Hearst and His “Journal”
Not quite four weeks ago, it would
have been a mild dream that the day was at hand when Wm. R. Hearst
and his “Journal” would be sufficiently ready for the dissecting
table of Political Science, so as to serve the only good purpose
that their joint career could be put to, to wit, a warning to the
fools. But that mild dream is a reality to-day. Pluckd [sic] by
its fellow capitalist concerns since McKinley’s assassination, the
combibnation [sic] looks to-day like a hen “dressed” for the poultry
market, and is left without comfort from the imbecile, morbid, gaping
admirers whose applause it received and mistook for success. The
pitiable plight of Hearst and his sheet, is the wages of flippancy
and cynicism in the domain of the Social Question.
It is not capitalism alone, all previous
social systems grounded on class-rule, suffer a certain leakage
among the class that rules. The degenerate, the recklesss [sic]
libertine who rather injures than helps his class, makes his appearance
in all. With the capitalist system, however, the leakage is largest,
and the varietes [sic] in the leakage are most numerous. Among these
varieties is the CYNIC. Bred on the lap of luxury; his mind idle
and unfurnished with solid information, “a figure” merely through
his possession of that which, without efforts on his part enables
him to ride on the backs of his workers; raised in the atmosphere
of adulation; brought in contact with and attracting the easily
purchased of mankind; cloyed with dissipation at an early age, the
capitalist cynic makes his appearnce [sic]. To him nothing is earnest,
nothing sacred; “money buys all things” is his motto; he toys with
women, he toys with politics, he toys with art. In the instance
of Wm. R. Hearst, he thinks th [sic] Social Question also is there
to be toyed with, and he approaches it with the same reckless flippancy
that he has approached every other serious thing. These libertines
not infrequently get run through or their brains blown out for their
swagger towards women; in the instance of Hearst and his “Journal”
that is relatively just what has happened to them for their swagger
and cynicism towards the Social Question.
The very etymology of the word radicalism
implies deep-lying premises. Radical conclusions, accordingly, are
well-knit[.] The Hearst radicalism, the radicalism of the cynic,
and rattle brained, is conspicious [sic] for it [sic] flightiness.
It has no substance as it has no roots. It raises only bubbles.
And, eventually, if not sooner, the bubbles explode to the utter
discomfiture of the “radical.”
This has happened to Hearst. Other
editors have before him been assailed; some even physically, and
their plants wrecked. This happened notably to Abolition papers.
But their physical ruin never dragged their moral ruin after it.
Naturally so. The Abolitionists were the well grounded radicals
of that time. The fury of copperhead mobs could smash men and presses
but never could touch their honor, because it could not touch their
Cause. To-day, tho’ physically untouched and his “Journal” plant
intact, Hearst the capitalist cynic, is caught in the meshes of
his [own?] flippancy. With both his feet in his own mouth, he and
his paper stand branded as blatherskites, a lump of ignominy.