Another phase of the development of the theory of democracy in the last century which can only be touched upon here is the great controversies over the merits of democracy as opposed to monarchy and aristocracy. That anyone should have thought democracy worthy of a lengthy and sustained attack or defense is significant of the growing importance of the subject, for such a thing rarely or never occurred before this period. The first phases of the controversy, fol lowing the French Revolution, were particularly acrimonious and partisan when the reaction aries, such as Burke, Bonald, DeMaistre and Von Haller bitterly attacked the new order of things and were answered in kind by its ad mirers such as. Paine, Jefferson, Bancroft and Lamartine. The more recent echoes of the Burke-Paine controversy have been more schol arly and temperate. Maine, Lecky, Faguet,. Le Bon and Trenschke have questioned the merits of democracy and they have been effectively answered by Giddings, Sumner, Lowell, Eliot and the English Liberals and Fabians. On the whole, English, French and American.writers now tend to defend the efficacy of a democratic form of social and political organization, while Teutonic writers, with the exception of the Socialists, have drifted away from their mid century liberalism and have tended more and more to defend autocracy. Both tendencies have, no doubt, been the logical outgrowth of their social and political environment.
The remaining tendency in the development of democratic theory, and that which is des tined to bring the most fruitful results, has been the gradual shift of method from a priori mythology and generalization, setting forth what some theorists imagine democracy to be, to a real concrete and inductive study of de mocracy in operation and an analysis of its fundamental foundations. The first conspicu ous case of a concrete study of a democracy in action was made by De Tocqueville nearly a century ago and it remained for over a half century the only analysis of its kind. James Bryce next essayed the task with equal suc cess in his remarkable 'American Common wealth.> Still more recently Ostrogorski and Croly have continued this line of approach in a brilliant but less comprehensive manner. These studies, however, though epoch-making, were mainly descriptive rather than analytical. The need of a more profound analysis has been effectively stated by Mr. Graham Wallas and a number of fragmentary attempts have been made to supply this need. The impulse to this more penetrating analysis has come mainly from sociologists and economists, as the politi cal scientists have, for the most part, been content to proceed with the further develop ment of the external, and somewhat superficial, formalistic and legalistic line of approach to politics, which received its most effective formu lation in the monumental works of Professor Burgess. Professor Beard's brilliant and orig inal torso has for the first time presented in their true perspective the origins of American democracy. Mr. Bentley, in a profound and too little read book, has brought the methodol ogy of Gumplowicz, Ratzenhofer and Small to bear on an analysis of that struggle of economic interests in society and politics which furnishes the only key to the understanding of so many problems in modern political life. The sociolo gists, particularly in America, have shown that democracy is not something which may be plucked from the clouds, but requires certain indispensable conditions in the social environ ment for its successful operation, and they have tried to indicate the nature of some of these indispensable prerequisites of the successful de mocracy. Professor Giddings, in a number of
thoughtful volumes and essays, has sketched the environmental background which determines the nature of political life and organization, has pointed out the necessity of homogeneity of mental reactions for the existence of a liberal and democratic society, has attempted a har monizing of the Aristotle-Harrington concep tion of the leadership of the intellectual elite with the modern view of the necessity of a democratic control in society, and has outlined the significant- reasons for believing that de mocracy and imperialism are not mutually exclusive. Professor Ross has carried out Pro fessor Giddings' conception of the necessity of homogeneity and general intelligence for the successful operation of a democracy and has shown by trenchant writings the grave dangers to American democracy from the carelessness and indifference of the government in allowing the unrestricted immigration of heterogeneous and ignorant elements from the ((surplus popu lations)) of Europe. Also, following out Pro fessor Giddings' emphasis on the importance of racial and psychological homogeneity in de mocracy and upon the determination of political organization by the conditions in the social environment, Professor Tenney has pointed out many of the most important biological founda tions and prerequisites of democracy and has sounded a note of warning against the dangers latent in the admission to the United States' of peoples and classes who neither satisfy these conditions nor can be made to satisfy them by assimilation into the population. Professor Cooley, in a brilliantly written work, has ana lyzed, in a penetrating manner, the psychological problems inherent in the organization of dem ocratic society on a large scale and has made numerous helpful suggestions as to how some of these perplexing problems may be solved. The students of social psychology, such as Sighele in Italy, Tarde, Durkheim and Le Bon in France, Bagehot, Wallas, MacDougall and Trotter in England, and Giddings, Sumner, Cooley and Ross in America, have analyzed the diverse phases of those socio-psychic phenomena that affect group behavior and are especially prominent in modern democracies with their predominance of urban life and the resulting increase in the volume and variety of psychic reactions, intercourse and interstimulation. Professor Ellwood, in several erudite and lucid volumes, has produced a synthesis of the chief results of the work of the social psychologists and has indicated their bearing upon the prob lems of politics in general and of American democracy in particular. Finally, statisticians, led by Professors Mayo-Smith and Willcox, have begun that quantitative measurement of political and social phenomena which Profes sors Wallas and Giddings have insisted is the only procedure which will be able to raise poli tics and sociology to the level of true sciences. These diverse but complementary contributions toward a concrete investigation and a funda mental analysis of the problems of democracy doubtless forecast the most fruitful tendencies in the future formulation of the "theor? of democracy. The synthesis of these various lines of approach to the analysis of the foundations of democracy—geographical, economical, bio logical and psychological — studied by the exact methods of statistical measurements, is the most pressing task which awaits execution in the field of political and social theory.