¶ Bismarck, who was a deep reader on politics, knew well the frightful excesses of French mob-rule. He may also have recognized certain general excellent principles, but he would have nothing to do with the fungous growth. And as we follow his career, we see the virtue in his strong reliance on Militarism, as an arm to keep in check the turbulent German masses, also, later, this same Militarism to be used to do battle for the German Empire. * * * * * ¶ For many years, all manner of rosy democratic plans had been voiced by the Liberals. The thing had been done to death. Every manner of political Utopia had been planned by theorists, but Bismarck met them all with his ironical speeches, and bided his time. ¶ Bismarck's idea was that the only hope for German unity came through accepting the King of Prussia as ordained of heaven. In his arguments, he ignored the masses, the villagers, the workers, the busy-bees, the regard for individual rights. His whole programme seemed to the masses to be anti-Christ in conception, that is to say, it harked back to political paganism. ¶ It is very difficult for an American to comprehend this Prussian conception of Divine-right, as a political principle--but it should not be difficult from the point of human experience. Bismarck had no illusions concerning the power of the average man, and he held that the phrase "the people" was used by every political quack in Europe for any one of a thousand selfish motives. Bismarck had absolutely no faith in the power of the average man to govern himself--much less to govern others!--or faith in the average man doing anything above the average, outside his own small trade or craft. * * * * * ¶ Americans are accustomed to make much of an alleged saying of Lincoln: "No man is good enough to govern another without that man's consent." It is all a beautiful dream, false in theory and false in fact, belied by every record since the Lord drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. Beginning with that stupendous episode, certain it is that this act of government was not carried out with, but against the will of the ruled; and the point at issue was not the supreme goodness of the ruler, but the power to station an angel with a flaming sword at the gates, toward which Adam ever after looked backward with longing eyes--but looked in vain! ¶ In the innumerable dynasties of Babylon, Nineveh, Egypt, Greece, Arabia, Armenia, what man ruled who did not force his leadership? It is not in the nature of human beings to accept new ideas without hostile objection. This holds true also in the evolution of governments, for all life is founded on struggle, and the man who would rule must force his leadership or remain unknown.