A year or so ago a writer in _The Public_ (Chicago) suggested Isocrat, one who believes in equal rule; and Orthocrat, one who believes in good rule—both charming names but violating what I believe to be very important: that the name should not be unusual, newly coined, or unfamiliar to the public. Isocrat, isocratic, isocracy; orthocrat, orthocratic, orthocracy. Ingenious inventions, but hardly suited to our purpose. Several persons in the past few years, notably Rev. John V. Potts, of Ohio, have made good arguments in favor of “The People’s Democratic-Republican Party.” I shall not discuss this further than to suggest that a 27-letter name is too long; and that to designate a member of the party would require a hopeless amount of circumlocution. “Home Rule,” “American,” etc., have been suggested; but a little thought will disclose their weak points. I suggest the good, old word RADICAL. Nine men out of every ten today—who would likely become affiliated with the new party—will, when questioned as to their political belief, generally preface their remarks by declaring, “I am a radical.” Why not give them an opportunity to say it with a capital R? The Radical Party; a Radical; Radical measures; Radicalism. Not so many years ago the suggestion of this name would have aroused a storm of protest—but it is different today. Then a radical was looked upon as a rash man, if not, indeed, a revolutionist. Men coveted the distinction of being regarded as conservative. To put a radical in an important public office, as Governor, for instance, would “drive capital out of the State.” Only a “con-ser-r-va-tive” (how they did roll that r) could prevent things from going to the demnition bow-wows. Today it is almost criminally libelous to call a man “safe and sane,” so great a change has come over the public mind. The words “radical” and “conservative” have come to be understood in a new light. The new meanings have quite obscured the old. A “conservative” is looked upon today as the beneficiary, as principal or agent, of some special privilege—franchise, tariff tax and the like—which gives him the power to absorb wealth produced by others, without rendering an equivalent therefor. Naturally, he desires to “conserve” this unfair advantage—for civilization has by no means eliminated the wolf in man—and is, therefore, opposed to radical change. He is a conservative, a stand-patter, a let-well-enough-aloner.