Wealth and power are worthy goals for which to strive.  One of the first duties of a political party is to capture the offices, for without them in its power it cannot carry out the principles for which it stands.  The possession of wealth represents vast possibilities for service.  Thousands of tragic experiments have demonstrated, however, the fallacy of the seductive doctrine that the end justifies the means.  The tragedy that overshadows many of the seemingly most successful men of to-day is the memory of the iniquitous methods whereby they have acquired wealth or mounted to power.  Lavish philanthropy and the beneficent use of power can never wholly blot out from the public mind or from the mind of the successful man the memory of certain questionable acts that at the time seemed essential to the realization of a great policy.

A keen, well-informed student of modern economic conditions has asserted that no man can succeed in business life today and remain true to the teachings of Jesus.  Is this true?  Is it true in professional life?  Is it true in politics?  One of our most prominent statesmen has said that he would have found it impossible to succeed and maintain his independence if he had been compelled to earn his living.  He would have been compelled either to yield to the boss or quit politics.  Who are some of the men in public life who are gaining success and yet maintaining Christian principles?  If the ultimate ideal of real success is service, is there any other way in which men may obtain success?  Is this true of every department of human effort?  Does this principle make it possible for every man, however limited his ability and opportunities, to attain real success?

Questions for Further Consideration.

How would you define genius?  Edison called it 2% of inspiration and 98% of perspiration. (But see James, Talks to Teachers.)

Is the chief difference between the successful and the unsuccessful man the ability to recognize and seize opportunities?

Would Joseph’s policy in dealing with Pharaoh’s subjects meet with public approval to-day?

Could Joseph have succeeded as well in a republic?

Does Joseph’s land policy justify the single tax?  Or serfdom such as Joseph countenanced?

What place does loyalty to humble friends and kinsmen take in the making of great and noble characters?

Would you say that the ultimate standard of all real success is service?

Would it be wise for the state to enforce service for the public good by a heavy, progressive inheritance tax?

What justification is there for such a modification of Joseph’s land policy, as the single tax? (See George, Progress and Poverty; Seligman, Essays on Taxation, 64-94.)

Do you think that a man earning his own living can expect to-day to succeed in politics and maintain his self-respect as an independent thinker?