Initially published anonymously in 1912, a crucial point in numerous American political respects, Edward Mandell House’s fictional novel Philip Dru: Administrator was set in a future America. House later became a chief presidential advisor during the Wilson administration and is believed to have influenced his policies leading up to and through the first World War. According to Woodrow Wilson’s biographer, the president received his own copy of the book from House, which he is believed to have subsequently read while on vacation in Bermuda.

Given House’s influence as a promoter of progressive reform in the realms of social and economic thought, it is worth considering the potential impact of the arguments found within the book strongly urging readers to favor redistribution of wealth to benefit the poor as it relates to the 16th Amendment, which went into effect in 1913 and established a federal income tax.

At the beginning of the book, we are introduced to the titular character, a recent graduate of West Point in his early twenties. We quickly determine that in spite of his young age, background, and education, this individual is philosophically gifted beyond his years–at least in the sense that he experiences no difficulty in presenting long soliloquies on his social theories off the top of his head as he did on the day of his graduation, to a certain Gloria Strawn whom he had just been introduced to, the sister of one of Dru’s peers.

Dru is a quiet though well-spoken man whom, we are told, has had minimal interaction with women of his age; this, however, did not seem to inhibit his ongoing friendship with Gloria beginning on that graduation day; a friendship consisting of many hours of philosophical discussions–often with Dru speaking considerably more while Gloria listened intently–as well as some long adventures into nature.

It was on one such of these occasions, on a particularly hot day with the sun beating down on them, that the duo became lost for an extended period of time, ultimately resulting in extreme damage to Dru’s eyes. Consequently, he resigned his position in the U.S. Army and, alongside Gloria, began dedicating himself to his progressive endeavors to promote equality–of course, by means of taking wealth from the rich forcibly and redistributing it to those whom the government deems to be more in need of it than its rightful owners.

In Chapter 5 of the novel, Dru criticizes society and what he views as its extreme negligence of the less fortunate.

[The selfish] believe that they merit all the blessings of health, distinction and wealth that may come to them, and they condemn their less fortunate brother as one deserving his fate….If the powerful use their strength merely to further their own selfish desires, in what way save in degree do they differ from the lower animals of creation?

House, Philip Dru, p. 19

His proposed solution to this ever-increasing problem? A system in which “the strong will help the weak, the rich will share with the poor, and it will not be called charity, but it will be known as justice.”

In the following chapter, Gloria’s father questioned the merits of such a system, reasonably suggesting that without the material reward, society would lack the motivation to strive beyond “average.” Dru’s response was that he believed a sort of coming ethical reform to be imminent in humanity, and that this would prompt society to operate for the greater good rather than for selfish gain, thus permitting such a system to function.

The fundamental arguments found in this book promoting wealth redistribution by coercion are reliant upon this sort of moral reform that transcends the legal aspects of such a system. Through the Dru character, House indeed acknowledges that a system reliant solely upon civil laws would not produce satisfactory results without the “spiritual leavening.” Though such a system would seemingly alleviate much of the inequality in society, it is just such a desire that ignores mankind’s imperfection and subsequent inequality by nature, which cause a perfect, Utopian society to be simply unachievable.

On what sort of moral grounds must such a reform occur in order that universally, everyone would accept and willingly abide by it, having their rights removed from them in pursuit of the greater good? Every human is unique and imperfect; yet a system of this nature requires universal moral perfection in a sense. With no universal moral compass, a system in which extrinsic motivation of material things is entirely stripped away in favor of a sort of spiritual desire to do good is impossible–and for this reason, I would not have been convinced by Dru’s arguments as a lawmaker in the early 20th century that the 16th Amendment would be a step toward achieving anything beyond legalized plunder.🔹