The suggestion that America should take any such lead is resisted first on the ground that it is a violation of her traditional policy, and secondly that “economic and social forces” are bound to be ineffective unless backed by military, so that the plea would involve her in a militarist policy.  With reference to these two points, I pointed out in the preceding article that America’s isolation from a movement for world agreement would infallibly land her in a very pronounced militarist policy, the increase of her armaments, the militarization of her civilization and all that that implies.

There are open to America at this present moment two courses:  one which will lead her to militarism and the indefinite increase of armaments—­that is the course of isolation from the world’s life, from the new efforts that will be made toward world organization; the other to anticipate events and take the initiative in the leadership of world organization, which would have the effect of rendering western civilization, including herself, less military, less dependent upon arms, and put the development of that civilization on a civilist rather than a militarist basis.

I believe that it is the failure to realize that this intervention can be non-military in character which explains the reluctance of very many Americans to depart from their traditional policy of non-intervention.  With reference to that point it is surely germane to remember that the America of 1914 is not the America of 1776; circumstances which made Washington’s advice sound and statesmanlike have been transformed.  The situation today is not that of a tiny power not yet solidified, remote from the main currents of the world’s life, out-matched in resources by any one of the greater powers of Europe.  America is no longer so remote as to have little practical concern with Europe.  Its contacts with Europe are instantaneous, daily, intimate, innumerable—­so much so indeed that our own civilization will be intimately affected and modified by certain changes which threaten in the older world.

I will put the case thus:  Suppose that there are certain developments in Europe which would profoundly threaten our own civilization and our own security, and suppose further that we could without great cost to ourselves so guide or direct those changes and developments as to render them no longer a menace to this country.  If such a case could be established, would not adherence to a formula established under eighteenth century conditions have the same relation to sound politics that the incantations and taboos of superstitious barbarians have to sound religion?  And I think such a case can be established.