Has a Candidate Any Right to Be Honest and Sincere?
On March 10, TIME printed the following note on its PRESS page:
Frank R. Kent, of the Baltimore Sun, has a habit of writing articles for his paper that would be produced in toto in TIME would space and the copyright law permit.
In November he wrote a series on the Anti-Saloon League and told more secrets about that organization than Marco Polo did about China.
In December he obligingly did the same for the Ku Klux.
Now Mr. Kent expounds daily on "The Great Game of Politics." If this series appears in book form, the volume will gain high mention in at least one review.
Last month Doubleday, Page & Co. produced Mr. Kent's The Great Game of Politics in book form.
Says the author in his preface:
"The purpose of the book is merely to disseminate political information and not to propose panaceas for present-day political evils. . . . All I have tried to do is to tell a plain reporter's story of the political game as I have seen it at close range and in many different parts of the country. . . ."
The book is in two parts: 1) The party machine described—from the precinct executive to the boss; 2) Candidates and their ways.
In the latter section, Mr. Kent announces that he will tell " why even men of the highest type cannot afford to be entirely natural and open while running for office."
This sentence comes as something of a shock to the political neophyte. " Surely there are some honorable men in politics."
But Mr. Kent proves his point beyond question. He heads his chapter HUMBUGGERY IN EVERY CAMPAIGN and proceeds as follows:
"No candidate and no campaign are exactly what they seem. . . .
"Often the candidate is a natural demagogue and faker; often he is at heart an honest and courageous man, but, whatever his type or character, when he goes before the voters he loses frankness and lacks candor."
A downright, outspoken candidate, who honestly, openly and fearlessly expresses exactly what he believes to every group of voters on every issue, declining to dodge or evade, and refusing to appeal to prejudice or cater to class, would be overwhelmingly beaten by the candidate on the other side, who would promptly take advantage of such honesty to gather for himself the large number of voters alienated by the other fellow. . . .
"No man, however genuine, can afford in a fight to give his opponent the tremendous advantage that complete frankness about himself and his views would give. Hence, as a matter of self-preservation, all candidates deceive the voters more or less—some to a large extent and on important issues, others to a small degree and on trivial questions—but they all humbug a little."
The ignorant reader is still skeptical—and a little bit indignant. So Mr. Kent cites a concrete case: