EFFECT OF THE TRANSITION FROM MINORITY TO MAJORITY RULE UPON MORALITY
In tracing the influence which the growth of democracy has had upon
morality, we should be careful to look below the surface of present-day
affairs. The deeper and more enduring social movements and tendencies
are not always obvious to the superficial observer. For this reason much
that has been written in recent years concerning our alleged decline in
public morality is far from convincing. Facts tending to show the
prevalence of fraud and corruption in politics and business are not in
themselves sufficient to warrant any sweeping conclusions as to present
tendencies. Paradoxical as it may seem, an increase in crime and other
surface manifestations of immorality, is no proof of a decline, but may
as a matter of fact be merely a transient effect of substantial and
permanent advance toward higher standards of morality.
Before making any comparison between the morality of two different
periods, we should first find out whether, in passing from the one
period to the other, there has been any change in the accepted ideas of
right and wrong. Now, if such is the case, it is manifestly an important
factor in the problem--one that should not be ignored; and yet this is
just what many writers are doing who imagine that they are proving by
statistics a decline in morality. Their error consists in overlooking
the one fact of paramount importance, viz., that the accepted standard
of morality has itself been raised. We are not judging conduct to-day
according to the ideas of civic duty in vogue a century, or even a
generation ago. We are insisting upon higher standards of conduct both
in politics and in business. Our ideas of right and wrong in their
manifold applications to social life have been profoundly changed, and
in many respects for the better. We are trying to realize a new
conception of justice. Many things which a century ago were sanctioned
by law, or at least not forbidden, are no longer tolerated. Moreover,
enlightened public opinion now condemns many things which have not yet
been brought under the ban of the law.
During any period, such as that in which we are now living, when society
is rapidly assuming a higher ethical type, it is inevitable that much
resistance should be made to the enforcement of the new standard of
justice. Old methods of business and old political practices are not
easily repressed, even when the public opinion of the community has come
to regard them as socially injurious. Forms of conduct once permitted,
but now regarded as anti-social, tend to persist in spite of the effort
of law and public opinion to dislodge them. The more rapid the ethical
progress of society, the more frequent and the more pronounced will be
the failure of the morally backward individuals to meet the requirements
of the new social standard. At such a time we always see an increase in
crimes, misdemeanors and acts which enlightened public opinion condemns.
This is due, however, not to any decline in public morality, but to the
fact that the ethical progress of society as a whole has been more rapid
than that of the offending class.
There is another source of error which we must guard against. Social
immorality is not always detected even when it exists. Much that is
socially immoral both in politics and in business escapes observation.
Nevertheless, the agencies for ferreting out and holding up to public
condemnation offences against society, are far more efficient and active
to-day than they have ever been in the past. Both the corrupt public
official and the unscrupulous business man dread the searchlight of
public opinion, which is becoming more and more effective as a regulator
of conduct with the growth of intelligence among the masses. Nor is it
surprising that when the hitherto dark recesses of politics and business
are exposed to view, an alarming amount of fraud and corruption should
be revealed. We are too prone to forget, however, that publicity is
something new--that in our day the seen may bear a much larger
proportion to the unseen than it has in the past. What appears, then, to
be an increase in business and political immorality may, after all, be
largely accounted for as the result of more publicity. Here, again, we
see that the facts usually taken to indicate a decline in public
morality are susceptible of a very different interpretation.
Another feature of present-day society which deserves careful
consideration by reason of its far-reaching effect upon public morality
is the change now taking place in theological beliefs. Heretofore the
church has been by far the most important agency for enforcing
conformity to the accepted moral standard. The hope of reward or fear of
punishment in the world to come has been the chief support upon which
the church has in the past rested its system of social control. But this
other-world sanction is now losing its compelling force in consequence
of the growing disbelief in the old doctrine of rewards and punishments.
The fear of the supernatural, which has its highest development in the
savage, steadily declines with the progress of the race. When the
general level of intelligence is low, the supernatural sanction is a far
more potent means of regulating conduct than any purely temporal
authority. But, just in proportion as society advances, the other-world
sanction loses its potency and increasing reliance must, therefore, be
placed upon purely human agencies.
The immediate effect of this change in our attitude toward the hereafter
and the supernatural has been to remove or at least to weaken an
important restraint upon anti-social tendencies. There is no reason,
however, for apprehension as to the final outcome. Society always
experiences some difficulty, it is true, in making the transition from
the old to the new. In every period of social readjustment old
institutions and beliefs lose their efficacy before the new social
agencies have been perfected. But if the new is higher and better than
the old, the good that will accrue to society will in the long run
greatly outweigh any temporary evil.
But great as has been the change in our point of view with reference to
the church, our attitude toward the state has been even more profoundly
changed. We do not have to go very far back into the past to find
government everywhere controlled by a king and privileged class. The
ascendency of the few was everywhere established by the sword, but it
could not be long maintained by force alone. The ignorance of the masses
was in the past, as it is now, the main reliance of those who wished to
perpetuate minority rule. Fraud and deception have always been an
indispensable means of maintaining class ascendency in government. The
primitive politician no less than his present-day successor saw the
possibility of utilizing the credulity of the masses for the purpose of
furthering his own selfish ends. This explains the long-continued
survival of that interesting political superstition which for so many
centuries protected class rule under the pretended sanction of a
God-given right.
The growth of intelligence among the masses by discrediting the doctrine
of divine right made it necessary to abandon the old defense of class
rule. From that time down to the present the disintegration of the old
political order has been rapid. Every effort has been made by the
defenders of the old system to find some means of justifying and
maintaining class rule--a task which is becoming more and more difficult
with the growing belief in democracy. At the present time we are in a
transition stage. The divine theory of the state, which was the
foundation and support of the old system of class rule, is no longer
accepted by intelligent people in any civilized country. But class rule
still has its advocates, even in the countries that have advanced
farthest in the direction of popular government. The opponents of
democracy, however, comprise but a small part of the population
numerically, yet, owing to their great wealth and effective
organization, their influence as a class is everywhere very great. Over
against these is arrayed the bulk of the population, who are struggling,
though not very intelligently always, to overcome the opposition of the
few and make the political organization and the policy of the state a
complete and faithful expression of the popular will. No modern state
has yet passed entirely through this transition stage. Everywhere the
movement toward democracy has been and is now being energetically
resisted by those who fear that thoroughgoing popular government would
deprive them of economic or political privileges which they now enjoy.
Let us not deceive ourselves by thinking that the old system of class
rule has been entirely overthrown. No fundamental change in government
or any other social institution ever comes about suddenly. Time, often
much time, is required for those intellectual and moral readjustments
without which no great change in social institutions can be made. And
when we remember that only a century ago every government in the Western
world was avowedly organized on the basis of minority rule, we can
readily understand that society has not yet had sufficient time to
outgrow the influence of the old political order.
No one can discuss intelligently the question of political morality if
he ignores the effect of this struggle between the old system of
minority domination and the new system of majority rule. And yet
scarcely ever do our text-books or magazine articles dealing with
present political evils even so much as allude to this most important
fact--the one, indeed, on which hinges our whole system of business
fraud and political corruption. We often hear the opinion expressed by
people of more than ordinary intelligence that the public immorality so
much in evidence in this country is the natural and inevitable result of
popular government. This view is industriously encouraged by the
conservative and even accepted by not a few of those whose sympathies
are with democracy. Yet no conclusion could be more erroneous. It would
be just as logical to attribute the religious persecutions of the Middle
Ages to the growth of religious dissent. If there had been no
dissenters, there would have been no persecution; neither would there
have been any reformation or any progress toward a system of religious
liberty. Persecution was the means employed to repress dissent and
defeat the end which the dissenters had in view. Corruption sustains
exactly the same relation to the democratic movement of modern times. It
has been employed, not to promote, but to defeat the ends of popular
government. No intelligent person should any longer be in doubt as to
the real source of corruption. It is to be eradicated, not by placing
additional restrictions on the power of the people, but by removing
those political restraints upon the majority which now preclude any
effective popular control of public officials. We forget that when our
government was established the principle of majority rule was nowhere
recognized--that until well along into the nineteenth century the
majority of our forefathers did not even have the right to vote. The
minority governed under the sanction of the Constitution and the law of
the land. Then a great popular movement swept over the country, and in
the political upheaval which followed, the masses secured the right of
suffrage. But universal suffrage, though essential to, does not ensure
popular government. The right to vote for some, or even all, public
officials, does not necessarily involve any effective control over such
officials by, or any real responsibility to, the majority of the voters.
Nor is any constitutional system set up to achieve the purpose of
minority rule likely to contain those provisions which are necessary for
the enforcement of public opinion in the management of political
affairs. It was thought by the masses, of course, when they acquired the
suffrage that they acquired the substance of political power. Their
expectation, however, was but partially realized. Indirect election,
official independence, and the rigidity of the constitutional system as
a whole, with its lack of responsiveness to popular demands, largely
counteracted the results expected from universal suffrage. But the
extension of the suffrage to the masses, though having much less direct
and immediate influence upon the policy of the state than is generally
supposed, was in one respect supremely important. In popular thought it
worked a transformation in the form of the government. The old view
which recognized the political supremacy of the minority was now largely
superseded by the new view that the will of the majority ought to be the
supreme law of the land.
The minority, however, still continue to exert a controlling influence
in most matters of public policy directly affecting their interests as a
class, although the extension of the suffrage made the exercise of that
control a much more difficult matter and left little room for doubt that
actual majority rule would ultimately prevail. A large measure of
protection was afforded them through the checks which the Constitution
imposed upon the power of the majority. There was no certainty, however,
that these checks could be permanently maintained. A political party
organized in the interest of majority rule, and supported by a strong
public sentiment, might find some way of breaking through or evading the
constitutional provisions designed to limit its power. Certain features
of the Constitution, however, afforded excellent opportunities for
offering effective resistance to the progress of democratic legislation.
Entrenched behind these constitutional bulwarks, an active, intelligent
and wealthy minority might hope to defeat many measures earnestly
desired by the majority and even secure the adoption of some policies
that would directly benefit themselves. Here we find the cause that has
been mainly responsible for the growth of that distinctively American
product, the party machine, with its political bosses, its army of paid
workers and its funds for promoting or opposing legislation, supplied by
various special interests which expect to profit thereby. With the
practical operation of this system we are all familiar. We see the
results of its work in every phase of our political life--in municipal,
state and national affairs. We encounter its malign influence every time
an effort is made to secure any adequate regulation of railways, to
protect the people against the extortion of the trusts, or to make the
great privileged industries of the country bear their just share of
taxation. But the chief concern of those in whose interest the party
machine is run is to defeat any popular attack on those features of the
system which are the real source of the great power which the minority
is able to exert. Try, for example, to secure a constitutional amendment
providing for the direct election of United States senators, the
adoption of the initiative and the referendum, a direct primary scheme,
a measure depriving a city council of the power to enrich private
corporations by giving away valuable franchises, or any provision
intended to give the people an effective control over their so-called
public servants, and we find that nothing less than an overwhelming
public sentiment and sustained social effort is able to make any headway
against the small but powerfully entrenched minority.
Many changes will be required before efficient democratic government can
exist. The greatest and most pressing need at the present time, however,
is for real publicity, which is the only means of making public opinion
effective as an instrument of social control. The movement toward
publicity has been in direct proportion to the growth of democracy.
Formerly the masses were not regarded by the ruling class as having any
capacity for political affairs, or right to criticise governmental
policies and methods. With the acceptance of the idea of popular
sovereignty, however, the right of the people to be kept informed
concerning the management of governmental business received recognition;
but practice has lagged far behind theory.
Much would be gained for good government by extending publicity to the
relations existing between public officials and private business
interests. This would discourage the corrupt alliance which now too
often exists between unscrupulous politicians and corporate wealth. The
public have a right and ought to know to what extent individuals and
corporations have contributed money for the purpose of carrying
elections. The time has come when the political party should be
generally recognized and dealt with as a public agency--as an essential
part or indispensable organ of the government itself. The amount of its
revenue, the sources from which it is obtained, the purposes for which
it is expended, vitally concern the people and should be exposed to a
publicity as thorough and searching as that which extends to the
financial transactions of the government itself. The enforcement of
publicity in this direction would not be open to the objection that the
government was invading the field of legitimate private activity, though
it would bring to light the relations which now exist between the party
machine and private business, and in so doing would expose the true
source of much political corruption.
But this is not all that the people need to know concerning party
management. They can not be expected to make an intelligent choice of
public officials, unless they are supplied with all the facts which have
a direct bearing upon the fitness of the various candidates. Popular
elections will not be entirely successful until some plan is devised
under which no man can become a candidate for office without expecting
to have all the facts bearing upon his fitness, whether relating to his
private life or official conduct, made public. Publicity of this sort
would do much toward securing a better class of public officials.
Publicity concerning that which directly pertains to the management of
the government is not all that will be required. The old idea that all
business is private must give way to the new and sounder view that no
business is entirely private. It is true that the business world is not
yet ready for the application of this doctrine, since deception is a
feature of present-day business methods. It is employed with reference
to business rivals on the one hand and consumers on the other. This
policy of deception often degenerates into down-right fraud, as in the
case of secret rebates and other forms of discrimination through which
one competitor obtains an undue and perhaps crushing advantage over
others; or it may take the form of adulteration or other trade frauds by
which the business man may rob the general public.
"Deception," says Lester F. Ward, "may almost be called the foundation
of business. It is true that if all business men would altogether
discard it, matters would probably be far better even for them than they
are; but, taking the human character as it is, it is frankly avowed by
business men themselves that no business could succeed for a single year
if it were to attempt single-handed and alone to adopt such an
innovation. The particular form of deception characteristic of business
is called _shrewdness_, and it is universally considered proper and
upright. There is a sort of code that fixes the limit beyond which this
form of deception must not be carried, and those who exceed that limit
are looked upon somewhat as a pugilist who 'hits below the belt,' But
within these limits every one expects every other to suggest the false
and suppress the true, while _caveat emptor_ is lord of all, and 'the
devil take the hind-most.'"[197]
Under this system the strong, the unscrupulous and the cunning may
pursue business tactics which enable them to accumulate wealth at the
expense of consumers or business rivals, but which, if generally known,
would not be tolerated. The great profits which fraudulent manufacturers
and merchants have made out of adulterated goods would have been
impossible under a system which required that all goods should be
properly labeled and sold for what they really were. Such abuses as now
exist in the management of railroads and other corporations could not,
or at least would not long be permitted to exist, if the general public
saw the true source, character, extent and full effects of these evils.
The greatest obstacle to publicity at the present time is the control
which corporate wealth is able to, and as a matter of fact does,
exercise over those agencies upon which the people must largely depend
for information and guidance regarding contemporary movements and
events. The telegraph and the newspaper are indispensable in any
present-day democratic society. The ownership and unregulated control of
the former by the large corporate interests of the country, and the
influence which they can bring to bear upon the press by this means, as
well as the direct control which they have over a large part of the
daily press by actual ownership, does much to hinder the progress of the
democratic movement. This hold which organized wealth has upon the
agencies through which public opinion is formed, is an important check
on democracy. It does much to secure a real, though not generally
recognized, class ascendency under the form and appearance of government
by public opinion.
This great struggle now going on between the progressive and the
reactionary forces, between the many and the few, has had a profound
influence upon public morality. We have here a conflict between two
political systems--between two sets of ethical standards. The supporters
of minority rule no doubt often feel that the whole plan and purpose of
the democratic movement is revolutionary--that its ultimate aim is the
complete overthrow of all those checks designed for the protection of
the minority. The only effective means which they could employ to retard
the progress of the popular movement involved the use of money or its
equivalent in ways that have had a corrupting influence upon our
national life. Of course this need not, and as a rule does not, take the
coarse, crude form of a direct purchase of public officials. The methods
used may in the main conform to all our accepted criteria of business
honesty, but their influence is none the less insidious and deadly. It
is felt in many private institutions of learning; it is clearly seen in
the attitude of a large part of our daily press, and even in the church
itself. This subtle influence which a wealthy class is able to exert by
owning or controlling the agencies for molding public opinion is doing
far more to poison the sources of our national life than all the more
direct and obvious forms of corruption combined. The general public may
not see all this or understand its full significance, but the conviction
is gaining ground that it is difficult to enact and still more difficult
to enforce any legislation contemplating just and reasonable regulation
of corporate wealth. The conservative classes themselves are not
satisfied with the political system as it now is, believing that the
majority, by breaking through restraints imposed by the Constitution,
have acquired more power than they should be permitted to exercise under
any well-regulated government. It is but a step, and a short one at
that, from this belief that the organization of the government is wrong
and its policy unjust, to the conclusion that one is justified in using
every available means of defeating the enactment or preventing the
enforcement of pernicious legislation. On the other hand, the supporters
of majority rule believe that the government is too considerate of the
few and not sufficiently responsive to the wishes of the many. As a
result of this situation neither the advocates nor the opponents of
majority rule have that entire faith in the reasonableness and justice
of present political arrangements, which is necessary to ensure real
respect for, or even ready compliance with the laws.
Here we find the real explanation of that widespread disregard of law
which characterizes American society to-day. We are witnessing and
taking part in the final struggle between the old and the new--a
struggle which will not end until one or the other of these
irreconcilable theories of government is completely overthrown, and a
new and harmonious political structure evolved. Every age of
epoch-making change is a time of social turmoil. To the superficial
onlooker this temporary relaxation of social restraints may seem to
indicate a period of decline, but as a matter of fact the loss of faith
in and respect for the old social agencies is a necessary part of that
process of growth through which society reaches a higher plane of
existence.