If it be true that most people judge men rather than ideas， we may say that democratic society is representative not only in politics but in all its thought. Everywhere a few are allowed to think and act for the rest， and the essence of democratic method is not in the direct choice of the people in many matters， but in their retaining a conscious power to change their representatives， or to exercise direct choice， when they wish to do so. All tolerable government is representative， but democracy is voluntarily so， and differs from oligarchy in preserving the definite responsibility of the few to the many. It may even happen， as in England， that a hereditary ruling class retains much of its power by the consent of a democratized electorate， or， as in France， that a conception of the state， generated under absolute monarchy， is cherished under the rule of the people.
As for popular suffrage， it is a crude but practical device for ascertaining the preponderant bent of opinion on a definite issue. It is in a sense superficial， mechanical， almost absurd， when we consider the difference in real significance among the units； but it is simple， educative， and has that palpable sort of justice that allays contention. No doubt spiritual weight is the great thing， but as there is no accepted way to measure this， we count one man one vote， and trust that spiritual differences will be expressed through persuasion.
(147)
There is， then， no essential conflict between democracy and specialization in any sphere. It is true that as the vital unity of a group becomes more conscious each member tends to feel a claim on everything the group does.
Thus the citizen not only wishes the government梠f the village， the state or the nation梩o be an expression of himself； but he wishes the same regarding the schools， manufactures， trade， religion and the advance of knowledge.
He desires all these things to go on in the best way possible， so as to express to the fullest that human nature that is in himself. And as a guaranty of this he demands that they shall be conducted on an open principle， which shall give control of them to the fittest individuals. Hating all privilege not based on function， he desires power to suppress such privilege when it becomes flagrant. And to make everything amenable， directly or indirectly， to popular suffrage， seems to him a practical step In this direction.
Something like this is in the mind of the plain man of our time； but he is quite aware of his incompetence to carry on these varied activities directly， either in government or elsewhere， and common-sense teaches him to seek his end by a shrewd choice of representatives， and by developing a system of open and just competition for all functions. The picture of the democratic citizen as one who thinks he can do anything as well as anybody is， of course， a caricature， and in the United States， at least， there is a great and increasing respect for special capacity， and a tendency to trust it as far as it deserves. If people are sometimes sceptical of the specialist梚n political economy let us say梐nd inclined to prefer their own common-sense， (148) it is perhaps because they have had unfortunate experience with the former. On the whole， our time is one of the " rise of the expert，"when， on account of the rapid elaboration of nearly all activities， there is an ever greater demand for trained capacity. Far from being undemocratic， this is a phase of that effective organization of the public intelligence which real democracy calls for. In short， as already suggested， to be democratic， or even to be ignorant， is not necessarily to be a fool.
So in answer to the question， Just what do the undistinguished masses of the people contribute to the general thought ？ we may say， They contribute sentiment and common-sense， which gives momentum and general direction to progress， and， as regards particulars， finds its way by a shrewd choice of leaders. It is into the obscure and inarticulate sense of the multitude that the man of genius looks in order to find those vital tendencies whose utterance is his originality. As men in business get rich by divining and supplying a potential want， so it is a great part of all leadership to perceive and express what the people have already felt.
Endnotes Some discussion of leadership will be found in Human Nature and the Social Order， chaps. 8 and 9. So Mr. Bryce， The American Commonwealth， chap. 76. Some emphasis should be given to the phrase " pushed on，" as distinguished from "initiated." In the Atlantic Monthly， Oct.， 1905. Who seeks to have private things loses common things. Thomas Kempis， De Imitatione Christi， book iii， chap. 13， sec. 1. In her book， Newer Ideals of Peace. Newer Ideals of Peace， chap. 1. De Imitatione Christi， book ii， chap. l， see. 7. William James， Varieties of Religious Experienee， 319. P. G. Hamerton， Thoughts About Art， 222. Henry D. Lloyd， Man the Social Creator， 101. I mean merely that the law graduates look sophisticated梟ot diahonest.
They have learned to use voice and facial expression aa weapons of controversy. The Spirit of Laws， book xi， chap. 6. From a letter written to an American correspondent in 1857 and printed in the appendix to Trevelyan's Macaulay. Democracy and Liberty， vol. i， chap. 1， page 25 and passim. Some of Lecky's expressions， however， are more favorable to democracy. 第一章CHAPTER XIV
DEMOCRACY AND CROWD EXCITEMENT THE CROWD-THEORY OF MODERN LIFE -- THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CROWDS-- MODERN CONDITIONS FAVOR PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTAGION -- DEMOCRACY A TRAININGIN SELF-CONTROL -- THE CROWD NOT ALWAYS IN THE WRONG -- CONCLUSION； THECASE OF FRANCE.
CERTAIN writers， impressed with the rise of vast democracies within which space is almost eliminated by ease of communication， hold that we are falling under the rule of Crowds， that is to say， of bodies of men subject by their proximity to waves of impulsive sentiment and action， quite like multitudes in physical contiguity.
