Essay On American Contribution and the Democratic Idea | Page 3

their
increasing surplus in foreign lands. Their manner of acquiring
"concessions" in Mexico was quite similar to that by which they had
seized because of the indifference and ignorance of our own
people--our own mines and timber lands which our government held in
trust. Sometimes these American "concessions" have been valid in law
though the law itself violated a democratic principle; more often
corrupt officials winked at violations of the law, enabling capitalists to
absorb bogus claims.
The various rulers of Mexico sold to American and other foreign
capitalists the resources belonging to the people of their country, and
pocketed, with their followers, the proceeds of the sale. Their control of
the country rested upon force; the stability of the Diaz rule, for instance,
depended upon the "President's" ability to maintain his dictatorship--a
precarious guarantee to the titles he had given. Hence the premium on

revolutions. There was always the incentive to the upstart political and
military buccaneer to overthrow the dictator and gain possession of the
spoils, to sell new doubtful concessions and levy new tribute on the
capitalists holding claims from a former tyrant.
The foreign capitalists appealed to their governments; commercial
imperialism responded by dispatching military forces to protect the
lives and "property" of its citizens, in some instances going so far as to
take possession of the country. A classic case, as cited by Hobson, is
Britain's South African War, in which the blood and treasure of the
people of the United Kingdom were expended because British
capitalists had found the Boers recalcitrant, bent on retaining their own
country for themselves. To be sure, South Africa, like Mexico is rich in
resources for which advancing civilization continually makes demands.
And, in the case of Mexico, the products of the tropics, such as rubber,
are increasingly necessary to the industrial powers of the temperate
zone. On the other hand, if the exploiting nation aspire to
self-government, the imperialistic method of obtaining these products
by the selfish exploitation of the natural and human resources of the
backward countries reacts so powerfully on the growth of democracy at
home--and hence on the growth of democracy throughout the world--as
to threaten the very future of civilization. The British Liberals, when
they came into power, perceived this, and at once did their best to make
amends to South Africa by granting her autonomy and virtual
independence, linking her to Britain by the silken thread of
Anglo-Saxon democratic culture. How strong this thread has proved is
shown by the action of those of Dutch blood in the Dominion during
the present war.
Eventually, if democracy is not to perish from the face of the earth,
some other than the crude imperialistic method of dealing with
backward peoples, of obtaining for civilization the needed resources of
their lands, must be inaugurated--a democratic method. And this is
perhaps the supreme problem of democracy today. It demands for its
solution a complete reversal of the established policy of imperialism, a
new theory of international relationships, a mutual helpfulness and
partnership between nations, even as democracy implies cooperation
between individual citizens. Therefore President Wilson laid down the
doctrine that American citizens enter Mexico at their own risk; that

they must not expert that American blood will be shed or the nation's
money be expended to protect their lives or the "property" they have
acquired from Mexican dictators. This applies also to the small
capitalists, the owners of the coffee plantations, as well as to those
Americans in Mexico who are not capitalists but wage earners. The
people of Mexico are entitled to try the experiment of
self-determination. It is an experiment, we frankly acknowledge that
fact, a democratic experiment dependent on physical science, social
science, and scientific education. The other horn of the dilemma, our
persistence in imperialism, is even worse--since by such persistence we
destroy ourselves.
A subjective judgment, in accordance with our own democratic
standards, by the American Government as to the methods employed
by a Huerta, for instance, is indeed demanded; not on the ground,
however, that such methods are "good" or "bad"; but whether they are
detrimental to Mexican self-determination, and hence to the progress of
our own democracy.

II
If America had started to prepare when Belgium was invaded, had
entered the war when the Lusitania was sunk, Germany might by now
have been defeated, hundreds of thousands of lives might have been
spared. All this may be admitted. Yet, looking backward, it is easy to
read the reason for our hesitancy in our national character and traditions.
We were pacifists, yes, but pacifists of a peculiar kind. One of our
greatest American prophets, William James, knew that there was an
issue for which we were ready to fight, for which we were willing to
make the extreme sacrifice,--and that issue he