Promise and Performance

PUBLISHED IN THE “OUTLOOK,” JULY 28, 1900

PUBLISHED IN THE “OUTLOOK,” JULY 28, 1900

It is customary to express wonder and horror at the cynical baseness of the doctrines of Machiavelli. Both the wonder and the horror are justified,—though it would perhaps be wiser to keep them for the society which the Italian described rather than for the describer himself,—but it is somewhat astonishing that there should be so little insistence upon the fact that Machiavelli rests his whole system upon his contemptuous belief in the folly and low civic morality of the multitude, and their demand for fine promises and their indifference to performance. Thus he says: “It is necessary to be a great deceiver and hypocrite; for men are so simple and yield so readily to the wants of the moment that he who will trick shall always find another who will suffer himself to be tricked.... Therefore a ruler must take great care that no word shall slip from his mouth that shall not be full of piety, trust, humanity, religion, and simple faith, and he must appear to eye and ear all compact of these, ... because the vulgar are always caught by appearance and by the event, and in this world there are none but the vulgar.”

People often express wonder and horror at the cynical baseness of Machiavelli's doctrines. Both reactions are justified. Though perhaps it would be wiser to reserve them for the society the Italian described, rather than for Machiavelli himself. But it is somewhat astonishing how little attention people give to the belief underlying his whole system. Machiavelli based it on his contemptuous belief that the masses were foolish and had low civic morals. He believed they demanded fine promises and cared nothing about whether those promises were kept. Thus he says: “It is necessary to be a great deceiver and hypocrite. For people are so simple and give in so readily to the needs of the moment. Anyone who wants to deceive will always find someone willing to be deceived.... Therefore a ruler must take great care that every word he speaks is full of piety, trust, humanity, religion, and simple faith. He must appear, in everything people see and hear, to be made up entirely of these qualities, ... because ordinary people are always taken in by appearances and by results, and in this world there are only ordinary people.”

It therefore appears that Machiavelli’s system is predicated partly on the entire indifference to performance of promise by the prince and partly upon a greedy demand for impossible promises among the people. The infamy of the conduct championed by Machiavelli as proper for public men is usually what rivets the attention, but the folly which alone makes such infamy possible is quite as well worthy of study. Hypocrisy is a peculiarly revolting vice alike in public and private life; and in public life—at least in high position—it can only be practiced on a large scale for any length of time in those places where the people in mass really warrant Machiavelli’s description, and are content with a complete divorce between promise and performance.

Machiavelli’s system therefore seems to rest partly on the prince’s complete indifference to keeping promises. It also rests partly on the people’s greedy demand for impossible promises. The disgraceful conduct Machiavelli recommends for public officials usually draws the most attention. But the folly that alone makes such disgrace possible is just as worthy of study. Hypocrisy is a particularly revolting vice in both public and private life. In public life, at least in high office, hypocrisy can persist on a large scale only under certain conditions. The people as a whole must truly fit Machiavelli’s description. They must be content with a complete separation between what officials promise and what they do.

It would be difficult to say which is the surest way of bringing about such a complete divorce: on the one hand, the tolerance in a public man of the nonperformance of promises which can be kept; or, on the other hand, the insistence by the public upon promises which they either know or ought to know can not be kept. When in public speech or in a party platform a policy is outlined which it is known can not or will not be pursued, the fact is a reflection not only upon the speaker and the platform-maker, but upon the public feeling to which they appeal. When a section of the people demand from a candidate promises which he can not believe that he will be able to fulfil and, on his refusal, support some man who cheerfully guarantees an immediate millennium, why, under such circumstances the people are striving to bring about in America some of the conditions of public life which produced the profligacy and tyranny of mediæval Italy. Such conduct means that the capacity for self-government has atrophied; and the hard-headed common-sense with which the American people, as a whole, refuse to sanction such conduct is the best possible proof and guarantee of their capacity to perform the high and difficult task of administering the greatest Republic upon which the sun has ever shone.

It is hard to say which is more likely to cause such a complete separation. Is it tolerating a public figure who breaks promises that can be kept? Or is it the public’s insistence on promises they know, or should know, cannot be kept? A speech or party platform may outline a policy that is known to be impossible or never intended for action. This reflects badly not only on the speaker or platform writer, but also on the public sentiment they appeal to. Some people demand promises from a candidate that he cannot believe he will be able to fulfill. If he refuses, they support another man who cheerfully promises an immediate golden age. In doing so, they are trying to bring about some of the conditions of public life in America that produced the corruption and tyranny of medieval Italy. Such conduct means that the capacity for self-government has withered. But the American people as a whole refuse to approve of such conduct, thanks to their practical common sense. This is the best possible proof and guarantee of their capacity to carry out a great and difficult task. That task is governing the greatest Republic upon which the sun has ever shone.

There are always politicians willing, on the one hand, to promise everything to the people, and, on the other, to perform everything for the machine or the boss, with chuckling delight in the success of their efforts to hoodwink the former and serve the latter. Now, not only should such politicians be regarded as infamous, but the people who are hoodwinked by them should share the blame. The man who is taken in by, or demands, impossible promises is not much less culpable than the politician who deliberately makes such promises and then breaks faith. Thus when any public man says that he “will never compromise under any conditions,” he is certain to receive the applause of a few emotional people who do not think correctly, and the one fact about him that can be instantly asserted as true beyond peradventure is that, if he is a serious personage at all, he is deliberately lying, while it is only less certain that he will be guilty of base and dishonorable compromise when the opportunity arises. “Compromise” is so often used in a bad sense that it is difficult to remember that properly it merely describes the process of reaching an agreement. Naturally there are certain subjects on which no man can compromise. For instance, there must be no compromise under any circumstances with official corruption, and of course no man should hesitate to say as much. Again, an honest politician is entirely justified in promising on the stump that he will make no compromise on any question of right and wrong. This promise he can and ought to make good. But when questions of policy arise—and most questions, from the tariff to municipal ownership of public utilities and the franchise tax, are primarily questions of policy—he will have to come to some kind of working agreement with his fellows, and if he says that he will not, he either deliberately utters what he knows to be false, or else he ensures for himself the humiliation of being forced to break his word. No decent politician need compromise in any way save as Washington and Lincoln did. He need not go nearly as far as Hamilton, Jefferson, and Jackson went; but some distance he must go if he expects to accomplish anything.

There are always politicians willing to promise the people everything while doing everything for the political machine or its boss. They chuckle with delight at fooling the people and serving the machine or boss. Such politicians should be regarded as disgraceful, but the people they fool should share the blame. Anyone who falls for or demands impossible promises is almost as guilty as the politician who knowingly makes and breaks them. When a public figure says he “will never compromise under any conditions,” a few emotional people who do not think clearly will applaud him. If he is a serious figure at all, we can say with absolute certainty that he is deliberately lying. It is only slightly less certain that he will make a shameful and dishonorable compromise when the opportunity arises. “Compromise” is so often used negatively that it is hard to remember what it properly means. It simply describes the process of reaching an agreement. Naturally, there are certain subjects on which no one can compromise. For example, there must be no compromise with official corruption under any circumstances. Of course, no one should hesitate to say so. An honest politician is also entirely justified in promising on the campaign trail that he will not compromise on questions of right and wrong. He can and should keep that promise. But most questions are primarily matters of policy. These range from the tariff to public ownership of local utilities and the franchise tax. When such questions arise, a politician must reach some kind of working agreement with his colleagues. If he says he will not, he is either deliberately saying something he knows is false or ensuring the humiliation of being forced to break his word. No decent politician needs to compromise in any way except as Washington and Lincoln did. He need not go nearly as far as Hamilton, Jefferson, and Jackson went. But he must go some distance if he expects to accomplish anything.

Again, take the case of those who promise an impossible good to the community as a whole if a given course of legislation is adopted. The man who makes such a promise may be a well-meaning but unbalanced enthusiast, or he may be merely a designing demagogue. In either case the people who listen to and believe him are not to be excused, though they may be pitied. Softness of heart is an admirable quality, but when it extends its area until it also becomes softness of head, its results are anything but admirable. It is a good thing to combine a warm heart with a cool head. People really fit for self-government will not be misled by over-effusiveness in promise, and, on the other hand, they will demand that every proper promise shall be made good.

Consider also those who promise impossible benefits for the whole community if a particular law is passed. A man who makes such a promise may be a well-meaning but unbalanced enthusiast. Or he may simply be a calculating demagogue. In either case, the people who listen to and believe him are not to be excused, though they may be pitied. A soft heart is admirable. But when a soft heart also leads to a soft head, the results are anything but admirable. It is good to combine a warm heart with a cool head. People truly fit for self-government will not be misled by extravagant promises. On the other hand, they will demand that every proper promise be kept.

Wise legislation and upright administration can undoubtedly work very great good to a community, and, above all, can give to each individual the chance to do the best work for himself. But ultimately the individual’s own faculties must form the chief factor in working out his own salvation. In the last analysis it is the thrift, energy, self-mastery, and business intelligence of each man which have most to do with deciding whether he rises or falls. It is easy enough to devise a scheme of government which shall absolutely nullify all these qualities and ensure failure to everybody, whether he deserves success or not. But the best scheme of government can do little more than provide against injustice, and then let the individual rise or fall on his own merits. Of course something can be done by the State acting in its collective capacity, and in certain instances such action may be necessary to remedy real wrong. Gross misconduct of individuals or corporations may make it necessary for the State or some of its subdivisions to assume the charge of what are called public utilities. But when all that can be done in this way has been done, when every individual has been saved so far as the State can save him from the tyranny of any other man or body of men, the individual’s own qualities of body and mind, his own strength of heart and hand, will remain the determining conditions in his career. The people who trust to or exact promises that, if a certain political leader is followed or a certain public policy adopted, this great truth will cease to operate, are not merely leaning on a broken reed, but are working for their own undoing.

Wise laws and honest administration can undoubtedly do a community a great deal of good. Above all, they can give each person the chance to do the best work for himself. But ultimately, each person’s own abilities must be the main factor in securing his future. In the end, each man’s thrift, energy, self-control, and business sense do the most to decide whether he rises or falls. It is easy enough to devise a system of government that completely cancels out all these qualities. Such a system would ensure failure for everyone, whether he deserves success or not. But even the best system of government can do little more than prevent injustice. It must then let each person rise or fall on his own merits. Of course, the state can take collective action to accomplish some things. In certain cases, such action may be necessary to correct real wrongs. Serious misconduct by individuals or corporations may make it necessary for the state or its local governments to take over public utilities. But even after all that can be done this way has been done, each person’s own qualities will determine his course in life. That will remain true even after the state has done all it can to protect everyone from tyranny by other individuals or groups. Each person’s qualities of body and mind, his own strength of heart and hand, will remain the deciding factors. Some people trust or demand promises that this great truth will stop applying if they follow a particular political leader or adopt a particular public policy. Such people are not merely relying on a broken reed. They are also working toward their own ruin.

So much for the men who by their demands for the impossible encourage the promise of the impossible, whether in the domain of economic legislation or of legislation which has for its object the promotion of morality. The other side is that no man should be held excusable if he does not perform what he promises, unless for the best and most sufficient reason. This should be especially true of every politician. It shows a thoroughly unhealthy state of mind when the public pardons with a laugh failure to keep a distinct pledge, on the ground that a politician can not be expected to confine himself to the truth when on the stump or the platform. A man should no more be excused for lying on the stump than for lying off the stump. Of course matters may so change that it may be impossible for him, or highly inadvisable for the country, that he should try to do what he in good faith said he was going to do. But the necessity for the change should be made very evident, and it should be well understood that such a case is the exception and not the rule. As a rule, and speaking with due regard to the exceptions, it should be taken as axiomatic that when a man in public life pledges himself to a certain course of action he shall as a matter of course do what he said he would do, and shall not be held to have acted honorably if he does otherwise.

That is enough about people whose demands for the impossible encourage promises of the impossible. This applies whether they demand economic laws or laws meant to promote morality. The other side is that no one should be excused for breaking a promise without a very good and sufficient reason. This should be especially true of every politician. It shows a deeply unhealthy attitude when the public laughs off a politician’s failure to keep a clear promise. People excuse it because they think a politician cannot be expected to tell the truth in campaign speeches. A man should no more be excused for lying in a campaign speech than for lying anywhere else. Of course, circumstances may change so much that he cannot do what he honestly promised to do. Or it may be highly inadvisable for the country if he tries. But the need for such a change should be made very clear. Everyone should understand that such a case is the exception, not the rule. As a rule, while recognizing the exceptions, we should take one principle for granted. When a public figure pledges to follow a certain course of action, he should do what he said he would. If he does otherwise, he should not be considered honorable.

All great fundamental truths are apt to sound rather trite, and yet in spite of their triteness they need to be reiterated over and over again. The visionary or the self-seeking knave who promises the golden impossible, and the credulous dupe who is taken in by such a promise, and who in clutching at the impossible loses the chance of securing the real though lesser good, are as old as the political organizations of mankind. Throughout the history of the world the nations who have done best in self-government are those who have demanded from their public men only the promise of what can actually be done for righteousness and honesty, and who have sternly insisted that such promise must be kept in letter and in spirit.

All great fundamental truths tend to sound obvious. Yet, despite this, they need to be repeated over and over. Some dreamers and self-serving crooks promise impossible rewards. Some gullible people believe them and reach for the impossible, losing their chance to gain something real, though less grand. Both kinds of people are as old as organized politics itself. Throughout history, the nations that have governed themselves best have demanded only promises their public officials can actually fulfill to advance justice and honesty. They have also firmly insisted that those promises be kept in both letter and spirit.

So it is with the general question of obtaining good government. We can not trust the mere doctrinaire; we can not trust the mere closet reformer, nor yet his acrid brother who himself does nothing, but who rails at those who endure the heat and burden of the day. Yet we can trust still less those base beings who treat politics only as a game out of which to wrong a soiled livelihood, and in whose vocabulary the word “practical” has come to be a synonym for whatever is mean and corrupt. A man is worthless unless he has in him a lofty devotion to an ideal, and he is worthless also unless he strives to realize this ideal by practical methods. He must promise, both to himself and to others, only what he can perform; but what really can be performed he must promise, and such promise he must at all hazards make good.

The same is true of the broader question of securing good government. We cannot trust someone who blindly follows a doctrine. Nor can we trust a reformer who acts only from the sidelines. We cannot trust his bitter counterpart either, who does nothing himself but attacks those who bear the heat and burden of the day. Yet we can trust even less those base people who treat politics as a game for making a dishonest living. For them, the word “practical” has become a synonym for whatever is mean and corrupt. A man is worthless unless he is deeply devoted to a high ideal. He is also worthless unless he works to achieve that ideal through practical methods. He must promise himself and others only what he can deliver. But he must promise what he really can deliver, and he must keep that promise at all costs.

The problems that confront us in this age are, after all, in their essence the same as those that have always confronted free peoples striving to secure and to keep free government. No political philosopher of the present day can put the case more clearly than it was put by the wonderful old Greeks. Says Aristotle: “Two principles have to be kept in view: what is possible, what is becoming; at these every man ought to aim.” Plato expresses precisely the same idea: “Those who are not schooled and practiced in truth [who are not honest and upright men] can never manage aright the government, nor yet can those who spend their lives as closet philosophers; because the former have no high purpose to guide their actions, while the latter keep aloof from public life, having the idea that even while yet living they have been translated to the Islands of the Blest.... [Men must] both contemplate the good and try actually to achieve it. Thus the state will be settled as a reality, and not as a dream, like most of those inhabited by persons fighting about shadows.”¹

The problems we face today are, at heart, the same problems free peoples have always faced. They have always struggled to establish and keep free government. No political philosopher today can explain the issue more clearly than the remarkable ancient Greeks did. Aristotle says: “We must keep two principles in mind: what is possible and what is fitting. Every person should aim for both.” Plato expresses exactly the same idea: “Those who are not trained and practiced in truth [who are not honest and upright men] can never govern rightly. Nor can those who spend their lives as private philosophers. The first group has no high purpose to guide its actions. The second stays away from public life. Its members imagine that, even while still alive, they have been transported to the Islands of the Blest.... [Men must] both think about the good and actually try to achieve it. Then the state will be established in reality, not as a dream. Most states are like dreams, inhabited by people fighting over shadows.”¹