Mr. Wilson’s Unpopularity
Title
Mr. Wilson’s Unpopularity
Creator
Unknown
Identifier
WWP16187
Date
1920 February 16
Source
Cary T. Grayson Papers, Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, Staunton, Virginia
Language
English
Text
That public sympathy is with Mr. Lansing is not so much due to his popularity as to the unpopularity of the president.
That the secretary of state did not receive a fair deal is not so apparent as that Mr. Wilson’s critics do not want to give him a square deal.
The unpopularity of the president has been growing ever since he endorsed the Adamson bill. During the war, men sullenly sealed their lips and had to admire, though they did not forget. Since hostilities ended, the hue and cry after the president has grown steadily. He is damned for what he did and for what he did not do in France. He is assailed by radicals and by reactionaries. He is as unpopular with The New Republic as with the The Review. He is condemned by capital for yielding too much to labor and by labor for deferring too much to capital.
And why? Because, with certain constitutional infirmities, he had made some mistakes, serious or trivial, in doing the largest work any American of this generation has been called upon to perform. He came into office after a revolt which had defeated at the polls but had not driven from its entrenchment a money power of sinister strength. He broke the back of that power by a fair system of taxation, an honest tariff and a decentralization of control over the wealth of the nation. He saw Europe in flames, with millions of aliens and naturalized citizens swearing America should not become billgerent. He directed the building of a tremendous war machine in less time than men had believed possible. He inspired America. He went to the peace conference knowing he would have to play with the cards stacked against him and yet he won France’s endorsement of the league of nations, prevented the division among the conquerors of the German colonies and wrote into the treaty of peace more than any other statesmen had ever gained for idealism, even though that were far less than he desired or the country expected. Measure against this record the mistakes he has made; put at the fullest valuation the weaknesses of the man and the unfortunate traits of character that make it difficult for him to work with others of positive personality. The balance still in his favor—with nothing said of the sickness that struck him down—will be enough to make posterity marvel at the criticism heaped upon him.
And most will posterity marvel that in this unjust criticism—this emphasis upon the failures of the man, this quick forgetfulness of his achievements—Democrats have been almost as bitter as Republicans. Is it always to be so? Is there a fatalism in the Democratic party that makes it destroy the work of its own hands? Only three Democrats have been president of the United States since 1857 and each of the three—Buchanan, Cleveland and Wilson—was the victim of a vindictive hatred within his own party that not only destroyed him politcally but for twenty years ruined all prospects of another victory.
If American Democrats are not irreconciliably of the opposition, even to themselves, it is time for all who claim to be Democrats to close their ranks and, if they will not defend their leader, at least not attack him. This is not said because this is a presidential year. It is not said because The News Leader happens to be published in the capital city of the old Confederacy, the present Solid South. It is not said because The News Leader is blind to Mr. Wilson’s admitted faults. It is said because this newspaper has had in the last six years new proof that the principles for which the Democratic party stands are the principles by which the progress of the world is to be determined. To deny Mr. Wilson the honors due him for his great services is contemptible, but, in assailing Mr. Wilson, to destroy the faith of the people in the Democratic party, is more than contemptible. It is criminal. It is to imperil America and to encourage radicalism by delivering the country into the hands of party whose record is one of long subservience to the interests of the few and of long contempt for the welfare of the many.
That the secretary of state did not receive a fair deal is not so apparent as that Mr. Wilson’s critics do not want to give him a square deal.
The unpopularity of the president has been growing ever since he endorsed the Adamson bill. During the war, men sullenly sealed their lips and had to admire, though they did not forget. Since hostilities ended, the hue and cry after the president has grown steadily. He is damned for what he did and for what he did not do in France. He is assailed by radicals and by reactionaries. He is as unpopular with The New Republic as with the The Review. He is condemned by capital for yielding too much to labor and by labor for deferring too much to capital.
And why? Because, with certain constitutional infirmities, he had made some mistakes, serious or trivial, in doing the largest work any American of this generation has been called upon to perform. He came into office after a revolt which had defeated at the polls but had not driven from its entrenchment a money power of sinister strength. He broke the back of that power by a fair system of taxation, an honest tariff and a decentralization of control over the wealth of the nation. He saw Europe in flames, with millions of aliens and naturalized citizens swearing America should not become billgerent. He directed the building of a tremendous war machine in less time than men had believed possible. He inspired America. He went to the peace conference knowing he would have to play with the cards stacked against him and yet he won France’s endorsement of the league of nations, prevented the division among the conquerors of the German colonies and wrote into the treaty of peace more than any other statesmen had ever gained for idealism, even though that were far less than he desired or the country expected. Measure against this record the mistakes he has made; put at the fullest valuation the weaknesses of the man and the unfortunate traits of character that make it difficult for him to work with others of positive personality. The balance still in his favor—with nothing said of the sickness that struck him down—will be enough to make posterity marvel at the criticism heaped upon him.
And most will posterity marvel that in this unjust criticism—this emphasis upon the failures of the man, this quick forgetfulness of his achievements—Democrats have been almost as bitter as Republicans. Is it always to be so? Is there a fatalism in the Democratic party that makes it destroy the work of its own hands? Only three Democrats have been president of the United States since 1857 and each of the three—Buchanan, Cleveland and Wilson—was the victim of a vindictive hatred within his own party that not only destroyed him politcally but for twenty years ruined all prospects of another victory.
If American Democrats are not irreconciliably of the opposition, even to themselves, it is time for all who claim to be Democrats to close their ranks and, if they will not defend their leader, at least not attack him. This is not said because this is a presidential year. It is not said because The News Leader happens to be published in the capital city of the old Confederacy, the present Solid South. It is not said because The News Leader is blind to Mr. Wilson’s admitted faults. It is said because this newspaper has had in the last six years new proof that the principles for which the Democratic party stands are the principles by which the progress of the world is to be determined. To deny Mr. Wilson the honors due him for his great services is contemptible, but, in assailing Mr. Wilson, to destroy the faith of the people in the Democratic party, is more than contemptible. It is criminal. It is to imperil America and to encourage radicalism by delivering the country into the hands of party whose record is one of long subservience to the interests of the few and of long contempt for the welfare of the many.
Original Format
Article
Files
Collection
Citation
Unknown, “Mr. Wilson’s Unpopularity,” 1920 February 16, WWP16187, Cary T. Grayson Papers, Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library & Museum, Staunton, Virginia.