; and as a historical reality it is the President who ought to be called a King.

But it is not only true that the President could correctly be called a King.

It is also true that the King might correctly be called a President.

We could hardly find a more exact description of him than to call him a President.

What is expected in modern times of a modern constitutional monarch is emphatically that he should preside.

We expect him to take the throne exactly as if he were taking the chair.

The chairman does not move the motion or resolution, far less vote it; he is not supposed even to favour it.

He is expected to please everybody by favouring nobody.

The primary essentials of a President or Chairman are that he should be treated with ceremonial respect, that he should be popular in his personality and yet impersonal in his opinions, and that he should actually be a link between all the other persons by being different from all of them.

This is exactly what is demanded of the constitutional monarch in modern times.

It is exactly the opposite to the American position; in which the President does not preside at all.

He moves; and the thing he moves may truly be called a motion; for the national idea is perpetual motion.

Technically it is called a message;

and might often actually be called a menace.

Thus we may truly say that the King presides and the President reigns.

Some would prefer to say that the President rules; and some Senators and members of Congress would prefer to say that he rebels.

But there is no doubt that he moves;

he does not take the chair or even the stool, but rather the stump.

Some people seem to suppose that the fall of President Wilson was a denial of this almost despotic ideal in America.

As a matter of fact it was the strongest possible assertion of it.

The idea is that the President shall take responsibility and risk; and responsibility means being blamed, and risk means the risk of being blamed.

The theory is that things are done by the President; and if things go wrong, or are alleged to go wrong, it is the fault of the President.

This does not invalidate, but rather ratifies the comparison with true monarchs such as the mediaeval monarchs.

Constitutional princes are seldom deposed;

but despots were often deposed.

In the simpler races of sunnier lands, such as Turkey, they were commonly assassinated.

Even in our own history a King often received the same respectful tribute to the responsibility and reality of his office.

But King John was attacked because he was strong, not because he was weak.

Richard the Second lost the crown because the crown was a trophy, not because it was a trifle.

And President Wilson was deposed because he had used a power which is such, in its nature, that a man must use it at the risk of deposition.

As a matter of fact, of course, it is easy to exaggerate Mr. Wilson's real unpopularity, and still more easy to exaggerate Mr. Wilson's real failure.

There are a great many people in America who justify and applaud him; and what is yet more interesting, who justify him not on pacifist and idealistic, but on patriotic and even military grounds.

It is especially insisted by some that his demonstration, which seemed futile as a threat against Mexico, was a very far-sighted preparation for the threat against Prussia.

But in so far as the democracy did disagree with him, it was but the occasional and inevitable result of the theory by which the despot has to anticipate the democracy.

Thus the American King and the English President are the very opposite of each other; yet they are both the varied and very national indications of the same contemporary truth.

It is the great weariness and contempt that have fallen upon common politics in both countries.

It may be answered, with some show of truth, that the new American President represents a return to common politics; and that in that sense he marks a real rebuke to the last President and his more uncommon politics.

And it is true that many who put Mr. Harding in power regard him as the symbol of something which they call normalcy; which may roughly be translated into English by the word normality.

And by this they do mean, more or less, the return to the vague capitalist conservatism of the nineteenth century.

They might call Mr. Harding a Victorian if they had ever lived under Victoria.

Perhaps these people do entertain the extraordinary notion that the nineteenth century was normal.

But there are very few who think so, and even they will not think so long.

The blunder is the beginning of nearly all our present troubles.

The nineteenth century was the very reverse of normal.

It suffered a most unnatural strain in the combination of political equality in theory with extreme economic inequality in practice.

Capitalism was not a normalcy but an abnormalcy.

Property is normal, and is more normal in proportion as it is universal.

Slavery may be normal and even natural, in the sense that a bad habit may be second nature.

But Capitalism was never anything so human as a habit; we may say it was never anything so good as a bad habit.

It was never a custom; for men never grew accustomed to it.

It was never even conservative; for before it was even created wise men had realised that it could not be conserved.

It was from the first a problem; and those who will not even admit the Capitalist problem deserve to get the Bolshevist solution.

All things considered, I cannot say anything worse of them than that.