liad a right to protect the students from the evolutionary hypothesisrnbut was in duty bound to do so.” For Bryan, what matteredrnmost was not the facts of Darwinism or the economic interestsrnserved by a monetarv policy; what counted was therncharacter of the people—both individually, when it came tornsalvation, and nationally, when it was a question of politicalrnmorality. Bryan opposed colonialism, not only because of therneffect it had on the colonial subjects but even more for its influencernon the imperial nation.rnPoorly informed on international affairs, Bryan at first welcomedrnthe revolutions against the Spanish colonial empire thatrnbroke out in the 1890’s. Bryan had no martial talent or inclinations,rnbut he did volunteer as a private and at first refused, whenrnhis fellow-volunteers elected him colonel. He resigned, when itrndawned on him that the imperialists intended not to destrovrncolonialism but to replace a Spanish empire with an Americanrnversion.rnIt is not a contest betweenrnDemoerats and Republieans,rnbut between one republicanrnand the imperialists in both parties.rnBryan was shrewd enough to realize that whatever benefitsrnmight attach to colonial empires, they were reserved to monarchies:rn”The fruits of imperialism, be they bitter or sweet, mustrnbe left to the subjects of monarchy. This is the one tree ofrnwhich the citizens of a republic may not partake. It is the voicernof the serpent, not the voice of God, that bids us eat.”rnImperialism invariably increases the power of the military,rnand, Bryan pointed out, there had been a fourfold increase ofrnAmerica’s standing army from 1896 to 1899. “A large standingrnarmy … is ever a menace to a republican form of goernment.”rnProgressive imperialists like Teddy Roosevelt, however muchrnthey might have dressed themselves up in sheepskinnedrnhypocrisy, were the same old warmongering wolves that had alwaysrnplagued the human race. At the St. Louis convention inrn1904, Bryan described the speech of Governor Black in nominatingrnTR as “a eulogy of war… an exalting of the doctrine ofrnbrute force.”rnImperialism must either make aliens citizens—virtually inconceivablernin the case of the Philippines—or make them subjectsrnby force. “In what respect does the position of the Republicanrnparty differ from the position taken by the Englishrngovernment in 1776?” To the apostles of democratic globalismrnand jackbooted human rights, Bryan replied: “Force can defendrna right, but force has never yet created a right.”rnEven more repulsive than old-fashioned imperialism was thernhypocrisy of Anglophile Republicans who wanted to liberaternSpanish possessions but expressed no sympathy for RepublicanrnBoers. Picking up the theme of Anglo-Saxon jingoism, Bryanrnargued that self-government was the genius of the Anglo-rnSaxon, but that the American had raised this creed to arnGolden Rule; “Anglo-Saxon civilization has taught the individualrnto protect his own rights, American cixilization will teachrnhim to respect the rights of others.”rnThe Republicans insisted that thev were going to educaternthe Filipinos in the wa s of democracy, but Bryan pointed outrnthe obvious flaw: “If we expect to maintain a colonial policy, wernshall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. Therneducated Filipinos are now in revolt against us. . . . If we are torngovern them without their consent and give them no voice inrndetermining the taxes which they must pay, we dare not educaternthem, lest they learn to read the Declaration of Independencernand the Constitution of the United States and mock usrnfor our inconsistency.”rnThe messianic democratists preached conversion of thernworid b the sword, but, asked Bryan, “If true Christianity consistsrnin carr ing out in our daily lives the teaching of Christ, whornwill sa’ that we are commanded to ci ilize with dynamite andrnproselyte with the sword?”rnBrvan did not change his mind on imperialism in the yearsrnfollowing the Spanish-American War, and as Secretary of Staternhe labored mightily—without the support of the Presidentrnwhose nomination he had secured—to keep the United Statesrnout of the great European bloodletting. Unfortunately, his cabinetrnposition precluded any open attacks on Wilson’s policies,rnand once his country had entered the war, the patriotic Bryanrnkept his peace. The best he could do was to resign in protestrnover Wilson’s one-sided support of England. In particular hernurged Wilson to discourage Americans from tra’eling on shipsrnthat might be attacked, and he wanted to forbid American passengerrnships from carrying munitions. I le guessed immediatelyrnthat the Lusitania was carrying war materiel and therefore arnjustifiable target for the German nav’.rnBryan was a politician, not a philosopher, and it is easy tornpoint to occasions in his career when he seems to have betrayedrnhis principles. The same can be said of Robert Taft or,rnindeed, of any great statesman. The statesman’s task—unlikernthat of the philosopher or the pure politician—is complex. I lernmust chart a course for his nation, or at least that part of the nationrnwilling to follow him. In this he resembles the philosopherrnor pundit, but he must also deal with each situation and opportunityrnas it presents itself. Refusal to compromise is self-indulgence,rnnot probity.rnBryan faithfully maintained his central convictions throughoutrnhis career; he championed the rights of the wealth-creatingrngrowers and makers of things against their exploiters, the soundrnHeartland against the decadent East, the Old Republic againstrnthe evil empire that Theodore Roosevelt and his friends werernconstructing. TR had his virtues, and Bryan had his weaknesses,rnbut these two men can be taken to represent the two possibilitiesrnof American national life in the 20th century. ThernSpeaker of the House of Representatives apparently thinks sorntoo. According to Fred Barnes in a wonderfully naive piece inrnthe first number of what some conservatix’cs are calling thernWeekly Reader: “Gingrich’s model… is not FDR, but three Republicanrnleaders at the turn of the century: Presidents WilliamrnMcKinlcy . . . and Theodore Roosevelt . . . and Republicanrnstrategist Mark Hanna. The struggle between these Republicansrnand William Jennings Bryan, the chronic Democraticrnpresidential candidate, has ‘remarkable parallels to where therntwo parties arc today,’ Gingrich argues. ‘Bryan was a remarkablyrnshallow but emotionally effective demagogue, maximizingrnclass warfare and a sense of fear in order to avoid moderniza-rn10/CHRONICLESrnrnrn