IDEALS OF FOREIGN POLICY

17

Since its passage only a limited number of individuals from every country are permitted to come into the United States annually. Among this number there are doubtless many who have left their native land to escape some form of oppression. In this sense America is still the haven of the oppressed, but to-day the ideal is restricted. There are many who may for various reasons seek the haven only to be turned aside.

THE IDEALS CONNECTED WITH OUR FOREIGN POLICY

Policy of Isolation. While the United States has, by and large, pursued a broad and generous policy toward the emigrants from other lands and has welcomed them to her shores, she has taken quite a different course with the powers whose subjects they are. In her relations with the European nations she has followed two general policies. She has expressed her intention of refraining from interference in the affairs of Europe. She has asked that the nations of this hemisphere be permitted to work out their experiment in democracy without interference from outside powers. The policy of isolation from European affairs was first put into practice by Washington. He wisely refused, in spite of pressure from two political parties, to involve the United States in the European wars then raging. Instead he determined on a position of neutrality. Later in his farewell address he gave his policy expression when he said: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible." This advice of Washington has been expanded and clarified. It has served as a means of preserving peaceful relations with the European powers. We have followed it with fair consistency, though on occasions we have found the policy impossible to maintain. We have been forced to take part in both world wars occurring since the birth of our nation. In the Napoleonic wars we were twice drawn into the conflict. The first time the conduct of France compelled John Adams, then President, to sever diplomatic relations. The second time we declared war on England because our rights as neutrals had been consistently violated. In both instances we acted alone and made no alliances with the other powers involved. During the World War we found the position of a neutral again untenable and entered the struggle on the side of the Allies. Science and invention have considerably changed the world since Washington's day. At that time our actual physical separation from

Europe made a policy of isolation natural and comparatively easy to carry out. But with all our geographic advantages we could not wholly keep out of a war involving the civilized world. To-day the policy is still more difficult to maintain. We are increasingly affected and concerned by the affairs of other nations. It is a question whether it is either possible or wise to continue our adherence to the traditional ideal.

Policy of Non-interference. The idea of keeping apart from the affairs of Europe is closely bound up with our second policy, non-interference by European powers in the affairs of this hemisphere. The two ideas are expressed together in the Monroe Doctrine. In which we say in effect: "The United States has ever minded its own business and refrained from meddling with the internal concerns of the European powers. It therefore requests that the European powers pursue the same policy toward the countries of this hemisphere." The Monroe Doctrine has had two results. The United States has benefited, for it has successfully prevented any strong power from intrenching itself in Central or South America and has thus secured its own peace and prosperity in this hemisphere. The smaller American nations have been protected and permitted to develop their own institutions without serious encroachment by any European nation. But they have sometimes questioned whether, in warding off other nations, the United States has not been prompted by a desire to have a free hand itself. While the conduct of the United States has on occasions justified their suspicions, on the whole, it has taken little unfair advantage of its position of suprem

acy.

Policy of the Open Door. The third international ideal of the United States is the policy of the open door. Like the Monroe Doctrine, this policy is both selfish and generous. If carried out it insures to the United States equal trade and commercial opportunities with other nations. It shows other nations that the United States is non-aggressive and willing to share equally the opportunities afforded for trade and commerce by the opening up of unexploited countries. It has most often been applied to international relations in the Far East. With it has developed the policy of insuring to China her sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The policy of the open door like the other two policies was partly inspired by a desire to maintain peace with the great powers of the world. By giving equal economic opportunities to all nations, it was expected that there would be less rivalry

INDIVIDUALISM AND PUBLIC INTEREST

19

and less danger of any power seizing undue trade or commercial advantages and thereby provoking a war.

INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS PUBLIC INTEREST

It might be said that the nation has, by and large, pursued a policy of individualism in its relations with other nations. It has as far as possible stood alone. It has considered its own interests first. It has been self-reliant and self-sufficient. The same spirit of individualism has marked its people. The development of the country fostered such a spirit. Since early colonial days down to 1881 there has always been a frontier settlement. The primitive life of the border kept alive the spirit of individual rights, individual achievement, independence, and ruthlessness which were characteristic of the frontiersman. Its influence permeated American life. On the frontier it was a question of the survival of the fittest. In business life each man was for himself and the weak were exterminated. The spirit also grew out of our ideal of liberty. It was thought that in a democracy each man had a comparatively equal opportunity and should be allowed to work out his destiny unhampered by government interference. For white male citizens who actually had to a reasonable degree the three essentials, self-government, liberty, and equality of opportunity, the principle of individualism worked comparatively well. An agricultural society, where plenty of land was always available and the ambitious and industrious man could always get ahead, where there was a republican form of government and a fair degree of freedom, was the best ground for the success of the doctrine. But for those classes who did not enjoy the factors which were supposed to accompany individualism-liberty, equality of opportunity, and self-government-it was a failure. It was not this doctrine which promoted the welfare of women or Negroes. It was not this principle which cared for the weak, the sick, or the indigent. It was another, the theory of public interest, which is becoming increasingly necessary to all classes of people.

America is no longer predominantly an agricultural nation. Individualism, which works comparatively well when the three ideals of democracy are present, itself helps to destroy these ideals in a highly industrialized society. In such a society labor does not and cannot have equality of opportunity with capital. Free competition between these two classes reduces the one to the position of wage slaves and permits the wealth and resources of the nation to become concentrated in the hands of the other.

Labor itself early became aware of this fact and in unions attempted to meet the competition of wealth and power by numbers. The public later showed its recognition of the situation by promoting legislation intended to prevent great industrial combinations, to protect women and children in industry, to require certain safeguards against accidents and against unsanitary conditions. The action of the workers in unionizing and the passage of such laws were looked upon by some of the strong adherents of laissez faire as unwarranted interference with an individual's liberty of action. These persons failed to realize the impotence of one laborer in the modern industrial system. They did not recognize the fact that freedom from government interference exists only in theory. Actually the government has interfered and must continue to interfere in each individual's life if it is to be a government. It is the government which maintains property rights, which protects and insures to a man his possessions. It is the government which maintains order and which makes and executes the laws. It is the government which restrains a man from injuring his fellows. It is the government which protects the weak from the strong. It is the government which drafts men into military service without consideration for their wishes. It is the government whose free land policy gave the land to the people and helped to sustain and develop the nation's ideals. It is the government which set up high tariffs and placed the nation's resources in land, lumber, and mines under private control, thereby helping to develop industry. It was this protection given by the government and the enormous concessions it made to private enterprise which developed the giant industries of the twentieth century. It scarcely behooves the beneficiaries of such interference to object when it is directed toward the benefit of other groups. Government interference may work harm and it may work good. When it takes the form of giving greater liberty and greater opportunities to certain classes, prohibiting certain practices injurious to the public welfare, promoting the safety and health of the people, it represents a developing public opinion in favor of the new ideal, public interest, as against the old ideal, laissez faire.

Public Interest, the Fulfillment of Other American Ideals. Traces of this developing opinion can be seen in the history of each of the great American ideals. In our relations with other countries we determined on certain policies not only to advance the fortunes of the nation and of its citizens but to maintain peace in the interest of all the people. We abridged our ideal of

PUBLIC INTEREST

21

America, the haven of the oppressed, with the intention of promoting the physical, mental, moral, and economic welfare of the people already here. In our desire to secure a wider measure of self-government for all the people, we extended the suffrage, made the election to certain offices more direct, and adopted various devices to permit the people more effective participation in the government. To secure to the people their personal liberties, these liberties were embodied in the state constitutions and in the first ten amendments of the Federal Constitution. The slaves were emancipated; a wider measure of freedom was extended to women. Laws were passed intended to protect the health, prosperity, and happiness of the public. In this way freedom from disease, worry, and unhappiness was brought to a greater number of persons. To attain that other ideal, equality of opportunity, children up to a certain age, varying with the different states, were required to attend school and were provided with free educational facilities. The land was opened to the public and for a long period of time any ambitious man could own a farm. After years of agitation the ideal which had embraced only the male sex was gradually applied to the female.

Thus, while the theory of individualism was still dominant, the theory of public interest was active in bringing about reforms and advancing the interest of continually larger groups of people. With the passing of the nineteenth century and the development of industry on a large scale, new complications have arisen which threaten to undermine our American ideals. These necessitate a wider use of the theory of public interest as do those other problems of sex and race equality which are as yet unsolved. How the interest of all the people can best be secured remains the great question of the day. It will not be answered by government action unless the government is truly representative of all the people and their interests and is free from class domination. It will not be answered by political changes unless such changes are accompanied by an education and training of all the people to the appreciation of the welfare of all. The answer to this question will bring to every individual a wider realization of those fundamental ideals of a democracy, self-government, liberty, and equality of opportunity. Its broader application to international relations may involve a departure from our policy of isolation. Through greater participation in the affairs of the world, we may perhaps promote that world ideal, essential to an international application of the theory of public interest, Peace.