HAS AMERICA DEMOCRACY? BY W. R. BOYD WITH a world at war, and that war supposed to be the direct outgrowth of too little democracy, it may seem that the question posed in my title is impertinent. I venture, however, to ask it. I believe we have gone too far in democracy, and that, unless we retrace some steps recently taken, we shall see fulfilled some of the prophecies made by those who distrusted popular government at the time this nation was "brought forth on this continent, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." This Government was not founded as a democracy. The democratic idea was put forward in the Constitutional Convention, discussed, and discarded because direct government had everywhere failed. Our Government was founded as a representative government. I doubt if many realize how far we have departed in the last decade from this foundational principle. Two steps have been taken, practically by common consent, which go far to undo the work of the fathers. One of these, the less serious, is the direct election of United States Senators. This would not be so disastrous in its results but for the other more radical action, which, in practice, virtually abandons representative government and substitutes pure democracy. I refer to the primary method of choosing candidates for office. This change was unnecessary. It is true that some men did buy their way into the Senate with money. But whom did they buy? The men chosen directly from the electorate by their immediate neighbors in legislative districts-districts so small that the citizen intent upon his duties as a voter could, if he would, know all about the character of the men he was voting for. What was needed was not a new method of electing United States Senators, but the exercise of more care on the part of the voters in choosing legislative candidates. Does anyone suppose that unfit men will not continue, now and then, to buy their way into the United States Senate? Some of the most notorious have already had no more trouble in getting the endorsement of the electorate than they had in persuading the legislature. But this departure, needless as it was, would not be so bad if candidates for the Senate could be chosen by party conventions composed of delegates selected to represent political units not larger than a county. It is the indirect step away from representative government that threatens to make public service a reproach rather than an honor. If ever there was a device of the devil in politics, it is the direct primary. How did it come about? There had been some abuse of the caucus and convention system. It was charged that corrupt influences controlled nominations by means of the packed caucus. In some instances, they did. Under the spur of bitter factional contests, many things were done at once disgusting and disgraceful. But all the evils incident to the caucus system could have been remedied by a simple statute legalizing the caucus and laying down rules for its conduct.There was no need to abandon the basic principles of representative government. Even the caucus system as it existed could have been rendered much less harmful by a strict attention to civic duty on the part of the people. How many precincts could have been controlled through a packed caucus, if the decent voters of every precinct had made it a point to attend the caucus? But such a thing as attempting to remedy a political defect by devotion to the ordinary duties of citizenship does not appeal to the average American. He wants a legislative remedy, a new law, a cure-all that will enforce itself. And so these negligent citizens who never went to a caucus in their lives, and who often had to bedragged to the polls by party workers, began to clamor for primary law, led on by politicians who hoped to profit by such enactment. They raised the cry of "Back to the People! Let the People rule "-those same People who went to the theatre or to the club on caucus nights. They reversed completely the scriptural dictum: "Behold, thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will make thee ruler over many things." They said: "We have been unfaithful over a few things; make us ruler over many things. We have been care less and incompetent in choosing men to represent us within a small unit where we knew everybody. Behold, we will be faithful and competent in selecting men from a field so large that we can know only a few. The boss shall be dethroned. The places that knew him shall know him no more forever. The man shall not seek the office; the office shall seek the man." And the law came, came in every State in the Union. What has been the result? Has the boss been dethroned? Does the office seek the man? Have the people greater power over nominations than they had under the old system? Has the personnel of office-holders improved? Not one of these questions can be answered in the affirmative. The boss is as powerful as ever. The office could not seek the man if it tried. The only thing left to the people is to choose and, as I shall seek to show later, blindly -from the list presented on the primary ballot. Such a thing as drafting a man at an especially important hour for a mighty task is absolutely impossible. Never in the history of America was the personnel of public life so weak and incompetent as it is to-day. A few months ago, one of the foremost newspapers in America, in an article entitled "The Most Shameful Legislative Body in the World," made this assertion: "With a few honorable exceptions, the United States Senate is a composition of ignorance, selfishness, avarice, political greed, stupidity, blatancy, flamboyance and asininity, to be equaled only by the same composition found in the House of Representatives of the United States Congress." This is a terrible arraignment, and, in my opinion, too radical; but the most terrible thing about it is that there is some justification for it. The original advocates of the primary, who were honest, went upon the theory that every voter is deeply interested in public affairs, and that, if given direct responsibility, he would carefully weigh the qualifications of all the candidates, and that only fit men would have a chance. Now, disagreeable as the truth is, the average voter is not deeply interested in public affairs. The average voter knows little and cares less about things political, unless some personal or financial - interest is directly involved. In the second place, even the most intelligent voter is helpless when it comes to choosing a host of candidates through the medium of the primary ballot. It is, for the most part, a list of unknown names.. Often the most intelligent voter knows nothing about ninety five per cent of them, and as a rule he votes for the first name on the list under the several headings. When the Iowa primary law was first enacted, it provided that the names of the candidates for the several offices to be nominated should be arranged on the ballot in alphabetical order. What was the result? Why, A beat B, and B beat C when there was no A, and so on throughout the length of the ballot. Finally they changed the law, and arranged it so that every candidate has his name first on the list in a proportionate number of counties. That helps the men whose names begin with X, Y, or Z. But what a commentary it is on the worth of the law as a measure of reform, and on the intelligence of the average voter! The primary law has been in operation long enough to demonstrate beyond dispute that it has the following effects -all detrimental to the public good: First: It bars from State and national offices every man of small means who is not backed by some one who has money. Second: It puts a premium on the sensationalist and the demagogue. Third: It destroys absolutely the effectiveness of the minority party as a restraining force on the majority party. Fourth: It weakens party ties and makes for personal politics. Fifth: It makes tenure insecure even for the most competent. In order to win at a primary, a man must impress him-self on a sufficient number of voters to make them think of him when they go into the booth at the primary election. Consider for a moment what it costs to cover the ninety-nine counties of a State like Iowa in any effective way so that a man comparatively unknown can so impress himself upon the voters. He cannot meet more than a small number of them. He must impress them, if they are to be impressed, through newspaper advertisements and circulars. An allotment of $500.00 a county for such a purpose would not be unreasonable. If the ambitious politician is seeking free advertising, of course he can get it by doing something outlandish; and it has been proved over and over again that to do this is one of the surest ways of winning a place on the ticket, even for the office of a Senator in Congress. As for the destruction of the effectiveness of the minority party, that is plain to everyone who knows the practice under the old system and the practice of today. Formerly it was the custom for the minority party to hold its convention after that of the majority party. If the majority party, drunk with over-confidence and power, nominated a weak and incompetent candidate for any office, the minority party took advantage of it and compelled its strongest men to enter the lists; and it has not infrequently happened that by so doing the party hopelessly in the minority has been triumphant. But under the primary system, the minority party is not able to keep its notoriety seekers off the primary ballot; so that if a "yellow dog" is nominated by the majority party, the chances are that a canine equally yellow will be nominated by the minority; and the poor voter is left with the choice between two "yellow dogs." 66 The weakening of party ties may seem to some a thing to be desired rather than deplored. Man, not party," is a rather popular slogan. But this notion proceeds from superficial thinking. In this country we must have government by and through parties, or we shall have chaos. Nothing lasting can be predicated upon any individual. Human life is too brief, too uncertain. The conservative force of organization is absolutely essential to progress and order. A party has - principles, traditions and a history that hold individuals in check and make for stability. Individuals pass away, but the party remains. The great statesmen of every country, in every age, have been partisans, not blindly so, but rational party men, leading their parties. There are those, perhaps, who hold that short tenure for office-holders is a good thing. There could be no greater error than this. A statesman is not made in a day. Statecraft is an art as difficult to master as the most learned profession If we are going to be able to hold our own among the nations of the earth and develop our own possibilities, we must have not only a few but many men who will serve as Congressmen and Senators,-not for one or two terms, but for many. Under the primary, the greatest and the wisest of them can be and are nagged out of public life. They will not submit to it. Many who would make capable public officials will not even start. It is repugnant to many men of the finest ability to use the methods which must be used to win at a primary election. These methods, briefly summarized, are the same that one would have to use if he |