The Political Situation

OUR present political situation is anomalous. Issues do not now make parties, but parties seek for issues. The two great political organizations in this country are survivals of the past, and for some years have not represented the division of our people on the questions of the day. Instead of treating a party as an association of men who think alike on public questions, and who act together in order to secure certain definite results in legislation or administration, men have come to regard the party as the end, and not the means. The primary object of political action is the triumph of the party, and to insure this every voter must be ready to sacrifice his convictions as well as his time and his money. Hence we find in each party men who entertain diametrically opposite views on the tariff, the currency, the reform of the civil service, and every other question of present political importance, but who are alike loyal to the party, whichever side of these questions its leaders see fit to espouse in a particular campaign.

The reason for this condition of public feeling is not far to seek. The natural and permanent political division which must always exist between the progressive and the conservative elements of society was disturbed in this country by the slavery question, which for nearly a quarter of a century dominated our politics. The Republican party, drawn almost equally from Whigs and Democrats, was formed for a single definite purpose, the restriction of slavery. Its success in 1860 was followed by the civil war, in which it represented the patriotism and high purpose of the country. It prosecuted the war, it restored the Union, it abolished slavery ; and when reconstruction was complete, and the results of the war had been secured by the adoption of the constitutional amendments, the reason for its existence ceased. The common purpose of its members was accomplished.

For a while it was needed to maintain its work, but soon the questions which had been displaced by the war again presented themselves, and upon these, inevitably, men differed as before. These differences would naturally have led to the disintegration of the Republican party, and to a reformation of parties on their original lines, but the memory of the civil war was still too fresh. The hopes and fears of that terrible struggle, the passions excited by the contest, the high moral purpose which had inspired it, the veneration which was felt for Lincoln, Sumner, Seward, Andrew, and their associates, combined to make men connect with the name of the Republican party the strongest and highest feelings which they had ever known. They were reluctant to admit that this splendid organization of all that was best in the state had done its work. A party so powerful for good in the past must be powerful for good in the future, and must on no account be suffered to die. So men reasoned, and sought new fields for Republican intelligence and energy. They unconsciously transferred their allegiance from the end to the means, from their object to the instrument by which that object had been accomplished. This feeling kept the party together.

The close of the war found the Democratic party as thoroughly prostrated as the Republican party was powerful. It stood as the supporter of slavery and the opponent of the national cause during the war. Its strength in the North was found among the classes who had resisted the draft in New York and Boston ; in the South, among those who lately had been in rebellion. It was bankrupt in character and without a cause.

Our political situation between 1868 and 1888 was not unlike the situation in England between 1750 and 1760, when the Whig party ” possessed a complete monopoly of political power,” of which Lecky says: “ At hardly any other period of English history did parliamentary government wear a less attractive aspect, and it is not difficult to discover the causes of the disease. Party government, in the true sense of the word, had for many years been extinct: Toryism had sunk into Jacobitism; Jacobitism had faded into insignificance ; and the great divisions of politicians had almost wholly ceased to represent a division of principles or even of tendencies. Two or three times in English history something analogous to this has occurred, and it always brings with it grave political dangers. Such a state of affairs is peculiarly unfavorable to real earnestness in public life. Faction replaces party, personal pretensions acquire an inordinate weight, and there is much reason to fear lest the tone of political honor should be lowered and lest the public spirit of the nation should decline.” ¹

Such political conditions in our own case proved especially favorable to widespread corruption and to the schemes of political adventurers. While the old leaders of the Republican party were gradually retiring, and its earnest members were feeling the inevitable reaction after the long strain of the struggle against slavery, there was nothing to prevent unscrupulous politicians from obtaining control of the machinery, and using the prestige and the organization of the Republican party to advance their personal fortunes. Any tendency among the voters to resist such leaders was met by impassioned declamation about the glorious past of the grand old party, by pointing out the vicious character of its rival, and by gloomy pictures of the disaster which would certainly follow Democratic success. Had there been a strong opposition which the public trusted, the decay of the Republican party might have been arrested at the outset by its prompt defeat. Such an opposition, however, was wanting, and the progress downward was unchecked.

A very short review of our history since 1865 will sustain these propositions, and make it clear that since the war the parties have not divided on great questions. From 1865 to 1868 the principal contest was between a Republican President and a Republican Congress in regard to the policy of reconstruction. This conflict culminated in the impeachment of President Johnson, and ended with the inauguration of President Grant. The only real difference between the Republican and the Democratic party in the campaign of 1868 was that the former commended, and the latter denounced, the reconstruction policy of Congress, but this issue disappeared when the campaign closed.

The election of General Grant placed the Republican party in undisputed possession of the government. No party in our history was ever more powerful; no President was ever more popular. Starting with the avowed purpose of ignoring the politicians, General Grant soon fell under the influence of the worst men in the party. During his first administration Mr. Sumner denounced his nepotism, while General Butler and men of his character dominated the party councils. Three years of Grant led to a conference of dissatisfied Republicans at Cincinnati, which almost founded a new party, but accomplished only’ the nomination of Horace Greeley’ by the Dentocrats upon a platform which was almost identical with that of the Republicans. The contest of 1872 should have been a battle against corruption in office, but the union between Horace Greeley and the Democratic party was so unnatural that the people almost unanimously refused to treat it as serious.

There followed four years of corruption without example in our history. The Credit Mobilier affair, the Whiskey Ring, the Sanborn contracts, the scandals in the Interior Department, Robeson’s career in the Navy Department, the safe burglary conspiracy, the impeachment of Belknap, affecting men holding the highest positions in the country, led to a popular uprising, which in 1874 gave the Democratic party, for the first time since 1861, a majority in the House of Representatives. The election which produced this result turned on no clear issue. The people simply recorded a vigorous protest against dishonesty.

It was of this period that Senator Hoar spoke, in May, 1876, when, urging the impeachment of a cabinet minister, he said : “ My own public life has been a very brief and insignificant one, extending little beyond the duration of a single term of senatorial office, but in that brief period I have seen five judges of a high court of the United States driven from office by threats of impeachment for corruption or maladministration. I have heard the taunt from friendliest lips that, when the United States presented herself in the East to take part with the civilized world in generous competition in the arts of life, the only product of her institutions in which she surpassed all others beyond question was her corruption.”

During this period the passions excited by the war had been subsiding. As the centennial anniversaries approached, the recollections of earlier contests in which the whole country had been united softened the memories of recent division, and in 1875 the breach was healing rapidly. Then it was that Mr. Blaine acted upon the idea embodied in the remark, “ There is another presidency in the bloody shirt;” and, by stirring up Mr. Hill, of Georgia, in the House of Representatives, succeeded in reawakening sectional hatred. The real issue before the country then was not between Republicans and Democrats, but between honesty and dishonesty. This issue, upon which the Republican leaders could not face the country, was pushed aside, and a false issue was raised by the tactics of Mr. Blaine.

In the campaign of 1876 the Republicans appealed to sectional feeling and the memories of the war, while the Democrats pointed to the scandals of Republican rule. It was a contest between two organizations for power, but no question of principle was involved. The electoral commission gave the presidency to Mr. Hayes, whose administration raised the whole tone of public life, though under him was secretly growing the infamous Star Route conspiracy. His four years of able and honest administration arrested the disintegration of the party, and it went into the campaign of 1880 substantially united.

A comparison of the Republican and Democratic platforms of that year discloses, however, no real question between the parties. The Democrats demanded a tariff for revenue only, while the Republicans contented themselves with saying that the revenue must be largely derived from duties on imports, “ which should so discriminate as to favor American labor.” The tariff, however, was not a burning issue in this campaign. The Republicans prevailed mainly by pointing to the record of the two parties during the war, and by urging the country to “ let well alone.”The Democratic party, with a bad record and no cause, still failed to command the public confidence.

President Garfield’s administration was marked by the unseemly contests over patronage which led Mr. Conklig to resign his seat in the Senate, and by various scandals which it is unnecessary to recall. But these gave an impulse to the cause of civil service reform, and upon this issue more than any other the Democrats carried the congressional elections of 1882, immediately after which the civil service reform law was passed by a House of Representatives which, six months before, had jeered at the reform.

The next two years were filled with the intrigues which resulted in the nomination of Mr. Blaine and the memorable campaign of 1884. The situation then was admirably stated in the address published by the Independent Conference at New York, which began: —

“The paramount issue of the presidential election of this year is moral rather than political. It concerns the national honor and character and honesty of administration rather than the general policies of government, upon which the platforms of the two parties do not essentially differ. No position taken by one platform is seriously traversed by the other. Both evidently contemplate a general agreement of public opinion upon subjects which have been long in controversy, and indicate an unwillingness to declare upon other and cardinal questions views which, in the present condition of public opinion, might seriously disturb the parties within themselves. Parties indeed now cohere mainly by habit and tradition; and since the great issues which have divided them have been largely settled, the most vital political activity has been the endeavor of good citizens in both parties to adjust them to living issues, and to make them effective agencies of political progress and reform.”

Upon the moral issue President Cleveland was elected. Under his leadership the Democratic party definitely espoused the cause of tariff reform, and upon this issue was fought the campaign of 1888. The Republican party took the opposite side, apparently, not from any settled conviction on the part of its leaders, far less on the part of its members, that the existing tariff should be increased, but rather because it was necessary for the party to oppose the Democrats, and it hoped, by appealing to the manufacturers and playing upon the fears of the working classes, to win another presidency. Success placed the Republicans in a position where they were compelled to adopt a course against which the party was committed by its record and the counsels of its great leaders in the past. They were forced to increase the burden of taxation imposed during the war. Their action has brought the country at last face to face with a real question, upon which the battle must continue until taxation is reduced. The issue is here, and it divides the country.

But still the division is not complete. There are many Republicans who do not at all believe in the policy to which their party is committed, but who are still so busy in doing the work accomplished twenty years ago that they have no time to consider the questions of to-day.² There are many Democrats who favor protection. The old traditions of the parties are still so strong that men vote for a name against their convictions. Not only are there many in each party who, upon the real issue between them, belong to the other, but the conscienceless political warfare of twenty years has separated a large class of voters from both parties. The scandals of General Grant’s administration led many Republicans to vote for Mr. Tilden. The prominence of General Butler caused a “ bolt ” in Massachusetts. The cynical indifference of the Republican party to its promise of civil service reform led to the revolt of 1882, which sent Theodore Lyman, among others, to Congress, and changed entirely the political complexion of the House of Representatives. When finally the corrupt forces of the party triumphed in the nomination of Mr. Blaine, the conscience of the country was startled, and a large and important part of the Republican party voted against its candidate. One by one the men whose names are associated with the best days of that party have, with a few exceptions, been driven from its ranks, and the result is apparent. When Mr. Blaine first sought the presidency in 1876, he was beaten so badly that he had little influence with the next administration. In 1880 he was beaten, indeed, but came out of the conflict at the right hand of President Garfield. Four years later he won the nomination against a fierce opposition, but his nomination divided the party. Now he seems to be the party’s idol, the typical Republican of to-day. Look where we will, the same tendency is evident throughout the Republican party. In New York Mr. White yields to Mr. Fassett. In Ohio Mr. Sherman struggles for reëlection against Governor Foraker. In Pennsylvania Mr. Quay and his associates are supreme. Mr. Clarkson leads the national organization, while, as he complains, the great newspapers and magazines of the country, which formerly supported the Republican party, are now contending against it. The education and intelligence of the country are naturally repelled by the Republicanism of to-day.

On the other hand, the Democrats have, until recently, offered little which could attract the men whom the Republicans have alienated. Tammany and its methods do not suggest reform, and among those who are named as possible Democratic candidates for the presidency there is only one who could command their support. Governor Hill inspires no more confidence than Mr. Blaine, nor is Mr. Gorman clearly better than Mr. Quay.

The result is that there is a large body of citizens who believe earnestly in civil service reform, tariff reform, honest money, fair elections, and economical administration, who find no political party which really seeks to accomplish these political objects. These are the real practical demands of the day, and the record of both parties shows that neither can be trusted to labor for them all. These men are equally opposed to the corrupt methods of both parties, and to men who are prominent in both. They adopt an eclectic course, voting at each election for those who, under the circumstances, misrepresent them the least. To a great extent, by voting on opposite sides, they neutralize each other’s action. They are numerous and intelligent, and they should be influential. While they stand apart from existing political organizations they exert no direct influence upon either. Candidates are selected, policies adopted, methods approved, without consulting them, and thus their attitude deprives them of their legitimate weight in determining the political course of the country.

Is there no way out of this situation ? Cannot citizens who think alike forget names which have lost their meaning, and unite in the endeavor to adjust the parties “ to living issues, and to make them effective agencies of political progress and reform ” ?

No man counts for less politically than he whose party allegiance is assured, who votes for his party’s candidate under all circumstances, who cannot be disgusted or persuaded into revolt. Why should any party leader abandon evil methods for fear of alienating, or adopt sound principles and nominate good men for the sake of attracting, such voters ? They belong to the “ boss,” and he may well ask, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own ? ” Does not the recent election in Pennsylvania show that it is lawful ? How can this fetich worship of party be broken up ?

The difficulties of the problem are great. Political parties are not lightly created nor easily destroyed. The life of the Democratic party, in spite of its almost absolute annihilation during the civil war, is a proof of this wonderful vitality. Parties are born when the time is ripe. A handful of reformers cannot will a new party into existence, though when public opinion is ready they can raise the standard and fire the beacon. A political party in a country like ours is a complicated organization, and depends for its success on the active efforts of many men. The legitimate expenses of a campaign are great, and men who are busy in their respective employments shrink from the sacrifice of time and money which is necessary to create a national organization and to conduct a national campaign, until there comes one of those moments in a country’s history when some great cause stirs men deeply, and they forget to be lazy and prudent.

While in the factional quarrels which divide both parties in many States there is evidence that existing organizations will not long continue as at present constituted, while the men who now hold prominent office, with few exceptions, are not such as can long control the destinies of a great nation, there is no reason to think that the country is ripe for a new party. The demand for free silver seems to have spent its force, and, like the movements for the payment of the bonds in “greenbacks ” and for the inflation of the currency by fresh issues of paper money, proves to be only a temporary craze. Such ebullitions of imaginative finance have been periodical during our history, but from their inherent folly they are mere passing delusions. They frighten the timid leaders in both parties, but no more afford a foundation for a new organization than would an attack on the law of gravitation.

Nor can a new party be formed now on the issue of civil service reform. Its friends are strong enough to compel the respect of both parties, who on public occasions are never tired of denouncing the failures of their opponents to act upon its principles, and of expressing their own unqualified support of the reform ; but it is difficult to create a new party for the purpose of doing what two existing parties strongly pretend to favor, especially when, as in this case, the cause does not inspire any burning enthusiasm in large sections of the country, but at best commands only passive support.

The dominating issue is tariff reform, and in its support are enlisted a large majority of the active men who alone can be relied on to join any new movement. The Democratic party is fully committed to this cause, and the prospect of success is brilliant. In the battle now going on these reformers find abundant opportunity for their zeal, and they cannot easily be persuaded to abandon a powerful party, which seems on the eve of victory, for the purpose of forming a new and comparatively weak organization, and thus dividing the force which, united, is not too strong to overcome the party of privilege. If the Democratic party should select as its candidate a leader whose character and strength are well known, who is sound on financial questions, and who has shown himself willing to extend the principles of civil service reform and to lead his party forward on this question, it would be folly to attempt the formation of a new party. The active support of such a candidate is practically the best service a voter can render to the causes of tariff reform, civil service reform, and honest money. But if such a candidate i.s not named; if each of the two great parties nominates a man who does not command confidence, but is merely a political gambler, playing for power, are we bound then to trust the great interests of this country, its character and its honor, to a man who has neither character nor honor of his own ? The answer to this inquiry should not be doubtful.

The practical question is not whether a new party shall be formed, but whether men who desire only to have their country well governed cannot, by united action, do something to secure the nomination of good men by both parties, — something to make them both ‘‘ effective agencies of political progress and reform ” rather than armies engaged in a battle to determine which shall have the right to despoil their common country.

We are too apt to think that everything depends on the presidential election. It is a dangerous delusion. We have more to hope and fear from Congress than from the President. Be he as good as we would have him, he cannot legislate, and even in matters which lie exclusively within his jurisdiction the constant pressure of office-broking Congressmen or the loyal support of able and disinterested representatives may mar or make his administration. We cannot afford to choose a good President and not give him a good Congress. Each congressional district is a field for independent action, and in many a few active men will control an election. Why is it not practicable to form a national organization of those who, without regard to party, will pledge themselves to act together in support of tariff reform, civil service reform, electoral reform, and honest money, and against corrupt men and corrupt methods in politics wherever found ? Why should not such an organization formulate the demands of good citizens, and thus help to educate public opinion and loosen party ties? Why should there not be a branch in each district and in every town, to form a nucleus around which citizens who favor reform can rally ? The politicians would soon see in such a body a power to be dreaded and conciliated, and it would be strong enough, in many cases, to dictate good nominations or defeat bad ones. Such an organization would be prepared for any emergency ; and if the time should ever come when neither political party offered a cause and candidates worthy of support, a new party would be ready.

No one can do more than indicate what is possible. We all recognize a steady decadence in our politics. The men in public life to-day are, with few exceptions, intellectually and morally inferior to the great statesmen of the war and the years which preceded it. Political preferment is less and less tempting to good men. The conditions of public life are more and more repellent. The tendency is dangerous, and it is our duty to arrest it. Is there not in all this reason for action ; should we not at least recognize the situation, and seek to find a remedy ? It would seem that the first step would be a conference of those who think alike, in order that, through a comparison of views, some course of action might be devised. Delays are dangerous.