based on good common-sense and able to be translated into efficient performance, then the better the oratory the greater the damage to the public it deceives.  Indeed, it is a sign of marked political weakness in any commonwealth if the people tend to be carried away by mere oratory, if they tend to value words in and for themselves, as divorced from the deeds for which they are supposed to stand.  The phrase-maker, the phrase-monger, the ready talker, however great his power, whose speech does not make for courage, sobriety, and right understanding, is simply a noxious element in the body politic, and it speaks ill for the public if he has influence over them.  To admire the gift of oratory without regard to the moral quality behind the gift is to do wrong to the republic.

Of course all that I say of the orator applies with even greater force to the orator’s latter-day and more influential brother, the journalist.  The power of the journalist is great, but he is entitled neither to respect nor admiration because of that power unless it is used aright.  He can do, and he often does, great good.  He can do, and he often does, infinite mischief.  All journalists, all writers, for the very reason that they appreciate the vast possibilities of their profession, should bear testimony against those who deeply discredit it.  Offenses against taste and morals, which are bad enough in a private citizen, are infinitely worse if made into instruments for debauching the community through a newspaper.  Mendacity, slander, sensationalism, inanity, vapid triviality, all are potent factors for the debauchery of the public mind and conscience.  The excuse advanced for vicious writing, that the public demands it and that the demand must be supplied, can no more be admitted than if it were advanced by the purveyors of food who sell poisonous adulterations.

In short, the good citizen in a republic must realize that he ought to possess two sets of qualities, and that neither avails without the other.  He must have those qualities which make for efficiency; and he must also have those qualities which direct the efficiency into channels for the public good.  He is useless if he is inefficient.  There is nothing to be done with that type of citizen of whom all that can be said is that he is harmless.  Virtue which is dependent upon a sluggish circulation is not impressive.  There is little place in active life for the timid good man.  The man who is saved by weakness from robust wickedness is likewise rendered immune from the robuster virtues.  The good citizen in a republic must first of all be able to hold his own.  He is no good citizen unless he has the ability which will make him work hard and which at need will make him fight hard.  The good citizen is not a good citizen unless he is an efficient citizen.