theory made electoral offices so numerous, and resulted in such blanket ballots,' that electors left the task of making up lists of candidates to professional politicians well paid out of the spoils of office. Corruption awakened the American people, and a reform movement started in the eighties of last century. New rules were made for the 'primary' nominating meetings and other party electoral conventions; but the machine' still controls the supply and support of candidates. From time to time the two 'regular' parties are combated by 'third' parties, e.g. Farmer-Labour Party, Populists, Socialists; but party life still runs in two moulds. It is the invisible Government.' The presidential election is a good example of the power of the invisible Government.' The Constitution-makers laid it down that the President should be elected by special colleges of electors composed of men elected in each State. These would then vote for a President. It was hoped that such special State Colleges would be free from sinister bias.' Parties arose to co-ordinate the voting in the different States; and soon the original machinery broke down through the force of party action. Now party representatives go from the States and the Territories to the National Convention of the party. These party delegates are elected by conventions elected in their turn by primary meetings. The State delegates are expected to vote together for the same candidate. The National Conventions each choose their ultimate candidate for the Presidency from among all the favourite sons' and 'favourites amidst heat, confusion, intrigue, processions, and fervent oratory. The final negotiations which bring about a 'break' in favour of one candidate are known only to some half-dozen men at the head of the party machine.' The presidential campaign then starts, with a special raising of enthusiasm in doubtful' States. The Colleges of Electors are elected according to party strength, and the candidate provided by the nominating Convention is elected by them automatically, and, since 1 Cf. Root,' Invisible Government' in Addresses on Government and Citizenship, p. 191; and A. M. Kales, Unpopular Government in U.S.A., Chicago University Press. voting for the College is by general ticket' for the whole State (and this enables a party with a small majority to secure the whole College), and the numbers of electors per State varies, it is possible for the President to be elected by a minority of all the voters. Presidents are chosen more because they are good candidates than because they are able men; the campaign leaders and those who provide funds expect a say in policy and appointments; but the office has usually elevated the President morally. The Constitution does not limit the number of terms; convention limits it to two. IX Summing up, we may say that American government is not adequate to the needs of the country, for the following reasons: (1) Responsibility is not patent as in a Cabinet system; and separation of powers stultifies governmental action. (2) The country is large, needs a place for legitimate privilege to localities and groups, yet has made no provision for such by a conscious redistribution of functions. (3) The dominant social expectation'—that is, the criterion of a good life which most people expect of one another, is still intensely materialistic: it is the ' dollarstandard'; and the political institutions therefore tend to become glorified commercial institutions in an atmosphere of industry run by private enterprise. Congress and the Courts, in this background, become in great measure instruments of people who can pay for them; yet it is those who cannot pay for them that need them most. The reform movement is strong, but, unless it is based upon a new social expectation,' a conscious analysis of purpose, and a change of standards, State-blindness,' in Mr. Wells's phrase, and the commercial standard, must continue to have, as their natural fruit, such a Congress and such policies. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION THE result of this brief survey is, I think, to show the immense importance of looking at government from a dynamic point of view. It is worse than useless to conceive it as an unchanging piece of machinery. Government is never a set, hard-and-fast being, but always a becoming; and it ought to become according to the nature and needs of man. Since this is so, we have an immediate argument for the free expression of opinion in modern societies. Societies are so complex, and the individual will is so easily lost beneath the flood of forms, and the card-indexes, that the mould of Government will set and stand, not as a servant, but as a tyrant, unless there is a continual flow of suggestion and criticism-free, informed suggestion and criticism. Therefore a new education is required of the whole people, adolescent and adult. For only in that way can be broken the vicious circle of ignorance handed on to the child (whom the poor teacher is wrestling to educate) by an ignorant parent. Expression of opinion must be free; yet this is threatened by partial Governments. Recently, for example, the Postmaster-General in America1 improperly used his power to refuse cheap postal rates, to prevent the circulation of newspapers containing the expression of opinions not in accord with his own. As political conflict becomes more concerned with the question of rights to property, which, of course, were not made within the Six Days of Creation,' it is likely that more intolerance will be shown to the free expression of opinion. Suppose that the Press is in the hands of wealthy syndicates, who for private advantage provide news and opinions without too strict a regard for exact truth. 1 Cf. dissent of Brandeis J. in Masses Publishing Co. v. Burleson Supreme Court, 1921, in which the issue of government interference with free expression of opinion is admirably stated, and cf. New Republic, January 26, 1921, February 16, 1921, and March 30, 1921. 2 Cannan, Coal Nationalization, p. 6. Wealth would then be able to defeat political democracy; for each vote cast will have been influenced by propaganda, and the organization with the most money can conduct the most effective play upon ignorance and the non-rational impulses of the modern preoccupied elector. To him participation in politics comes far down in the list of necessary daily activities. Viscount Bryce says: Democracy-which is merely a form of government, not a consideration of the purposes to which government may be turned-has nothing to do with economic equality (italics mine). Yet the best chapter in his Modern Democracies is his description of the power of the Press and a visualization of what might happen in a democracy if a capitalistic combination' acquired many newspapers. They could, by presenting facts of one colour and tendency, and suppressing or discolouring all news of an opposite tendency, succeed in impressing, if not on the majority, yet on a large percentage of voters, whatever opinion they desired. The weaker kind of politician would succumb to them. Ministries would fear to offend them. Foreign countries would soon begin to recognize their supremacy.' There can be no political democracy without economic equality and freedom. What is a vote if a voter is a puppet, and fearful to lose his livelihood? If we look at Government from the dynamic standpoint we see clearly, too, the importance of personality and courage in government. Such factors make institutions. We discern, too, the ideal function of the democratic Leader. He should always be on the watch for the spirit of new life moving in his people, and strive to give it adequate expression. More, he should, by his appeals, educate, not darken the truth; and by his words and actions seek to sublimate or divert the baser impulses of mankind, to the end that the riches of the world may be enjoyed in peace. 1 Op. cit., vol. i, p. 76. 2 Op. cit., p. 121. GENERAL WORKS Graham Wallas, Human Nature in Politics (third edition). (Macmillan.) The Great Society. (Macmillan.) Our Social Heritage. (Allen & Unwin.) H. J. Laski, Authority in the Modern State. (Oxford University Press.) Macy and Gannaway, Comparative Free Government. ENGLAND (Macmillan.) A. L. Lowell, The Government of England. (Macmillan.) A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (eighth edition). (Macmillan.) C. F. G. Masterman, How England is governed. (Selwyn & Blount.) Bagehot, The English Constitution. (Most valuable, but to be read in conjunction with Lowell and Low.) (Nelson.) J. E. C. Bodley, France. FRANCE (Macmillan.) Sait, Government and Politics of France. (Harrap.) (Appleton.) Esmein, Éléments de Droit Constitutionnel (seventh edition). (Sirey, Tenin, Paris.) Barthélemy, Le Gouvernement de la France (concise account with bibliography). (Payot, Paris.) Chardon, L'Administration de la France. GERMANY (OLD REGIME) (Perrin, Paris.) Howard, The German Empire. (Macmillan.) Dawson, The German Empire, 1867-1914. (Allen & Unwin.) (NEW REGIME) The German Constitution (obtainable at H.M. Stationery Office). AMERICA Viscount Bryce, The American Commonwealth. (Macmillan.) Constitutional Government. (Oxford University Press.) Readers who wish to go further into the subject are referred to the works mentioned in the footnotes. |