[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.
[15] We are steadily
differentiating a governing class, or rather a class of
Pretorians, who make a business of gaining political
power and then selling it. The type of the rising party
leader is not the orator or statesman of an earlier day,
but the shrewd manager, who knows how to handle the
workers, how to combine pecuniary interests, how to
obtain money and to spend it, how to gather to himself
followers and to secure their allegiance. One party
machine is becoming complementary to the other party
machine, the politicians, like the railroad managers,
having discovered that combination pays better than
competition. So rings are made impregnable and great
pecuniary interests secure their ends no matter how
elections go. There are sovereign States so completely in
the hands of rings and corporations that it seems as if
nothing short of a revolutionary uprising of the people
could dispossess them. Indeed, whether the General
Government has not already passed beyond popular control
may be doubted. Certain it is that possession of the
General Government has for some time past secured
possession. And for one term, at least, the Presidential
chair has been occupied by a man not elected to it. This,
of course, was largely due to the crookedness of the man
who was elected, and to the lack of principle in his
supporters. Nevertheless, it occurred.
[16] As for the great railroad
managers, they may well say, "The people be d--d!" When
they want the power of the people they buy the people's
masters. The map of the United States is colored to show
States and Territories. A map of real political powers
would ignore State lines. Here would be a big patch
representing the domains of Vanderbilt; there Jay Gould's
dominions would be brightly marked. In another place
would be set off the empire of Stanford and Huntington;
in another the newer empire of Henry Villard. The States
and parts of States that own the sway of the Pennsylvania
Central would be distinguished from those ruled by the
Baltimore and Ohio; and so on. In our National Senate,
sovereign members of the Union are supposed to be
represented; but what are more truly represented are
railroad kings and great moneyed interests, though
occasionally a jobber from Nevada or Colorado, not
inimical to the ruling powers, is suffered to buy himself
a seat for glory. And the Bench as well as the Senate is
being filled with corporation henchmen. A railroad king
makes his attorney a judge of last resort, as the great
lord used to make his chaplain a bishop.
[17] We do not get even cheap
government. We might keep a royal family, house them in
palaces like Versailles or Sans Souci, provide them with
courts and guards, masters of robes and rangers of parks,
let them give balls more costly than Mrs. Vanderbilt's,
and build yachts finer than Jay Gould's, for much less
than is wasted and stolen under our nominal government of
the people. What a noble income would be that of a Duke
of New York, a Marquis of Philadelphia, or a Count of San
Francisco, who would administer the government of these
municipalities for fifty per cent. of present waste and
stealage! Unless we got an esthetic Chinook, where could
we get an absolute ruler who would erect such a monument
of extravagant vulgarity as the new Capitol of the State
of New York? While, as we saw in the Congress just
adjourned, the benevolent gentlemen whose desire it is to
protect us against the pauper labor of Europe quarrel
over their respective shares of the spoil with as little
regard for the taxpayer as a pirate crew would have for
the consignees of a captured vessel.
[19] All this shows want of
grasp and timidity of thought. It is not by accident that
government grows corrupt and passes out of the hands of
the people. If we would really make and continue this a
government of the people, for the people and by the
people, we must give to our politics earnest attention;
we must be prepared to review our opinions, to give up
old ideas and to accept new ones. We must abandon
prejudice, and make our reckoning with free minds. The
sailor, who, no matter how the wind might change, should
persist in keeping his vessel under the same sail and on
the same tack, would never reach his haven. ... read the
entire essay