[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