POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE WORLD WAR. The fortunes of political parties depend to a large extent upon the popularity of the principles which they espouse, as indicated by their platforms and by the char acter of the men whom they nominate for office. The principles advocated by the political parties are determined in accordance with their respec tive points of view or reactions toward the leading questions or issues of a public character with which the country is confronted. Among such questions or issues, that of war is one of the most striking and important. This includes not only the •question of entering the war but also that of the method of prosecuting it after it has been entered upon. and also the condi tions of terminating it. Upon all three of these auestions relating to war, political parties are likely to take different attitudes and to en deavor to attempt to carry out the policies which they respectively support through securing con trol of the government and the administration of affairs.
There are difficulties, however, in the as sumption by political parties of different atti tudes toward questions of war which do not arise to the same extent in connection with their over questions of domestic policy. The principal issues upon which_polit ical parties have divided in the United States, during most of our history, have been those of a domestic or internal character. This has been due largely to our geographical isolation and lack of proximity to powerful or trouble some neighbors. There has, on the whole, been little attention paid to questions of our foreign relations and little popular understanding of such questions, and political parties have conse quently, during most of our history, subor dinated such questions in their platforms to those of domestic policy.. Thus in time of war, partisan politics becomes comparatively quies cent because the issues upon which parties di vide are usually domestic questions, while in war questions of foreign policy and inter national become paramount, and these, being new and little understood by the mass of the voters, allow little opportunity for the ap pearance of decided party cleavage. A ques tion of our foreign relations, however, which affects our vital interests so intimately as that of war cannot well be ignored by the political parties. Upon a question of foreign war, how ever, there is usually a much greater approach to popular unity and unanimity of public opin ion than upon questions of domestic policy. Most persons subscribe to the view that party politics should stop at the water's edge and that, in case of war, it is the duty of every good citizen to support his country, whether right or wrong. It is true that, both in the War of 1812 and in the Mexican War, there was consider able dissatisfaction in certain sections of the country with the war policy of the govern ment, but there was nevertheless less apparent difference of opinion over these wars than over equally important questions of domestic policy.
It may also be noted that the opposition of the Federalist party to the War of 1812 contributed largely to the demise of that party.
Another difficulty in the way of injecting party politics into the question of the conduct of war is the necessity for a considerable de gree of continuity of policy and stability of government if the war is to be brought to a successful conclusion. A government's foreign policy, in order to be permanent and construc tive, should not be made the plaything of party politics, and this is especially true of war. The see-saw and ups-and-downs of party change which may be the evidences of the healthy fluctuations of public opinion in time of peace become dangerous in times of war if carried too far.. For this reason, the party in power during the existence of a war, usually appeals for the support of the voters in order that a continuous policy and a united front may be presented to the enemy. The Ore-election of President Lincoln in 1864 was advocated on the ground that it was unwise ato swap horses while crossing a stream' Appeals were also made to the voters on this ground by leaders and supporters of the party in power in 1898 to elect a Congress composed of a majority of members of that party, although the Spanish American War was then practically over. In England it is possible to postpone a general election by mutual consent during time of war, and thus avoid presenting to the voters the op portunity of swapping horses. Under the plan of astronomical government which we have in the United States, however, elections come regularly at stated intervals regardless of whether the country is at war or peace. For this reason, some sort of a party contest even during time of war is practically unavoidable. Moreover, on account of the organization of our national, state and local governments gen erally in accordance with the principle of separation of powers, as well as on account of the numerous elections and the large number of elective officers, it is necessary for political parties in the United States to maintain stronger and more permanent organizations than is required in other countries. Although a truce between the parties may be patched up at the outbreak of war, it is likely to be of short duration and to be broken as soon as party exigencies demand it at the approach of an important election. At such a time the op position party cannot expect to maintain its organization intact unless it makes a contest to secure control of the offices wherever there is a fair chance of success. Under these cir cumstances, the necessity apparently rests upon the leaders of the opposition party to find issues and to carry the contest to the polls in spite of the existence of war and in spite of the fact that a considerable percentage of the rank and file of both parties is enrolled in the armies at the front and unable to participate in the election on account of practical difficulties.