Unpopular government in the United States

Section 1
Introductory

In brief outline this is what has occurred: As the population of the country has grown and communities and states have passed more and more beyond the frontier stage of development, the decentralization of governmental power has constantly increased and the elective principle has been more and more extensively applied. As a consequence the burden placed upon the electorate has become more and more onerous. The voter has been called upon to vote more often and for an increasing number of officers. He must theoretically examine into the qualifications of a large number of candidates at frequent intervals. This has placed upon intelligent voting an enormous educational qualification. The task of the voter to obtain sufficient information about candidates long ago passed beyond what even the very intelligent citizen could fulfil and still maintain his place in competitive industry. The result is that the voter, though extremely intelligent in general, comes to the polls in utter ignorance of candidates and their qualifications for office. Nevertheless, he insists, in spite of his political ignorance, upon voting for someone. He takes his voting seriously and endeavors to make a show of voting intelligently. This attitude necessarily requires him to secure advice from someone as to whom to vote for. At once there is created the opportunity for the adviser to the voter. He first appears naturally as a local leader whom the electorate trusts. Soon, however, there arises the man who makes advising the politically ignorant voter his profession. Then this professional adviser becomes more of a director to the politically ignorant voter. This process goes on in every electoral district where the voter is politically ignorant enough to need some advice. It is not long before there is developed a hierarchy of professional advisers and directors to the politically ignorant voter. Sometimes there are competing hierarchies of such advisers and directors. One or the other, however, is the more generally successful, or both by agreement divide the privilege of advising the politically ignorant voter how to vote—each helping the other in its exclusive territory. Those who direct the politically ignorant majority how to vote have filled the state and municipal offices with those who are loyal to them first and to the governed afterward. The leaders of the successful organization of advisers and directors to the politically ignorant electorate have become an extra-legal but none the less real government. A decentralized legal government has been replaced by a centralized extra-legal government. Thus the power of government has again drifted into the hands of the few. These, pursuant to well-known human characteristics, use that power selfishly. The decentralized character of the legal governmental power, the fact that only part of the offices are filled at any time, and the enormous advantage which comes from having a standing army of advisers and directors to guide the mass of politically ignorant voters, make it difficult to replace at the polls with real representatives of the electorate the appointees of this extra-legal government. We have, therefore, come finally to a well-defined extra-legal but none the less real government of the few, by the few, and for the few, at the expense and against the wish of the many. We have, in a word, achieved the establishment of a substantial unpopular government.

In form the politically ignorant voter is aided by the altruistic advice of those who know who should be elected. In form the voter can take the advice or not as he pleases. In reality, however, and in actual practice, the power of the electorate to fill the state and municipal offices has been confided by the politically ignorant majority to the leaders in the successful hierarchy of professional advisers and directors to the politically ignorant voter. The elector, by being required to vote too much, has been compelled to surrender to a large extent his right to vote at all, and to permit others to cast his ballot as they see fit. Formerly people were disfranchised when they were given no opportunity to vote. Today they are disfranchised by being required to vote too much. Formerly the legal rulers of the disfranchised masses were selected for them by the few without equivocation. Today our legal rulers are selected for us by the few through the subterfuge of the masses casting their ballots according to the directions of the few. 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. We have avoided monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy, and aristocracy, only to find ourselves tightly in the grasp of a politocracy.

So startling a conclusion with respect to our governmental condition invites a detailed consideration of each step upon which that conclusion is founded.

Section 2
The Burden upon the Electorate—The Inverted Pyramid of Governmental and Electoral Districts—The Offices to Be Filled and the Number of Electors in Each District

No doubt the average American voter in most districts will readily concede the great burden of his political duties. But unless he has analyzed his particular situation he will hardly realize how great is that burden. Of course, the condition of voters in different places will differ in detail, but the important features are much the same everywhere. For the sake of example I will analyze my own situation as a voter of the Village of Winnetka, Township of New Trier, County of Cook, and State of Illinois.[2]

I am one of about 600 voters in a village which elects each spring, on one day, about one-half of the following officers: a president, 6 trustees, a clerk, a treasurer, a marshal and collector, 2 police magistrates, and 6 library trustees; and on another day, shortly afterward, a common-school trustee.

I am one of about 2,000 voters in a township which elects, on the same day that the principal village officers are elected, but at a different polling place, about one-half of the following officers: a supervisor, a clerk, an assessor, a collector, a commissioner of highways, 5 justices of the peace, 5 constables, and a poundmaster; and at a later day (but on the same day that the trustee for common schools is elected), 2 high-school trustees.

I am one of about 18,000 voters to elect one member of the state Senate every four years and 3 members of the House of Representatives of the state legislature every two years at the regular November election.

I am one of about 28,000 voters who elect 5 county commissioners at the regular November election every other year.

I am one of about 42,000 voters who elect one member of Congress at the regular November election and one member of the State Board of Equalization every two years.

I am one of about 322,000 voters who elect 3 sanitary trustees every two years at the regular November election and a president of the Sanitary District every five years.

I am one of about 350,000 voters who elect the following county officers every other year at the November election: 2 of the 5 members of the Board of Assessors, 1 of the 3 members of the Board of Review, 6 of the 18 judges of the Superior Court of Cook County; also about one-half of the following officers: president of the Board of County Commissioners, judge of the Probate Court, judge of the County Court, state’s attorney, recorder of deeds, clerk of the Circuit Court, clerk of the Superior Court, clerk of the Criminal Court, clerk of the Appellate Court, clerk of the Probate Court, coroner, sheriff, county clerk, county superintendent of schools, and county surveyor. I am one of about 350,000 voters to elect, every other June at a special election, about 5 of the 15 judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

I am one of about 380,000 voters to elect 1 of the 7 justices of the Supreme Court of the state every nine years.

I am one of about 1,100,000 to elect at the regular November election every two years about one-half of the following state officers: a governor, a lieutenant-governor, a secretary of state, an auditor, a treasurer, a state superintendent of public instruction, 6 trustees of the state university, clerk of the state Supreme Court, and 2 congressmen at large.

I am one of about 15,000,000 voters who elect a president and vice-president of the United States every four years at the regular November election.

When I entered the voting booth at the regular November election in 1912, the ballot given me to mark was 22 × 28 inches in size. It called upon the voter to do his part in filling, exclusive of presidential electors, 34 offices. It presented for his consideration, exclusive of presidential electors, 181 names from which to make selections.[3]

An enumeration of the offices to be filled by election merely emphasizes the number of candidates whom the voter should inform himself about. The extent of the burden upon the voter is not fully appreciated until it is perceived how difficult actual conditions make it for him to obtain information regarding candidates for office. The least important and most inconspicuous state and local offices, as well as the most important and conspicuous, must engage the attention of the electorate of the entire governmental district. But the candidates for inconspicuous and unimportant offices must usually be men who are inconspicuous or unimportant in the community. Furthermore, the importance and conspicuousness of subordinate offices do not increase in proportion to the increase of population. The clerk of a court or a county surveyor is not a more conspicuous officer because he holds his office in a county having over two million inhabitants. He is, therefore, proportionately less conspicuous and important as the population increases. The voter is, therefore, constantly presented with candidates whose reputations are in inverse ratio to the size and population of the electoral district. The more electors there are in the district the smaller in proportion is the reputation of the candidate. The more the character and qualifications of the candidates are hidden, the more difficult it is for the voter to obtain the information which he should have in order to vote intelligently. For instance, the 600 voters in the village where the writer resides are called upon to select a clerk, a treasurer, a marshal and collector, 2 police magistrates, and library and school trustees. In so small a community the voter may with some effort actually know who the candidates for these places are. As a matter of fact, however, that effort is considerably more than the large majority of voters will push themselves to perform. The 2,000 voters in the township where the writer resides are called upon to elect a supervisor, a clerk, an assessor, a collector, a commissioner of highways, 5 justices of the peace, 4 constables, a poundmaster, and high-school trustees. These offices are not intrinsically more conspicuous or more important than the village offices just enumerated. Hence the enlargement from 600 to 2,000 voters causes the candidates for office to be proportionately less conspicuous in the community. To the same extent the difficulty to the voter of obtaining information as to the character and attainments of the candidates has been increased. The members of the state Senate and House of Representatives are important officers because they exercise the legislative power of the state. The conspicuousness and importance of each of these offices is, however, weakened by the existence of the other, for between the representatives and senators the legislative power is divided and each is a check upon the other. The members of the House of Representatives in the state legislature are hidden to some extent from the voters because 3 are elected at large from a senatorial district containing 18,000 voters. It is more difficult for the voter to find out about a legislator when he is one of 18,000 than when he is one of 6,000 voters. Twenty-eight thousand electors of the County of Cook outside of the city of Chicago are called upon to vote for 5 of the 15 county commissioners. The office is not likely to be held by men whom it is easy for the average voter of the district to pick up direct information about. To elect one member of the state Board of Equalization 42,000 voters are called upon. Again, the size of the electorate makes it difficult to know who the candidates for the place may be. Three hundred and twenty-two thousand voters are called upon to elect 7 sanitary trustees. Here the darkness of the average voter becomes Egyptian, and he is practically excluded from any means of a personal knowledge of who the candidates for the sanitary trustees are. The same is equally true of the members of the Board of Review, members of the Board of Assessors, the 30 judges of Cook County, the president of the Board of County Commissioners, the judge of the Probate Court, the judge of the County Court, the state’s attorney, the recorder, the 5 clerks of the different courts, the sheriff, the county clerk, the county superintendent of public instruction, and the county surveyor. There are 350,000 voters who regularly cast their ballots for these officers. Among a population containing so many voters it is practically impossible, even for the voter who makes an unusual effort, to acquire any personal knowledge of who the candidates for these offices are. Take the most prominent officials in the list—the judges and state’s attorney. The intelligent man who is a voter has very little chance to acquire any personal knowledge of the fitness of the candidates for these offices. A particular judge or a particular candidate for state’s attorney may become to some extent known to the voter and have the confidence of the voter. But these are exceptional cases. The average candidate for these offices is beyond the reach of any thoroughgoing knowledge on the part of the voter. The difficulty of obtaining information about one inconspicuous member of so large a population is too great. In Illinois, to select a secretary of state, an auditor, a treasurer, a state superintendent of schools, 6 trustees of the state university, a clerk of the state Supreme Court, and 2 congressmen at large, 1,100,000 voters are called upon. Here again the inconspicuousness of the offices compared with the size of the electorate is such that the obstacle to the voter informing himself about candidates is practically insuperable.

One would think that the voter had difficulty enough in finding out about candidates as a result of the simple process of requiring comparatively inconspicuous and unimportant offices to be filled by a very numerous electorate. But his difficulty has been enormously increased by the process of requiring the voter to do the larger part of his investigating for the purpose of voting at a single election. For instance, the writer is called upon at a single election in November to investigate the qualifications for office of a president and vice-president of the United States, a congressman for his district, 2 congressmen at large, about one-half of the state officers, and about one-half of the county officers. To be exact, he must look up candidates for 34 different offices (not including the presidential electors) presented upon the long ballot given supra (opposite p. 29), to the number of 181. Assuming that information about some of the candidates for the more important offices, such as members of Congress and members of the state legislature, could be looked up and reliable information obtained, the chances are that this will not be done because other more important offices, like that of president of the United States and governor of the state, are to be filled. This process of preventing the voter from investigating candidates for even important and conspicuous offices by putting so much investigating upon him at a single election that he cannot do it has operated to produce political ignorance on the part of the electorate as to candidates for Congress and the state legislature. These are important and conspicuous offices. The candidates come from comparatively small districts. If selected at an election where they were the only offices to be filled, a very considerable amount of intelligence might be displayed by the electorate. But these offices are hidden among half a hundred other offices for which several hundred other candidates are running. In the mass the voter is distracted and fails to a considerable extent to distinguish the important from the unimportant. The extraordinary amount of investigating to be done overwhelms and discourages him, and he goes to the polls too frequently utterly ignorant of the qualifications of candidates for members of Congress and the state legislature.

That the decentralization of governmental power and the increased application of the elective principle has necessarily cast upon the electorate an enormous burden in order that it may vote intelligently is clear enough from the everyday experience of the voter at the polls. At least one political scientist has directed an experiment to emphasize it. President Judson, a few years ago, gave to a graduate class at the University of Chicago, four weeks before the regular fall election in Cook County, a list of all the candidates for office on a ballot substantially similar to that which appears supra (p. 29), and required them to report at the time of the election such facts as they could ascertain about the candidates and their qualifications. With diligent work on the part of the really mature men in Dr. Judson’s class a satisfactory report was turned in with regard to only a small percentage of the entire list. This, Dr. Judson thought, fairly indicated what the average voter could do on his own responsibility in the way of securing information respecting candidates if he had spent the same amount of time with that object in view.

Not only is it obvious that the voter is under a great burden with respect to seeking and securing information about the candidates for office he is called upon to vote for, but it is clear that the task is so great as to be impossible of fulfilment by the large mass of the electorate who have their place in competitive industry to maintain. A small handful of intelligent men of commanding position in the community, after many years of experience, may be able with comparatively little expenditure of time to inform themselves accurately concerning a large number of the candidates of the two or three principal parties on the ballot. But the average man whose position in the community and experience with affairs is more limited could not obtain the proper amount of information without an actual neglect of his business or profession—a neglect which he dare not permit. The voter who occupies a salaried position which demands a full day of work for his employer throughout the year has no time, inclination, nor opportunity for prolonged investigation into the qualifications of candidates for public office. The residuary mass of the electorate have neither the time, the experience, nor the interest to investigate in advance and inform themselves of the qualifications of candidates to be presented for a large number of offices.

Section 3
The Resulting Political Ignorance of the Voter and His Consequent Disfranchisement

Of course, there is some political ignorance due to illiteracy and general lack of intelligence. With this, however, we are not now principally concerned. It is here assumed that except in small and exceptional districts the great majority of voters are neither illiterate nor unintelligent, but are of a fair average intelligence and capable of reaching and following sound moral and political judgments. The fact which is now to be emphasized is that the burden upon the voter is such that the vote of the most intelligent man is made quite as politically ignorant as that of the least intelligent. The percentage of politically ignorant voting has become very high, not because the voter is unintelligent, but in spite of the fact that he may be extremely intelligent. An electorate that is capable of casting an 85 per cent intelligent vote on a given matter of importance has, by the simple process of requiring the voter to vote too much, been reduced to the voting effectiveness of a Filipino who is not yet ready for popular institutions. To the extent that our intelligent voter has thus artificially been made ignorant in the discharge of his political duties he has been disfranchised. Too much of what popularly passes for democracy has resulted in too little real democracy.

When the voter faces in the voting booth such a ballot as that already exhibited supra (opposite p. 29), or even a much simpler one, he has no time to analyze his condition of knowledge or ignorance. He must vote quickly and be about his business. If we could secure a revelation from the voter of the state of his mind as he faces the ballot, would not his condition of ignorance be appalling? He would, of course, admit that he knew nothing of the duties of a large number of the offices to be filled. He would admit that he knew nothing of the qualifications of a large number of the men who were seeking office. Indeed, many of them he would never have heard of. The average voter would no doubt have prepared himself, by reading, by following events, and by discussing the matter with other voters, to vote for a particular candidate for president of the United States. From the same sources he might acquire a personal preference among the candidates for governor of the state. He might have a personal preference founded upon some actual knowledge or current rumor as to the proper candidate for congressman or member of the state legislature or president of the county board. He might be satisfied that some one of the several candidates running for several vacancies on the bench ought to be elected. It is hardly probable, however, that he will have any personal preference founded upon any actual knowledge as to the candidates for all these places at once. Outside the candidates for three or four places he will be utterly and entirely devoid of any personal knowledge upon which to base an intelligent vote.

To make this position more concrete I will describe my own state of mind as to the ballot illustrated supra (facing p. 29). I never heard the names of any of the candidates on the Socialist Labor, the Socialist, or Prohibition tickets except those of Debs and Chafin, and of these I had an impression about the qualifications for office only with respect to Mr. Debs. On the Democratic ticket I think I was intelligent with respect to Mr. Wilson’s candidacy for president and Mr. Dunne’s for governor. I had some personal knowledge regarding one candidate for a trustee of the state university, the candidates for state’s attorney and for president of the Board of County Commissioners. The other names on the Democratic ticket meant nothing to me. On the Republican ticket I regarded myself as informed sufficiently to vote intelligently on Mr. Taft’s candidacy for president, and Mr. Deneen’s for governor. I had some personal knowledge regarding one candidate for representative at large in Congress, the candidates for representative in Congress from the congressional district, and for president of the Board of County Commissioners. Of the remaining thirty-nine names on the Republican ticket I recognized one as that of the son of a war governor, one as a former attorney-general, one as a former county judge, three seeking clerkships and the office of coroner, as the incumbents of the offices for which they were running, and one as a lawyer with whom I had some personal acquaintance. The names of the other candidates at the time I voted meant absolutely nothing to me. On the Progressive ticket I was intelligent with respect to Mr. Roosevelt’s candidacy for president and Mr. Johnson’s for vice-president; also to the candidacy of those seeking the offices of attorney-general and representative to the state legislature. I had some acquaintance with one of the candidates for trustee of the University of Illinois, and one of the five candidates for county commissioner. The rest of the names meant nothing whatever to me.

If the offices which the voter was called upon to fill while politically ignorant were few in number and altogether insignificant in the extent of the governmental power which they controlled, not much harm would be done. But little by little, as population has increased and social and governmental organization has become more complex and the political duties of the voter have grown heavier, the political ignorance of the voter has extended to a constantly increasing number of candidates for office, until the sum total of the governmental power of all the offices for which the voter casts his ballot in political ignorance constitutes the principal part of the entire local and state governmental power. The great sources of governmental power are the Congress of the United States, the legislatures of the state and local governments. When the tide of political ignorance on the part of the intelligent voter rises so high that it embraces the candidates for the local, state, and federal legislative bodies, the situation is serious. When it includes the local judiciary and all but the president of the United States, the highest executive officer of the state and of the principal local government, the situation has become desperate.

So far as the electorate is too ignorant to vote intelligently it has been in effect disfranchised. It does not really vote at all. If the voter were required to vote blindfolded, or if the ballot were made up in cipher, he would know that he was disfranchised. Suppose, however, that the voter is blindfolded or the ballot done in cipher only in those instances where the voter is called upon to vote without any political information necessary to enable him to vote intelligently. Would he be any worse off because of the cipher or the bandage on his eyes? Does not the political ignorance of the voter as clearly deprive him of his power to vote as the use of a cipher or blindfolding? In both cases he goes through the mechanical act of voting, but he records nothing at all by so doing.

The ignorance of the voter and his consequent disfranchisement follow necessarily from our present plan of government. They result immediately from the burdens placed upon the electorate. Those in turn arise from the application of the two principles of government which we have constantly heretofore applauded and proclaimed—the decentralization of governmental power and the principle that all offices of any consequence should be elective. These principles of government are still regarded by the mass of the people as the true and only sources of democracy and the necessary protection of the people from all forms of unpopular government. The application of these principles is in varying degrees protected by state constitutions which provide for the separation of the powers of government, both state and local, among departments and officers, and require local as well as state subordinate officers to be elected at frequent intervals.[4] Thus do the letter and the spirit of our governmental theory and practice necessarily induce the wholesale ignorance and consequent disfranchisement of the large majority of the electorate in regard to candidates for offices, which, when filled, wield a very large, if not the larger, part of the state and local governmental power.

Formerly unpopular government was founded upon the absence of any voting. Today the electorate, while voting furiously, has nevertheless been deprived to a large extent of the ballot because a burden of knowledge—an educational qualification, in effect—has been placed upon it which, under present conditions, it does not and cannot fulfil. Thus, by the simple process of too much so-called popular democracy—that is, too much decentralization of governmental power and too much voting—we have arrived at the essential condition which invites the establishment of unpopular government—namely, the disfranchisement of the electorate.

Section 4
The Power of the Electorate Passes to Those Who Take Advantage of Its Political Ignorance to Direct It How to Vote

The severe educational qualification which has been imposed upon the electorate today has done more than merely deprive the voter of the power to vote. It has presented to others the opportunity to direct the voter how to vote and thus in effect to cast his ballot for him. That opportunity has at once been taken advantage of by men who have been quick to perceive the vast political power which the privilege of casting the voter’s ballot for him confers. This combination of opportunity and selfish motive is the complete cause of the passing of a considerable part of the political power of the electorate at large to the few who direct it how to vote. It is important that the way in which the effect follows from the causal conditions be set forth in as detailed and precise a manner as possible.

The voting for a large number of the most important offices in the state and municipal government is done during a few hours on election day. In these few hours great masses of voters come face to face with such a ballot as appears opposite p. 29. They have no opinion as to any of the candidates except a very few, for the most part at the head of the ticket. They do not, however, because of their ignorance refrain from voting. Neither do they pitch a coin to decide for whom they shall vote. They insist on voting, and they take their voting seriously. It follows that when they are politically ignorant they vote the way they are told to vote by somebody. The important questions are: Who tells them how to vote? and By what means are they told? The small minority, including many of the most intelligent, vote the way they are directed by some newspaper. At one time a prominent newspaper in Chicago was credited with the ability to direct about one-tenth of the voters in a county or city election how to cast their ballots. But this was possible only when the newspaper concentrated its entire influence on the filling of one or two offices. The newspaper gives very little advice to the voter with respect to the filling of a considerable majority of offices for which elections are held. Even as to the few offices with regard to the candidates for which the newspaper makes a great effort to advise voters, its influence is limited. A large proportion of the electorate vote the party circle. Some are moved by sentiment or strong prejudices; others by the fact that men of whom they know something personally are responsible for the nominations or appear as candidates in a prominent place on a particular ticket. In every case a vote in the party circle, which is a blanket vote for a great number of party candidates of whom the voter has no knowledge, is a vote according to the direction of those who promoted or directed the nomination of the men who appear as candidates in that party column. It is believed, however, that a very large body of voters—especially in districts where large numbers are generally ignorant or illiterate—need, and indeed must have, advice as to how to vote from some individual whom they either look up to and trust, or fear. These voters do not ask for political leadership. They do not desire information upon which to found political opinions. All they ask for is advice as to how to mark their ballots. In congested centers of population this advice is sought within a few hours in a single day by tens and even hundreds of thousands of voters. The voter wants information as he approaches the booth. Even those who allow a newspaper to direct them how to vote need advice in voting for offices which the newspaper ignores. So the practice of independent voting and splitting tickets causes the voter to seek advice from those who make it their business to know something about the candidates. If these masses do not obtain instruction and advice as to whom to vote for they must refrain from voting, or pitch a coin, or fall back upon the party circle. They do the last as the most rational, and thus take the directions of those who are able to place the names of candidates under the party circle. In brief, the entire situation is something like this: As to four-fifths of the candidates for office the voters are politically ignorant; yet they insist upon voting and in taking seriously their duty as a citizen to vote. They will not pitch a coin. Hence they must vote the way they are told. Nine-tenths of the voters who cast ballots for four-fifths of the offices are directed to vote by those who have placed the names upon the ballot or by someone who makes a special appeal to the voter at the polls or by a special canvass before election.

Not only, however, does the political ignorance of the voter present an obvious opportunity to someone to direct him how to vote and thus cast his ballot for him, but an overwhelming self-interest on the part of individuals invokes at once the strongest motive to use the opportunity. The man that can control the power of the electorate will secure the power to appoint to office. He who can regularly place the candidate in office will soon control the holder of the office and exercise the governmental power which the officeholder wields. The securing of such governmental power has always been an object in itself to a proportion of the individuals in every community. When seen as a source of personal profit and advancement, the numbers who will strive for it and the efforts which they will make are greatly increased. Indeed, the prize which the successful secure is such as to produce the keenest competition and the most exhaustive effort.

It is important to notice that the necessities of candidates quickly reveal the extent of the political ignorance of the voter and the opportunity which this affords for someone to direct him how to vote. The candidate, of whom the vast majority of voters are politically ignorant because his office is obscure and inconspicuous, finds that his election is not a matter of his policies and efficiency, but of the efforts of workers at the polls and the canvassing of voters before election. Such a candidate needs the support of successful advisers to the politically ignorant voter. He needs the support of that man or combination of men in the community that can cast the largest number of votes of the politically ignorant. A little experience in fulfilling this apparently innocent and legitimate demand for a campaign manager will reveal to the manager the character of the voter’s political ignorance and the fact that someone must always direct him how to vote, and that this is the means by which political power is to be secured. A slight actual experience is all that is necessary to point the real path to the exercise by the few of governmental power.

Such conditions of opportunity revealed and ever-present selfish motives must inevitably produce men who aspire to be successful advisers to the electorate. Active competition for these places naturally ensues. Success, then, means the survival of the fittest. That means that among the professionals those win who take their profession seriously, understand it thoroughly, and practice it assiduously and with judgment, tact, and craft. Here, then, we have the local political boss or professional politician. He is merely the successful local adviser and director to the politically ignorant voter. He is the man who can, more than anyone else, in a local district, direct the largest number of the politically ignorant how to vote. He advises and directs the voter how to vote principally by personal canvasses of the voters and solicitations at the polls and by controlling the machinery of nominations so as to determine who shall appear as a candidate under a given party name. The political ignorance of the voter is one of the necessary conditions to his existence. The fact that most voters cannot make a show of voting intelligently without someone to help them provides the opportunity which calls him into being. The power of the successful adviser and director to the voter is in direct ratio to the political ignorance of the electorate. It makes no difference whether that ignorance be the result of general lack of intelligence or be artificially produced by placing a special educational qualification upon the voter which he cannot or will not fulfil. To the extent that the adviser and director of the politically ignorant voter can direct and advise the voter how to vote, he can fill the offices of the state and local governments with those who are loyal to him, and thus control some part of the power of government.

Since the business of directing the politically ignorant voter how to vote has fallen into the hands of a professional class and since the prize to be won is the control of governmental power, it is not to be wondered at that the profession has become highly organized for the purpose of achieving its object; that men of extraordinary power and ability have arisen as its leaders, and that to a very great extent the object of the organization has been achieved.

The political boss or adviser to the politically ignorant voter first appears in the smaller election districts. His advent is coincident with a certain degree of political ignorance on the part of the electorate. At first that ignorance was the result of the actual illiteracy which appeared in the majority of the voters of a particular district, usually in a large city. Thus we first hear of the ward boss in our larger cities. His ward usually contains a large foreign population living in the densest political ignorance, easily terrified, easily cajoled, and easily corrupted. The steady increase in the length of ballots and the burden placed upon the electorate soon, however, began to produce artificially a state of political ignorance on the part of the most intelligent electorate. This at once produced the political boss for districts where the electorate was possessed of a high average of character and intelligence. This boss was of a different type from a river-ward boss. It took longer to make him. He was of a somewhat finer grain. He had some inkling of the fact that he really bore a fiduciary relation to the politically ignorant electorate whom he advised and directed and whose vote he cast. He had to possess himself of the confidence and the trust of his constituents. His success was obtained only by close attention to his profession and by qualities of tact and leadership. His supremacy was retained only by care and subtlety. The moment each one of any considerable number of local election districts developed such a professional political boss it was inevitable that they should begin to act together to direct and advise the politically ignorant voters of the larger districts how to vote when it came to the filling of a more important office in a larger election district. Thus the bosses of the city wards and the country districts combined to agree on who should be presented to the voter for election and to direct the voter how to vote. Naturally out of the combination some men emerged capable of leading the combination of bosses. Thus arose the city or county machine. In extraordinary instances a single man became a city or county boss for a particular party organization. In the same way, when the districts of a state were well provided with permanent political bosses, there was a movement among the leaders to combine into a state machine. Again, in extraordinary cases a single man was great enough to be the supreme political leader of a political party organization in a state and to lead it regularly to victory at the polls.

Thus almost imperceptibly, but with astonishing rapidity, there have been developed state-wide feudal organizations for the purpose—in form at least—of advising the politically ignorant voter how to vote, but in reality for the purpose of casting his vote for him, and thus securing the political power of the electorate. In each smallest election precinct there is a regular band of workers under a precinct captain. In each collection of precincts which make the smallest electoral district, like a ward in a city or a township in the country, there must be a mesne lord whom the captains obey. In larger election districts, such as a city or a county, or a combination of counties, there must be tenants in chief over the mesne lords. Finally, there is the great lord paramount for the whole state. No precinct captain is permitted to have any idea of principles or policies. It is his duty, with his aids, to produce delegates for conventions who will vote as the organization chiefs direct, canvass the precinct before election and buy, command, instruct, persuade, or coerce, as the exigencies of the case may require, votes for the candidates named by the organization chiefs. When the precinct captain and his workers fail to perform these services successfully, out they must go, and others, waiting eagerly for promotion, will take their places. When they show ability they will make progress in the organization. The district boss must equally keep his captains in obedience and effectiveness. For him also there is promotion or reduction to the ranks in prospect. It is the law of life and the source of the organization’s power that its officers render implicit obedience to their immediate chiefs and that a mighty personality direct the whole.

Thus does the power of the electorate pass to those who take advantage of the political ignorance of the electorate to direct it how to vote.

Section 5
The Power of Government Passes into the Hands of Those Who Are Able to Direct the Majority of the Politically Ignorant How to Vote. They Constitute an Extra-legal but None the Less Real Government

The professional adviser and director to the politically ignorant voter aims to secure control of as much of the power of government as possible. His means to that end consist in becoming the most important single factor in the filling of the offices of the legal government. Success in advising and directing a majority of the politically ignorant voters how to vote places in his hands the power to fill by appointment all offices for which candidates are presented who are unknown to the electorate generally. Our political boss naturally tends to appoint men who are loyal to him and to his power, and by this means he naturally secures a certain control over part of the local governmental power. In the same way, the prize of a combination of successful local bosses is the power to appoint the majority of the officeholders of some more extensive and important local municipal government and thus obtain control of a part of its governmental power. When the state-wide organization of the feudal army of directors and advisers to the politically ignorant voter has been thoroughly perfected, with a man of great ability at its head, the prize to be obtained is the principal part of the entire governmental power, whether state or local. More and more such an organization will fill with men loyal to its leaders the local and state legislative bodies, the local and state executive offices, and even places upon the bench. Such an organization, when continuously successful for any length of time, will have actually filled all of the less conspicuous and less important offices in the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state and local governments.

But the influence of such an organization will go farther than this. Being in existence and efficient, it will often be a determining factor in nominating and electing a candidate for an office so important, and, viewed by itself, so conspicuous, that in a special election to fill that one office the intelligence of the electorate would be displayed at its maximum. For instance, if we look at the federal government alone, we find that the voter casts his ballot only for president, vice-president, and usually only one congressman. The congressman is selected for the most part from a fairly small district. Taking the federal government by itself, the voter’s function in selecting a congressman is so simple and direct that no professional advice or direction is needed except in the unusual case where the district is filled with an actual illiterate vote. But the moment the vote-directing organization is called into being in the congressional district because of the artificially produced political ignorance of the voter in respect to candidates for various local municipal offices and state offices, such an organization at once exercises an important control over the nomination and election of the congressman. In the same way the organization will gain a very considerable influence over the nomination and election of candidates for local municipal offices where they consist only of the mayor and an alderman from each ward, who are elected at a special election. Such an organization will have at all times a vast influence in the nomination and election of judges, even when they are chosen at a special election. There is no doubt that the nomination for governor of the state and president of the United States may from time to time be greatly influenced by politocrats whose power is based upon the political ignorance of the voter in respect to candidates for all manner of obscure offices in the state and local governments. Speaking generally, if the voter is habitually so ignorant politically that the politocrats have secured, to a considerable extent, the power to direct him how to vote, then the politocrats will exercise a great deal of influence in determining who shall be elected to offices so conspicuous and important that if they were the only ones filled by election the voter would exercise a high degree of independence and intelligence in making his selection and the services of the same politocrats would be wholly dispensed with.

A vote-directing organization which is steadily successful in a given state or local government for eight years will reach a point where it actually places in practically all the state and local offices that are filled by election, and also in the House of Representatives, in Congress, and in the United States Senate, men who are loyal to the organization and its leaders before everything else. The leader of such an organization may even have obtained a controlling influence with the governor of the state and the president of the United States, so far as their power extends to local appointments and affairs. When this occurs, the leaders of the state and local vote-directing organization have become the real though extra-legal government. The real power of government, both state and local, and an important influence in the power of the federal government are in their hands. Local and state executive officers and local and state legislators will take orders from these leaders. Judges in a more subtle way will take account of their wishes.

Thus we have, however imperceptibly, none the less effectively changed the character of our government. The very excess of our precautions to prevent the power of government from coming into the hands of the few has delivered the power of government into the hands of the few. So obviously and completely has the elaborate effort of our constitution-makers failed to keep governmental power out of the hands of the few that we might as well accept it as axiomatic that governmental authority in any highly organized society cannot be prevented from becoming concentrated in the hands of the few. Our form of government has indeed changed from the decentralized democracy of the frontier to the centralized politocracy of a highly organized civilization. We have turned our back upon the autocrat and the aristocrat only to find ourselves in the hands of the politocrat.

Section 6
The Extra-legal Government Uses Its Power Selfishly to Maintain Itself and to Benefit Those Who Have Organized and Supported It

Our extra-legal government is not one of altruists. It may be relied upon to act selfishly in two respects: First, it will use all of its influence and power to maintain itself. Then as its tenure of power becomes more secure it will use that power to reward the leaders who have organized and supported it.

The clear perception of what is necessary for the maintenance of the extra-legal government will provide the wise politocrat with a deep-rooted political philosophy. His creed, if uttered, would sound something like this: “I believe in the disfranchisement of the voter by keeping him too ignorant politically to vote intelligently. I believe that all voters, no matter how intelligent in general, can be made politically ignorant in voting by placing upon them a burden of investigating candidates and attending elections which they can conceivably, but will not in fact, perform. I believe that such a burden upon the voter can be produced most readily by the decentralization of governmental power in every possible way, and the constant application of the elective principle. I therefore believe in fostering the popular fear of kings, the popular prejudice against the centralization of power and the filling of offices by appointment. Above all I believe in more democracy (i.e., more applications of the elective principle) as the cure for the ills of democracy.”

With these deep-seated convictions, the course of action of the wise politocrat in many respects is not difficult to predict and not difficult to understand when it is observed. The chief executive of the state or of the United States who, in response to any popular demand, attempts to influence or coerce the legislature must be publicly rebuked. It must be pointed out that he is overstepping the bounds of his constitutional power. He must confine himself to the limited constitutional sphere of the executive. When a man becomes governor or president he must cease to be a citizen. The promotion of decentralization of governmental power through the creation of several new municipal corporations operating in the same district is a step which should always receive the favorable attention of the politocrats. The constant application of the elective principle to each newly created office must be maintained. The election district furthermore should always be kept as large as possible and always larger than the personal reputation of anyone who would be likely to seek a given office which the voters of the district select. Methods of redistricting can be devised and carried out so as to yield the maximum amount of power for the extra-legal government for the time being in power. Election laws must be so shaped and administrative acts so directed as to enable the organization to marshal its votes in the most effective way. New parties and independent movements must be discouraged. One of the neatest devices to effect such discouragement is to retain the party circle and at the same time provide that no candidate shall appear on more than one ticket on the ballot. That will force all candidates who can secure the extra-legal government’s party nomination to take it as against an independent nomination. The fact that the extra-legal government puts up some men who are satisfactory and who cannot also be placed upon an independent ticket will discourage the putting in the field of any independent ticket. No harm will be done to the extra-legal government by politocrats if the network of governmental bodies becomes very complex, or if the details of carrying out provisions of election laws become so difficult to understand that the whole machinery of elections must be directed by a few experts.

But the chief care of the wise politocrat will not be to acquire a selfish political philosophy or a selfish program for governmental legislation. Of paramount importance is the organizing, recruiting, training, feeding, and caring for the feudal army of directors and advisers to the politically ignorant voter and the rewarding of the officers and lesser leaders of that army according to their position. So far as possible, of course, the district and precinct workers will be given places upon the public pay-rolls and so fed and clothed from the public treasury. In return for what they receive from the public they will do the minimum amount of work for the public and the maximum amount for the organization. Places on the pay-rolls of private corporations may also be at the disposal of the leaders among the politocrats. In a city of any size much small graft connected with the issuing of licenses of all sorts, the selling of liquor, the business of vice, and the activities of the underworld may be picked up by the privates and captains in the organization. The lesser politocrats will take the higher salaried positions and fee offices. It will not interfere with their obtaining these places that they must submit to an election. The work of the office will be done by a chief deputy paid out of the public treasury. The holder of the office will, therefore, be enabled to spend his entire time conducting the business of advising and directing the politically ignorant voter whom to vote for. The larger graft connected with the protection of the business of vice and the activities of the underworld will go to those who are still higher up among the politocrats. This, however, is a dirty and risky mode of reward and the protection which can be given has its limits. Many politocrats, and among them the most powerful, will not touch it personally. In certain districts men of excellent social standing and mental attainments can be used to advantage by the extra-legal government. In most instances material of this sort can be drawn from among lawyers. The reward for those who are constant and effective in their service will be a place in the corporation counsel’s office or the state’s attorney’s office, and finally a place upon the bench. The larger graft of public contracts is reserved for the overlords of the feudal organization. But even this the great leaders will not touch.

The great prize which is reserved for the lord paramount and his tenants in chief is the privilege of entering into an alliance, offensive and defensive, with special business and property interests which need the aid of the local or state governmental power to exploit to the best advantage the many, or the protection from governmental interference at the demand of the many who are being exploited. Indeed, so close may the relations become between the great captains of such special business and property interests and the extra-legal government by politocrats, that the real power of government may to some extent actually reside in the former rather than the latter. It will indeed be difficult in many instances to tell which group commands and which obeys. Where the leaders of both are equally able there will be a complete partnership.

Section 7
The Extra-legal Government Is Able to Maintain Itself in the Face of Popular Disapproval

The conditions under which extra-legal government exercises its power and the manner of that exercise furnish it with certain considerable advantages in its very natural effort to maintain itself in the face of popular disapproval.

The extra-legal government has the advantage of being hidden from the electorate. The mass of voters can tell who only a few conspicuous officeholders in the legal government at any one time are. Of the existence of a thoroughly organized extra-legal government they have no real knowledge whatever. If they have some idea of machines and bosses it is vague and imperfect. They see only a little at a time and have no idea who it is that casts their ballots for them. The voter who masters such secrets is rare indeed. Even the very intelligent man who is a voter cannot tell anything in his own district about the extra-legal government. He only knows that there are bosses whom he never seems to have a chance to vote against. This secrecy on the part of the extra-legal government is an invaluable asset in enabling it to retain power. So long as extra-legal government remains hidden, there is little chance of the voter causing it any serious damage.

The extra-legal government has a great advantage also in the fact that while it is the real government, the electorate is constantly voting for the legal but dummy government of officeholders. Of course, if the voter knew the connection between each officeholder and the extra-legal government he might vote intelligently, but that is information of the most secret kind. In many instances it is impossible for anyone to obtain it. Certainly it cannot be expected that a voter who is in ignorance of the qualifications and personality of most of the candidates for office will ever know what connection any of them have with a more or less secret extra-legal government.

The wise politocrat appreciates the advantage which his extra-legal government has in hiding behind the legal government and in the fact that his power is not subject directly to the approval or disapproval of the electorate. He knows, however, that from time to time some loyal adherent of the extra-legal government will demand and must be given the nomination for an office so prominent that his record will be fully investigated and his relation to the extra-legal government become widely known. Then the existence of extra-legal government will, in the contest for that office, become an issue, especially if there be an independent anti-politocratic candidate. But experience will make it clear that such an issue must be avoided. The extra-legal government must drop as a candidate for an office of any prominence a man known by the electorate to be loyal to the politocracy. In his place may be put a fresh dummy or a real independent, as the exigencies of the case require. The former step is, of course, from the point of view of the politocrat, to be preferred. When, however, the outlook is dark and forbidding for the extra-legal government in power, its leaders will assent with a show of enthusiasm to the nomination of a Hughes or a Wilson. They know that the naming of an independent and popular man who is likely to be successful at the polls will enable their extra-legal government to appoint to office the subordinate elective officeholders in the legal government. They know that a governor surrounded by independent subordinate officers and opposed by legislators selected by and loyal to the extra-legal government can do that government no permanent damage. They know that most men can, during their term of office, when placed in close contact with such opposition, be worn down and disheartened, so that they are glad to quit when the opportunity for promotion to a place where they need no longer war upon extra-legal government is tendered them. Thus, a popular governor may be induced to accept the position of vice-president or a place upon the Supreme Court of the United States.

The failure to observe this principle of action at the Republican National Convention of 1912 has started the most widespread and serious movement against extra-legal government that we have yet had. According to all the rules of astute politocratic management, the representatives of extra-legal government in that convention should have acquiesced in the selection of the most popular and prominent leader available, in spite of the fact of his independence. They should have driven into power with him as many of their adherents as possible, or let him go down to defeat. Whichever happened, extra-legal government, as conducted by means of the control of an extra-legal oligarchy over successful candidates for office, would not have been disrupted and a general movement inimical to the whole basis of extra-legal government would have been averted. The revelation of the existence of a power in a few hands which could legally override popular desires in the selection of a candidate for the president of the United States, and the exhibition of what, to a large number of people, must have seemed to be the actual exercise of such a power, and the defeat of the popular will clearly expressed could have only the result of launching one of the greatest independent political movements of half a century, with its principal attack upon extra-legal government as it has grown up in the United States. This is the same sort of mistake that the advocates of slavery made when they underestimated the unexpressed determination of the North to preserve the Union.

There are, of course, as many rival vote-directing organizations as there are political parties which have become established and have a name with any good-will attached. If two of these organizations are at all well matched and occupy practically the entire field, their leaders frequently make secret agreements according to which the governmental power is divided. One takes the city and the other the county, or one a great metropolitan district and the other the state. Such arrangements are preferred to a life-and-death struggle for supremacy. They result in a combination which it is exceedingly difficult for the politically ignorant majority of the electorate to overcome.

After all, however, do not the people rule? Does not the power of such extra-legal government continue by their choice? Can they not smash it if they choose? Theoretically, yes; practically, no! The extreme decentralization of the legal government—the success of the constitution and laws in preventing the concentration of power at any one point in any one office in a legal government—is the very foundation upon which the existence of the extra-legal government rests. It is also the chief reason for its continuance in power. The paramount power of the electorate as a whole is broken into infinitesimal fragments by the constitution and laws providing for a multitude of independent offices to be filled by election. To turn out an extra-legal government which has filled practically all of the offices in the legal government the electorate must be vigilant, active, and successful, not in filling one office or a few offices at a single election, but in the filling of a hundred offices voted for at all the elections occurring during a period of from four to eight years. The extra-legal government stands as a solid, well-organized, single-headed army against a large but disorganized mass. The latter may triumph at points or on occasions, but it will exhaust its strength in comparatively small and unimportant victories. Coming to the voting booth constantly handicapped by the densest political ignorance, without organization and without leaders, it falls again and again before the trained and permanent feudal army of vote-directors. There will be no serious danger to our extra-legal government from the electorate as a whole while the officers of the legal government are shorn of power or the opportunity by combination to secure power and compelled to face constantly an electorate ignorant of their personalities and their qualifications for office. It is one of the maxims of modern warfare that the important thing is to destroy or disrupt the opposing army—not merely to occupy a particular place or a particular territory. In the same way, in a war upon unpopular government, it is important to destroy or disrupt it, not merely to fill a few offices, or even many offices, with good men who are opposed to an extra-legal government which still continues in existence, ready again to seize the power of government when occasion offers. So long as the real government is in an extra-legal oligarchy at the head of a feudal organization of vote-directors which remains unimpaired, while the popular army occupies for the time being a few offices denuded of power, the campaign has accomplished next to nothing. In a few more elections the extra-legal government will again have secured as complete control as before.

Even when monarchy was absolute and a popular uprising overthrew it by means of a successful revolution, the ultimate result was merely to substitute a new absolute monarchy for the old one. So with us today, when one extra-legal government by politocrats is overthrown by the extraordinary and prolonged efforts of the electorate, nothing happens ultimately but the substitution of a new extra-legal government for the old. The fact is that so long as we know of no other form of government except an absolute monarchy, or insist upon a plan of government which necessarily results in a decentralized legal government being controlled by a centralized extra-legal government of politocrats, we shall never have any other form of government except a monarchy or an extra-legal politocracy. The tendency of the mass of the people to acquiesce in any governmental arrangement that they seem not to be able to escape from is a great asset to the maintenance of power by the extra-legal government. If it takes a supreme effort for a number of years successively to oust a present extra-legal government, and when the result of so doing is merely to substitute another extra-legal government of the same sort, what is the use of the extraordinary effort made? Why not advise the voter to concentrate his efforts from time to time in getting good men in the more important offices and letting the rest go? This attitude of mind becomes more and more common, especially among intelligent men who see the actual situation. It is substantially a surrender of all the offices to the control of the extra-legal government.

Such are the circumstances which a priori make the continuance of our extra-legal government, in the face of popular disapproval, probable. The fact that it has and does now so continue is becoming every day more apparent. Suppose, for instance, at any time in the last ten years the direct issue could have been presented to the electorate whether they preferred government by an extra-legal oligarchy of politocrats, subject only indirectly and very slightly at any single election to the electorate, or a legal government, subject directly to the will of the electorate. Can there be any doubt that the great majority would vote the extra-legal government out of power and abolish politocracy as they would abolish absolute monarchy or a self-perpetuating oligarchy? If any demonstration of the temper of the electorate on such an issue be needed, we have it in the steady popularity of all measures which have been put forward aimed at the so-called political bosses and government by them. Twenty-five years ago it was apparent to the electorate that the ward boss in some districts of our larger cities maintained himself in part at least upon corrupt voting. Hence the Australian ballot. Then it was observed that political machines supported their workers by salaries from the public pay-rolls. Hence the civil service acts. Then the extra-legal government’s control over nominations seemed to be the true source of its power. Hence the direct primary. It was also observed that the extra-legal government had a grip on the state and municipal legislatures and the state and local executive offices and the judges. Hence the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. It was observed that the origin of the extra-legal government and the great source of its power came from the complexity of our municipal governments, their cumbersome administrative machinery, and the number of offices submitted to the electorate. Hence the movement for the consolidation of municipal governments and their control by a commission. It has been observed that the governor often expressed in a satisfactory manner the desires of a majority of the electorate, but that he had no power to initiate legislation. Hence the two recent proposals that the governor’s bills be given the right of way upon the legislative calendar so that they could be brought to a vote and not quietly strangled by the crowding of the legislative docket and the action of committees; and that the governor be allowed to submit for approval by the electorate generally any bill presented to the legislature and not passed by it.[5] The judges, especially those of the Supreme Court, were observed to be declaring laws, in favor of which there was great popular sentiment, unconstitutional. The courts were then at once placed by the electorate in the same camp with the extra-legal government—quite unjustly perhaps—and the demand arose for the recall of judges, or the recall of judicial decisions on constitutional questions, or in any event the greatest possible restriction upon the court’s power to declare acts of the legislature unconstitutional, or the elimination of that power altogether. Finally, we have had most recently a new national party, which has been dedicated in general to the war on extra-legal government and to a program of governmental reform believed to be inimical to its existence. Every one of these movements upon analysis shows the electorate conscious of the deprivation of its power to express its will and to enforce responsibility to it from the officers of the legal government.

We are obviously in the midst of a great effort to meet an overpowering extra-legal governmental force which has been depriving the electorate of its power and legitimate influence in the functioning of the legal government. Such continued, increasingly aggressive, and always popular efforts to rid ourselves of extra-legal government by politocrats points very clearly to the conclusion that our state and municipal governments have in a greater or less degree fallen into the hands of that sort of government, and that it has been able for a generation, and is even now able, to maintain itself in the face of popular disapproval. A practical, workable form of unpopular government has, in spite of the precautions taken to prevent it, been established in the United States.