[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