82	Where We Can Begin
Montclair, and as tried elsewhere, are electrical. Persons who have been reserved for years come to life and realize that they have something to say. Opinions are modified, courage is communicated, and people feel the dignity of their own minds and the importance of trying to think out clearly what has been left vague before. A synthesis is created. Something that did not exist before derives from the group under this method. There is established a certain measure of equality of responsibility before the grave problems the citizen is up against.
Even the negative benefits of circular response are enough to recommend it. It eliminates the bad manners that spoil most small group palavers. It cuts down cross-questions
and crooked answers, back talk, and the tendency of one or two persons to monopolize the talking time. It sets ground rules that automatically take care of the worst offenders. Discussion is of no earthly use-in fact it doesn't even exist-unless those who arc not naturally talkative and articulate are given every opportunity to speak up and express themselves. The Montclair plan recognizes this point and makes the most of it.
Some doubt as to the value of the discussion group is to be found. Dan W. Dodson writes: "I think you are strongest at the point at which you analyze our situation and ask for a re focusing of social goals. I think you are weakest at the point at which you propose as the panacea, small group discussion. I agree, of course, that if it could be done right, this might con. ceivably be the. answer, but my experience with average discus. sions has led me to subscribe to the dictum that a pooling of ignorance does not make knowledge."
C.W.F.--It doesn't. The pooling of experience, though, and the process of co-operative thinking within the group often cre
Where We Can Begin	83
ate knowledge. Even if immediate results are not impressive in the form of a report or a declaration, individuals may benefit in untold ways and be stimulated to a further study that can produce knowledge. There is reason to believe that a group of ordinary mortals, by a proper pursuit of discussion, can arrive at conclusions as profound as any person working independently.
It cannot be urged for a moment that the small discussion group is in itself the answer to our problems. We could have discussion groups all over the land and be in the same plight we are in at the moment, though perhaps modified, if we sought only to impose a new device with some presumed magic power upon existing institutions. We must start with the idea that we are exploring democracy and then use the small discussion group as the testing instrument of our inquiry. Democracy not discussion, is the aim.
There is another reason why the discussion group may indicate the road to democracy and even help to set us on our way: It is as well adapted to intercommunication between peoples of various countries as it is to the articulation of views within the local community. It is feasible as a means of showing us what the democratic method can become; it is equally feasible as a means of getting peoples instead of governments and delegated authorities to address themselves to our common problem.
In a word, there are at hand today facilities which, with the proper use, can link the local group with the whole world. These are the hundreds of adult education agencies in every democratic land.
To understand the high potential involved in the process
84	Where We Can Begin
of tying the local group to a world program, note the response that has already been made toward the proposal for a worldwide small group discussion in which neighborhood groups of all countries may take up and attack a common problem simultaneously.
The basic idea of this plan was embodied in a suggestion set forth in January, 1946, by W. P. N. Edwards, at that time director of the British overseas information service of
the Board of Trade. The proposal in substance called for using discussion agencies in various countries as a means of talking over the trade proposals that were to be advanced by an international conference on trade and employment. Such a discussion was predicated upon a fairly prompt passage of the bill authorizing the American loan to Britain. The loan was delayed, Mr. Edwards was transferred to a new job with the British Embassy in Washington, and no steps were taken to carry out his original idea.
It became apparent, though, that the idea of a multilateral discussion was vastly bigger than the consideration of mere trade proposals or of any single item likely to be taken
up by negotiating governments. Hence enthusiasts who saw the sweep of the plan began to talk the matter over in wider terms than had at first been conceived. It was proposed to the annual meeting of the National Council of Women of Great Britain. It was presented to Rotary Clubs, student groups, adult clubs, export clubs, meetings of United Nations Associations.
Everywhere the idea met with understanding. It caught the imagination of a land beleaguered. Toward the end of 1946 one advocate of the plan laid it before representatives of a
dozen of the largest adult education groups in Great Britain.
Where We Can Begin	85
A meeting was held in London. Present at the meeting was a representative of the Danish resistance groups which had grown up during the war and were turning to discussion. The late Karl Mannheim saw the immense possibilities involved in a world-wide small group discussion (enabling men, as he put it, "to by-pass the whole machinery of frustration") and suggested that a cadre of democratic elements in Germany be encouraged to join the plan.
Those who considered the proposal were quick to see its practicality: it would make constructive use of existing organizations and would not merely seek to impose another body on a world overcrowded with voluntary agencies. The secretary of the Women's Co-operative Guilds of Great Britain reported that she was just back from a meeting of co-operatives, and at this meeting had been present delegates from a score of countries-including Russia.
Here, it was felt, might be a way of allowing people to talk across borders and back fences-not through some impractical scheme of sending delegates from one country to another but through the sounder method of establishing fellowship by common effort on a single problem.
A broadcast describing the idea was made from Britain to America. The broadcast was repeated by American stations and used in American newspapers. Next the idea was presented to Chester S. Williams of the Department of State. Mr. Williams, who works with 125 American and eighty international organizations having accredited representatives in close touch with the united. Nations, immediately suggested that the plan ought to be taken up with some of these organizations and made arrangements for a meeting at which it could be considered.
Where We Can Begin
These incidents all point to the cumulative interest in the idea during the short time it has been up before the public. It is, of course, a far journey from nods of approval to the actual execution of the plan. It is staggering in scope. It probably cannot be put into full effect until we enjoy a political renaissance, a wide and wondrous awakening to the necessity for genuine democratic action. It is not a project suited to our petty preoccupations with membership drives, attendance records, and new chapters.
At the same time the mere effort toward such a world conversation might greatly stimulate the spread of the democratic method. The plan is at once practical and idealistic. The person who works energetically, through the organization of which he is a member, toward the inauguration of a worldwide small group discussion can honestly feel that he is devoting his energies to a task which might actually be done and might well bring a miracle in its wake. For it would be impossible to hold such a meeting of minds among peoples without energizing a whole generation with new ideas and aspirations.
86
The naive confidence implied in popular wisdom was severely criticized among those who read an earlier draft of this book. Elmer Scott writes: "You seem to attribute a higher level of intelligence, commitment to the common good, and ability to make wise choices to the mine run of people than presently appears to be justified. If the plain people have persisted year after year in electing mix-representatives, what hope have you for a better world if greater and more direct power were exercised by the people themselves?
"It is common knowledge that the mine run of people
Where We Can Begin	87
from the tycoon to the common laborer is motivated by 'what is there in it for me?' rather than by 'what is there in me for it?' "It is an old principle in business administration that when an employee seeks promotion, the first essential is to determine how capable he is in his present job. You seem to indicate that 'total democracy' hasn't a chance unless it is operating in form, at least, all over the world. I am. not so sure that ice are doing so well with democratic ideals here at home. Heaven knows we've been at it long enough, 160 years or more-and one doesn't need to be a radical to say that there are defects in the structure and strange noises in attic and cellar. 1 f that prevails among the most intelligently organized state on the globe, it sure strains the imagination of the most ardent foreign missionary to expect to extend the blessings of dcrnocracy over a world full of dissension -as well as ignorance and alien tradition."
C.W.F.--The question inevitably pops up, Shall the extension of democracy wait until the people are qualified? If we are to require a high level of education, culture, or proven intelli gence before the democratic experiment is attempted deeply here at home or spread abroad by the contagion of example, we have a long time to wait. But perhaps the democratic process itself is educative, and possibly its application will improve the quality of the public. There is some indication that this is so. 1 f the theory of democratic government assumes that the people with reasonable frequency can choose between leaders and scoundrels, it might be stretched to assume that the people could make a wise choice on directly posed public questions, if given the chance.
It will not be amiss at this stage to give some attention to the specific steps by which a world-wide small-group discussion might he made a reality.
Let us say that a woman who is a member of a club in a mid-western city sees the value and common sense of the plan. She talks it over imaginatively with neighbors and with
88	Where We Can Begin
members of her club. When the idea has gathered the impetus of enthusiasm, it may be presented to an appropriate committee-and then to the club as a whole. If enough members catch the inspiration, the idea and its implications may be made the subject of a meeting or, preferably, of several neighborhood meetings.
A recommendation may follow-directed where it will do the most good-to the state federation of women's clubs or possibly to the General Federation of 'Women's Clubs. Action directly from the ranks, with emphasis upon the usual political pressure points, might well bring the whole matter before a district meeting of the General Federation. And even if official action is not taken by the body as in its entirety, the idea may well get to the desk and mind of leaders who would be willing to explore it further. For the idea itself has the power to burst through even the tight compartments that fixed institutions maintain for the sake of the appearance of efficiency.
A logical next move, and a move that would be sure to be made as a result of enthusiasm within the ranks, would be for representatives of the General Federation to invite other organizations to meet and talk informally about the plan. Following this the arrangements provided by the Department of State might be brought into play, and it would be possible for fifty or even a hundred persons acting in behalf of as many organizations to meet and, preferably in small groups, decide on the next act.
This might very well be the formation of a co-ordinating committee of major adult education agencies. The committee could draw up-purely for the purpose of presenting the idea concretely to the membership of constituent bodies-a series of
Where We Can Begin	89
common problems that touch upon the well-being of men and women everywhere. This list, together with the question of whether the members would like to take part in a discussion of such problems at the same time they are being discussed by citizens of other countries, could then be offered to the membership of organizations throughout the country. The reaction of the members of organizations would be decisive; and if they saw fit to join in such a broad and extraordinary meeting., they would be asked to name the topics they would like most to discuss.
As a result of these negotiations, the agencies of the United States of America might be ready to say to the agencies of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and all other coun tries where the idea found favor, that they would like to talk over common matters. Such an invitation addressed to other countries in the light of our full readiness to go ahead would surely meet with enthusiastic response, as even the tentative exploratory talks indicate.
It cannot be denied that a vast, almost overwhelming, job of social engineering would be required before the world discussion could be finally launched. For obviously a co-ordi nating committee for each country that wished to join-and finally a committee representing all countries would have to be formed. This committee would be charged with the task of recommending the first topic and proposing a general outline of discussion.
A score of difficulties that cannot be foreseen now would arise. But-and this is the beauty of democratic effort-a score of new ways of doing things-ways not apparent now-
r
90	Where We Can Begin
would also present themselves. There is a reasonable chance, certainly, that the plan could be worked.
The form it would take cannot be prophesied. Yet it is easy to see that, with the proper democratic planning, small groups within organizations literally throughout the world might meet regularly over a period of three months, say, and grapple with the same problems that other groups are grappling with. By the time this happened it is not unlikely that a wider type of organization than we can now anticipate would be willing to accept fellowship in the effort. The plan might easily engage such bodies as the American Legion in the United States and the British Legion in Great Britain, to cite two extreme examples.
Nor are we entitled to suppose that a world discussion in and among small groups should for long be confined to the members of existing organizations. On the contrary, it is un.
likely that the bodies now in existence could contain the idea. The plan is simply to start with the facilities that now exist, to get the project launched by having men and women work through the organizations with which they are affiliated. Once this is enterprisingly done, it might spread to embrace groups of every type and description-many formed chiefly with the high purpose of world communication in mind.
In a word, we cannot begin to measure the ultimate effects of a world-wide small group discussion from where we sit-hemmed in by old restrictions and practises. The first and immediate step is to retool, to convert to democracy. Surely a generation that has gone hog-wild over the machine and the industrial process should be the first to understand that we must have machine tools-the machines that make machines--

Where We Can Begin	91
before we can launch any large undertaking. The world-wide small group discussion would provide only the plant and equipment in which democracy might possibly be produced. It is not to be looked upon as a stunt or as another item to add to the agenda. If it is accepted, it will be a commitment that could lead us to a democratic awakening.
A warning that the causes of our present misery lie deep and are not easily remedied is sounded by Sir Norman Angell: "Tire right of free speech is an empty thing unless it is accom panied with a sense of the obligation to listen to the other fellow; and a realisation of the fact that while we are likely to be passionate in. stating our own view we have no passion at all behind our obligation to listen to his; that there is therefore an unbalance in the emotions involved which is apt to render discussion all too often quite useless. We must be aware of the traps of our own nature into which we are likely to fall, which the dictator sets for us because he is cunning in the setting of these traps. Most are baited with suggestions which relieve us of responsibility for our troubles; by the implication that they do not come from our own defective decisions of policy but by some ambushed enemy-the Capitalist, the Banker, the Financier, the Jew, the Communist, the Foreigner. If it be true that we are led by the nose by Wall Street or Governments, or Jews, or Communist Parties, then we are to blame for our incompetence.
"The ease with which a people can fall into traps set for them is illustrated by the ease with which a highly cultured and educated people like the Germans fell for the race theory-which flattered their vanity and provided them with a scapegoat: the Jews, not the follies of Germans who were to blame. They so readily swallowed the maxim that the Voice of the (German) People was the Voice of God. They were as convinced of that as are the Russian People that the Voice of the Soviets is truly the
t: 
92	Where We Can Begin
Voice of the Russian People; and that in the Western Democracies the People have no voice at all but are the puppets of the Capitalists and Imperialists."
C.W.F.-Most public opinion today is machine-made. It is formed by snippets of information picked up from the press, impressions gathered front happy-go-lucky listening to radio, stuff put out on a traveling belt for consumers and customers. The great lack in our day is the lack of a chance to talk back. Opinion is shaped by something that happens outside of us and to us. The more opportunities ice hare for political self-expression, the less likely are demagogues and spellbinders to make monkeys out of us. With the tremendous facilities in existence for swaying us, it is all the more important now that we form ourselves into resistance groups at worst and creative groups at best. If we are led by the nose, it is not necessarily because we are dumb and easy to lead. It may be because tee have not spent enough time in fashioning devices which would enable us as citizens to talk and think for ourselves.
The mere fact of a world plan for democratic action would have immense and energizing benefits. Our plans are now too small. We shall need to find new tasks and new areas to stretch our faith and our reach. To give the democratic struggle sweep, and to convince us of its staggering significance, there has to be a challenging task held up before us-a concrete and farreaching assignment that calls forth and canalizes the exertions of all who believe in democracy. The implications of the democratic method can no longer be grasped by small acts. The reason for this is plain: imbedded in familiar imagery, democracy is now hardly more than an object of rhetorical obeisance. It is open to every kind of casual interpretation and erudite misinterpretation. There must be an element of shock and awe
Where We Can Begin  93
in its rediscovery, a feeling of breadth and bulge, a sense of personal stupefaction at its true meaning.
The small group in the local community is the habitat of democracy. But obviously what we need under the exigencies of the moment is a project that will link the democratic effort in the local community with an over-all task big enough to stir the social imagination. The central job is one of extending democracy, of broadening the democratic experiment on a world scale.
The discussion group, which can be carried on in our own communities, may well prove to be the best method of communicating with and influencing our world. It offers a task to which we can put our hands at once, and at the same time its possibilities in terms of global coverage are without limit. It is the place where, as nowhere else at the moment, we can study the democratic idea. And through co-ordinated discussion in many lands we have a distributing system by which this idea can be spread.
That a magnetic idea should suddenly draw men everywhere toward new behavior is a possibility that must rest on hope, of course, and not on reason. Yet the one encouraging thing about our age, as Lord Halifax pointed out when the plan for a world-wide small group discussion was presented to him, is that anything is now possible; anything can happen, and it doesn't have to be the worst. With its ganglia of communication, carrying messages as rapidly as nerves, our world could be sensitized in an amazingly short time to a great and invigorating idea. Good as well as evil can travel fast. A boy of fourteen remarked to me not long ago, "The world is getting awfully close to the future." This is a time for boldness
94	Where We Can Begin in the affairs of men, when dramatic change might take place in the twinkling of a star.
A clear and patient statement of risks commensurate with the promises of a world discussion is made by Henry D. Chaplin: "Suppose the thing you are pleading for succeeds. All eyes are now trained upon us---the good eyes, the bad eyes, the political eyes, the moneyed eyes and the communist eyes alike. For it is realized for the first time that we are a force to be reckoned with, a force to be studied from every angle, a competitor of magnitude. Let us follow the studies of but one group of eyes-it matters little which. For the sake of argument, let its say that the action which has turned the spotlight on us has struck at the very roots of industrial authoritarianism. It is logical to assume that the industrialists and bankers are badly frightened. They are no doubt saying (and largely believing) that 'those Reds are at it again.' And so they turn loose their expert investigators to analyze our methods, commencing with the formation of the discussion group itself. Perhaps the first item their eyes light upon is this: 'Discussion begins with a statement by the leader and with his comment on the first question in the outline.'
"'Oh, so there are leaders and comments and questions and outlines,' they say. 'Then. it behooves us to set the necessary wheels in motion to make certain that the outlines, the questions, the comments and the leaders stem from the 'proper sources.' And then they read--'It (group discussion) can be started anywhere under practically any circumstances.' As a result of this and other information which we have sweated to acquire and so freely given, and thanks to the power of press and radio (whipped into line if recalcitrant by threats of sanctions), it is not long before new groups are appearing throughout the land, along with new leaders in many of the established groups. None of these groups or leaders is preaching industrial authoritarianism. But the questions have changed. Instead of 'How shall we meet the challenge of industrial cartels?' they are asking, 'How much power should
Where We Can Begin	95
we vest in Unions?' And then the subtle comment to point the way before starting around the table.
"Nowhere do 1 find that you have taken into consideration the avidity with which the ambitious, the greedy, the crafty, the Hiders, the status-quoists, the Communists, might seize upon the discussion group idea, once it had demonstrated its power. Nor how vulnerable it might be to infiltration and misuse. If such should prove to be the case, would you attempt to bar them and if so, how? Would you take the stand that this man or this organization may participate and this or this not? And if you should, would you not be reverting to authoritarianism yourself? Yet if, in the democratic tradition, you were to leave the door open to all and sundry, how long would democracy last?
"Is it not the history of communism in labor that no serious attempt at infiltration was attempted during all the long years of labor's weakness? And that the rise of communist influence in recent years is in almost direct proportion to labor's rise in power and position? Do you believe that we would be allowed to carry on unmolested at the expense o f all those upon whose tender toes we :could be stamping? if our system will work for us who seek only a fuller democracy, can it not also be twisted to serve those whose airn is self-perpetuation or some patent cure-all?
"I merely ask these questions. I do not pretend to answer them. And if 1 bring them up it is only because 1 do not believe your argument can be complete without an acknowledgement of their existence, and your answer."
C.W.F.--I have said that democracy by its very nature is a hazardous undertaking, full of perils, as anything worthy must be. It would be impossible to reckon in advance how the perver sions likely to emerge under wide democratic discussion could be headed off. But the theory of this book is that democracy carries within it the remedies of the diseases and defects which might arise in a period of transition. In spite of the almost sure threat that pressure interests would attempt to get control of discussion groups if they became a national force, the fact remains that self-
96	Where We Can Begin
contained groups with some sense of responsible action are much harder to manage front the top than a formless mass of individuals, with no opportunity for organized reflection or back-talk. The very complexity of controlling a multiplicity of small and inde. pendent groups is the best guarantee against misuse of discussion on a national or world scale.
6
The Apparatus of Democracy
* The question before us is not whether the affairs of the world can be put in order through the present practise of political incantations. The answer to that is already written in blood. And the prospect before us, if we do not find and put to work new and revolutionary social methods, is nothing but endless caterwauling and jimmying for position. Statecraft is as dead as witchcraft, as hopelessly out of touch with the insistent demands of the hour.
One wonders how men who have attained high positions in government, or who wield public influence through press and radio, can go on solemnly talking about establishing under present startling circumstances "an equilibrium of force," can go on drawing up treaties with seventy-eight clauses, can go on discoursing about dollars and balances, security measures and all the other items of diplomatic routine. We appear disposed to recognize every fact today except the fact of change. 97
 P a  ti  
of fc


98
The Apparatus of Democracy
There are worse obloquies than fiddling while Rome burns. One is to talk pompous irrelevancies, to hold forth gravely upon the chemistry of fire and insist upon the rights of houses not to be burned. We continue day after day to watch and even applaud all the old diplomatic manoeuvers while new methods that might change the desolate course of humanity are ignored. Further neglect of these methods by those whose interests are involved can only hasten the destruction of human freedom, and it does not greatly matter whether this destruction takes the form of an atomic holocaust or a well-oiled tyranny. In either case the individual will lose his status if not his hide. If we continue along the present course and refuse to try new paths, the only choice left us is the form we wish human misery to take.
sow it is plain that the only force that might intervene to alter the futile course of things is to be found in democracy. And if democracy- is to be given a chance, this means first and foremost that arrangements must be made whereby the people can express their views directly upon issues and not upon candidates or representatives or parties or slogans. Any system of government which fails to provide such arrangements cannot be regarded as democratic.
From a wide experience in politics, Jane Barus comments: "One of my own feelings about democracy in this country is that we have allowed a rigid system of representation to grow up and to become deeply embedded in custom---a system which is so rigid that only rarely can a wave of popular feeling affect it in any way. The fact that our presidents and our congressmen stay in office for fixed terms is one of the bad features in my opinion; the fact that our state governments are, pretty complicated and hard to understand is another element in the situation.
The Apparatus of Democracy	99
"Of course in the final analysis the whole thing depends on the people and what they do about their government; but 1 think that the rigidity and complexity of our system in itself reacts upon the attitude of the people, and makes them feel that the whole thing is hopeless, and thus increases their ignorance and indifference. A simpler plan, with a clear cut line of responsibility, would, 1 think, do a great deal to make citizens accept their duties better than they note do; at least than many of them do."
Under our present republican form of government, whatever may be said for it when it is compared with dictatorial governments, there exists no effective way of letting the voice of the people be heard. Opinion must be registered indirectly, obliquely, through layers of resistance. Republicanism offers plenty of opportunity for making noise, but it is not wired for sound. The result is that members of both the administrative and legislative branches of the government must conduct their affairs in a state of uncertainty if not ignorance about what the mass of the electorate thinks.
Two makeshift remedies have been devised to meet this situation. One is the lobby. A clamant minority, generally with a vested interest in the outcome of legislation, organizes a cam paign out of all proportion to its worth or strength and seeks to sway a sufficient number of elected representatives to get its program across. The outrages of the lobby system are a commonplace feature of the American landscape and a proper scandal, but it is not generally recognized that the lobby is a natural result of an undemocratic system of government. It is essentially a disturbance created when forces rush in to fill the low-pressure area created by an absence of democratic expression. Lobbying has grown up inevitably under a scheme
H al 
 of 
100	The Apparatus of Democracy
of government which offers no means by which the electorate can voice its opinion on matters of primary concern but must vote always for candidates and party labels.
The preoccupation with men instead of issues is a deadly feature of modern political society. A friend who has spent twenty-five years practicing medicine in Africa once pointed out to me the difference between the practice of witchcraft and the practice of medicine. When a person is taken ill, witchcraft makes him ask, Who did this to me? Under medicine the question is, What did this to me? With all of our talk of freedom, we are still practicing political witchcraft, acting upon the assumption that we must vote for people and that if one band of people fails us we have no choice but to put another band in control.
Another attempt to remedy the defects of a system that affords no channels for the direct expression of people's views is to be found in the process of public opinion sampling. So great is the interest in discovering what the people think, and so unsatisfactory are the political means of doing so, that an elaborate and scientific procedure has grown up in ostensibly democratic countries. The procedure operates somewhat as follows:
Questions are framed by the agency making the survey and tested in conference. The way a question is stated has a good deal to do with the way it is answered. When a fair assessment has been made of questions, they are sent to interviewers for further testing-and often changed in the process. As finally approved by those managing the public opinion poll they are then sent out again to interviewers, with instructions that they be put to specific numbers of persons in every station
The Apparatus of Democracy	101
of life, covering young and old and representative income groups. The answers thus secured from a limited number of persons in all social classifications will give a true cross-section of public opinion.
Measured against any standard, such as an election, the polls are astonishingly accurate. Their record has been excellent ever since the process of opinion sampling was first tried in Britain thirty years ago and carried to a high stage of development subsequently in America. The British Institute of Public Opinion, for example, forecast a Labor victory in the July, 1945, British elections. Not only so, but its findings over a period extending from 1943 on to the time of the election showed that the vote would go as it did.
Thus there has arisen a new technique and a new body of data with which legislators and popular leaders are bound to reckon. The accumulation of facts about public opinion will have a good effect and promote a healthy respect for the people. Consistently the polls have shown the electorate to be ahead of its leaders in favoring moves and actions which delegated authorities finally took. And it is clear from a study of public opinion findings over a period of years that one can always expect the leaders to string along, once they find out what the people think.
But at best the polls are a sampling, an inspection carried on by experts, a survey of views expressed on demand and in response to calculated questions. They are in no sense
a substitute for the declared views of a purposely informed electorate, given a full chance to discuss major issues and state in the election booth what it thinks. In the last analysis polling
102	The Apparatus of Democracy
is something that is done to people, not something that the people do themselves. In any approach to genuine democracy, the emphasis must be kept constantly upon the task of finding ways and means by which the people can make themselves heard and felt in the realm of ideas. It is the chance of expression rather than response that must be furnished if we are to have even a modicum of democracy.
Many will urge, of course, that this is a free country, that a man can write his Congressman, indite a letter to the editor, stand up on the street corner or in a public meeting and say whatever he pleases. Such elementary privileges are to be guarded, it is true, and there is no disposition here to make light of the indulgences which we enjoy under the democratic heritage. But the fact remains that with all their privileges the people are still crying in the wilderness: there is no system of direct communication between them and the major decisions of their national government. Nor have we yet given more than passing attention to the methods by which organized and registered expressions of opinion cart be set up in our society. We are content to let the people talk and call the result democracy.
Some slight attention, it is true, has been given to the matter of making proper arrangements for a dignified expression of public opinion. Fitful starts have been made here and
there but for the most part the efforts to date have been looked upon as incidental, a supplementary feature to government as is. Canada, one of the most advanced nations in the field of political education, has over a thousand listening groups which take up issues raised in programs of the Canadian Broadcasting Company. These groups are spread all over Canada. They range in size from small groups in Saskatchewan to large groups in
The Apparatus of Democracy	103
cities like Montreal. After a broadcast on a public issue, the groups take over and, through the give and take of discussion, arrive at their own views.
The genius of the Canadian system is that each group has a recording secretary. The questions raised by the broadcast are threshed out by the people and then put to a vote. The declared opinions of the group are sent to Ottawa. Experience with these groups has been instructive in many ways. It has shown, for example, that there is not as much division of opinion as one would suppose between town and country, east and west, Catholic and Protestant, agricultural and industrial interests, when citizens have a chance to talk problems over in their own circle and say what they think.
There are advantages, to be sure, in having the small group distill its considered views and relay them directly to government officials or to the national headquarters of impor tant national organizations. But the immediate extension of the democratic experiment requires a fuller recognition of the voice of the people. And this can come about only through an intelligent use of the referendum. The referendum is the device which, even under present political arrangements, will serve to put public opinion officially on record.
Up to now the referendum has been employed with varying degrees of satisfaction in the several states, but chiefly upon issues of local or limited interest. As a footnote to ballots concerned with candidates and party warfare the people have been confronted with questions touching tax legislation, new highways, veterans' bonuses, the increase of the state's bonded debt. The response in many cases has been spotty, since the issues presented are lost in the election hurrah. The multi-
AM 
104	The Apparatus of Democracy
plicity of incidentals offered tends to bring the referendum into neglect if not contempt.
It is time, though, that the referendum be rescued and put to work in assembling public opinion on world issues. It offers in simplest form the democratic idea, asking the people
a straight question and giving them a chance to say, through the exercise of the franchise, what they think.
One state, Massachusetts, has already used it to give the voter some sense of actual participation in deciding the kind of issue that will determine the future. Massachusetts has
a provision whereby if 1200 voters in any state Senatorial district or 200 voters in any representative district ask that a matter of public interest be submitted to the voters of that district, the question can be placed on the ballot.
In the fall of 1942, these requirements were fulfilled in forty-two out of 164 election districts. On the ballot appeared the following question
Shall the representatives in the General Court from the following named districts be instructed to vote to request the President and the Congress to call at the earliest possible moment
a convention of all free peoples, to form a Federal Constitution, under which they may unite in a Democratic World Government?
The affirmative vote in the election of 1942 totaled 205,308 to 67,205. Thus the voters who expressed themselves on this issue three years before the San Francisco Conference showed their willingness to accept, not an alliance of sovereign powers such as resulted in the United Nations, but a world government based on the federation of nations with the transfer of sovereignty to a higher authority.
In the spring of 1946, petitions asking for a further
The Apparatus of Democracy	105
referendum on world government were circulated in a crosssection of communities by some 600 volunteers acting for The Massachusetts Committee for World Federation. These volunteers obtained more than 33,000 signatures, enough to get the question on the ballot in half the election districts. The districts contained more than half the registered voters of the state and covered rural as well as urban communities.
On November 5, 1946, the voters of these districts faced the following question:
Shall the senator in the General Court from this district be instructed to vote to request the President and the Congress of the United States to direct our delegates to the United Nations to propose and support amendments to its charter which will strengthen the United Nations and make it a World Federal Government able to prevent war?
Official returns in 255 cities and towns found 586,093 (90.2%) in favor and 63,624 (9.8%) opposed. The overall majority in the state was nine to one. And in some districts the vote in favor of the proposal ran as high as fifteen to one. A further important feature of the returns lay in the fact that the sentiment favoring federal world government was as high in rural areas as it was in the cities.
It should also be noted that the issue was made quite clear to the people. Some 500,000 pamphlets explaining the difference between the present United Nations and an effective world government were distributed. In these pamphlets and in innumerable campaign addresses, the matter was plainly put. It would be foolish to say, therefore, that the people did not know what they were voting for. Six months following the election the Massachusetts Legislature passed unanimously, in

The Apparatus of Democracy	107
C.W.F.-Humber's personal zeal and charm have had much to do with the success of his Resolution. Also it must be admitted that the Massachusetts Committee for World Federation (now part of United World Federalists) put over a smooth campaign in behalf of the referendum. Their tactics were designed to convince, not to give people a full chance to discuss and decide. Those acquainted with public opinion sampling consider the question raised in 1946 a loaded question and far too complex for getting a direct answer.
Yet these facts do not take away from the larger facts that the people are open to conviction, ready to educate their views, glad to be consulted on issues instead of candidates and able to reach advance positions in political thinking. The methods used to date are not the best. New methods, with a fuller chance of democratic back talk, might well make salesmanship less important.
Encouraged by the experience of Massachusetts, other states are following suit. Connecticut votes on world government in 1948. Most state constitutions provide for the use of the referendum. If they don't, a statutory provision can be made. Massachusetts simply passed a law to allow public issues to be referred to the people. Oklahoma, which accepted by unanimous sponsorship in both houses of its legislature the resolution of Robert Lee Humber, approving the principle of federal world government, is now in the process of securing the necessary petitions and signatures to permit a referendum on this great public issue.
Obviously the judicious use of the referendum on issues that matter is the next great stride to be taken by those who believe in democracy as a process. The fact of the business is that we are now ready for a nation-wide referendum in which
106	The Apparatus of Democracy
obedience to the declaration of the people's views, a resolution carrying out the will of the electorate and calling upon the President and the Congress to instruct our delegates to the United Nations to propose and support the amendments which would make the United Nations a world government.
That too rosy a view may be taken of the Massachusetts experience is strongly suggested in a comment by Henry D. Chaplin: "You cite a number of cases in which the people have ex pressed themselves overwhelmingly in favor of a worthy cause, as in Massachusetts. While reading your description of the event and its surrounding circumstances, 1 found myself wondering whether it was the Cause--World Government-or the organization and enthusiasm of the crusaders which contributed most to the results. I could not but wonder what would have been the vote had other crusaders of equally persuasive powers, choosing some opportune handle such as the communist coup in Hungary, and likewise armed with 500,000 pamphlets, canvassed the same district on the question, `Shall the Senator in the General Court from this district be instructed to vote to request the President and Congress of the United States to advise the U.S.S.R. that any further aggression against the freedom of the peace loving nations of the. world will be considered a hostile act against the United States?'
"As in the case of Robert Lee Humber, 1 find myself wondering just how much of his success is attributable to the Cause, and how much to the vitality and persuasiveness of the individual. What, for instance, would have been the result had he, at the picnic and thereafter, championed the cause of isolation?
"In other words, have these incidents proven the ability of the people to think largely and clearly when given the oppor. tunity, or have they merely re-proven the power of salesmanship? Again. l do not know, but I think the question should be considered in your argument."
f+
103	The Apparatus of Democracy
the electorate as a whole goes to the polls, after .full discussion, and advises the Congress and the Administration on the course it wishes our national leadership to pursue. Nothing would so improve the acoustics of a system in which the voice of the people is supposed to be heard as the opportunity of the electorate of the nation to say precisely what it thinks on a clearcut issue rather than on candidates.
The mechanics of a national referendum would be simple. Congress by majority action could refer to the electorate a long-range question on which it wanted a direct expression of views. A statement of all phases of the issue could be worked out in a committee representing various shades of opinion. Then with the help of laymen and the legislative research branch of the Library of Congress, the issue could be stated on a ballot in a way suitable to discussion.
From this point on, several procedures are possible. The issue might be appended to the regular ballot in a national election year. Preferably and conceivably, though, the estab-lished agencies of adult education might enter the scene and give the whole enterprise a non-partisan character. Instead of considering the issue in public debate, the people might thus consider it in small groups where each individual had a chance to voice his views and get others' opinion of his opinion. Then the people might go to the polls and state their judgment.
It would be well if this judgment were rendered on a single concrete issue in an off-election year. It could be rendered apart from candidates and party affiliations and all the factors that generally muddy up an election and make its results wholly inconclusive. There is no way of telling how many persons voted for Roosevelt in 1944 because they approved of
The Apparatus of Democracy	109
his foreign policy, and how many voted for him because they didn't like Dewey. The whole political system is out of date as far as revealing the public mind on public issues, and the national referendum would be most fruitful and significant if it were divorced as far as possible from what is commonly known as politics.
At the same time, it would reveal a new and wholesome method of political action. Suppose the national referendum raised the question of the willingness of the people of the United States to enter a federal government of nations. This is a matter on which there is growing conviction and articulateness. A good many of us feel that federation is a grim necessity forced upon us by the sinister progress of modern science and the interdependence of a mechanized world. As a nineteenyear-old friend of mine in Britain put it, we've had an ultimatum from destiny. Clearly the old lines of nationalism must be broken down and the tragic limitations of diplomacy superseded by the making of a new state-a government of peoples rather than a government of governments. This new state will be a republic of nations, a supra-national government, a federal union to which each adhering nation assigns such sovereignty as is involved in the right of independent action on matters of defense. It will leave nations free to do as they please in athletics and culture and name-calling, but it will abolish their existence as peace-making and war-making entities.
The very idea of a republic of nations is a democratic idea. The idea on which it rests is an idea of union by the consent of peoples. There have been scores of attempts and plans to unify the world by conquest, dating from the days of Rome at least to Hitler's scheme for a New Order. Likewise there
110	The Apparatus of Democracy
have been leagues of cities, state and nations. The distinguishing mark that sets a republic of nations off from a conqueror's dream or an alliance solemnized by contracting governments is that it acknowledges the right of peoples to determine their own affairs.
Hence it is of the utmost importance that the matter of world government be democratically- presented and democratically decided. The referendum on a national scale offers the best chance for a people's decision. The job of creating a federated world is a job the people may be perfectly sure no one will do for them. Not the officials in the State Department, nor our Congressmen, nor prime ministers or presidents or members of parliament. Not the negotiators at conferences of foreign ministers. Not any of the minions or supernumeraries of the present system. To expect encouragement, much less action, from officialdom would be the same as expecting the big league ball clubs to devote their energies to improving public health.
If the national referendum is not invoked on an issue of such towering importance, the advocates of world government are reduced to the petty tactics of conventional politics.
The question must be put before the people on a plane of sales promotion. These advocates must go about "educating the public" through all the old detestable tricks of handouts, lectures, pressure groups. The campaign takes on sooner or later the aspects of all campaigns, involving condescension at every turn. And if world government should ever be attained by highpressure methods, it would amount to no more than a superficial merger of nations, with new administrative arrangements made by heads of state but with the people still left out of the process altogether. For to create a world state without a far
The Apparatus of Democracy	111
reaching renovation of our political household would have no more significance than the creation of a huge industrial combine with a new issue of stock, a reshuffling of directorates, and a total neglect of the fundamental interests of the man at the bottom.
How much better if the whole matter were presented squarely to the people in the form of a referendum! Whatever the conclusion reached, it would be valid. If the people rejected the idea of a world government, if they withheld the authority for the transfer of sovereignty, at least we should know where we stood. We should be no worse off than we would be if we were merely swayed by propaganda and argument into a policy we did not genuinely support.
The importance of limiting the scope of the national referendum is urged by David Davies: "You do not seem to give sufficient recognition to the need for leadership if democracy is to work properly. You rather give the impression that the principal need is for the people to give instructions to the politicians on specific issues, and that our salvation depends upon an extension of this kind of direct democracy. To me it seems that the great problem of democracy is the problem of leadership and the relation of the leaders to public opinion. There are certain broad questions, e.g., that of the sacrifice of national sovereignty or the extension of the franchise to women, or the emancipation of women, and the factory and other social legislation of the 19th century upon which the direct expression of the ordinary citizens' opinion is essential and valuable. But much of the business of a legislature is necessarily technical and the ordinary public have neither time nor knowledge to deal directly into it. Democracy can't work unless it can find a sufficient body of able, educated and honest leaders to delve into these matters and sift out the issues on which the electorate can pronounce. How to find those leaders is the problem.