nd
purpose. In the campaign of 1900 Mr. Bryan committed himself and his
party to an anti-national point of view; and no matter how well
intentioned and consistent he was in so doing, he made a second mistake,
even more disastrous than the first. In seeking to prevent his
countrymen from asserting their national interest beyond their own
continent, he was also opposing in effect the resolute assertion of the
national interest in domestic affairs. He stamped himself, that is, as
an anti-nationalist, and his anti-nationalism has disqualified him for
effective leadership of the party of reform.

Mr. Bryan's anti-nationalism is peculiarly embarrassing to his political
efficiency just because he is, as I have indicated, in many of his ideas
an advanced contemporary radical. He is, indeed, more of a radical than
any other political leader of similar prominence; and his radicalism is
the result of a sincere and a candid attempt to think out a satisfactory
solution of the contemporary economic and political problems. As a
result of these reflections he dared to advocate openly and
unequivocally the public ownership of the railway system of the country;
and he has proposed, also, a measure of Federal regulation of
corporations, conducting an inter-state business, much more drastic than
that of Mr. Roosevelt. These proposed increases of Federal
responsibility and power would have been considered outrageous by an
old-fashioned Democrat; and they indicate on the part of Mr. Bryan an
unusually liberal and courageous mind. But the value and effect of his
radicalism is seriously impaired by the manner in which it is qualified.
He proposes in one breath enormous increases of Federal power and
responsibility, and in the next betrays the old Democratic distrust of
effective national organization. He is willing to grant power to the
Federal authorities, but he denies them any confidence, because of the
democratic tradition of an essential conflict between political
authority, particularly so far as it is centralized, and the popular
interest. He is incapable of adapting his general political theories to
his actual political programme; and, consequently, the utmost personal
enthusiasm on his part and great power of effective political agitation
cannot give essential coherence, substantial integrity, or triumphant
effect to his campaigns.

The incoherence of his political thinking is best exemplified by the way
in which he proposed to nati