The Political Situation

MOST people would shake their heads dubiously over a statement that the country appears to be on the eve of a dissolution and recrystallization of parties. He who should make it would be told that ever since 1872 there had been prophets by the score foretelling just such a change, and that nothing had come of their predictions. Nevertheless, there now exist stronger reasons than ever for believing that the change is fast approaching. Perhaps these reasons are not conclusive, but there surely can be no harm in giving them a fair consideration.

A reorganization of parties does not necessarily imply the adoption of new names. Names are often more persistent than ideas. In the domain of political action, especially, they survive the principles and purposes they typify in their origin, and are easily adapted to new conditions of party strife. The names “democratic ” and “republican ” have each done service for a multitude of varied and sometimes conflicting issues, and as they are good general terms, of no particular meaning that any believer in a representative form of government can object to, they may last for generations longer. But the signs of the times plainly indicate that if they are not abandoned they will soon cease to represent the old questions and elements which they have designated in recent years.

Let us see what these signs are. One of the most conspicuous is the fact that an annual message of a president goes to Congress, for the first time in a quarter of a century, in which there is no reference to the South as a political entity, or even as a geographical section. This is of great significance. The South, its institutions, behavior, and designs, has been the pivot of national politics ever since the adoption of the Missouri Compromise. Even as late as the presidential campaign of 1880 one of the great parties made its most effectual appeal to the patriotism of the voters on the ground that the South was solid in support of the opposing party. Now the official chief of the very party which obtained another four years’ lease of power on that argument finds nothing in the attitude of the people of that section to call for even a passing remark. But this is not all. The omission of President Arthur to discuss Southern politics might be said to be accidental or a deep stroke of policy. But Congress has been in session for many weeks, and neither in the debates nor in the measures introduced can we find any trace of a Southern question. Apparently, the South does not need legislation, even in the opinion of the most radical of the republican members, nor is any occasion found for discussing her affairs. Thus the central question which has divided parties since the war closed appears to have faded out of sight.

Yet the progressive changes in Southern opinion were never more marked than now. These changes, however, are all in the direction of obliterating old party lines. The strong argument of the republicans in the North has been that by a system of intolerance, fraud, and violence the Southern States were kept in the political control of the democrats. Only one party was permitted to have any potency in the election of public officers and the settlement of public questions. Now the result of the spirited canvass in Virginia last autumn shows that the one-party epoch is passing away. Ardent and healthful opposition to democratic ascendency is developing in the whole region between the Potomac and the Rio Grande, seizing upon one local issue in one State and another in another, but always fighting the old order of things. In Virginia the new movement seeks to scale down the interest on the state debt; in Tennessee it advocates full payment; in South Carolina it makes a grievance out of a law prohibiting cattle from running at large ; in North Carolina it wants a tax on liquor-selling; in Texas it talks of greenbacks. All these issues are temporary and to some extent subterfuges, thinly covering the impulse to new organizations which many men are reluctant to avow at the outset. Below the local questions, apparently paramount, is everywhere the desire for freedom of political action, for broader views, for better educational systems, and for more liberal and progressive legislation.

All this is very encouraging. The republicans will say it is just what they have long been seeking to bring about. They have the right to rejoice over it, but they may well pause and ask themselves, “What is it going to do to our party as a national organization ? ” What grip will they have on the masses of the voters who have so long followed their standards, when they shall be forced to say that matters are going on well at the South ? What will be the unifying idea to hold the party together when equal citizenship and fair suffrage are secured by the action of the Southern people themselves ? So far as the dignity and perpetuity of the Union are concerned, the South is now as patriotic as the North. A foreign war would, beyond a doubt, rally under the national banner as many volunteers from the South, in proportion to the arms-bearing white population, as from the North.

Respect for the cardinal principles of the new Union — equal rights for all citizens, and the supremacy of national over state authority — is now asserting itself in the once rebellious States, as all far-sighted men long ago predicted, in the local political conflicts and in the growth of sound opinion, after pressure from the North had failed to develop it.

If the republicans are losing their cohesive force as a party by the progress of the South, the democrats are no better off. They have kept their Northern contingent together, of late, by their power to throw the electoral vote of all the old slave States into their side of the balance in national contests. “ Here are so many votes, sure,” they were able to say, sweeping a hand over the map from Virginia to Texas. “ Now we have only to gain a few more in the North to win the fight.” This they cannot say in future contests. The development of what is called Mahoneism in the South makes it almost certain that if the present party lines are preserved in the North in the next presidential campaign, two or three of the Southern States, if not more, will be lost to the democracy. They may not become republican, but they will chose electors who will coöperate with the republicans in the choice of a president. With this probability before them, the democrats cannot make another canvass on their chances of success as an opposition party alone. They cannot get votes on the showing that they have the best chance to win. They must take up fresh issues, and demonstrate a patriotic purpose, or their party will fall to pieces. But they are as loath to identify their organization with any of the live questions fermenting in the public mind as are the republicans. They have no policy but to drift.

The absence of party questions in the debates and divisions in Congress has already been referred to. Neither party has introduced a single bill which can be taken as the expression of its wish as a political organization, or as a rallyingground for its members. When we remember how many such measures the last Congress produced — the long and acrimonious debates, the strict party divisions, the presidential vetoes, and all the heat and fury of partisan strife — the present calm becomes doubly significant.

Where are the questions which were fought over with such earnestness in the winter and spring of 1879-80 ? Not one of them has been revived. Where are the new questions which for years have been waiting for the wreck and rubbish of the war to drift away with the past, in order to appear upon the surface of politics ? They are plainly enough in sight; they challenge attention ; the press writes about them, the people talk about them, but the politicians avoid them. Neither party is willing to take them up, declare plainly its purposes concerning them, and make from them a new platform to submit to the people.

Here, for example, is the question of tariff reform. Now no intelligent man, whether he be in theory a protectionist or a free-trader, denies that our present tariff is a thing of ill-adjusted shreds and patches, demanding thorough renovation and refitting to the present condition of our industries and the present diminished needs of the treasury. It abounds in inequalities and favoritism. One industry gets protection to the extent of one hundred per cent.; another, only ten per cent. Some manufacturers pay forty per cent. duty on raw materials used in their product, while the product itself is protected by less than half that amount of duty. Then there are insignificant industries, employing in all only a few hundred hands, which supply but a petty fraction of the total consumption of the article they make, but which are allowed to put a heavy tax on the whole amount for the benefit of a few individuals. The theory of protection is not going to be abandoned in this generation, but its real friends, who are such from principle, and not from self-interest, are as desirous of a revision of the tariff as are its opponents. They want to put a scientific system in place of a hap-hazard one, partly made up of vestiges of war legislation, and partly the result of bargains and trades between the representatives of local and special interests. But how are the two great political parties treating this question ? Instead of making its solution the chief work of the session in Washington, they are actually vying with each other in eagerness to shove it off upon a tariff commission, in order to get rid of it for two years longer. Neither has the courage to raise the standard of tariff reform. Advocates there are of such reform in both parties, and a basketful of bills have been introduced on the subject, but neither organization shows a disposition to make it a party measure. So it is with the less important matter of simplifying the internal revenue system, which is producing more money than the treasury requires, and which the common sense of the people demands shall be cut down, both as to the rates of taxation and the number of articles taxed. Probably nine tenths of those who have given the subject attention will agree that all excise duties, save those on spirits, malt liquors, and tobacco, should be abolished, and that the rates on those articles might wisely be reduced. Perhaps the session will result in some practical work in these directions, but obviously it is not going to be party work.

Then there is the question of what shall be done with the national banks, whose charters are fast expiring. The question may fairly be raised whether the present system should be reëstablished and perpetuated, or whether it should be allowed to die out, and the paper circulation be wholly furnished by the government. Here is a plain opportunity for party strife. The democratic party, by its traditions and by the convictions of a large majority of its members, is an anti-bank party ; the republican party, as the author of the national bank system, is committed to its support. Individual democratic effort has been made in Congress to abolish bank-notes, but many of the party leaders are bankers themselves, while its Eastern membership, as a rule, stands with the republicans on the question. So there seems to be no possibility of the bank issue being made the new dividing line between parties to replace the old sectional line, now, happily, almost obliterated.

A party division line might perhaps be drawn upon the railroad question, involving the highly important point of the expediency of the general government assuming control over the trunk lines, were it not for the fact that the democrats, who in several of the States have recently shown a disposition to favor such control, are committed against it as a national body, by their historic hostility to centralization, which dates back to the anti-federalist movement in the early days of the republic.

At one time the republicans had an excellent opportunity to make a destructive issue of the civil service reform question ; I am afraid that time has gone by. It must be said to their credit that they first saw the importance of the question ; that in their ranks arose the first reformers ; that from their side in Congress came the first bills to provide for appointments and promotions on the score of merit; that in their national platforms they have indorsed this principle ; that presidents and cabinet ministers of their party have established commissions and examining boards ; and that the general tendency of their administration of the government has been towards increased stability in the tenure of office. It must also be said that, until recently, the democrats took no sort of interest in the question, and seemed determined, if they got control of the administration, to turn out all the officeholders, and parcel out the places among themselves, on the old principle of their party that to the victors belong the spoils. Nevertheless, the republicans have failed to adopt any thorough measure of legislation for establishing a permanent civil service, freed from the influences and limitations of politics, and we now have the remarkable spectacle of a democratic senator stepping into the vacant position in Congress of leader of the reform movement. The most conspicuous figure in either house among the advocates of reform is unquestionably Senator Pendleton, of Ohio. No republican congressman has taken hold of the work with such zeal as he. The republican president, although his views have probably undergone some modification since he entered the White House, comes from an element in his party which has steadily opposed civil service ideas. We cannot be out of the way, then, in concluding that the civil service question now lies across party lines, and does not afford an issue for the old party organizations to join battle on in future campaigns.

A strong evidence of the decline of party feeling and the relaxation of party discipline was afforded by a recent contest in the House over a proposition to enlarge the committees. This proposition was supported by members on the republican side whose position entitled them to assume the functions of leadership, and by democratic members heretofore accepted without question as chiefs of their side of the House. The attack upon it was an open revolt against these leaders. It was in fact a parliamentary émeute, engaged in by over two thirds of the members with a relish and recklessness which showed an utter disregard for the old restraints of party expediency. The speaker, who, as the chosen chief of the majority, should exercise a large influence with his political associates, and does in ordinary times, was powerless to quell or even moderate an assault upon a proposition originated by him as a measure to strengthen his party. The spirit of independence was abroad, and got the better of all habits of discipline. The fact that the measure in question was unpopular does not of itself explain the vigor with which it was assailed. The truth is, the bonds of party fealty rest lightly on members of both parties, and they welcome an opportunity to show that they no longer feel bound to obey their old party drill-masters.

If these bonds rest lightly on members of Congress, who have a direct personal interest in keeping up the party organizations which have given them their places, how can they be expected to bind the private citizen, who is stimulated to obedience by no honors or salary ? Last autumn nearly fifty thousand voters broke away from the old parties in Pennsylvania, and formed a new independent organization. Most of them were republicans, who believed that the masses of voters were deprived of their rightful influence in shaping party action and making nominations by the machinations of a small skillful and powerful clique. The magnitude of their vote, obtained without the usual appliances of political organization, was a significant sign of the times. This independent movement promises to be stronger this year than last. It has already arranged for a state convention. Who can say that it will not spread to other States, adopt in addition to its one principle of hostility to machine rule some of the other important issues of the day, and become a potent disintegrating force, acting upon both the old party organizations ?

While party feeling has thus plainly declined, factional feeling within parties is intensified. The quarrel in the South between the Bourbons and the Liberals, both claiming to be democrats, has a parallel in the North in the strife between the two wings of the republican party which contended at Chicago for the control of the last nominating convention. The tragedy at Washington last July, followed by the solemn death scene at Elberon, does not seem to have healed this strife. The recent publication of a confidential dispatch, intended solely for the information of the late president, brought out a discussion in the republican press which showed that the division of opinion is just as pronounced as it was during the long contest at Albany over the senatorship.

Perhaps a prudent course on the part of President Arthur will cause this breach to narrow in the two years yet to intervene before the next national campaign opens ; but, looking at the matter now impartially and in the light of the history of previous political parties, we must class it with the old-time contests between the Silver Greys and Woolly Heads in the whig party in New York, and between the Hards and Softs in the democratic party, as a sign of weakness and approaching change. When parties are more occupied with internal quarrels than with differences of principle or policy, the people begin to question their usefulness.

We have seen that the democratic party is already hopelessly shattered in its former chief stronghold, the former slave States. In the State of New York, once its great battle-field in the North, and its only hope for national success, it is crippled by the Tammany revolt, which time seems to have no influence in subduing. We have seen also that the republican party is divided into two elements, which, if not always aggressively antagonistic, are not at all sympathetic : the one relying upon tact, management, the self-interest of politicians, the power of official patronage, and the machinery of organization ; the other demanding popular measures and the full participation of the masses in party action. We have seen, further, that neither party shows a disposition to deal earnestly with the new issues of the day, that the old issues are worn out, and that party spirit is at a low ebb. What is to follow? It would be rash to jump to the conclusion that the old parties are speedily to give place to new ones. All we can reasonably say is that the signs of the times point to new groupings of political forces upon new questions, chiefly economic in their character. Several years may elapse, however, before the change comes. Another presidential campaign may be fought, with the old names on the banners and the old leaders in command, and with no particular cohesive force to keep the armies together save the memories of past contests and the habit of antagonism. Such contests were fought between the whig and democratic parties before the last great change in American politics, and they were as acrimonious as any ever waged over important principles. On the other hand, a change may come suddenly and unexpectedly, like a spring freshet. Dreading a general thaw and break-up, shrewd politicians are exceedingly cautious nowadays. They moor their boats in sheltered coves, and rarely venture far from shore.