Of course Theodore Roosevelt is Hamiltonian with a difference.  Hamilton’s fatal error consisted in his attempt to make the Federal organization not merely the effective engine of the national interest, but also a bulwark against the rising tide of democracy.  The new Federalism or rather new Nationalism is not in any way inimical to democracy.  On the contrary, not only does Mr. Roosevelt believe himself to be an unimpeachable democrat in theory, but he has given his fellow-countrymen a useful example of the way in which a college-bred and a well-to-do man can become by somewhat forcible means a good practical democrat.  The whole tendency of his programme is to give a democratic meaning and purpose to the Hamiltonian tradition and method.  He proposes to use the power and the resources of the Federal government for the purpose of making his countrymen a more complete democracy in organization and practice; but he does not make these proposals, as Mr. Bryan does, gingerly and with a bad conscience.  He makes them with a frank and full confidence in an efficient national organization as the necessary agent of the national interest and purpose.  He has completely abandoned that part of the traditional democratic creed which tends to regard the assumption by the government of responsibility, and its endowment with power adequate to the responsibility as inherently dangerous and undemocratic.  He realizes that any efficiency of organization and delegation of power which is necessary to the promotion of the American national interest must be helpful to democracy.  More than any other American political leader, except Lincoln, his devotion both to the national and to the democratic ideas is thorough-going and absolute.

As the founder of a new national democracy, then, his influence and his work have tended to emancipate American democracy from its Jeffersonian bondage.  They have tended to give a new meaning to popular government by endowing it with larger powers, more positive responsibilities, and a better faith in human excellence.  Jefferson believed theoretically in human goodness, but in actual practice his faith in human nature was exceedingly restricted.  Just as the older aristocratic theory had been to justify hereditary political leadership by considering the ordinary man as necessarily irresponsible and incapable, so the early French democrats, and Jefferson after them, made faith in the people equivalent to a profound suspicion of responsible official leadership.  Exceptional power merely offered exceptional opportunities for abuse.  He refused, as far as he could, to endow special men, even when chosen by the people, with any opportunity to promote the public welfare proportionate to their abilities.  So far as his influence has prevailed the government of the country was organized on the basis of a cordial distrust of the man of exceptional competence, training, or independence as a public official.  To the present day this