General public opinion has less scope than is commonly imagined.It is true that with the new communication， the whole people， if they are enough interested， may form public judgments even upon transient questions.
But it is not possible， nor indeed desirable， that they should be enough interested in many questions to form such judgments.A likeness of spirit and principle is essential to moral unity， but as regards details differentiation is and should be the rule.The work of the world is mostly of a special character， and it is quite as important that a man should mind his own business梩hat is， his own particular kind of general service梐s that he should have public spirit.Perhaps we may say that the main thing is to mind his private business in a public spirit梐lways remembering that men who are in a position to do so should make it their private business to attend to public affairs.It is not indolence and routine， altogether， but also an inevitable conflict of claims， that makes men slow to exert their minds upon general questions， and underlies the political maxim that you cannot arouse public opinion upon more than one matter at a time.It is better that the public， like the general-in-chief of an army， should be relieved of details and free to concentrate its thought on essential choices.
I have only a limited belief in the efficacy of the referendum and similar devices for increased participation of the people at large in the details of legislation.In so far as these facilitate the formation and expression of public will upon matters to which the public is prepared to give earnest and continuous attention， they are serviceable； but if many questions are submitted， or those of a technical character， the people become confused or indifferent， and the real power falls into the hands of the few who manage the machinery.
The questions which can profitably be decided by this direct and general judgment of the public are chiefly those of organic change or readjustment， such， for instance， as the contemporary question of what part the government is to take in relation to the consolidation of industries.These the people must decide， since no lesser power will be submitted to， but routine activities， in society as in individuals， are carried on without arousing a general consciousness.The people are also， as I shall shortly point out， peculiarly fit to make choice among conspicuous personalities.
Specialists of all sorts梞asons， soldiers， chemists， lawyers， bankers， even statesmen and public officials梐re ruled for the most part by the opinion of their special group， and have little immediate dependence upon the general public， which will not concern itself with them so long as their work is not palpably inefficient or in some way distasteful.
Yet special phases of thought are not really independent， but are to be looked upon as the work of the public mind acting with a less general consciousness梡artly automatic like the action of the legs in walking.
They are still responsible to the general state of opinion； and it is usually a general need of the special product， as shoes， banks， education， medical aid and so on， that gives the special group its pecuniary support and social standing.Moreover， the general interest in a particular group is likely to become awakened and critical when the function is disturbed， as with the building trades or the coal-mine operators in case of a strike； or when it becomes peculiarly important， as with the army in time of war.
Then is the day of reckoning when the specialist has to render an account of the talents entrusted to him.
The separateness of the special group is also limited by personality， by the fact that the men who perform the specialty do not in other matters think apart from the rest of the society， but， in so far as it is a moral whole， share its general spirit and are the same men who， all taken together， are the seat of public opinion.How far the different departments of a man's mind， corresponding to general and special opinion， may be ruled by different principles， is a matter of interest from the fact that every one of us is the theatre of a conflict of moral standards arising in this way.It is evident by general observation and confession that we usually accept without much criticism the principles we become accustomed to in each sphere of activity， whether consistent with one another or not.Yet this is not rational， and there is and must ever be a striving of conscience to redress such conflicts， which are really divisions in society itself， and tend toward anarchy.It is all easy but weak defence of low principles of conduct， in business， in politics， in war， in paying taxes， to say that a special standard prevails in this sphere， and that our behavior is justified by custom.We cannot wholly escape from the customary， but conscience should require of ourselves and others an honest effort to raise its standard， even at much sacrifice of lower aims.Such efforts are the only source of betterment， and without them society must deteriorate.
