HOOVER has done equally well in speaking of prohibition as “noble in purpose.” To the Puritan American, the motive of an act is the measure of its morality; it is a moral act if it has a moral purpose. Prohibition may be as fiendish as you please in its effects, but as long as it is noble in its purpose it appeals to a sanctified emotion that puts all question of its effects out of court. The same emotion swamps all consideration of whether or not the law is enforceable. If it is a moral law, noble in its purpose, the fact that it is not enforceable cannot vitiate it. It still remains a godly aspiration, emotionally uplifting. The arguments for its appeal are necessarily debatable arguments, founded on questions of fact, relying on intelligent consideration for their convincingness. In an election campaign, they have no power against the emotional pull of the moral enthusiasm and noble ardor that can be evoked against them.

It is true that neither of the present candidates will appeal to hate and prejudice, or address himself wholly to the emotions of the voters, or consciously take advantage of the subconscious currents that are running in his favor. That sort of thing is not done by presidential aspirants. It is left to the machine worker, the ward heeler, and the professional agitator. The candidates will use nothing but reasoned arguments, convincing to the understanding, and addressed to the “enlightened self-interest” of the “intelligent electorate.” But unless the doctors have wrongly diagnosed the contemporary American mind, or I have failed to apply the diagnosis correctly to the issues of this campaign, Hoover will be elected on a swell of subconscious emotion that will float him into the White House on a tidal wave.

Source: The Outlook, 17 October 1928