The New Party What Shall It Be Named? BY CHARLES Q. DE FRANCE Secretary People’s Party National Committee

There are phenomena a-plenty, said the New York World editorially (December 31), “which unmistakably foretell a new party and a new issue in American affairs. It comes in a multitude of shapes and clothed in a multitude of garments.”

Coming from the source it does, this utterance is significant. There is no doubt about the existence of the phenomena, but your conservative usually delights in playing ostrich. Personally I would like to question the accuracy of the World’s forecast—for I contend that we have now more political parties than economic conditions warrant—but regard for truth requires affirmation instead of denial. The new party is bound to come.

“Mr. Bryan,” the World continued, “has already defined it (the new party) in terms of triple state socialism—city ownership, State ownership and national ownership of all public utilities.”

Granting that this is correct, it is not hard to see that a new party is superfluous, for the People’s Party now covers this ground; and the Democratic Party has in places adopted a portion of the program.

The public mind, however, is thinking of a new party—and that settles it. The arguments of a few feeble individuals cannot change public opinion. So let us accept the inevitable and try to make the best of it.

The new party, it is safe to say, will pre-empt a large portion of the ground now occupied by the People’s Party. It will declare for true democracy. It will adopt one of two methods in making its declarations. It may, in a few well worded paragraphs, state fundamental principles of democracy, avoiding the peculiar isms of the various factions which will be brought together in the new organization; or it may attempt to frame a plank acceptable to each of the factions. It is needless to say that the former will lay the foundation for success, while the latter will give rise to dissensions and result, finally, in disintegration.

But I do not wish to suggest a platform for the new party. Able men will be present at its birth, and they will know what to do. I do wish to be heard, however, on the question of name for the infant party.

Populists well know that for the past four years I have fought persistently against changing the People’s Party name. I have freely admitted its faults, but have insisted that a faulty name is less dangerous than a change. The organization of a new party presents a different problem. A new name is necessary.

What shall it be?

Viewed superficially there are many good names which might be adopted; but when subjected to careful analysis, the number dwindles down to a very few. I take it that the name should indicate the predominant feature of the party; that it should be but one word, and that word short, preferably of three syllables, not explosive or difficult to pronounce, but capable of being uttered easily; that whether used as noun or adjective no change is necessary; that it should not be an unusual or a newly coined word, but one the meaning of which, in its generic sense, is now well understood by, or at least familiar to the public.

A year or so ago a writer in The Public (Chicago) suggested Isocrat, one who believes in equal rule; and Orthocrat, one who believes in good rule—both charming names but violating what I believe to be very important: that the name should not be unusual, newly coined, or unfamiliar to the public. Isocrat, isocratic, isocracy; orthocrat, orthocratic, orthocracy. Ingenious inventions, but hardly suited to our purpose.

Several persons in the past few years, notably Rev. John V. Potts, of Ohio, have made good arguments in favor of “The People’s Democratic-Republican Party.” I shall not discuss this further than to suggest that a 27-letter name is too long; and that to designate a member of the party would require a hopeless amount of circumlocution.

“Home Rule,” “American,” etc., have been suggested; but a little thought will disclose their weak points.

I suggest the good, old word Radical.

Nine men out of every ten today—who would likely become affiliated with the new party—will, when questioned as to their political belief, generally preface their remarks by declaring, “I am a radical.” Why not give them an opportunity to say it with a capital R?

The Radical Party; a Radical; Radical measures; Radicalism.

Not so many years ago the suggestion of this name would have aroused a storm of protest—but it is different today. Then a radical was looked upon as a rash man, if not, indeed, a revolutionist. Men coveted the distinction of being regarded as conservative. To put a radical in an important public office, as Governor, for instance, would “drive capital out of the State.” Only a “con-ser-r-va-tive” (how they did roll that r) could prevent things from going to the demnition bow-wows.

Today it is almost criminally libelous to call a man “safe and sane,” so great a change has come over the public mind. The words “radical” and “conservative” have come to be understood in a new light. The new meanings have quite obscured the old. A “conservative” is looked upon today as the beneficiary, as principal or agent, of some special privilege—franchise, tariff tax and the like—which gives him the power to absorb wealth produced by others, without rendering an equivalent therefor. Naturally, he desires to “conserve” this unfair advantage—for civilization has by no means eliminated the wolf in man—and is, therefore, opposed to radical change. He is a conservative, a stand-patter, a let-well-enough-aloner.

I make no claim of altruism for the radical, and am inclined to look with suspicion upon the man who prates overmuch about doing everything for others and nothing for himself. Self-preservation is the first law of Nature, and man hasn’t learned how to repeal it. Besides, it isn’t necessary, even if we knew how. But there is selfishness and selfishness. Conservative selfishness means to build up one’s self at the expense of others; radical selfishness has for its motto, “Live and let live.” In other words, by promoting the general welfare, I can best advance my own interests.

But, for the sake of argument, let us admit that men are alike in their selfishness; that all are wolfish, whether conservative or radical. Common sense teaches us that only a comparative few can be the beneficiaries of special privileges. If we all possessed equal powers to rob, conferred by legislation, the result would be about the same as though none of us possessed such powers. The former alternative is, of course, impossible; for a special privilege would cease to be such if made general. But the latter is possible. Let us frankly confess that the radical would be a conservative if he could become the beneficiary of a special privilege. Given the opportunity, I feel sure he would act much as other legalized robbers do.

I believe we have indulged in too much denunciation of the beneficiaries of special privileges, the legalized plunderers, and paid too little attention to the criminal ignorance of the great majority who permit themselves to be robbed. I believe we should admit that the masses have acted as “them asses”—and resolve to quit playing the fool. That’s why I suggest the name Radical for the new party. It means a going to the root of the trouble and uprooting it. It means a change which will hurt the pride of a few, because they can no longer hoodwink and rob their tens of thousands under guise of law—a change which will benefit the pockets of the many, because they will no longer be picked by legal enactment.

And this would be a radical change. Let it be made by a Radical party.