[07] Thus the mere growth of society involves danger of the gradual conversion
of government into something independent of and beyond the people, and the
gradual seizure of its powers by a ruling class — though not necessarily
a class marked off by personal titles and a hereditary status, for, as history
shows, personal titles and hereditary status do not accompany the concentration
of power, but follow it. The same methods which, in a little town where each
knows his neighbor and matters of common interest are under the common eye,
enable the citizens freely to govern themselves, may, in a great city, as we
have in many cases seen, enable an organized ring of plunderers to gain and
hold the government. So, too, as we see in Congress, and even in our State
legislatures, the growth of the country and the greater number of interests
make the proportion of the votes of a representative, of which his constituents
know or care to know, less and less. And so, too, the executive and judicial
departments tend constantly to pass beyond the scrutiny of the people.
[11] The rise in the United States of monstrous fortunes, the aggregation
of enormous wealth in the hands of corporations, necessarily implies the loss
by the people of governmental control. Democratic forms may be maintained,
but there can be as much tyranny and misgovernment under democratic forms as
any other — in fact, they lend themselves most readily to tyranny and
misgovernment. Forms count for little. The Romans expelled their kings, and
continued to abhor
the very name of king. But under the name of Cæsars and Imperators, that
at first meant no more than our "Boss," they crouched before tyrants
more absolute than kings. We have already, under the popular name of "bosses," developed
political Cæsars in municipalities and states. If this development continues,
in time there will come a national boss. We are young but we are growing. The
day may arrive when the "Boss of America" will be to the modern world
what Cæsar was to the Roman world. This, at least, is certain: Democratic
government in more than name can exist only where wealth is distributed with
something like equality — where the great mass of citizens are personally
free and independent, neither fettered by their poverty nor made subject by
their wealth. There is, after all, some sense in a property qualification.
The man who is dependent on a master for his living is not a free man. To give
the suffrage to slaves is only to give votes to their owners. That universal
suffrage may add to, instead of decreasing, the political power of wealth we
see when mill-owners and mine operators vote their hands. The freedom to earn,
without fear or favor, a comfortable living, ought to go with the freedom to
vote. Thus alone can a sound basis for republican institutions be secured.
How can a man be said to have a country where he has no right to a square inch
of soil; where he has nothing but his hands, and, urged by starvation, must
bid against his fellows for the privilege of using them? When it comes to voting
tramps, some principle has been carried to a ridiculous and dangerous extreme.
I have known elections to be decided by the carting of paupers from the almshouse
to the polls. But such decisions can scarcely be in the interest of good government.
[12] Beneath all political problems lies the social problem of the distribution
of wealth. This our people do not generally recognize, and they listen to quacks
who propose to cure the symptoms without touching the disease. "Let us
elect good men to office," say the quacks. Yes; let us catch little birds
by sprinkling salt on their tails!
[13] It behooves us to look facts in the face. The experiment of popular government
in the United States is clearly a failure. Not that it is a failure everywhere
and in everything. An experiment of this kind does not have to be fully worked
out to be proved a failure. But speaking generally of the whole country, from
the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Lakes to the Gulf, our government
by the people has in large degree become, is in larger degree becoming, government
by the strong and unscrupulous.
[14] The people, of course, continue to vote; but the people are losing their
power. Money and organization tell more and more in elections. In some sections
bribery has become chronic, and numbers of voters expect regularly to sell
their votes. In some sections large employers regularly bulldoze their hands
into voting as they wish. In municipal, State and Federal politics the power
of the "machine" is increasing. In many places it has become so strong
that the ordinary citizen has no more influence in the government under which
he lives than he would have in China. He is, in reality, not one of the governing
classes, but one of the governed. He occasionally, in disgust, votes for "the
other man," or "the other party;" but, generally, to find that
he has effected only a change of masters, or secured the same masters under
different names. And he is beginning to accept the situation, and to leave
politics to politicians, as something with which an honest, self-respecting
man cannot afford to meddle. ... read the entire essay