Meet us on:
Entire Site
    Try our fun game

    Dueling book covers…may the best design win!

    Random Quote
    "You must have a room, or a certain hour or so a day, where you don't know what was in the newspapers that morning... a place where you can simply experience and bring forth what you are and what you might be."

    Subscribe to Our Newsletter

    Follow us on Twitter

    Never miss a good book again! Follow Read Print on Twitter

    The Voter and the Two Voices

    by Gilbert Keith Chesterton
    • Rate it:
    Launch Reading Mode
    The real evil of our Party System is commonly stated wrong. It was stated
    wrong by Lord Rosebery, when he said that it prevented the best men from
    devoting themselves to politics, and that it encouraged a fanatical
    conflict. I doubt whether the best men ever would devote themselves to
    politics. The best men devote themselves to pigs and babies and things
    like that. And as for the fanatical conflict in party politics, I wish
    there was more of it. The real danger of the two parties with their two
    policies is that they unduly limit the outlook of the ordinary citizen.
    They make him barren instead of creative, because he is never allowed to
    do anything except prefer one existing policy to another. We have not got
    real Democracy when the decision depends upon the people. We shall have
    real Democracy when the problem depends upon the people. The ordinary man
    will decide not only how he will vote, but what he is going to vote about.

    It is this which involves some weakness in many current aspirations
    towards the extension of the suffrage; I mean that, apart from all
    questions of abstract justice, it is not the smallness or largeness of the
    suffrage that is at present the difficulty of Democracy. It is not the
    quantity of voters, but the quality of the thing they are voting about. A
    certain alternative is put before them by the powerful houses and the
    highest political class. Two roads are opened to them; but they must go
    down one or the other. They cannot have what they choose, but only which
    they choose. To follow the process in practice we may put it thus. The
    Suffragettes--if one may judge by their frequent ringing of his bell--want
    to do something to Mr. Asquith. I have no notion what it is. Let us say
    (for the sake of argument) that they want to paint him green. We will
    suppose that it is entirely for that simple purpose that they are always
    seeking to have private interviews with him; it seems as profitable as any

    other end that I can imagine to such an interview. Now, it is possible
    that the Government of the day might go in for a positive policy of
    painting Mr. Asquith green; might give that reform a prominent place in
    their programme. Then the party in opposition would adopt another policy,
    not a policy of leaving Mr. Asquith alone (which would be considered
    dangerously revolutionary), but some alternative course of action, as, for
    instance, painting him red. Then both sides would fling themselves on the
    people, they would both cry that the appeal was now to the Caesar of
    Democracy. A dark and dramatic air of conflict and real crisis would
    arise on both sides; arrows of satire would fly and swords of eloquence
    flame. The Greens would say that Socialists and free lovers might well
    want to paint Mr. Asquith red; they wanted to paint the whole town red.
    Socialists would indignantly reply that Socialism was the reverse of
    disorder, and that they only wanted to paint Mr. Asquith red so that he
    might resemble the red pillar-boxes which typified State control. The
    Greens would passionately deny the charge so often brought against them by
    the Reds; they would deny that they wished Mr. Asquith green in order that
    he might be invisible on the green benches of the Commons, as certain
    terrified animals take the colour of their environment.

    There would be fights in the street perhaps, and abundance of ribbons,
    flags, and badges, of the two colours. One crowd would sing, "Keep the
    Red Flag Flying," and the other, "The Wearing of the Green." But when the
    last effort had been made and the last moment come, when two crowds were
    waiting in the dark outside the public building to hear the declaration of
    the poll, then both sides alike would say that it was now for democracy to
    do exactly what it chose. England herself, lifting her head in awful
    loneliness and liberty, must speak and pronounce judgment. Yet this
    might not be exactly true. England herself, lifting her head in awful
    loneliness and liberty, might really wish Mr. Asquith to be pale blue.
    The democracy of England in the abstract, if it had been allowed to make
    up a policy for itself, might have desired him to be black with pink spots.
    It might even have liked him as he is now. But a huge apparatus of
    wealth, power, and printed matter has made it practically impossible for
    them to bring home these other proposals, even if they would really prefer
    them. No candidates will stand in the spotted interest; for candidates
    commonly have to produce money either from their own pockets or the
    pasty's; and in such circles spots are not worn. No man in the social
    position of a Cabinet Minister, perhaps, will commit himself to the
    pale-blue theory of Mr. Asquith; therefore it cannot be a Government
    measure, therefore it cannot pass.

    Nearly all the great newspapers, both pompous and frivolous, will declare
    dogmatically day after day, until every one half believes it, that red and
    green are the only two colours in the paint-box. THE OBSERVER will say:
    "No one who knows the solid framework of politics or the emphatic first
    principles of an Imperial people can suppose for a moment that there is
    any possible compromise to be made in such a matter; we must either fulfill
    our manifest racial destiny and crown the edifice of ages with the august
    figure of a Green Premier, or we must abandon our heritage, break our
    promise to the Empire, fling ourselves into final anarchy, and allow the
    flaming and demoniac image of a Red Premier to hover over our dissolution
    and our doom." The DAILY MAIL would say: "There is no halfway house in
    this matter; it must be green or red. We wish to see every honest
    Englishman one colour or the other." And then some funny man in the
    popular Press would star the sentence with a pun, and say that the DAILY
    MAIL liked its readers to be green and its paper to be read. But no one
    would even dare to whisper that there is such a thing as yellow.

    For the purposes of pure logic it is clearer to argue with silly examples
    than with sensible ones: because silly examples are simple. But I could
    give many grave and concrete cases of the kind of thing to which I refer.
    In the later part of the Boer War both parties perpetually insisted in
    every speech and pamphlet that annexation was inevitable and that it was
    only a question whether Liberals or Tories should do it. It was not
    inevitable in the least; it would have been perfectly easy to make peace
    with the Boers as Christian nations commonly make peace with their
    conquered enemies. Personally I think that it would have been better for
    us in the most selfish sense, better for our pocket and prestige, if we
    had never effected the annexation at all; but that is a matter of opinion.
    What is plain is that it was not inevitable; it was not, as was said,
    the only possible course; there were plenty of other courses; there were
    plenty of other colours in the box. Again, in the discussion about
    Socialism, it is repeatedly rubbed into the public mind that we must
    choose between Socialism and some horrible thing that they call
    Individualism. I don't know what it means, but it seems to mean that
    anybody who happens to pull out a plum is to adopt the moral philosophy of
    the young Horner--and say what a good boy he is for helping himself.

    It is calmly assumed that the only two possible types of society are a
    Collectivist type of society and the present society that exists at this
    moment and is rather like an animated muck-heap. It is quite unnecessary
    to say that I should prefer Socialism to the present state of things. I
    should prefer anarchism to the present state of things. But it is simply
    not the fact that Collectivism is the only other scheme for a more equal
    order. A Collectivist has a perfect right to think it the only sound
    scheme; but it is not the only plausible or possible scheme. We might
    have peasant proprietorship; we might have the compromise of Henry George;
    we might have a number of tiny communes; we might have co-operation; we
    might have Anarchist Communism; we might have a hundred things. I am not
    saying that any of these are right, though I cannot imagine that any of
    them could be worse than the present social madhouse, with its top-heavy
    rich and its tortured poor; but I say that it is an evidence of the stiff
    and narrow alternative offered to the civic mind, that the civic mind is
    not, generally speaking, conscious of these other possibilities. The
    civic mind is not free or alert enough to feel how much it has the world
    before it. There are at least ten solutions of the Education question,
    and no one knows which Englishmen really want. For Englishmen are only
    allowed to vote about the two which are at that moment offered by the
    Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. There are ten solutions of the
    drink question; and no one knows which the democracy wants; for the
    democracy is only allowed to fight about one Licensing Bill at a time.

    So that the situation comes to this: The democracy has a right to answer
    questions, but it has no right to ask them. It is still the political
    aristocracy that asks the questions. And we shall not be unreasonably
    cynical if we suppose that the political aristocracy will always be rather
    careful what questions it asks. And if the dangerous comfort and
    self-flattery of modern England continues much longer there will be less
    democratic value in an English election than in a Roman saturnalia of
    slaves. For the powerful class will choose two courses of action, both of
    them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of
    taking one course or the other. The lord will take two things so much
    alike that he would not mind choosing from them blindfold--and then for a
    great jest he will allow the slaves to choose.
    If you're writing a The Voter and the Two Voices essay and need some advice, post your Gilbert Keith Chesterton essay question on our Facebook page where fellow bookworms are always glad to help!

    Top 5 Authors

    Top 5 Books

    Book Status
    Want to read

    Are you sure you want to leave this group?