ePub 版

an agency of local economic development into an agency of national economic development. The pioneer spirit and method, transformed in order to meet larger opportunities and responsibilities, was incorporated into the heart of the national economic system. In one way or another every kind of business was obtaining state aid, and was dependent upon state policy for its prosperity. At the very moment when both business and politics were being modified by specialization and organization, business itself was being fastened irretrievably to politics. And the association, dangerous as it is both for business and politics, lies deep and ineradicable in the American democratic tradition. Democracy has always meant to Americans a political system which contributed, by whatever means, to their individual economic well-being. The pioneer economy, both in its local and national phases, was merely the first attempt to realize this purpose.

To the generation of business men who came to the front after the Civil War and grew up in the midst of this system, it seemed like the order of nature. It assuredly accomplished the purpose for which it was intended, and its success was so considerable that it was accepted as a matter of course by the dominant mass of opinion. Mr. Hanna himself and many others like him was as much of a pioneer in his own region of work as had been the men who with axe and gun pushed their way into the wilderness. He developed mines, discovered or created markets, built furnaces, improved mechanical processes, organized industries and started commercial currents on their course. He watched among his own people the gradual accumulation of social benefits which resulted from the stimulation of individual enterprise, and these benefits seemed to him, not the result of temporary conditions, but the normal and permanent effect of stimulating individual business energy. Neither he nor the men of his generation could understand why the system should not continue of equal benefit to the individual and to society.

Nevertheless, certain parts of this economic system were passing out of the pioneer stage, in which there was a rough approximation of individual and social benefits. The essential character of pioneer economics consisted of an abundance of opportunities due chiefly to a superfluity of accessible natural resources. But even in a country as richly endowed as the United States, natural resources had a limit. As soon as the process of their appropriation had reached a certain stage and had given their proprietors a certain advantage over their future competitors, the machinery began to creak. Under such conditions the state encouragement of private enterprise assumed a different appearance and began to look less like a system of social and more like a system of individual benefits. Society might profit, but not in the same proportion to the profits which the state was showering on the individual. In fact, the balance of the whole system was upset as soon as natural resources became even a little scarce and as soon as the corresponding artificial opportunities, created by state law, became even comparatively inaccessible. Not long after the war public opinion, in those parts of the country which were suffering from local business depression, began to blame the system for their privations, and began to criticise the way in which the appropriated economic power was being exercised. The discontent increased, and thereafter the national policy of statestimulated enterprise had to bear the burden of hostile political agitation.

The foregoing situation affords the clew to the political contests of the last twenty years. Just in proportion as natural resources and artificial economic opportunities were appropriated and developed, public and private interests did not coin)cide to the same extent as formerly. The private interests which had received public assistance were driven by the necessities of their position to seek the continuance of this assistance on other than public grounds. Business prosperity was entangled in a system whose assumptions no longer corresponded with the facts of American economic life. Every agitation for economic reform forced voters to choose between alternative evils. They could not withdraw the various privileges which business had been enjoying without disturbing confidence and checking expansion, yet they could not perpetuate the advantages enjoyed by certain kinds of business without making the state increasingly responsible for flagrant economic inequalities. The man who remained true to the traditional system was obliged to countenance and overlook many grave political and economic abuses. The man who attacked the traditional system was obliged to injure many innocent people, disappoint the immediate expectations of many more for a higher standard of living, and launch his fellow-countrymen on a career of dangerous economic and political reorganization.

Mark Hanna proved to be the ablest and most successful supporter of the traditional system developed by the crisis. He supported it, because he had become accustomed to its beneficial effects, without being aware that these benefits might be diminished by the gradual intrusion of scarcity values into the national economy. In his speeches he always assumed that economic opportunity es were as abundant and as accessible as ever, and he always refers to the country's natural resources as inexhaustible. He was quite sincere in failing to recognize the change and its consequences, the proof of his sincerity being the harmony between the old tradition and his own business and social habits and practices. Many of his associates reaped their profits from the pioneer system, and supported it by word and deed, but ceased to be the kind of men in which the system originated, and which gave to it its meaning. But Mark Hanna always remained a pioneer, both in his business practice and in his purposes, feelings and ideas. His own life embodied the mixture of individual and social purposes characteristic of the pioneer.

As we have seen, he always remained essentially local in his business enterprises and ambitions and always had the benefit of persistent and familiar social surroundings. While certain of his friends were becoming specialists in financial and business organization, he remained an all-round man, personally competent to manage every aspect of his extensive and complicated business. He was at once salesman, technician, financier, superintendent, organizer and personal chief; and he was all these things because he had not hardened down into a special kind of a man. He was every kind of a man demanded by his own pursuits and interests. Above all, he never became that special kind of a man known as a money-maker. As with the pioneer, business was to him the most interesting sort of life provided by his own society. It was an intensely human occu

pation in which human motives were ever present, and around which he himself gathered a group of essentially human values.

Being every kind of a man demanded by his occupations and interests, he inevitably became a politician as well as a business man. Personal participation in politics was an essential duty and joy of the pioneers. They associated in their own lives public and private motives just as they associated public and private interests in making state policies. His participation in politics was not determined by business motives any more than his participation in business was determined exclusively by business motives. He took it up because it was intrinsically so interesting, and he became more and more absorbed in it because a personal devotion to the careers of certain political friends made it finally much more interesting than business. Of course as a politician he could not help representing business, because business was a part of himself — because business was in his eyes not simply money-making, but the most necessary kind of social labor.

When the traditional system was attacked, his lifelong habits, associations and connections enabled him to defend it, not only with entire sincerity, but with abundant resources. He could keep personally in touch with every American interest which would be injured by the attack. He could personally exercise all the qualities most needed for the defence. He developed suddenly into an able campaign manager, who fought his troops and provided for their subsistence with unprecedented skill and energy. Yet, if he had been nothing but a campaign manager, he would have been far less efficient. The best work he performed for his cause was that of arousing and uniting in its favor an obviously hesitating public opinion. He brought many of the American people back temporarily to a sense of the value of their traditional economic system.

No American political leader ever appealed to the electorate so frankly as an advocate of pioneer economics. He asked his audiences to vote for the system under which they and their country had become prosperous and which could not be attacked or modified without a certain sacrifice of prosperity. He was accused of appealing to selfish and materialistic motives, but such derogatory epithets meant nothing to him or to his audiences. They knew that he was seeking to satisfy without equivocation their deepest and most active interest — the interest of individual economic amelioration. The American democratic state had promised its citizens prosperity and comfort and had recognized the responsibility by doing its best to stimulate economic activity. He asked them to continue the same policy with the expectation of reaching the same result, and his voice raised a responsive echo in their minds. They would not have listened to him merely as the spokesman of the New York financial district. They did listen to him as the spokesman of American business, irrespective of size or location, and of the individual and social ambitions with which American business had always been associated.

Political and economic conditions towards the close of the nineteenth century made it natural that the pioneer economic system should receive at that time its final and most candid expression. Prosperity had to be made an issue, because prosperity, with all the abuses which had become associated with it and with all the individual and social benefits traditionally attached to it, was being assaulted. Its frank and vigorous defence by Mark Hanna cleared the atmosphere of a great deal of confusing cant, and helped public opinion to choose between loyalty to the old system and the risk and danger of attempting to substitute for it a new system. As long as Mr. Hanna lived, the American people, partly because of his influence, remained true to the old system. He carried with him the small traders and proprietors. After his death this class of small traders and proprietors, largely because of Mr. Roosevelt's influence, switched to reform, and they have remained ever since on that same track. Whatever the outcome of the attempt now being made to devise and establish a new system, which will have the advantages, without the disadvantages, of the old, the traditional system has ceased, at least for the time being, to be one on which the American people can unite for the promotion of their joint economic interests. Mark Hanna's public career coincided with the culmination of an epoch, and he himself was unquestionably the hero of this culminating moment of a century of American development.

The assertion that Mr. Hanna constituted the most complete

« 上一頁繼續 »