The Dominion. MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1911. OPTIMISTS AND PESSIMISTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1163, 26 June 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1911. OPTIMISTS AND PESSIMISTS.

It is tho habit of the Prime Minister and his friends to speak of their critics as "pessimists," and of themselves as "optimists." Their aim is, of course, to persuade the public to identify them with courage, hope, and sunniness, and their critics with timidity, despair, and dankness. It is not a bad idea from tho Government's point of view. They are quite right in their estimate of tho public's general preferences amongst these qualities, but they arc wrong in supposing that the bulk.of the public are so simple as to believe that "optimism" is the correct name for the Government's policy. This device of the .Ministerialist is, of course, almost as old as politics, and we take this occasion to discuss it merely in order to introduce an excellent analysis of the "optimists" in politics by the Nov,' York Evening Post, a ■ newspaper which many people regard as the finest newspaper extant, and which has for generations been a pattern of honour, courage, and genius to tho press of two worlds. The text of the Post's article was a reference to itself in Current Literature as being "rarely_ optimistic." "AVhile," it said, "it is of no consequence whether the frequent charges of pessimism directed against this newspaper show a high or low percentage of successful hits, it is decidedly of consequence that people be made to realise the true meaning of two such eminently important words as optimism and pessimism," and it does this duty by; marshalling a number of illustrations, contrasting tho fads that tho two labels generally cover in American political and newspaper controversy. For easier handling it uses'thc popular equivalents of "boost" and "knock." Without fui'ther reference to thcia'dts in the Post's articles, we shall adapt its method and its phrasing as closely as possible to the position in this country, calling the co-called "optimists" the "boosters" and the socalled "pessimists" the "croakers."The fact that the "Liberals" who came into office sworn to economy, self-reliance, and a diminution of borrowing have at last piled up the debt beyond the eighty-million mark comes to the front of public discussion, and the newspapers at once take sides. The newspapers that boost declare that our destiny and development demand heavy borrowing; that whoever utters a word against extravagant loans or publicly mentions the size of the debt or recalls the original pledges of the Liberals is a traitor and an enemy of his country. From all this the newspaper that "croaks" dissents. On the question of public service control the newspapers that'boost declare that Ministcr-i must have a free haud; the newspapers that "croak" insist that Ministers have abundantly proved that they cannot be trusted. The pessimists, that is to say, insist that promotion and appointment shall be made dependent upon merit, that Gladstone's policy of keeping down the number of "Government billets" is still the sound one, that discharged policemen should not bo appointed tn minor judicial offices, that political candidates rejected at the Dolls should not be given Ministerial office, that a clerical official's friendship to the Ministry is an insufficient qualification for the dictatorship of a Pacific province. And in regard'to heavy borrowing the pessimist believes that the country should, as it grows, learn to pay its way, that it is not necessary for the country to plunge deeper and deeper into debt for the things that it could pay for if it insisted.on a spell of honesty and economy; whereas tho optimist insists that if heavy borrowing ceases the country will crumple up and the population will flee from the ruins.

The lino of separation shows itself in nearly every public question. The newspapers that "croak' feel that the judiciary should not bo dependent upon anybody, and that a judge should not receive large extra fees from the Executive; the newspapers that boost are convinced that the best way to inspire the public with confidence in tho judiciary is to select one of tho judges for special favours at the Executive'; hands. To boost is to assert that Mr. Symss, cx-M.P., and Mr. Kaihau, M.P., are inevitable; to "croak" is to believe that it is possible as well as desirable to have a Parliament free from members who use their position as members for special personal gain. To boost is to assume, like Mr. IjAup.exson, M.P., that it is despicable to expose a political ulcer; to "croak" is i" insist that only by discovering and removing ulcers can cleanliness and health be achieved. To boost is to regard the nation's Public Y\ T orks Fund as the party's war-chest; to "croak"' is to believe that the public's' money should bo spent in accordance only with the public interest. To "croak" is to hold that it is the duty of a Government to have a land policy, and that it is an untrustworthy Government that is

ready to change its policy to order; to boost is to assume that Ihe duty of a Government is, not to carry cut a policy, but to stay in office. To boost is to believe that national greatness consists in increasing the cost o£ government; to "croak" its to

balievc tint economy is a useful thing. To boost is to assert that the country cannot exist except "on tick"; to "croak" is to assume that patriotism consists in believing one's' country can in time stand on its own bottom. To boost is to accept reckless borrowing, waste, oppressive taxation, Tammany melhofis, scandals, and the exploitation oi local greed as essential elements ;f democracy; to "croak" is (o cry out against ail these abominations. To boost is to assert that the exposure of fraud, scandals, lies, and misgovernment is dirty work; to "croak" is to assert that health demands that this work be dr-nc. There arc people who believe that for the nation to get along wo mutt resign ourselves to enormous borrowing, to dummy legislators, to wastefulness in government, to an Executive, barren of principles, to increasing taxation, to jobbery in the public Departments. These men are optimists. And there are others who believe that the country is capable of becoming sound and happy by small borrowing and by the practice of prudence and self-reliance; that the country can subsist without continuing as the private farm of a comparatively small clique endowed with almost unlimited powers; that Parliament can be restored to anIhor'ty without any disaster to any good interest; that, in short, prudence and honesty may once more be made our public, and political standards. These latter are the pessimists in the eyes of Ministers and their friends.