VOLUME XLIX

NUMBER 2

O

IN THE same day that the King of England summoned Mr. Stanley Baldwin to form a new government for Great Britain, the American people overwhelmingly chose Calvin Coolidge President. These two events are not so unconnected as they may seem. The most important political consequence of the War, and to many observers perhaps the most disconcerting, was the rise of radicalism. Its extremist manifestation was in the old Russian Empire, but the movement, in its several phases, gained headway in practically every country. In the more stable lands-France, Great Britain, and the United States-the so-called "wave of radicalism" did not attain its height until the last twelvemonth. In France the Socialist and pacifist, almost "defeatist" government of Herriot supplanted the rigid, unyielding coalition of Poincaré, while in Great Britain that political spectre which had for years been feared, but hardly expected, a Labor or "Socialist" ministry, came into power under Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.

In the United States "radicalism" assumed no such definite form as this.

Until the appearance of Senator La Follette as a Presidential candidate, it had not taken shape as a distinct national political party. It had made its presence known rather by factional cleavage within the long established organizations. Insurgent "blocs" were organized in Congress and candidates of farmer-labor groups were elected from certain states. The presence of large alien populations in the great cities, the increasing demands of labor, and the bitterness supposed to have been left by the War in the hearts of a considerable pro-German populationthese elements of discord in the national life had led many to believe that the time had come to form a "third party" in this country, constructed somewhat on the lines of the Labor party in England. The triumph of Ramsay Macdonald, it was urged, would soon be duplicated in the United States. The movement of political life in all countries was in the direction of radicalism; the old parties, both in England and in this country-so the argument ran-had outlived their usefulness; the growing "class consciousness" of the masses must needs find more adequate expression than in the old parties, which had become mere strongholds of

118

"privilege"-in fact, a new political day was dawning in those two nations which, above all, have demonstrated the greatest capacity for wise political action and which have long been models of sane social and industrial progress. The "proletariat" had already captured Great Britain, and the time was approaching, it was urged, when it would capture the United States.

In the exceedingly dull Presidential campaign which has just closed, the only question of much interest was the extent to which radicalism had gained a foothold among the American masses. Neither Mr. Coolidge nor Mr. Davis succeeded in greatly interesting the voters in the so-called "issues" of the hour. The only figure who really attracted much attention was Senator La Follette. There was no expectation, even by Senator La Follette and his followers, that he would win the Presidency, but there was a genuine fear-absurd as that now seemsthat he would get enough votes to deadlock the Electoral College and throw the election, for the first time in a hundred years, into Congress. Senator La Follette's own purpose, constantly proclaimed, was that his fight was not a temporary one; he was laying the basis for a permanent "third party"-a party that would align workingmen, farmers, indeed wage-toilers of all kinds, against their 'oppressors." To what extent has he succeeded? What political strength has he manifested, and in what sections and in what social classes does it lie?

The most discouraging fact, from the standpoint of his supporters, was his failure to demonstrate strength in the regions where strength was most expected. In the early days of the campaign even Senator La Follette's opponents practically conceded him 39 electoral votesthe states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. Of these he carried only Wisconsin, the state which for many years has been little more than a La Follette pocket borough. It is true that in all these states La Follette led Davis, but his vote fell so far behind the vote of Coolidge that little importance attaches to this fact. In the other primarily agrarian states, such as Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska, the La Follette collapse was even more complete. These states are the main reliance of the farmers' "bloc"; several of them have broken away from traditional Republicanism in recent years, elected independent governors and Senators; and it was upon their spirit of revolt and unrest that Senator La Follette counted for the basis of his new party. Third party demonstrations in this region have been a feature of American politics for sixty years. Such outbreaks as the Granger movement in the 'seventies, and the Populist agitation in the 'nineties, were really much more formidable threats to the Republican party than recent departures in these states from the family fold.

The important thing, however, is that these "farmer uprisings" have always been temporary; their cause has invari

against the party in power have been merely the agricultural method of voicing their grievances and expressing a belief that Congress should do something to remedy them. The basic political stock of these regions is a rock-like Republicanism; when times get better and prices for farm products go up, the embattled farmers invariably return to their traditional allegiance. That is precisely what is happening now. The partial failure of the Canadian wheat crop has completely changed the face of the world,

so far as the agricultural regions are concerned. Prices have gone up, and prosperity once more waits at the door. The farmers, therefore, again remember that they are Republicans, and Senator La Follette's chance of building a permanent political structure on their temporary troubles disappears. The narrow escape of Senator Brookhart and the defeat of Senator Magnus Johnson-both political leaders whose careers, like Mr. La Follette's, rest chiefly upon the farmers' desire for higher prices-merely add emphasis to the situation.

The "German-American" Appeal

O

THER elements of strength upon which the new party depended were the labor unions, the proGerman citizens (who hoped in this way to redress the "wrongs" of the Versailles Treaty and to express their general disapproval of the part played by the United States in the European War), and certain alien "minorities" inhabiting the crowded sections of great cities. The endorsement of the American Federation of Labor has apparently availed the La Follette cause very little. Mr. Gompers has always opposed arraying workmen as a political party, and in the election returns he will undoubtedly see a justification of his policy. The fact that only 10 per cent. of American workingmen are union members-a total of about 3,000,000-shows that, should they vote as a unit, they could hardly play a decisive part in elections, and nothing is more certain about the recent campaign than that they did not vote as a unit, but remained steadfast, as individuals, to their old party allegiances.

An inevitable lesson from the election is that the so-called "masses" have little interest in Mr. La Follette's personality or his program. His proposal to abolish the Supreme Court, and with it our constitutional system, and substitute a new scheme of government in which all power is to reside in Congress, did not appeal to their sober sense. His plan for His plan for government ownership of railroads with

its inevitable accompaniments of high rates, high wages, and a huge annual deficit to be met by increased taxation— likewise did not charm them. His promise to do his utmost to destroy the Versailles Treaty, and to plunge Europe into chaos and probable war at the very moment when light was dawning on the European horizon, did not seem good international politics. In certain places, notably Missouri, Senator La Follette's appeal to the assumed disloyalty of Americans of German origin had a contrary effect from the intended one. Enough Germans resented the implied suggestion that they place Germany above the United States to give Mr. Coolidge a good majority in this normally Democratic state. The industry of stimulating hyphenism for political purposes has suffered a severe blow. The resentment of German-Americans was evidently not confined to Missouri, for other states in which the German stock is a considerable element, such as Iowa and Nebraska, failed to respond to this argument.

Where Radicalism Is Really Found

Β'

UT Senator La Follette made still another appeal, far more dangerous than the others; this was his attempt to enlist the support of recently arrived and recently enfranchised citizens, chiefly those from eastern and southeastern Europe. The assimilation of these people has proved especially difficult-so difficult, indeed, that a new immigration law, intended chiefly to exclude them in the future, has become the settled national policy. One of the objections raised to these peoples is that, instead of accepting American institutions, and informing their citizenship with the principles of the Constitution, they seek to supplant our machinery of government and of life with ideas imported from their home land. Socialism, for example, has made no progress in the United States; its growth here has been feeble and exotic; this is not necessarily because socialism. is a fallacy, but because it was developed

120

as a cure for the ills of Europe, and has practically no application to American conditions. These different conditions explain why American radicalism, trifling in its numbers, is limited chiefly to these foreign settlements.

Naturally Senator La Follette sought to enroll these alien communities under his banner, and here, indeed, is found his one successful plea. On the east side and Bronx districts of New York, inhabited mainly by peoples from the east of Europe, the Senator disclosed a real popular following. He developed great strength in Cleveland, which contains a great and miscellaneous population from the south and center of Europe. These voters are almost the only ones who form the nucleus of a permanent third party, but such a nucleus is a very small one, and, so long as it is kept small, it is not particularly dangerous.

The outcome of the election shows that the United States, like England, is sound, sober, even conservative. That the two elections should take place in the two nations at the same time, with essentially the same result in each, is a suggestive revelation of the fact that the political ideals and the political temperaments of the two nations are the same. It means that together Great Britain and the United States will offer a solid front to the disintegrating forces now operating in the world. From this standpoint, the election holds nothing but hope for the optimist. This country is not the abode of radicalism and the time is not in sight when it will become so.

But any attempt, in either Great Britain or the United States, to interpret the result as a vindication and license to "standpattism" would be a grievous error. The success is not a "Tory" success in either country, least of all in our own. Political history discloses that an overwhelming victory may be disastrous to the victors. It has a tendency to lessen the sense of responsibility. That is a danger especially facing the Republicans at the present time, for the sober fact h. is that at present there is really only one theparty in this country. Seldom has a

political organization suffered two such crushing defeats as have fallen upon the Democratic party in 1920 and 1924. The triumph of Mr. Harding four years ago was interpreted as a rebuke to the party which had held office during the eight preceding years. Yet, despite the scandals that have so damaged Republican prestige, despite the riffs that have taken place in its own ranks, the fact remains that the poll of 1924 shows the party practically as strong as in 1920. Yet this fact does not mean that the victorious Republicans shall use their power carelessly and selfishly. The triumph should not be interpreted as an invitation for more Teapot Domes and Veteran Bureau performances. It is not a success for spoils politics. The conscience of the American people is still "progressive," in the sanest meaning of that word; it still demands honesty and efficiency in public officials, economy in administration, the use of the national resources for the benefit of the masses, and the most enlightened policy in social legislation. It is the business of the Coolidge Administration to promote these ends. The best way of stimulating "radicalism" and of creating another La Follette who will be far more successful than the one whose political career has now reached an end, is to regard this great manifestation of public confidence as anything except an opportunity for public service.

Among the satisfactions of the campaign just closed were the personal characters of the two leading contestants. Mr. Davis was a gallant and forceful antagonist, who fought a difficult battle with little assistance from his party associates; his great misfortune was that he inherited a party demoralized by a convention that was little better than an orgy of rancor. The auspices were thus unfavorable from the start. Whether Mr. Davis will ever lead his party again is extremely doubtful, but his fine intellect gave dignity to a campaign that sadly needed it and his character lifted the plane of American politics. To have triumphed over such a man is not the least of the honors that have come to Mr. Coolidge.