With this advance in political democracy there has developed a different way of thinking about the sphere of government in general. The radical democrats of the 18th century were chiefly anxious to free individual energy from the restraints imposed by the old arbitrary governments. America seemed a land of bound less resources; on the frontier, especially, equal ity of opportunity seemed to ensure the main tenance of a democratic society as well as a democratic government. By the end of the 19th century this optimistic faith in laissez-faire was much shaken. The free play of individual en• ergy brought unexpected results, antagonistic to democracy rather than favorable to it. Re sources, apparently inexhaustible and open to every one, were seen to be limited after all, and more and more coming to be concentrated in the hands of a comparatively few individ uals and corporations. To conserve these re sources and ensure their use in the public inter est, democratic control must be extended more largely, in the economic, as well as the politi cal, sphere. Many men who might otherwise have clung to the old laissez-faire type of de mocracy were reconciled to the new policies by realizing that in the long run democracy in government rests upon some approximation to equality and democracy in the social order. Undue concentration of economic power must in the end produce an undesirable distribution of political influence. This new type of de mocracy found expression in statutes regulat ing commerce, industry, transportation and labor conditions; also in many new adminis trative divisions, charged with the oversight and control of individual and corporate business.
Not only was the new democracy more ready to use governmental agencies for the promotion of economic and social ends; it was also adjusting itself to greater centralization. The State sovereignty idea, already weakened by the Civil War, was even more seriously undermined by the industrial development of the next half century. The great corporations which controlled transportation, commerce, manufactures and finance could not he dealt with on a purely state basis without endless confusion. As interstate organizations of capi tal were confronted by interstate organizations of labor, it became increasingly evident that labor problems must receive national rather than merely local or state solution. Thus American democracy was becoming more and more nationalistic.
The transformation which modern science and its application to industry had brought about in the nation was also powerfully affect ing the international position of the United States. Though independence had been achieved through a foreign alliance and largely because of certain conditions in European poli tics, the founders of the republic were soon convinced that the safety of their political experiment could best he secured by political isolation. In 1823 the danger of intervention
in American affairs by the reactionary govern ments of Continental Europe produced the Monroe Doctrine, setting forth the republican ideals of America, disclaiming interference with monarchical Europe, but insisting that the European system should not be further ex tended to any part of the American hemisphere.
This tradition of isolation was still the orthodox American theory on the outbreak of the European War; but it was maintained with increasing difficulty and with some incon sistencies as the 20th century opened. Steam navigation, the ocean cable and wireless teleg raphy increased the number of international problems for which the United States was forced to assume some responsibility. The Spanish War sand the acquisition of island possessions in the Pacific brought new relations with the European powers which had similar interests there and in eastern Asia. We were presently taking a large part in international counsels for the protection of China. While still expressly reserving the principle of the Monroe Doctrine, the United States took an active part in The Hague Conferences and even in the fateful conference of Algeciras on Afri can affairs. American intervention hastened the close of the Russo-Japanese War and American public opinion followed with deep interest and sympathy the proposals for a new world organization to establish the reign of law for nations as well as for individuals.
America and the World So mat ters stood at the outbreak of the European War. The President's proclamations of neu trality were quite in accord with traditional policy. Even when the invasion of Belgium showed Germany's cynical disregard of inter national law, American interest and responsi bility in the matter were apparently very re mote. The assumption of such responsibility by the government would have been possible only if the nation as a whole had clearly understood the issues of the European conflict, thus cre ating a unified public opinion. This was obvi ously not the case in 1914. The strongest body of American opinion favored the cause of the Allies, but the pro-German element was ag gressively and highly organized. The largest group of all, especially west of the Alleghanies, was composed of those who could hardly real ize what was happening in Europe and thought chiefly of America's protection from the horrors of European warfare. Under these circum stances, many even of those who sympathized with the cause of the Allies were convinced for the time being that the government must remain neutral. There was also among the more idealistic elements a strong desire that America, by holding somewhat aloof, should leave itself free to exercise a mediatory in fluence in the interest of a lasting peace.