The tragedies of leadership in social reform result in the main from failure to work out a practicable basis of partnership between ideas and sentiments. Men recognize theoretically that ideas always appear swaddled in feelings. But many of us go about the day's business apparently on the assumption that ideas are as clear-cut and unemotional as hammers or rifles. Hence our projects fail to capture men's hearts and imaginations. We have to recognize that after all reason in men is only the very tip of their iceberg of mental life. We live by our sentiments, even by our illusions. They furnish the real motive power which makes things go. They are at the bottom of our choices. And while educated choices are the prerequisite to any sort of social change worthy the name of progress, the process of education must include some canalizing of the sentiments. The reformer who does not include this in his program of good works is foredoomed to failure. But it is notorious that in many of our fellow-citizens both sentiment and reason have been short-circuited into bathos and sentimentality. And the words "social reformer" have become almost an epithet of derision, because some would-be leaders with insufficient sand and iron in their systems have capitalized this tendency toward sickly softness, and, as a result, have scored personal successes with indecent haste, have scratched paths which could not be followed and which must be resurveyed and laid out at great cost and inconvenience. I asked a friend recently about the speech of a housing reformer she had been urged to hear. "It was too sticky-mouthed," was the curt comment. But it is that very stickiness and sweety-sweetness, or the "tear in the voice,"