During the United States’ campaign to fight for democracy during the Great War, Americans failed to understand the implications between civil liberties and their idealistic aim for the war. While going through the pamphlet box, I was intrigued by how a pamphlet repurposed Wilson’s phrase of “making the world safe for democracy” for the argument of protecting civil liberties.
English economist John A. Hobson saw basic freedoms under threat from the growing power of the state in his pamphlet “The World Safe for Democracy.” To Hobson, “reactionary forces” during the war took over the state for the purpose of a mobilized public. A mobilized public meant a unified public opinion. However, the trade-off for a unified public opinion was the degradation of basic freedoms, violating the foundations of democracy. These “reactionary forces” were dangerous to democracy. If public opinion was being influenced by a powerful state, England was no longer in line with the belief of democracy versus despotism. The people were no longer in charge.
Hobson originally published his beliefs in his book Democracy After the War in 1917. In order to combat low morale, European powers attempted to control public opinion in favor of the war. With the advent of the US coming into the war, the war was rebranded. Hobson saw inconsistencies between the justification of the war and the controlling of public opinion through centralization of power in the state.
Hobson referred to the issues of England in his pamphlet. However, the American Civil Liberties Bureau reproduced Hobson’s sentiments for the American public. The Bureau applied the democratic and idealistic purpose of the war to the need to protect civil liberties. If civil liberties were being violated at home, then democracy cannot be adequately fought for abroad. These “reactionary forces” were dangerous to democracy.
While the National Security League was promoting the war effort through its ‘Patriotism through Education’ pamphlet series, the American Civil Liberties Bureau was also advocating for protection of basic freedoms during the war. By reprinting Hobson’s thoughts, the Bureau illustrated the universality of the struggle between maintaining the war effort and while holding the foundation of democracy and civil liberties constant amongst the Allied powers. In addition, and more pertinent, the Bureau connected having free public expression with being American. The Espionage and Sedition Acts gave more direct power to the government to control public discourse. Under this assumption, being American was dictated by supporting the war effort. However, by supporting civil liberties, Americans also demonstrated their Americanness as the war was about fighting for democracy according to the Bureau.
The violations during the war were not just an issue of exhibiting the benefits of democracy, but those violations present a danger in the future after the war was over. According to Hobson, the “reactionary forces” would “win possession of their national government.” With these “reactionary forces” in charge at the end of the war, the war could not live up to its aims of democracy, hurting democracy and moving towards despotism.
Your note that Hobson’s sense of the relationship between the war’s justification and the controlling of public opinion evolved over the war — particularly with U.S. entry under Wilson’s banner is very interesting. It’s also fascinating to consider how Hobson’s economic classical liberalism (open borders, free market, etc…) was repurposed here for freedom of thought. How much was Hobson motivated by his economic theory and how much by appreciation for free speech? Did the NCLU make a distinction? And your pairing of this pamphlet with the National Security League’s campaign is right — for all of the 100% Americanism in the air, there was still much debate and contention!
Economic theory does seem like it could be a powerful motive in what he was writing. Hobson was writing however during a time of war, hinting at a possible patriotic/ nationalist thought. However, I do not think the NCLU made a distinction because it served their purpose and the Hobson’s thoughts no matter the motive aided the broader movement for protection of civil liberties. To that extent, there was another pamphlet by the NCLU that was simply quotes supporting free speech from a variety of different thinkers ranging from John Adams to John Stuart Mill. Considering that, using sentiments in their respective context of fighting for democracy at home through the preservation of free speech would be incredible powerful regardless the original context. The NCLU re-purposed writings and thoughts that they felt was relevant to their cause.