Born of the spirit of resistance to oppression, with the broadest and freest constitution that the world has ever known—a land of freedom and equality in the best and most liberal sense of the term—it would seem that the sincere lover of liberty and equality could ask no better home than this democracy of ours—whose glorious flag floats over eighty-four millions of prosperous and enlightened people.
With further reason, also, must we question the sincerity of the violent type of Socialist, who, leaving oppression behind, emigrates to this country, where tyranny and despotism are unknown, and yet continues to echo Socialism’s war-cry of destruction, wrung from his heart by the cruelty of his old-time oppressors. When he does this he becomes an enemy of our Republic, unworthy of citizenship.
He comes here from a land of want and thraldom to a land of plenty and freedom. He may come without name, fame, or property, and he is received with open arms. After a brief residence, he is entitled to full citizenship, and is then a part of the government, enjoying all the rights and privileges of the native born. He is a sharer in the equality possessed by all, the right to share in the government such as the electoral franchise and eligibility to public office. He is possessed of the civil rights enjoyed by all citizens in the equality of material conditions—that is, the right to acquire wealth and all that wealth implies.
Every opportunity for him to achieve success and happiness abounds on every hand, and every incentive to industry and accomplishment awaits him, and, if he is energetic and skilful, there is nothing to hinder him from becoming prosperous, or, in other words, successful in whatever vocation in life he may engage. With qualities that commend themselves to his fellow men, there is no limit to the possibilities of his achievements, and very soon, as has been very often the case, he may become not only wealthy but a leader of men. If, therefore, he is sincere, surely he must agree with me that in view of these conditions this is no place for the Socialist. He must be an ingrate who would fail to appreciate the splendid boon.
Does it not, indeed, sound like a paradox to hear this cry of Socialism still rending the air while every avenue of fortune lies open to everyone? It is a glaring anomaly of the times, an offence to American institutions, a poor return for our national hospitality. Vague and illogical as the theories advanced by the doctrinaires of Socialism are, there runs throughout all their teachings and preachings bitter and radical opposition to individual accumulation of wealth and individual competition in industry.
Socialists would, in other words, fence up the great field of free opportunity, deaden all incentive or inspiration for great achievement and not only curtail, but wholly remove the right to compete and excel and make it impossible to achieve success as the result of individual effort. They would reduce us all to a barren uniformity.
Think of this monstrous proposition! Why, the very thing that the Socialists attack as untenable and wrong in government, namely, individual competition, has done more than anything else to make us what we are as a nation; has kept alive the precious fires of liberty and freedom, and preserved the institutions of our country. Take away the progressive spirit of Individualism from the people, and you at once eliminate the American spirit—the love of freedom—of free industry—and free and unfettered opportunity—you take away indeed freedom itself!
The state of society the Socialists seek to establish might be beneficial to a class which, under any conditions, lacks frugality, thrift and self-reliance; but just where the general mass of humanity would be bettered or elevated socially, morally or politically, is a point not satisfactorily explained, and never will be.
If you render equally accessible to each and every member of the human family the benefits of civilization, all holding “properly in common,” why should a man rack his brain or strain his muscles in producing something which he expects to prove remunerative or beneficial to himself in some way, but which under the Socialistic state would contribute to the equal financial benefit of all? The highway to distinction and opulence would be closed.
As illustrating the inconsistency of some poor specimens of human nature, when put to the test of Socialism, I will tell two stories: