had sailed the Indian Ocean and evennreached Africa and the Persian Gulfnwere scrapped. The industrious (andnindustrializing) Europeans who reopenednChina were called “barbarians”nby a decadent court.nIn India, regard for individualnachievement was also low, reserved fornleaders in religion or philosophy. Thosenin the West who were motivated bynscience, personal gain, national ambition,nand the quest for glory (usuallynseen as complementary motives) foundnan encouragement lacking in Easternncultures.nIslam had the spirit for expansion, asnshown by the rapid conquest of thenMiddle East, North Africa, and Indonesianand its continuing attempts to pushninto Central Europe in the 17th century.nThe Moslems had only been pushednout of Spain shortly before the discoverynof the New Wodd. Through the 12thncentury, they were far ahead of thenWest in manufacturing, commerce,nshipbuilding, and weaponry. The Westnhad to learn much from the Moslems innorder to catch up by the 14th century.nHowever, Islamic civilization neverncompletely grasped the scientific philosophynthat took hold of the West. Had itndone so, history would have been farndifferent. “The white race had used thisnpowerful method to dominate thenglobe,” writes Kurt Mendelssohn innThe Secret of Western Domination,nbut adds, “There is no reason to believenthat, if another civilization hadndeveloped science, it would have desistednfrom using it for exactly the samenpurpose.”nIn his study Imperialism and thenAnti-Imperialist Mind sociologistnLewis Feuer argued, “When civilizationnhas moved forward in the past, itnhas invariably been propelled by anstrong imperialist movement on thenpart of the most advanced society.” Hisnexamples included Athens, Rome,nFrance, and England. These movementsn”have taken place precisely atntimes characterized by intellectualnprogress rather than regress, whennsomething like an intellectual and scientificnrenaissance was taking place,nwhen a spirit of exuberance and adventurenrather than defeat and timorousnessnprevailed.” Elizabethan Englandnproduced not just Drake and Raleighnbut also Bacon, Shakespeare, and Jonson.nConsider, however, today’s victorynin the Culf war and the renewednAmerican preeminence in the wake ofnthe internal collapse of communismnand the Soviet Union. Though it cannbe seen as a confirmation of continuingnWestern superiority, it also pointsnto the deterioration of the matrix. ContranFeuer, the intellectual life of thenWest is clearly regressing, not progressing.nIndeed, the intellectual establishmentnwas as united against U.S. actionnas the American people were unitednbehind it.nFortunately, American society hasnWAR AND DEMOCRACYnJust a word of comment more upon onenof the points in the President’s address.nHe says that this is a war “for the thingsnwhich we have always carried nearest tonour hearts—for democracy, for the rightnof those who submit to authority to havena voice in their own government.” Innmany places throughout the address isnthis exalted sentiment given expression.nIt is a sentiment peculiady calculatednto appeal to American hearts and, whennaccompanied by acts consistent with it, isncertain to receive our support; but in thisnsame connection, and strangely enough,nthe President says that we have becomenconvinced that the German Governmentnas it now exists—“Pmssian autocracy”nhe calls it—can never again maintainnfriendly relations with us. Hisnexpression is that “Prussian autocracynwas not and could never be our friend,”nand repeatedly throughout the addressnthe suggestion is made that if thenGerman people would overturn theirnGovernment it would probably be thenway to peace. So true is this that thendispatches from London all hailed thenmessage of the President as sounding thendeath knell of Germany’s Government.nBut the President proposes alliancesnwith Great Britain, which, however liberty-lovingnits people, is a hereditary monarchy,nwith a hereditary mler, with anhereditary House of Lords, with a hereditarynlanded system, with a limited andnrestricted suffrage from one class andnmultiplied suffrage power for another,nand with grinding industrial conditionsnfor all the wageworkers. The Presidentnhas not suggested that we make ournsupport of Great Britain conditional tonher granting home rule to Ireland, ornEgypt, or India. We rejoice in the estab­nLIBERAL ARTSnnnnever depended on intellectuals fornleadership. As the intellectuals haventurned “timorous” in wodd affairs andnobstructionist in terms of science andnmaterial progress, the public hasnturned hostile to them. The next stepnwill be to direct the renewed nationalnexuberance towards their removal fromnpositions of trust or influence, replacingnthem with scholars and artistsnwhose ideas reflect the ambitious spiritnthat built the West.nWilliam R. Hawkins writes fromnKnoxville, Tennessee.nlishment of a democracy in Russia, but itnwill hardly be contended that if Russianwas still an autocratic Government, wenwould not be asked to enter this alliancenwith her just the same. Italy and thenlesser powers of Europe, Japan in thenOrient; in fact, all of the countries withnwhom we are to enter into alliance,’nexcept France and newly revolutionizednRussia, are still of the old order—and it’nwill be generally conceded that no onenof them has done as much for its peoplenin the solution of municipal problemsnand in securing social and industrialnreforms as Germany.nIs it not a remarkable democracynwhich leagues itself with allies already farnovermatching in strength the Germannnation and holds out to such beleaguerednnation the hope of peace only atnthe price of giving up their Government?nI am not talking now of the meritsnor demerits of any government, but I amnspeaking of a profession of democracynthat is linked in action with the mostnbrutal and domineering use of autocraticnpower. Are the people of this countrynbeing so well represented in this warnmovement that we need to go abroad tongive other people control of their governments?nWill the President and thensupporters of this war bill submit it to anvote of the people before the declarationnof war goes into effect? Until we arenwilling to do that, it illy becomes us tonofFer as an excuse for our entry into thenwar the unsupported claim that this warnwas forced upon the German people byntheir Government “without their previousnknowledge or approval.”n— Robert M. LaFollette, from thenCongressional Record, April 4, 1917nJUNE 1991/45n