254
GEORGE LlCHTHEIM
Imperialist ideology which was so unlike the German variety. The
latter never acquired a universalist character, but remained primitive,
racist, and tied to its
volkisch
origins, hence repellent to other people
(with the exception of the Japanese, who were even more committed
to pre-modern myths). It is this which enables contemporary writen
to treat imperialism as an essentially retrograde phenomenon, which
it was not. Of course there were Liberals who resisted the pull, just
as there were sections of the business class-notably among the financial
community-who could see no sense in imperialism and clung to the
hope that peace might be preserved. But they were conducting a rear–
guard action, and for this it is not enough to blame the Germans. The
pure logic of
laissez-faire
pointed towards pacifism and free trade, but
laissez-faire
made a diminishing appeal even in its British homeland.
In 1919 Mackinder-by now famous as the author of the strategic
"Heartland" doctrine, which both the Germans and the Russians later
tried to put into practice-published a volume entitled
D emocratic
Ideals and Reality
in which he summed up the quarrel between pro–
tectionists and free traders, pronounced it unimportant, and went on
to stress that the imperialists of both schools had been essentially "or–
ganizers" and patriots, whereas their opponents, the Cobdenite Liberals,
were "idealists" and "internationalists," "in futile revolt against
all
organization." The doctrine of the "organizer" views men as "existing
for the State," while the democrat is "thinking of the rights of
man."
This does not mean, though, that "the organizer" (a generation later
James Burnham rediscovered him and called him "the manager")
neglects the welfare of men. "On the contrary, he regards . . . society
as so much man-power to be maintained in efficient condition." The
rule of "the organizer" is "the Nemesis of democratic idealism," for
democracy and efficiency are incompatible. This was the doctrine
Mackinder had been taught by the Webbs, and which years later they
were pleased to find embodied in Stalin's Russia. Mackinder also
be–
lieved that democracy was incompatible with imperialism, though "even
democracies are compelled to annex empires."
(Britain and the British
Seas,
p. 342.) Were the British then doomed to lose their freedom? In
1902, while teaching geography at Oxford, he had suggested that
British democracy and imperialism could coexist because of "the inter–
vening ocean." In 1924 he still thought that "the separation of the
tropical Empire from the European island" had the advantage that
"imperial rule in the dependencies has not corrupted freedom at home,"
while on the other hand "those who exercise that rule, go out ...
with the spirit of justice and trusteeship ever renewed from their free
