 CHAPTER 19 THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY The title of this final chapter requires an apology. I do not need to be reminded, alas, that the whole book requires an apology. It is written in accordance with a ritual or custom in which I could see no particular harm, and which gives me a very interesting subject, but a custom in which it would not be altogether easy to justify and logic. Everybody who goes to America for a short time is expected to write a book, and nearly everybody does. A man who takes a holiday at Travill or Dieppe is not confronted on his return with a question, when is your book on France going to appear? A man who betakes himself to Switzerland for the winter sports is not instantly pinned by the statement, I suppose your history of the hell-vision republic is coming out this spring? Lecturing, at least my kind of lecturing, is not much more serious or meritorious than skiing or sea bathing, and it happens to afford the holidaymaker far less opportunity of seeing the daily life of the people. Of all this I am only too well aware, and my only defense is that I am at least sincere in my enjoyment and appreciation of America, and equally sincere in my interest in its most serious problem, which I think a very serious problem indeed, the problem of democracy in the modern world. Democracy may be a very obvious and facile affair for plutocrats and politicians who only have to use it as a rhetorical term, but democracy is a very serious problem for Democrats. I certainly do not apologize for the word democracy, but I do apologize for the word future. I am no futurist, and any congesures I make must be taken with a grain of salt, which is indeed the salt of the earth. The decent and moderate humility which comes from a belief in free will. That faith is, in itself, a divine doubt. I do not believe in any of the scientific predictions about mankind. I notice that they always fail to predict any of the purely human developments of men. I also notice that even their successes prove the same truth as their failures. For their successful predictions are not about men, but about machines. But there are two things which a man may reasonably do in stating the probabilities of a problem, which do not involve any claim to be a prophet. The first is to tell the truth, and especially the neglected truth, about the tendencies that have already accumulated in human history. Any miscalculation about which must at least mislead us in any case. We cannot be certain of being right about the future, but we can be almost certain of being wrong about the future, if we are wrong about the past. The other thing that he can do is to note what ideas necessarily go together by their own nature, what ideas will triumph together or fall together. Hence it follows that this final chapter must consist of two things. The first is a summary of what has really happened to the idea of democracy in recent times. The second a suggestion of the fundamental doctrine, which is necessary for its triumph at any time. The last hundred years has seen a general decline in the democratic idea. If there be anybody left to whom this historical truth appears a paradox, it is only because during that period nobody has been taught history, least of all the history of ideas. If a sort of intellectual inquisition has been established for the definition and differentiation of heresies, it would have been found that the original republican orthodoxy had suffered more and more from successions, schisms, and backslidings. The highest point of the democratic idealism and conviction was towards the ends of the 18th century, when the American Republic was dedicated to the proposition that all men are equal. It was then that the largest number of men had the most serious sort of conviction, that the political problem could be solved by the vote of peoples instead of the arbitrary power of princes and privileged orders. These men encountered various difficulties and made various compromises in relation to the practical politics of their time. In England they preserved aristocracy. In America they preserved slavery. But though they had more difficulties, they had less doubts. Since their time democracy has been steadily disintegrated by doubts, and these political doubts have been contemporary with and often identical with religious doubts. This fact could be followed over almost the whole field of the modern world. In this place it would be more appropriate to take the great American example of slavery. I have found traces in all sorts of intelligent quarters of an extraordinary idea that all the fathers of the republic owned black men like beasts a burden because they knew no better until the light of liberty was revealed to them by John Brown and Mrs. Beecher Stowe. One of the best weekly papers in England said recently that even those who drew up the Declaration of Independence did not include Negroes in its generalization about humanity. This is quite consistent with the current convention in which we were all brought up. The theory that the heart of humanity broadens in ever larger circles of brotherhood, till we pass from embracing a black man to adoring a black beetle. Unfortunately it is quite inconsistent with the facts of American history. The facts show that in this problem of the Old South the 18th century was more liberal than the 19th century. There was more sympathy for the Negro in the school of Jefferson than in the school of Jefferson Davis. Jefferson in the darkest state of his simple deism said that the sight of slavery in his country made him tremble, remembering that God is just. His fellow Southerners, after a century of the world's advance, said that slavery itself was good when they did not go farther and say that Negroes in themselves were bad. And they were supported in this by the great and growing modern suspicion that nature is unjust. They seem inevitably to delay justice to the mind of Jefferson, but so they did to the mind of Lincoln. But that the slave was human and the servitude inhuman. That was, if anything, clearer to Jefferson than to Lincoln. The fact is that the utter separation and subordination of the black like a beast was a progress. It was a growth of 19th century enlightenment and experiment, a triumph of science over superstition. It was the way the world was going, as Matthew Arnold reverentially remarked in some connection, perhaps as part of his definition of God. Anyhow, it was not Jefferson's definition of God. He fancied in his far-off patriarchal way a father who had made all men brothers, and brutally, unbrotherly, as was the practice such democratic deists never dreamed of denying the theory. It was not until the scientific sophistories began that brotherhood was really disputed. Gobinu, who began most of the modern talk about the superiority and inferiority of racial stocks, was seized upon eagerly by the less generous of the slave-owners, and trumpeted as a new truth of science and a new defense of slavery. It was not really until the dawn of Darwinism when all our social relations began to smell of the monkey-house that men thought of the barbarian as only a first and the baboon as the second cousin. The full survival philosophy, as been a modern and even a recent thing, made in an age whose invisible deity was the missing link. The missing link was a true metaphor in more ways than one, and most of all in its suggestion of a chain. By a symbolic coincidence, indeed, slavery grew more brazen and brutal under the encouragement of more than one movement of the progressive sort. It's used as renewed forth by the industrial prosperity of Lancashire, and under that influence it became a commercial and competitive instead of a patriarchal and customary thing. We may say with no exaggerative irony that the unconscious patrons of slavery were Huxley and Coddon. The machines of Manchester were manufacturing a great many more things than the manufacturers knew or wanted to know, but they were certainly manufacturing the fetters of the slave, doubtless out of the best quality of steel and iron. But this is a minor illustration of the modern Tennessee as compared with the mainstream of skepticism which was destroying democracy. Evolution became more and more of a vision of the breakup of our brotherhood, until by the end of the nineteenth century, the genius of its greatest scientific romance, saw it end in the anthropophagous antics of the time machine. So far from evolution lifting us above the idea of enslaving men, it was providing us at least with a logical and potential argument for eating them. In the case of the American Negroes, it may be remarked, it does at any rate permit the preliminary course of roasting them. All this materialistic hardening which replaced the remorse of Jefferson was part of the growing evolutionary suspicion that sabbages were not a part of the human race, or rather that there was really no such thing as the human race. The south had begun by agreeing reluctantly to the enslavement of men. The south ended by agreeing equally reluctantly to the emancipation of monkeys. That is what had happened to the democratic ideal in a hundred years. Anybody can test it by comparing the final phase. I will not say with the ideal of Jefferson, but with the ideal of Johnson. There was far more horror of slavery and an eighteenth century Tory like Dr. Johnson than in a nineteenth century Democrat like Stephen Douglas. Stephen Douglas may be mentioned because he is a very representative type of the age of evolution and expansion. A man thinking in continents like Cecil Rhodes, human and hopeful in a truly American fashion, and as a consequence cold and careless rather than hostile in the matter of the old mystical doctrines of equality. He did not care whether slavery was voted up or down. His great opponent Lincoln did indeed care very much. But it was an intense individual conviction with Lincoln exactly as it was with Johnson. I doubt if the spirit of their age was not much more behind Douglas and his westward expansion of the White Race. I am sure that more and more men were coming to be in the particular mental condition of Douglas, men in whom the old moral and mystical ideals had been undermined by doubt, but only with a negative effect of indifference. Their positive convictions were all concerned with what some called progress and some imperialism. It is true that there was a sincere sexual enthusiasm against slavery in the north, and that the slaves were actually emancipated in the nineteenth century. But I doubt whether the abolitionists would ever have secured evolution. Evolution was a byproduct of the Civil War, which was fought for quite other reasons. Anyhow, if slavery had somehow survived to the age of Rhodes and Roosevelt and evolutionary imperialism, I doubt if the slaves would ever have been emancipated at all. Certainly if it had survived till the modern movement for the survival state, they would never have been emancipated at all. Why should the world take the chains off the black man when it was just putting them on the white? And in so far as we owe the change to Lincoln, we owe its Jefferson, exactly what gives its real dignity to the figure of Lincoln, is that he stands invoking a primitive first principle of the age of innocence, and holding up the tables of an ancient law against the trend of the nineteenth century. Repeating, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator, etc. To a generation that was more and more disposed to say something like this. We hold these truths to be probable enough for pragmatists, that all things looking like men were evolved somehow, being endowed by heredity and environment with no equal rights, but very unequal wrongs, and so on. I do not believe that Creed, left to itself, would ever have founded a state. And I am pretty certain that, left to itself, it would never have overthrown a slave state. What it did do, as I have said, was to produce some very wonderful literary and artistic flights of skeptical imagination. The world did have new visions, if they were visions of monsters in the moon and Martians striding about like spiders as tall as the sky, and the workmen and capitalists becoming two separate species, so that one could devour the other as gaily and greedily, as a cat devours a bird. No one has done justice to the meaning of Mr. Wells and his original departure in fantastic fiction to these nightmares that were the last apocalypse of the nineteenth century. They meant that the bottom had fallen out of the mind at last, that the Bridge of Brotherhood had broken down in the modern brain, letting up from the chasms this infernal light like a dawn. All had grown dizzy with degree and relativity, so that there would be not so very much difference between eating dog and eating darky, or between eating darky and eating dico. There were different sorts of apes, but there was no doubt that we were the superior sort. Against all this irresistible force stood one immovable post. Against all this dance of doubt and degrees stood something that can best be symbolized by a simple example. An ape cannot be a priest, but a negro can be a priest. The dogmatic type of Christianity, especially the Catholic type of Christianity, had riveted itself irrevocably to the manhood of all men. Where its faith was fixed by creeds and councils, it could not save itself even by surrender. It could not gradually dilute democracy, as could a merely skeptical or secular Democrat. There stood, in fact, or in possibility the solid and smiling figure of a black bishop, and he was either a man, claiming the most towering spiritual privileges of a man, or he was the mere buffoonery and blasphemy of a monkey and a mitre. That is the point about Christian and Catholic democracy. It is not that it is necessarily, at any moment, more democratic. It is that its indestructible minimum of democracy really is indestructible. And by the nature of things that mystical democracy was destined to survive, where every other sort of democracy was free to destroy itself. And whenever democracy destroying itself is suddenly moved to save itself, it always grasps at rag or tag of that old tradition that alone is sure of itself. Hundreds have heard the story about the medieval demagogue who went on about repeating the rhyme, when Adam dealt and Eve span, who was then the gentleman? Many have doubtless offered the obvious answer to the question, the serpent. But few seem to have noticed what would be the more modern answer to the question. If that innocent agitator went about propounding it, Adam never dealt, and even never span, for the simple reason that they never existed. They are fragments of Achaldio, Babylonian mythos, and Adam is only a slight variation of tag tug, pronounced utu. For the real beginning of humanity, we refer you to Darwin's origin of speeches. And then the modern man would go on to justify plutocracy to the medieval man by talking about the struggle for life and the survival of the fittest, and how the strongest man seized authority by means of anarchy and proved himself a gentleman by behaving like a cad. Now I do not base my beliefs on the theology of John Ball, or on the literal and materialistic reading of the text of Genesis, though I think the story of Adam and Eve infinitely less absurd and unlikely than that of the prehistoric strongest man who could fight a hundred men. But I do note the fact that the idealism of the leveller could be put in the form of an appeal to scripture, and could not be put in the form of an appeal to science. And I do note also that Democrats were still driven to make the same appeal, even in the very century of science. Tennyson was, if ever there was one, an evolutionist in his visions and an aristocrat in his sympathies. He was always boasting that John Ball was evolutionary and not revolutionary, even as these Frenchmen. He did not pretend to have any creed beyond faintly trusting the larger whole. But when human dignity is really in danger, John Bull has to use the same old argument as John Ball. He tells Lady Clara Veer de Veer that the gardener Adam and his wife smile at the claim of long descent, their own descent being by no means long. Lady Clara might surely have scored off him pretty smartly by quoting from Maud and in Memoriam about evolution and the f that was Lord of Valley and Hill. But Tennyson has evidently forgotten all about Darwin and the long descent of man. If this was true of an evolutionist like Tennyson, it was naturally ten times true of a revolutionist like Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal. And it is right, for if they were not created equal they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy, except in a dogma about the divine origin of man. That is a perfectly simple fact which the modern world will find out more and more to be a fact. Every other basis is a sort of sentimental confusion. Full of merely verbal echoes of the older creeds. Those verbal associations are always vain, for the vital purposes of constraining the tyrant. An idealist may say to a capitalist, Don't you sometimes feel in the rich twilight when the lights twinkle from the distant hamlet in the hills that all humanity is a holy family? But it is equally possible for the capitalist to reply with brevity and decision. No, I don't. And there is no more disputing about it further than about the beauty of a fading cloud. And the modern world of moods is a world of clouds. Even if some of them are thunderclouds. For I have only taken here as a convenient working model the case of Negro slavery, because it was long peculiar to America, and is popularly associated with it. It is more and more obvious that the line is no longer running between black and white but between rich and poor. And I have already noted in the case of prohibition the very same arguments of the inevitable suicide of the ignorant, of the impossibility of freedom for the unfit, which were once applied to barbarians brought from Africa, are now applied to citizens born in America. It is argued even by industrialists that industrialism has produced a class submerged below the status of emancipated mankind. They imply that the missing link is no longer missing, even from England or the northern states, and that the factories have manufactured their own monkeys. Scientific hypotheses about the feeble-minded and the criminal type will supply the masters of the modern world with more and more excuses for denying the dogma of equality, in the case of white labor, as well as black. And any man who knows the world knows perfectly well that to tell the millionaires or their servants that they are disappointing the sediments of Thomas Jefferson or disregarding a creed composed in the eighteenth century will be about as effective as telling them that they are not observing the creed of St. Athanasius or keeping the rule of St. Benedict. The world cannot keep its own ideals. The secular order cannot make secure any one of its own noble and natural conceptions of secular perfection. That will be found as time goes on, the ultimate argument for a church independent of the world and the secular order. What has become of all those ideal figures from the wise man of the Stoics to the democratic deist of the eighteenth century? What has become of all that purely human hierarchy of chivalry with this punctilious pattern of the good night, its ardent ambition in the young squire? The very name of night has come to represent the petty triumph of a profiteer, and the very word squire the petty tyranny of a landlord. What has become of all that golden liberality of the humanists, who found on the high table lands of the culture of Hellas the very balance of repose and beauty that is most lacking in the modern world? The very Greek language that they loved has become a mere label for snuffy and snobbish dons, and a mere cockshife for cheap and half educated utilitarians, who make it a symbol of superstition and reaction. We have lived to see a time when the heroic legend of the Republic and the citizen, which seemed to Jefferson the eternal youth of the world, has begun to grow old in its turn. We cannot recover the earthly estate of knighthood, to which all the colors and complications of heraldry seemed as fresh and natural as flowers. We cannot re-enact the intellectual experiences of the humanists, for whom the Greek grammar was like the song of a bird in spring. The more the matter is considered, the clearer it will seem that these old experiences are now only alive, where they have found elogement in the Catholic tradition of Christendom, and made themselves friends forever. St. Francis is the only surviving troubadour. St. Thomas More is the only surviving humanist. St. Louis is the only surviving knight. It would be the worst sort of insincerity, therefore, to conclude even so hazy an outline of so great and majestic a matter as the American democratic experiment, without testifying my belief that to this also the same ultimate test will come. So far as that democracy becomes or remains Catholic and Christian, that democracy will remain democratic. In so far as it does not, it will become wildly and wickedly undemocratic. Its rich will riot with a brutal indifference, far beyond the feeble feudalism, which retains some shadow of responsibility, or at least of patronage. Its waged slaves will either sink into heathen slavery, or seek relief in theories that are destructive, not merely in method but in aim, since they are but the negations of the human appetites of property and personality. Eighteenth-century ideals, formulated in eighteenth-century language, have no longer in themselves the power to hold all those pagan passions back. Even those documents depended upon deism, their real strength will survive in men who are still deists, and the men who are still deists, are more than deists. Men will more and more realize that there is no meaning in democracy, if there is no meaning in anything, and that there is no meaning in anything, if the universe has not a center of significance and an authority that is the author of our rights. There is truth in every ancient fable, and there is here, even something of it, in the fancy that finds the symbol of the Republic in the bird that bore the bolts of Jove. Owls and bats may wander where they will in darkness, and for them, as for the skeptics, the universe may have no center. Kites and vultures may linger as they like over carrion, and for them, as for the plutocrats, existence may have no origin and no end. And it was far back, in the land of legends, where instincts find their true images, that the cry went forth, that freedom is an eagle, whose glory is gazing at the sun. THE END OF WHAT I SAW IN AMERICA by G. K. Chesterton