POLITICS
American democracy was ushered in on a theory of equality. And no word
has been more strangely used and abused. There is the monarchical idea
of equality, and Mr. Mallock begs the question when he gives the title
"Aristocracy and Evolution" to a book on the necessary part played by
great men. Doubtless, in Greek, aristocracy means "government by the
best," but in history it means government by the privilege of birth and
landed property. Democracy may be in philology "government by the mob,"
but in politics and industry it has been opportunity for great men
without blood or property. Mr. Muensterberg, too, sees the breakdown of
American democracy and the reaction towards aristocracy in the
prominence of civil-service reform, the preeminence conceded to business
ability, the deference to wealth, and the conquest of the
Philippines.[103] But civil-service reform is only a device for opening
the door to merit that has been shut by privilege. In England it was the
means by which the mercantile classes broke into the offices preempted
by the younger sons of aristocracy.[104] In America it is an awkward
means of admitting ability wherever found to positions seized upon by
political usurpers. It appealed to the American democracy only when its
advocates learned to call it, not "civil-service reform," but "the merit
system." As for the astonishing power of mere wealth in American affairs
the testimony of another English observer is based on wider observation
when he says, "Even the tyranny of trusts is not to be compared with the
tyranny of landlordism; for the one is felt to be merely an unhappy and
(it is hoped) temporary aberration of well-meant social machinery, while
the other seems bred in the very bone of the national existence."[105]
A feeling of disappointment holds true of the conquest and treatment of
the Philippines. That a war waged out of sympathy for an oppressed
island nearby should have shaken down an unnoticed archipelago across
the ocean was taken in childlike glee as the unexpected reward of
virtue. But serious thinking has followed on seeing that these islands
have added another race problem to the many that have thwarted
democracy. Only a plutocracy sprung from race divisions at home could
profit by race-subjection abroad, and the only alternative to
race-subjection is equal representation in Congress. But to admit
another race to partnership without the hope of assimilation is to
reject experience. Independence or cession to Japan is the
self-preservation of American democracy.
Another idea of equality is the socialist idea. Infatuated by an
"economic interpretation of history," they overlook the racial
interpretation. Permitting and encouraging plutocracy, they hope to see
the dispossessed masses take possession when conditions become
intolerable. But the "masses" would not be equal to the task. Privileged
wealth knows too well how to buy up or promote their leaders, how to
weaken them by internal dissensions, how to set race against race. Most
of all, the inexperienced despotism of the masses is worse than the
smooth despotism of wealth. The government of the South by the negro,
the government of San Francisco by "labor," fell into the hands of the
"carpet-bagger" and the "boss." Once in power, internal strife and
jealousy, struggle for office, or racial antagonism disrupt the rulers,
and a reaction throws them back more helpless than before. Men are not
equal, neither are races or classes equal. True equality comes through
equal opportunity. If individuals go forward, their race or class is
elevated. They become spokesmen, defenders, examples. No race or class
can rise without its own leaders. If they get admitted on equal terms
with other leaders, whether it be in the councils of the church, the
law-making bodies of the city, state, and nation, or the wage
conferences of employers, they then can command the hearing which their
abilities justify. They secure for their followers the equal
opportunity to which they are entitled.
This is exactly the political problem that grows out of the presence of
races and immigrants. With these admitted to the suffrage on the basis
of mere manhood inspired by a generosity unknown to the people of any
other land, the machinery of representative government inherited from
England does not, for some reason, permit the free choice of leaders.
The difficulties may be seen in cities where the system first broke
down. A variety of races and nationalities living in the same ward are
asked to elect aldermen and other officers by majority vote. No one
nationality has a majority, but each sets up its list of candidates. The
nationality with a mere plurality elects all of its candidates, and the
other nationalities--a majority of the voters--are unrepresented. This
is an extreme case, and has not often been allowed to happen. But the
only means of preventing it is the "ward boss." The boss emerges from
the situation as inevitably as the survival of the fittest. And the
fittest is the Irishman. The Irishman has above all races the mixture of
ingenuity, firmness, human sympathy, comradeship, and daring that makes
him the amalgamator of races. He conciliates them all by nominating a
ticket on which the offices are shrewdly distributed; and out of the
Babel his "slate" gets the majority.
The boss's problem is not an easy one. His ward may contain business men
on the hill and negroes along the canal. To nominate a business man
would lose the negro vote--to nominate a negro would lose the business
vote. He selects a nondescript somewhere between, and discards him for
another at the next election. The representative becomes a tool in the
hands of the boss. The boss sells his power to corporations, franchise
speculators, and law-evaders. Representative democracy becomes
bossocracy in the service of plutocracy. The ward system worked well
when the suffrage was limited. Then the business men elected their
business man unimpeded. But a system devised for restricted suffrage
breaks down under universal suffrage. Could the ward lines be abolished,
could the business men come together regardless of residence and elect
their choice without the need of a majority vote, could the negroes and
other races and classes do the same, then each would be truly
represented by their natural leaders. So it is, not only in cities, but
in county, state, and nation. Universal suffrage, clannish races, social
classes, diversified interests, seem to explain and justify the presence
of the party "machine" and its boss. Otherwise races, classes, and
interests are in helpless conflict and anarchy. But the true explanation
is an obsolete ward and district system of plurality representation
adopted when but one race, class, or interest had the suffrage. Forms of
government are the essence of government, notwithstanding the poet. An
aristocratic form with a democratic suffrage is a plutocratic
government. Belgium and Switzerland have shown that a democratic form
is possible and practicable. Proportional representation instead of
district representation is the corollary of universal suffrage which
those countries have worked out as a model for others.[106] The model is
peculiarly adapted to a country of manifold nationalities, interests,
and classes. Races and immigrants in America have not disproved
democracy--they have proved the need of more democracy.
This is seen also in the distinction between men and measures. It often
has been noted that in American elections the voters are more interested
in voting for candidates than they are in voting on issues. The
candidate arouses a personal and concrete interest--the issue is
abstract and complicated. The candidate calls out a full vote--the issue
is decided by a partial vote.
This difference is partly the result of organization. The candidate has
a political party, campaign funds, and personal workers to bring out the
vote. The issue has only its merits and demerits. Equally important
under American conditions is the race or nationality of the candidate.
This feature is often concealed by the ingenuity of political managers
in nominating a ticket on which the several nationalities are
"recognized." But with the recent progress of the movement to abolish
party conventions and to nominate candidates directly at the primaries
the racial prejudices of the voters show themselves. The nationalities
line up for their own nationality, and the political and economic issues
are thrown in the background. It is different when they vote on the
issues directly. The vital questions of politics, industry,
corporations, and monopoly which menace the country, unless rightly
answered, cut across the lines of nationality. The German farmer,
manufacturer, wage-earner, merchant, capitalist, and monopolist may all
unite to elect a popular German to office, but they do not unite to give
a corporation a monopoly. The same is true of other nationalities.
Wherever the referendum has been fairly tested, in Chicago, Detroit,
Oregon, and elsewhere, the sound judgment of all races has prevailed
over bias, prejudice, or racial jealousy. There none can claim
preeminence, for all have shown their share of patriotism, intelligence,
and regard for equal rights. By an automatic self-disfranchisement the
ignorant, the corrupt, and the indifferent of all races eliminate
themselves by failing to vote. Instead of being dismissed on the ground
that voters care mainly for men and less for measures, the referendum
should be adopted on the ground that it permits those interested in
measures to decide the question. Those who are not interested enough to
vote do thereby proclaim that they are satisfied whichever side wins.
The initiative and referendum are, above all other forms of government,
the specific remedy for the ills of universal suffrage and conflicting
nationalities. Race antagonism springs from personalities, race
coalescence from community of interest. A vote for candidates
intensifies antagonism--a vote on measures promotes community.
There are, indeed, some kinds of measures which stir up race antagonism.
But the keenest of these have happily been eliminated. More intense than
any other source of discord is religious belief. Religious differences
in America are not so much theological as racial in character. The
Judaism of the Jew, the Protestantism of the British and colonial
American, the Lutheranism of the German, the Roman Catholicism of the
Irish, Italian, and Slav, the Greek Catholicism of other Slavs, all
testify to the history and psychology of races. Far-sighted indeed were
our fathers who separated Church and State. Were the people taxed to
support religion, every election would be a contest of races. All other
questions would be subordinate, and democracy impossible. But with
religion relegated to private judgment, each race is free to cultivate
at will that one of its own peculiarities most fanatically adhered to,
but most repellent to other races, while uniting with the others on what
is most essential to democracy. Religious freedom is more than a private
right--it is an American necessity.
[Illustration: CHINESE STUDENTS, HONOLULU (From _The Independent_)]
Another class of measures running partly along race lines are sumptuary
laws, especially those regulating saloons and Sunday observance. In
the Southern states saloon prohibition is largely a race
discrimination and a race protection. In the North it often is American
puritanism of the country against European liberalism of the cities.
Here the referendum shows itself as the conciliator of nationalities.
Upon no other issue has the popular vote been so generally resorted to.
This issue comes close to the habits and passions of the masses. It
takes precedence of all others except religion, but cannot be evaded
like religion. If legislative bodies and executive officials decide the
question, then the German or the Irishman adds to his zeal for the
election of a conationalist his thirst for the election of a candidate
with habits like his own. But when left to a popular vote, the saloon
question is separated from the choice of candidates, and other issues
come forward. A majority vote, too, pacifies the minority of all races,
where the act of a legislative body leaves the suspicion of unfair
advantage taken by unrepresentative politicians. By the exigencies of
the situation the referendum has been invoked to take both the saloon
problem and its share of the race problem "out of politics." The lesson
is applicable wherever race or nationality conflicts with democracy.
With questions of religious belief eliminated by the constitution, and
questions of personal habits eliminated by the referendum, other
questions of race antagonism will be eliminated by the initiative and
the referendum.[107]
=Suffrage.=--The climax of liberality in donating the suffrage to all
races and conditions was reached with the fifteenth amendment in 1869.
At that time not only had the negro been enfranchised; but nearly a
score of Western and Southern states and territories had enfranchised
the alien. So liberal were these states in welcoming the immigrant that
they allowed him to vote as soon as he declared his intention to take
out naturalization papers. This declaration, under the federal law, is
made at least two years before the papers are granted, and it may be
made as soon as the immigrant has landed. Thus in some of those states
he could vote as soon as he acquired a legal residence, that is, four or
four and one-half years before he acquired citizenship. Several of these
states have recently changed these laws, but there remain nine that
continue to accept the alien as a voter.
In the Eastern states such generosity was not granted by law but was
practised by fraud. Naturalization papers are issued by federal courts
and by state courts of record. The law gives the judge much discretion,
for he is required to refuse the certificate if he is not satisfied that
the alien is of good moral character, attached to the Constitution, and
well disposed. But so careless or crowded are the judges that seldom
have they examined the applicants. Indeed the political managers have
had the option of judges and could take their immigrants to the court
that would shut its eyes. Many thousands of fraudulent papers have been
secured in this way, beginning at the very time when the naturalization
law was enacted in 1802, but increasing enormously during the past forty
years.[108]
Finally, in 1906, Congress enacted a law giving to the Bureau of
Immigration control over naturalization. The object is to bring all of
the courts under a uniform practice, to provide complete records and
means of identification, to establish publicity, to enable the
government to appear in court and resist fraudulent naturalization, and
to impose severe penalties.[109] The law also adds something to the
qualifications required of the alien. He must not be an anarchist or a
polygamist, nor a believer of such doctrines; he must be able to speak
the English language, and must intend to reside permanently in the
United States.[110] The language restriction affects but few, since in
1900 only 3.3 per cent of the naturalized foreign-born males of voting
age could not speak English.[111] The intention of permanent residence,
as well as the entire measure, is designed to remove the abuse of
foreigners' acquiring citizenship in order to return to their native
land and defy their rightful government. On the administrative side this
law is of great significance. It marks a serious beginning on the part
of the federal government of protecting the citizenship that a
generation before it had so liberally bestowed.
There are certain races which by law are prohibited from naturalization.
For nearly seventy years the law on the subject enacted in 1802 admitted
to citizenship only free white persons. This was amended in 1870 to
admit "aliens of African nationality and persons of African descent."
But other colored races were not admitted, so that the Chinese,
Japanese, or Malay immigrant has never been eligible to citizenship. His
children, however, born in this country are citizens, and cannot be
excluded from voting on account of race or color. Indians living in
tribes are foreigners, but if they recognize allegiance by paying taxes
or dividing up their land in severalty they are citizens and voters.
Of the immigrant races eligible to citizenship their importance as
possible voters is greater than their importance in the population. This
is because men and boys come in greater numbers than women and children.
Ten million foreign-born population furnishes 5,000,000 males of voting
age, but 66,000,000 native population furnishes only 16,000,000 males of
voting age. In other words, one-half of the foreign-born, and only
one-fourth of the native-born, are potential voters. But not all of the
potential voters are actual voters. With a grand total in the year 1900
of 21,000,000 of the proper sex and age, only 15,000,000 went to the
polls. The ratio is five out of seven. Two million negroes were
excluded, and 1,400,000 foreign-born had not yet naturalized. This
leaves 2,600,000 natives and foreign-born who might have voted but did
not. The foreigner who takes out his citizenship papers does it mainly
to vote. Two-thirds of them had done so or declared their intention in
1900.[112] Probably the proportion of native whites who did not vote was
15 per cent of their total number, and the proportion of foreign-born
who did not, or could not, was over 40 per cent.
But this proportion differs greatly among the several races. It is not
so much a difference in willingness as a difference in opportunity. Five
years are required for naturalization, and while 40 per cent of those
who have been here six to nine years have not declared their intention
nor taken out their papers, only 7 per cent of those who have been here
twenty years retain their allegiance to foreign governments.[113] This
increases relatively the political weight of the Teutonic and Celtic
races which are oldest in point of immigration, and reduces relatively
the weight of the Italian, Slav, and Jewish races. The figures below
make this quite plain. The table shows the proportion of foreign-born
who remain aliens, in the sense that they have neither taken out
citizenship papers nor declared their intention of doing so. Only 7 to
13 per cent of the foreigners from Northwestern Europe are aliens,
compared with 35 to 60 per cent of those from Eastern and Southern
Europe. In course of time these differences will diminish, and the
Italian and Slav will approach the Irishman and German in their share of
American suffrage:--
PER CENT OF ALIENS AMONG FOREIGN-BORN MALES OF VOTING AGE[114]
Wales 7.1
Germany 8.3
Norway 9.7
Ireland 10.1
Denmark 10.3
Holland 11.6
Sweden 11.9
Scotland 12.5
Bohemia 12.6
England 12.9
Canada, English 21.1
Russia (mainly Jews) 35.2
Canada, French 38.5
Finland 38.6
Austria (largely Slavs) 44.6
Portugal 51.6
Italy 53.0
Hungary (mainly Slavs) 53.1
Greece 57.8
Austria, Poland 61.6
The right to vote is not "inalienable," neither is the right to life or
liberty. Governments give them, refuse them, and take them away. In
America this means the state governments. The federal government only
declares that the states must follow the "due process of law," and not
discriminate on account of race, religion, or servitude. In allowing the
right to vote they may and do discriminate on other grounds, such as
morals, illiteracy, intelligence, property, and sex. This may result in
race or immigrant discrimination, and does so in the case of illiteracy
and intelligence. After the Irish immigration of the forties,
Connecticut in 1855 and Massachusetts in 1857 refused thenceforth to
enfranchise those who could not read the Constitution. Since 1889 six
other Northern and Western states--Wyoming, Maine, California,
Washington, Delaware, and New Hampshire, in the order named--have
erected barriers against those who cannot read or write the English
language or the Constitution.[115] Six Southern states have done the
same, but one of them, Mississippi, has added another permanent
barrier,--intelligence. This is supposed to be measured by ability to
"understand" the Constitution as read by a white man. Southern states
have also added vagrancy, poll tax, and property clauses even more
exclusive than reading and writing.[116] The federal courts have refused
to interfere because these restrictions in their legal form bear alike
on white and black. If in practice they bear unequally, that is a matter
for the state courts.[117]
To take away the suffrage from many of those who enjoy it is peacefully
impossible under our system. But voters who hold fast to the privilege
for themselves may be induced to deny it to the next generation. It was
in this way usually that the foregoing restrictions were introduced.
Massachusetts set the example by retaining all who could vote when the
test was adopted, and making the exclusion apply only to those who came
after. The Southern states did the same by "grandfather" and
"understanding" clauses. By either method, in course of time, the
favored voters disappear by death or removal, and the restrictions apply
in full to the succeeding generation.[118]
The effect of the educational test on the suffrage of the foreign-born
is not as great as might be supposed. Naturalization itself is almost an
educational test. Only 6.3 per cent of the naturalized foreigners are
illiterate, but 28 per cent of those who remain aliens are unable to
read. In Boston only 2 per cent are excluded from voting through
inability to read English, although the corresponding aliens are 22 per
cent. Probably the educational qualification in Massachusetts affects
these proportions by lessening the inducement to naturalize, but in
Chicago and New York, where that qualification is not required, scarcely
more than 5 per cent of those who get naturalized would be unable to
vote under such a law, compared with less than 1 per cent of the native
voters.[119] In the country at large the disproportion is not so great.
Five and eight-tenths per cent of the sons of native parents would be
excluded by an educational test against 6.3 per cent of the naturalized
foreigners, and only 2 per cent of the native sons of foreigners. In the
several Southern states the test, if equally applied, will exclude 6 to
20 per cent of the white voters and 35 to 60 per cent of the colored
voters.[120] In a Southern city like Memphis it would exclude 1 per cent
of the white and 38 per cent of the colored.
Tested by the standards of democracy, the ability to read and write the
English language is a proper qualification. It is perhaps the maximum
that can be required, for to test the ability to understand what is read
and written is to open the door to partisanship and race discrimination.
Yet it is intelligence that makes the suffrage an instrument of
protection, and it is not a denial of rights to refuse such an
instrument to one who injures himself with it. The literacy
qualification is one that can be acquired by effort. Other tests,
especially the property qualification, are an assertion of inequality.
Yet it is not strange that with the corrupt and inefficient governments
that have accompanied universal suffrage there should have occurred a
reaction. This has not always expressed itself in the policy of
restricting the suffrage, for that can with difficulty be accomplished.
It has shown itself rather in withdrawing government as far as possible
from the control of the voters. The so-called "business theory" which
has so generally been applied to the reform of city governments has
converted the city as far as possible to the model of a private
corporation, with its general manager, the mayor. The city has been
denied its proper functions, and these have been turned over to private
parties. But this reaction seems to have reached its limit. It is now
understood to have been simply the legal recognition of an incipient
plutocracy establishing itself under the forms of democracy. The return
movement has begun, and the rescue of democracy is sought, as stated
above, in forms and functions of government still more democratic.
The way plutocracy looks when it has passed the incipient stage may be
seen in Hawaii.[121] It is as though we had annexed those islands in
order to watch in our own back yard the fruit of excessive immigration.
A population of 154,000 furnishes 65,000 Hawaiians, Portuguese, and
other Caucasians. The Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans have 87,000
population and no votes. The American contingent is some 17,000 souls
and 3000 votes. The latter represent four classes or interests: the
capitalist planters owning two-thirds of the property; superintendents,
engineers, and foremen managing the plantation labor; skilled mechanics;
small employers, merchants, and farmers. In order to get plantation
labor and to keep the supply too large and diversified for concerted
wage demands the planters imported contract Chinese in place of
Hawaiians, then Japanese, then Koreans. As each race rises in standards
and independence it leaves the plantations to enter trades,
manufactures, and merchandising. It drives out the wage-earners from the
less skilled occupations, then from the more skilled, then the small
manufacturers, contractors, and merchants. The American middle classes
disappear, partly by emigration to California, partly by abandoning
business and relying on the values of real estate which rise through the
competition of low standards of wages and profits, and partly by
attaching themselves to the best-paid positions offered by the planters.
In proportion as they move up in the scale through the entrance of
immigrants in the lower positions, they transfer their allegiance from
democracy to plutocracy. The planters themselves are caught in a circle.
The rising values of their land absorb the high tariff on sugar and
prevent rising wages if the values are to be kept up. The Japanese, with
contract labor abolished, have shown a disposition to strike for higher
wages. This has led to advances at the expense of profits, and the
resulting "scarcity of labor" compels the planters again to ask for
contract Chinese coolies. Immigration is thus only a makeshift remedy
for the exactions of unions and the undevelopment of resources. More
immigration requires perpetually more and still more, till the resulting
plutocracy seeks to save itself by servile labor. A moderate amount of
immigrant labor, assimilated and absorbed into the body politic,
stimulates industry and progress, but an excessive and indigestible
amount leads to the search for coercive remedies and ends in the
stagnation of industry. The protective tariff was supposed to build up
free American labor, but in Hawaii, with unrestricted immigration, it
has handed us American plutocracy.