There are some of us who have come to believe that in the dead earnest, daily, almost desperate struggle of modern life, the real solid idealist will have to care enough about his ideals to arrange to have two complete sets, one set which he calls his personal ideals, which are of such a nature that he can carry them out alone and rigidly and quite by himself, and another which he calls his bending or cooeperative ideals, geared a little lower and adjusted to more gradual usage, which he uses when he asks other men to act with him.

It may take a very single-hearted and strong man to keep before his own mind and before other people’s his two sets of ideals, his “I” faiths, and his you-and-I faiths, keeping each in strict proportion, but it would certainly be a great human adventure to do it.  Saying “God and I,” and saying “God and you and I” are two different arts.  And it is clear-headedness and not inconsistency in a man that keeps him so.

This is not a mere defence of Mr. Cadbury; it is a defence of a type of man, of a temperament in our modern life, of men like Edward A. Filene, of Boston, of a man like Hugh Mac Rae, one of the institutions of North Carolina, of Tom L. Johnson of Cleveland, of nine men out of ten of the bigger and more creative sort who are helping cities to get their way and nations to express themselves.  I have believed that the principle at stake, the great principle for real life in England and in America, of letting a man be inconsistent if he knows how—­must have a stand made for it.

There is no one thing, whether in history, or literature, or science, or politics that can be more crucial in the fate of a nation to-day than the correct, just, and constructive judgment of Contemporary Inconsistent People.

=VII=

If I could have managed it, I would have had this book printed and written—­every page of it—­in three parallel columns.

The first column would be for the reader who believes it, who keeps writing a book more or less like it as he goes along.  I would put in one sentence at the top for him and then let him have the rest of the space to write in himself.  In other words I would say 2 plus 2 equals 4 and drop it.

The second column would be for the reader who would like to believe it if he could, and I would branch out a little more—­about half a column.

    2 + 2 = 4

    20 + 20 = 40

The third column would be for the reader who is not going to believe it if it can be helped.  It would be in fine type, bitterly detailed and statistical and take nothing for granted.

    2 + 2 = 4

    20 + 20 = 40

    200 + 200 = 400

    2,000 + 2,000 = 4,000

    20,000 + 20,000 = 40,000

    etc.

This arrangement would make the book what might be called a Moving Sidewalk of Truth.  First sidewalk rather quick (six miles an hour).  Second, four miles an hour.  Third, two miles an hour.  People could move over from one sidewalk to the other in the middle of an idea any time, and go faster or slower as they liked to, needed to.