Americans by Choice

In those days the “New Immigration,” though the distinction between “old” and “new” now current had not been created, was more particularly of Irish and German—both races now generally regarded as of the “old,” the more desirable kind!

Ostrogorski, in his Democracy and the Party System in the United States, says:[165]

Ostrogorski took his view from the situation in New York City, as many other writers have done; overlooking the fact that to a great extent the new voter, both native and foreign-born, has usually and naturally followed first the political partisan preference of his father and his racial associates, and second, the trend of party success. The dominating party machine in any city naturally has the prestige of success, and its ability to deliver patronage, large and small, draws those to whom a job is the vitally important thing in life. In New York City the power of the ignorant vote always has been a great source of strength to Tammany, which happens to be Democratic; in Philadelphia the same thing may be said of the local organization, which happens to be Republican.

CORRUPTION WAS NOT AN IMPORTATION

It is a common impression that the backbone of political corruption lies in the so-called “foreign vote.” Ostrogorski paid his respects to that idea. Said he:[166]

HOME-GROWN IN ADAMS COUNTY, OHIO!

Once at least in our political history we had an opportunity to see Ostrogorski’s assertion convincingly illustrated, and legally attested by “judicial notice” of a competent court, in the case of Adams County, Ohio, where, a decade ago, in 1910, one brave local judge, by the name of A. Z. Blair, haled before him a whole countryside of farmers, and disfranchised for confessed corruption pretty much the whole population. Here was exactly the situation described by Ostrogorski—“votes sold openly, like an article of commerce,” ... “a regular market quotation,” ... “well-to-do farmers, of American stock,” ... “a third of the electors make money out of their votes.” By stress of a special grand jury Judge Blair brought out complete and all but universal confessions, and imposed fines and disfranchisement upon the majority of voters in a whole rural county.

WHO IS THE BUYER OF VOTES?

Incidentally it may be remarked that in all this business of election bribery, which in past years has been all but omnipresent in American politics, the emphasis is laid upon those, American or foreign-born, who sell their votes. Even if it were true that the purchasable voter was chiefly the voter of alien race, every sale implies a purchase. Before any voter can sell his vote, somebody must be prepared to buy it. The seat of corruption lies, not in the venal voter alone, but also in the system that gathers money for the purpose of buying him. And that system, from the very beginning, has been devised and engineered by the American politician, and those behind him in American business life who desire to control elections and the people’s representative selected therein, for their own “business” ends. It would not be difficult to point to elections of very great importance in America—even Presidential elections—in which the vote of great states was swayed one way or the other by the margin represented by the out-and-out purchase of votes at so much per head. Nor would any person above the age of six years seriously debate the question of the native-American origin of the people who incited and paid for the corruption.

William S. Bennet, then a member of Congress from New York City, and of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, put his finger exactly on the center of this question when he said:[168]

Mr. Bennet, on the same occasion, emphasized the fact that a sharp distinction must be drawn between the mass of immigrants constituting the bulk of the foreign population, especially in the cities, and the small portion thereof actually participating in political activities:

There is no substantial support, either in any careful study of elections as a whole or in particular, or in the experience of those who have lived close to the political processes of our country, for the widespread impression that the foreign-born voter is more given to or victim of political corruption than any other class.

ATTEMPTS TO FIND THE “FOREIGN VOTE”

It is exceedingly difficult to identify the part played in any particular election, or in elections generally, by foreign-born voters. Political leaders and others who make analyses of election returns have their theories and prepossessions, and find in figures what they want to find, to defend policies, support theories, and sustain positions generally. In the presidential election of 1920, this was especially evident. Those who supported the Republican ticket and platform and those who supported the Democratic; those violently opposed to the League of Nations and those devotedly in favor of it—alike found in the election returns, manipulated to suit their views, sustenance for argument as to the part played in the result by this, that, and the other racial group or political faction. Even the Socialists, whose basic theory is the most definitely declared of all political theories, find in a growing vote evidences of wide acceptance of their doctrines; in its shrinkage merely the desertion of mere protestors or sentimentalists who really do not understand Socialism at all! Personal prejudice and predilection exhibit themselves notoriously in political figuring. The process usually consists of more or less gratuitous assumptions, from which one may prove statistically—whatever he wants to prove.

An exceptional instance of an attempt to analyze an election without preliminary bias appears in a study of “The Political Mind of Foreign-born Americans,” contributed by Dr. Abram Lipsky to Popular Science Monthly several years ago,[169] in which he undertook by analysis of the election returns from a number of Assembly Districts in Greater New York, predominantly of a certain racial complexion, to infer the attitude of those racial groups on certain subjects. But it is clear that the inferences, however they may have been justified by the figures from this election, were based upon questionable assumptions. Still more important, it is altogether fallacious to assume that in another election, wherein the issues were stated differently or the general political atmosphere was different, these very districts, these very individual voters of whatever race, might not vote quite otherwise. A state of mind among the Italian-born voters, provoked, for example, by their understanding of the attitude of Mr. Wilson on the subject of Fiume, might produce Republican votes in one election; whereas a year later, in an election in which their interests at home or abroad were believed by them to be otherwise affected, their votes might be overwhelmingly Democratic.

One of the questions which Doctor Lipsky undertook to answer from the election figures was whether the voters in the selected districts “read the Hearst papers regularly.” He inferred his answer from the vote cast in those districts for the candidates which happened to be favored by the newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst. But the basic assumption was fallacious, overlooking entirely the notorious fact that repeatedly elections in New York City have been won in spite of the opposition, or lost in spite of the support, of virtually the entire newspaper press of the city. As logically might one assume from any election that the vote, pro or contra, on any subject represented the circulation of some particular group of newspapers whose views the election indorsed.

Nearer the probabilities, but still subject to the same kind of discount, is Doctor Lipsky’s generalization as to the showing of one election on the subject of the attitude of certain racial groups as regards Tammany Hall and Socialism. This analysis is not without a certain degree of general significance.

Doctor Lipsky’s conclusion that “native-born Americans of American parents are opposed to Tammany government” is based upon a comparison of figures from districts predominantly of native Americans, in the elections for governor in 1910 and for mayor of New York in 1913, his primary assumption being that the candidacy of Judge Edward E. McCall for mayor embodied “Tammany” pure and simple, while that of John A. Dix for governor did not make “Tammany” a state issue. From this point of view Doctor Lipsky interprets the fact that the percentage of votes for McCall in those districts was strikingly lower than those for Dix in the state election of three years before:

The Irish voted for Tammany, as usual:

Some years the Germans are supposed to have supported Tammany; this particular time Doctor Lipsky seems to find that they did not—in districts in which Germans made up a considerable percentage of the population. (See Table XL.)

Think what you will of the Italians’ attitude toward Tammany; you can stress the fact that the vote for McCall was so much below that of three years before for Dix, or you can philosophize about the fact that it was no greater! Doctor Lipsky’s inference that, on the whole, they supported Tammany is based on the figures from six districts. (See Table XLI.)

The thing that stands out in these figures, whatever else may be said, would seem to be the fact that, like the native Americans of native parentage, the voters of foreign racial antecedents changed their support with changing circumstances and influences. The conventional view of the foreign-born voter is that he votes in herds, as he is told to vote, and that in New York City Tammany does the herding. Well, in the mayoralty election of 1913, judging by these figures, it is evident that Tammany’s “herding” was not wholly successful with those “new-immigration” voters classed as Russians and Austrians! All sorts of factors, local and general, fundamental and temporary, almost Wholly incalculable, enter into elections, and one is free to analyze and interpret to suit himself.

On the subject of the “political mind of the foreign-born voter” as regards Socialism, Doctor Lipsky presents some interesting figures from ten assembly districts in which the Socialist candidate for mayor in 1913 received over 10 per cent of the total vote.

“Our conclusion therefore is,” says Doctor Lipsky, “that the bulk of the Socialist vote is derived from the foreign Jewish element, and to a less degree from the Germans.”

Perhaps, but one may not ignore, for instance, the fact that in the district of these containing the largest percentage of native Americans of native parentage, the Socialist vote for Governor in 1910 was 12.5 per cent of the whole; or that in the one in which the Russian and Austrian percentage was very small and the German larger than in any other of the districts selected, the Socialist vote was about 13 per cent. We shall see later in this chapter the importance of the German factor in the Socialist party.

All such analyses of particular elections, we may say again, are interesting and in a measure instructive; but generalizations are exceedingly perilous and greatly conditioned by personal preconceptions, special temporary and local forces and circumstances, and the purposes of the statistician for the time being—for all of which the candid student will, and must, make heavy discounts.

RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE IDEAS

Coming to the question of the Progressive party’s campaign in 1912, Doctor Lipsky says, in part:

So there you are—make what you will of it. Why should the very districts in which we found heavy percentages of Russians and Austrians, and a relatively heavy Socialist vote, produce a preponderant vote for Roosevelt and the Progressive platform? Is there, after all, a common factor, overlooked—or anyway not dwelt upon—by Doctor Lipsky, to account for what otherwise might seem inexplicable? Here again one may philosophize to suit himself, but it is worth while to consider one phase of the matter too often ignored in discussions of the motives and impulses behind the radical vote.

William S. Bennet, previously quoted in the same address, dwelt upon this matter in speaking of the influence of Mr. Hearst:[170]

The point to be noted, then, is that in the propaganda of the Socialists, of the Progressive party, of Mr. Hearst, there was much stress upon and slogans about the common welfare, the improvement of social conditions, the square deal, honest politics and government, human brotherhood. The note never was outwardly selfish or materialistic. Always, in the main, it was idealism—whatever may have been the private motives actually underlying in any particular case.

It is the common experience of those who have worked with the foreign-born voter that he usually is responsive to this kind of appeal. Is it not really a tribute to ourselves, as well as an index of his own idea of what “America” stands for, that he acts at the ballot box as if he would like to see these things incarnated in the life of his adopted country?

Mr. Bennet went on to say that “we learn, certainly, concerning our most recent citizens, from the Hearst vote”:

And Mr. Bennet added, “these things have been proved concerning the immigrant. Without going into specifications, which are, however, well understood locally, these things are not proved”:

SOME RESULTS FROM CLEVELAND

It is impossible to forecast the working out in our politics of the passions aroused by the World War among the various racial groups by the relations and enmities of their respective fatherlands in that vast turmoil, and the effects of the behavior of native-American elements toward particular races, and even toward “foreigners” generally. It is evident that for any intelligent understanding of what, in the long run and under approximately normal conditions, are the political attitudes and activities, we must derive our facts largely from an earlier period—at least antedating the armistice and the bitter conflicts growing out of the Peace Treaty and the partisanship characterizing the controversy about the League of Nations which so greatly confused the issues in the presidential election of 1920.

A series of elections in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, in the period between 1911 and 1918 seemed to offer opportunities for study of a number of large racial groups under reasonably normal conditions. It is not claimed that this Study was conclusive in its results or fully scientific in its method; but it certainly produced a significant exhibit of facts, and in general confirmed what is known to everyone who ever has worked With or candidly observed at first hand the part played by the foreign-born voter in American politics—namely, that he is in no important respect different from the native-born; that he is swayed by the same motives and emotions, and is not essentially different in respect of responsiveness to appeals to his civic pride.

The first step was to select for study a group of election precincts including as large a proportion as possible of the various nationalities, and for comparison another group of districts which would show the action of native-born voters. Ten of the latter were selected, including populations both relatively wealthy and relatively poor, and both habitually Republican and habitually Democratic. For foreign-born racial groups the following were selected as most important: Czechs, Magyars, Poles, Jugo-Slavs, Italians, and Jews. Owing to the scattered nature of the racial distribution, it was impossible to find a large number of districts predominantly of any particular race; but it was possible to segregate three for each of these races, and four for one, for comparison with them of the native born; so that 29 precincts were studied, as follows:

Eight elections were covered by the inquiry, comparing the votes for:

The returns were examined also for indications as to attitudes about woman suffrage and the question of no-license and prohibition, in elections between 1912 and 1918.

Of the native-born precincts, so called, five indicated almost straight Democratic tendencies; three were consistently Republican; and two were of varying complexion as between the two great parties. It should be remembered that the prevailing general complexion of the city of Cleveland in recent years, and regardless of the “landslide” of 1920, has been Democratic. Therefore the districts selected to show the tendencies of the native born were fairly representative of the situation.

The first election, 1911, was a straight partisan contest between Mr. Baker, a Democrat, and Mr. Hogen, a Republican. In 1913, the city tried, for the first time, its municipal nonpartisan ballot; but in that year the old political parties were as powerful as ever. In the election of 1915, Mr. Baker was not a candidate, but Peter Witt, long associated with Mayor Tom L. Johnson, was the Democratic candidate. This election exhibits circumstances and results significant not only of the attitude of the foreign-born voter and his responsiveness to political cross-currents, but of the extreme difficulty of isolating particular factors as especially influential upon these voters.

Mr. Witt had just completed four years of service as Street Railway Commissioner, and among the business and professional classes of the town had won a rather reluctant recognition for efficiency, the reluctance being largely due to the fact that in days when he was campaigning for Tom Johnson he had been regarded as ultra-radical. But his opponent in this campaign had no recognized record of administrative capacity, and the Republicans themselves acknowledged some doubt as to his ability, compared with the known ability of Witt, to fulfill the duties of the mayoralty. Both candidates were regarded without opposition by the “wet” element, though Mr. Davis was perhaps more circumspect in his utterances on the liquor question. The campaign did not touch the questions involved in the European War until the very end, when, on the Sunday before election, some supporter of Davis published and widely circulated among the Bohemians (Czechs), Russians, and Italians a pamphlet in which Witt was bitterly accused of being pro-German.

Now the results of the election in the wards dominated by those nationalities might rationally be held to show a pronounced effect of that propaganda, but it was no secret, the old “aristocratic” wards were presumably as keen about pro-Germanism as those inhabited by voters of alien origin, and there, if anywhere, would be the seat of the prejudice against Witt on the ground of alleged radicalism. Why, then, did the native-born conservatives waive their prejudices against Witt, the supposed radical, and overlook the charges of pro-Germanism? And why did the foreign born, who are conventionally expected to be radical, suddenly turn and vote against the only candidate who was accused of being radical? Why did Mr. Witt gain nothing in the heavily German wards (as in fact he did gain nothing) from his German name, his remote German ancestry, and the accusation of pro-Germanism? It was further noted at the time that among the Russian Jews the attack upon Witt turned many normally Democratic votes to the Davis Republican candidate. Why?

The following tables show what happened in the precincts studied: