thren of reform. He has not only nationalized the movement, and
pointed it in the direction of a better conception of democracy, but he
has rallied to its hammer the ostensible, if not the very enthusiastic,
support of the Republican party. He has restored that party to some
sense of its historic position and purpose. As the party which before
the War had insisted on making the nation answerable for the solution of
the slavery problem, it has inherited the tradition of national
responsibility for the national good; but it was rapidly losing all
sense of its historic mission, and, like the Whigs, was constantly using
its principle and its prestige as a cloak for the aggrandizement of
special interests. At its worst it had, indeed, earned some claim on the
allegiance of patriotic Americans by its defense of the fiscal system of
the country against Mr. Bryan's well-meant but dangerous attack, and by
its acceptance after the Spanish War of the responsibilities of
extra-territorial expansion; but there was grave danger that its
alliance with the "vested" interests would make it unfaithful to its
past as the party of responsible national action. It escaped such a fate
only by an extremely narrow margin; and the fact that it did escape is
due chiefly to the personal influence of Theodore Roosevelt. The
Republican party is still very far from being a wholly sincere agent of
the national reform interest. Its official leadership is opposed to
reform; and it cannot be made to take a single step in advance except
under compulsion. But Mr. Roosevelt probably prevented it from drifting
into the position of an anti-reform party--which if it had happened
would have meant its ruin, and would have damaged the cause of national
reform. A Republican party which was untrue to the principle of national
responsibility would have no reason for existence; and the Democratic
party, as we have seen, cannot become the party of national
responsibility without being faithless to its own creed.

VII

THE REFORMATION OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Before finishing this account of Mr. Roosevelt's services as a reformer,
and his place in the reforming movement, a serious objection on the
score of consistency must be fairly faced. Even admitting that Mr.
Roosevelt has dignified reform by identifying it with a programme of
constructive national legislation, does the fundamental purpose of his
reforming legislation differ essentially from that of Mr. Bryan or