than is Mr. Hearst; but
in the tendency and spirit of his agitation for reform Hearst more
completely reveals the true nature of Democratic "liberalism." When Mr.
Lincoln Steffens asserts on the authority of the "man of mystery"
himself that one of Hearst's mysterious actions has been a profound and
searching study of Jeffersonian doctrine, I can almost bring myself to
believe the assertion. The radicalism of Hearst is simply an
unscrupulous expression of the radical element in the Jeffersonian
tradition. He bases his whole agitation upon the sacred idea of equal
rights for all and special privileges for none, and he indignantly
disclaims the taint of socialism. His specific remedial proposals do not
differ essentially from those of Mr. Bryan. His methods of agitation and
his popular catch words are an ingenious adaptation of Jefferson to the
needs of political "yellow journalism." He is always an advocate of the
popular fact. He always detests the unpopular word. He approves
expansion, but abhors imperialism. He welcomes any opportunity for war,
but execrates militarism. He wants the Federal government to crush the
trusts by the most drastic legislation, but he is opposed to
centralization. The institutional reforms which he favors all of them
look in the direction of destroying what remains of judicial, executive,
or legislative independence. The whole programme is as incoherent as is
that of Mr. Bryan; but incoherence is the least of his faults. Mr.
Bryan's inconsistencies are partly redeemed by his genuine patriotism.
The distracting effect of Hearst's inconsistencies is intensified by his
factiousness. He is more and less than a radical. He is in temper a
revolutionist. The disgust and distrust which he excites is the issue of
a wholesome political and social instinct, for the political instincts
of the American people are often much sounder than their ideas. Hearst
and Hearstism is a living menace to the orderly process of reform and to
American national integrity.

Hearst is revolutionary in spirit, because the principle of equal rights
itself, in the hand either of a fanatic or a demagogue, can be converted
into a revolutionary principle. He considers, as do all reformers, the
prevalent inequalities of economic and political power to be violations
of that principle. He also believes in the truth of American political
individualism, and in the adequacy, except in certain minor respects, of
our systems of inherit