OCR Text |
Show PARTYISM AND PATRIOTISM. President Taft, since he was inaugurated, a number of times has spoken and written of the duty of Congress and of hi3 administration to carry out the pledges of the platform upon which he was elected. In a recent address he spoke of himself as the "titular head" of the party that elected him. Perhaps he is that, but we had always considered him the President of the United States. It is a difficult question, one upon which political economists, econom-ists, of different schools disagree, as to how far partyism shall enter into the conduct of the public business. Are we ruled by our elected representatives, representa-tives, or by a political party ? And just where is the dividing line between partyism and patriotism? In the past the charges have been made, and pretty well sustained by historical evidence, that party pledges have been forgotten after the election; elec-tion; that platforms of political parties are made to catch votes, just as affability is assumed by candidates can-didates for political office. It was a great campaign cam-paign argument why the party in power should be ousted that they had neglected to carry out the reforms advocated in the platform upon which they stood at the previous election. All that is past now however, and in place of representative government we' are to have a government by parties, with the successful party the representative of the people. Our first and greatest President warned the country "in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party." He never considered himself as the titular head of the party that elected him, but as the chief executive of the young nation. He had led the armies of the colonists col-onists to victory and freedom; he had presided over the convention that had framed the Constitution of the United States, and in his heart of hearts he held the love and esteem of all of his countrymen. He must have understood that the fundamental thought which animated the framers of the Con-;ti tution was the distribution of the powers nf g(J ernment and the freedom of the 'executive f roin t petty quarrels of party. Washington may mvp failed in his efforts to make his adminHtrnhim free from "the baneful effects of the spirit of par ty," but the warning he issued was for hing- years heeded, at least to the extent that none of o1ir pr(N idents have ever before declared themselves 'pnrt7 Presidents" or "titular heads" of the pnrty tl 't elected them. But perhaps we are drifting into ptmv vprn. ment like that which controls the destinies of ;.1(1 : British empire. In England they havr a party n-,,v ernment, and the "titular head" of th party jn power is the prime minister and the L a ii r in par liament. But that is not the American niot'u,,, and it does not represent the American spirit f,f liberty. American statesmen from tao b trinrir-T have contended against it. It would bo intre.f;n(, to have a political party carry out ita pW, .s t the people, even if such action did rob tin- r.pp.;. tion of one of its greatest campaign nraurncnt but the President is not responsible to the poopio f1r any legislation or any failure to enact l- uwlatint, by the Congress, and we cannot see that he l r.v responsible to the party that elected him. President is the executive head, not the i-uHlativa or judicial head of the government, and hi- responsibility respon-sibility for new legislation ends with hi-- mo-;-;, of recommendation and its power of veto. A "titular "tit-ular head" of the party that elected him he may be justified in going farther than this, but not as the President of the nation. |