Woodrow Wilson and the World War | Page 3

and when the party convention met at Baltimore in June,
excitement was more than ordinarily intense. The conservative
elements in the party were divided. The radicals looked to Bryan for
leadership, although his nomination seemed out of the question. Wilson
had stamped himself as an anti-machine progressive, and if the machine
conservatives threatened he might hope for support from the Nebraskan
orator. From the first the real contest appeared to be between Wilson
and Champ Clark, who although hardly a conservative, was backed for
the moment by the machine leaders. The deciding power was in Bryan's
hand, and as the strife between conservatives and radicals waxed hot,
he turned to the support of Wilson. On the forty-sixth ballot Wilson
was nominated. With division in the Republican ranks, with his record
in New Jersey for legislative accomplishment, and winning many
independent votes through a succession of effective campaign speeches,
Wilson more than fulfilled the highest of Democratic hopes. He
received on election day only a minority of all the votes cast, but his
majority in the electoral college was overwhelming.
* * * * *
The personality of an American President has seldom undergone so
much analysis with such unsatisfactory results; almost every discussion
of Wilson's characteristics leads to the generation of heat rather than
light. Indeed the historian of the future may ask whether it is as
important, in this age of democracy, to know exactly what sort of man
he was as to know what the people thought he was. And yet in the case
of a statesman who was to play a rôle of supreme importance in the
affairs of the country and the world, it is perhaps more than a matter of
merely personal interest to underline his salient traits. Let it be
premised that a logical and satisfactory analysis is well-nigh impossible,
for his nature is self-contradictory, subject to gusts of temperament, and
he himself has pictured the struggle that has gone on between the
impulsive Irish and the cautious Scotch elements in him. Thus it is that
he has handled similar problems in different ways at different times,
and has produced upon different persons diametrically opposed

impressions.
As an executive, perhaps his most notable characteristic is the will to
dominate. This does not mean that he is the egocentric autocrat pictured
by his opponents, for in conference he is apt to be tolerant of the
opinions of others, by no means dictatorial in manner, and apparently
anxious to obtain facts on both sides of the argument. An unfriendly
critic, Mr. E. J. Dillon, has said of him at Paris that "he was a very good
listener, an intelligent questioner, and amenable to argument whenever
he felt free to give practical effect to his conclusions." Similar evidence
has been offered by members of his Cabinet. But unquestionably, in
reaching a conclusion he resents pressure and he permits no one to
make up his mind for him; he is, said the German Ambassador, "a
recluse and lonely worker." One of his enthusiastic admirers has
written: "Once in possession of every fact in the case, the President
withdraws, commences the business of consideration, comparison, and
assessment, and then emerges with a decision." From such a decision it
is difficult to shake him and continued opposition serves merely to
stiffen his resolution. Wherever the responsibility is his, he insists upon
the finality of his judgment. Those who have worked with him have
remarked upon his eagerness, once he has decided a course of action, to
carry it into practical effect. The President of the Czecho-Slovak
Republic, Thomas G. Masaryk, said that of all the men he had met,
"your visionary, idealistic President is by far and away the most
intensely practical." One of the Big Four at Paris remarked: "Wilson
works. The rest of us play, comparatively speaking. We Europeans
can't keep up with a man who travels a straight path with such a swift
stride, never looking to right or left." But with all his eagerness for
practical effect he is notably less efficient in the execution than in the
formation of policies.
Wilson lacks, furthermore, the power of quick decision which is apt to
characterize the masterful executive. He is slow to make up his mind, a
trait that results partly, perhaps, from his Scotch blood and partly from
his academic training. Except for his steadfast adherence to what he
regards as basic principles, he might rightly be termed an opportunist.
For he is prone to temporize, anxious to prevent an issue from

approaching a crisis, evidently in the hope that something may "turn
up" to improve the situation and obviate the necessity of conflict.
"Watchful waiting" in the Mexican crises and his attitude towards the
belligerents during the first two years of the European war are cases in