PERSPECTIVErnth AmrnThern”I told yrning allrn;ss but forrn;panrn1 polrn1 apprecLrn:ir re<:umrn3Ugh hfl’tirn: Genocirn’liked brn^ of stayirrni pay ou i^r^S^X>-C»=f5«’« J.-.-‘^iljr^X’Vf^SrnK s t irnPK.-incrnhr soldrn|(U;e.rnK’-‘ e arrn11″; 0 b(rnliltingrni ve hrn[i: ntern1 C” iiestrn[lime, 1rnp ‘ve crn£!id tornA Philanthropic JournaHstrnby Thomas FlemingrnIf representative government requires a free press, as thernfounders of this Republic believed, then it is small wonderrnthat the citizens of the United States no longer enjoy the benefitrnof free elections. For elections to be free, there must be arnchoice from among well-defined positions and characters: JohnrnQuincy Adams or Andrew Jackson, Lincoln or Douglas (orrnBreckinridge, for that matter). The degree of choice dependsrnupon the degree of polarity, the sharpness of definition in thernpositions taken, the clarity of debate. In a small community,rngossip and personal experience may be sufficient to inform thernpeople on the respective characters of Cimon and Pericles, althoughrnin that case the available information did not preventrnthe Athenians from making the wrong choice. But in a largerrncountry, governed according to the representative principle,rnthese purposes can only be served by something like a press,rnand for such a press to do its job, it must consist of antagonists,rnnot impartial observers, because it is only in the crude dialecticrnof the adversarial press that the sides of a debate or an electionrncan be defined.rnNo journal or journalist is unprejudiced, but when newspapersrnused to declare, even advertise their party affiliation, readersrnwere able to discount their partisanship. Today, the problemrnwith America is not that the leftist press is biased—ofrncourse it is biased, more so, perhaps, than at any time in our historyrn—but that there is only one set of biases that is represented,rnand when leftist journalists protest that there is no liberalrnbias in the media, they may even be halfway sincere, since theyrnha’e never in their life been exposed to a conservative opinion.rnThe Anglo-American system has generally been a conflictrnbetween two parties which, although they have gone by veryrnmany names, have been summed up by Clyde Wilson as thernCourt Party and the Country Party. The Court Party, since itrnrepresents the magnates and those who control the nation’srntreasury, has never had any trouble in buying itself a pressrncorps of poets laureate and journalists looking for State Departmentrnsinecures. The gentlemen of the Country Party, onrnthe other hand, have had to dig into their own pockets tornfund journals of opposition and patronize the writers who likernnothing better than to stick their fingers into the eves of arrogantrnCabinet ministers, archbishops comfortable in their heterodoxy,rnand foundation heads grown presumptuous fromrnhanding out other people’s money.rnIn different ages the opponents of the Court Party mightrnhave stood in the ranks of the gentlemen who opposed the tyrannyrnof Elizabeth I and her more moderate successors, or withrnSamuel Johnson and the defenders of King and Church againstrnthe Whig magnates. More typically, they may find themselvesrnat different times in both camps, like Halifax the Trimmer, whornalways moved into opposition as soon as his own faction camernto power. It was Halifax who said that “the best party is a kindrnof conspiracy against the nation” and compared the party spiritrnto faith without works: “They take it for a dispensation fromrnall other duties.” William Cobbett began life as a peasant radicalrnand turned Tory without compromising his principles,rnand there is no more exemplary model for the modern reactionaryrnradical than “Peter Porcupine,” a true populist who,rnwhen like so many down-at-heels English journalists he camernto America, stood up to the Jacobin press of Benjamin Franklinrn12/CHRONICLESrnrnrn