Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER XVI

POLITICAL HONESTY

A BRILLIANT American student of politics, in a book published a few years ago, writes: "We talk about the evils of democracy. We have not yet tried democracy. Party or 'interests' govern us with some fiction of the 'consent of the governed." "

A conservative professor of law in one of our leading universities declares, "In other forms of unpopular government the central figure has been the monarch, the autocrat, the oligarch, or the aristocrat. In ours it is the politocrat (i.e., the boss). We have avoided monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy, and aristocracy, only to find ourselves tightly in the grasp of a politocracy."

Another contemporary writer has recently declared, "The name of self-government is noisy everywhere, the Thing is throttled."

A valuable work on Social Ethics, published in 1920, states this as a truism: "The average American prides himself upon his energy, his business astuteness, his industrial efficiency; but in many ways his civic stupidity makes the world stand aghast."

These are undoubtedly exaggerated statements. But they are examples of a very widespread disgust with politics in this country. This is not a new state of things; on the contrary, inefficiency and graft have existed in our politics from the beginning. Charles Lee described the Continental Congress as "a stable

of stupid cattle that stumbled at every step." It is doubtful if standards are lower today than formerly. But certainly they are not as high as our ideal of Democracy demands. We must seek to discover the causes of this unsatisfactory situation.

It is obvious to any observer that there is a great deal of ignorance and incompetence in high places, even in such conspicuous positions as those of Congressmen. In 1917 a well-known political critic, writing in one of our conservative weeklies about a tax bill that had been under discussion in Congress, said, "The House did its part in framing the bill with a looseness and carelessness which were almost terrifying to anyone who understood the gravity of the country's circumstances." The chairman of the committee that framed it "was, in the field of finance, an awkward child—almost a wilful child, and . . . to say it in the only word that is adequate-ignorant."

A man who was for years a leader in the Senate recently made the statement that by the application of proper business methods the cost of conducting the United States Government could be reduced $300,000,000 a year. Other observers have made other estimates; but there is general agreement as to the existence of enormous waste.

A professor of politics in one of our great universities, writing in the Atlantic Monthly, declares that "consideration of Congressional procedure from the standpoint of comparative politics causes a feeling of blank amazement at the national tolerance."

In another important American weekly the editor wrote, "This last session of Congress has been an ominous exhibition. From first to last it was calculated to destroy all confidence in the machinery of

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

It was garrulous,

It

wasteful, amorphous, frivolous and foolish. wasted money like a drunken sailor and time like a babbling idiot. It could not think, it would not imagine, it could not organize, it could not act."

Still another observer wrote, "Among Americans who have watched Congress closely, who have dealings with it on any public matter, the legislature of this nation is cordially despised. There isn't a decent public servant in Washington who doesn't breathe a sigh of relief when Congress adjourns. There isn't an official interested in his work who can't work better when Congress is gone."

Mr. Bryce described the situation clearly in his American Commonwealth, though he was too courteous, in his rôle of foreign critic, to put the matter so boldly as this. "Congressmen," he wrote, "are not chosen from among the best citizens.

They do not pretend to lead the people, being, indeed, seldom specifically qualified to do so."

Now, making all allowance for the exaggeration of these statements, the fact remains that, with exceptions, our system does not get the ablest, the best trained men, the men with deepest insight into public problems, into Congress. The situation is even worse in the State legislatures and municipal councils. However we may hesitate to criticize our legislators and officials in the presence of foreigners, we all admit to ourselves that these are usually not very efficient bodies, to say the least. There is a vast deal of legislative blundering; important bills are held up year by year, or amended so as to ruin their value, and vicious bills are constantly passed. To point this out is the sheerest commonplace. It is when we come to ask why this is so that we are forced to realize

how little most of us understand the actual workings of our democratic system.

Does the trouble lie in the fact that the ablest and most scrupulous men will not run for office? Or is it that the people are too ignorant to vote for the better candidates whose names appear on the ballots? Or is it that the nominating machinery does not get the best men upon the ballots? The answer seems to be a partial yes to all these questions. The best men do not usually run for office, because, among other reasons, they know that they have small chance of being nominated, or, if nominated, of being elected. The nomination of candidates for public office, whether it takes place at conventions or at direct primaries, is usually controlled by party organizations, and these organizations will usually put up only candidates whom they trust to further the party interests. Even if independent candidates are nominated, the chances are that-unless the candidate is unusually conspicuous-a preponderant number of voters will follow the party standards and defeat the independents. In short, our government is a government, ultimately, by party organizations. And these organizations-or the controlling element in themare concerned in general, whether consciously or not, rather with their own maintenance and advantage than with the public welfare.

Even if there were no parties, incompetent men would of course, be put up for office, and individual dishonesty would not be absent. But actually, what happens is that the party leaders look first, usually, for a candidate who will be "regular," who will be pliant to the wishes of the Interests that support the party, and appoint as office-holders deserving party men. For this the ablest and most scrupulous men

For some con

are far less likely to be available. spicuous office, indeed, a man of fearless and independent character and of special training may be nominated by the party leaders. Owing to the scattering of responsibility in our political system, such a man cannot do much to dislodge the party grip upon power; and the prestige of having such a man in office may be a needed asset. But in general it is a good party man who is put up and pushed; if he is able, so much the better; but his party allegiance is a sine qua non.

Now parties are inevitable and useful organizations in a democracy, to formulate principles and carry on political propaganda. It is inevitable, also, that they should try to elect men who approve their principles and can be counted on to further them. It is, perhaps, also inevitable that they should degenerate largely into organizations for the securing of office, with principles a secondary consideration. But what must be clearly realized is that, as things are, it is the party-organizations that get most of our public officials into office. The incompetence of legislators and administrators is incompetence winked at by the party-leaders. The graft is party graft. When public moneys are wasted, it is not that the money is lost; it goes into the pockets of the party bosses, or into the pockets of people whom they are depending upon for help.

It is this situation that makes "reform" so difficult. An independent free-lance politician who tried to get his share of graft would find it a difficult matter. His best chance would lie in threatening to expose his colleagues if he were not let in on it. But he could be sure that the party organizations would do their utmost to oust him from politics and chastise his

« PreviousContinue »