  There is not and never has been in the United States anything that could be segregated as the “labor vote,” although such a thing has been the dream of many labor leaders, the bugaboo—or rather the ignis fatuus—of politicians of many parties, and a permanently legendary figure in the popular speech. The absence of such a vote is the principle reason for the political futility of most of the efforts of the Socialist parties. Time and again, since the beginning of our existence as a nation, efforts—some of them with a measure of success promising or menacing according to one’s sympathy and point of view—have been made to get united political action on the part of citizens who worked with their hands as supposedly distinguished from those who worked with their brains. The effort never has come to other than temporary local success; although it may be conceded that, in some measure, the issues upon which the efforts were predicated afterward came to be those upon which the great parties fought out their battles; or, more likely, came slowly to substantial acceptance through economic development or sometimes as the direct fruit of campaign agitation. The reasons for this failure to precipitate and organize the mythical “labor vote” are many and diverse, but certain of them are essential and fairly evident: First, the fact that in this country social and industrial conditions have hitherto been, and probably for Second, the immensity of our territory and the great diversity of interests and issues in the forefront of public attention in one section and another. Seldom, if ever, have the conditions which might have solidified any class been sufficiently widespread or synchronous to serve the purpose of united political sentiment or action. Add to this the fact that politicians of both the great parties, more or less intentionally, have managed always to frame the issues so as to encourage this diversity. Third, the deliberate and long-standing policy of the most influential of the general leaders of the labor organizations—Mr. Samuel Gompers for the most conspicuous example—of keeping those organizations free from the entanglements and distractions of party politics, definitely preventing their acting as a political unit; by intention confining their activities to the industrial, the economic field. This alone, without regard to the fact that the higher-grade unions (using that expression solely with reference to skill) seldom see their interests to be common, so far as the ballot box Fourth, and most important, the fact that “labor,” in the sense in which most politicians, and virtually all of the public, use the term, means chiefly the unskilled workers who contribute muscle to industry. These are to a great extent unorganized, without any conscious unity of interest or purpose; their approach to both industry and political action is as individuals—individuals of more or less shifting residence and comparatively little feeling of political responsibility. Moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge that the great industrial concerns have fostered the existence of masses of unskilled labor, in excess of the actual needs of industry, in order to maintain an “overstocked” labor supply, for the purpose of constant wage-competition to keep down costs. This competition has the inevitable effect of discouraging united action of any kind. And, still further, we have found This body of the unskilled, industrially indispensable, but politically unassimilated, inarticulate, and unwholesome, consists almost entirely now, and must consist increasingly, of immigrants. Like any other mass of material in an organism, potentially digestible and useful but actually undigested and in the circumstances indigestible, it has clogged the process of assimilation and is infecting the body politic with dangerous toxins. The wonder is that we have got along with it Foreigners: the word is used advisedly. For out of the welter of prejudice and misinformation surrounding the subject has emerged clearly the fact that by the time the alien man reaches the point of applying for citizenship and the political power that goes with it, he has been in this country upward of ten years, has advanced materially in social and economic status, and the process of assimilation is far on its way, if not substantially complete. In a majority of cases, he has passed out of the category of what is usually known as “common labor.” DIVIDED BY RACIAL TRADITIONSAnother thing, conspicuous here as in no other country where “labor” might be regarded as directly a political factor, is the fact that even had these thousands of men been individually available for prompt assimilation, or manageable in their groups as material for political manipulation, they have constituted such a hodge-podge of conflicting racial and national antecedents, prejudices, and inhibitions that any coherent political action by them always has been out of the question. Scandinavian and Slav, Austrian and Italian, British and German, Greek and Turk; Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile—to say nothing of those smaller clan, village, and even family feuds, often of long-forgotten origin, within the racial groups ... at every turn some hoary animosity, born, perhaps, centuries ago out of historic or obscure conflicts of which the average native-born American maybe never heard in his life, has kept and doubtless long will continue to keep these racial groups apart and practically preclude any possibility of getting them to work together. The events The Socialists alone, of all the considerable political parties, have tried to unite “labor” (chiefly meaning unskilled labor) by efforts to convince all the racial groups of a common political interest superior to any racial interest. They have almost completely failed. Politicians, large and small, have been to some extent aware of this diversity of traditions and interests among the racial groups, based upon ancient or current controversies in old countries; but their approach to the subject always has been pragmatical and opportunistic, and usually unintelligent without real information about or understanding of the explosive matters with which they were meddling, or any but temporary or local concern about the consequences. The Fiume controversy, interesting both Italians and Jugo-Slavs; the Irish situation; the war between the Poles and the Bolsheviki in Russia; and conspicuously the whole stupendous question of the League of Nations—all are fine examples of international and interracial conflicts and emergencies of which American politicians of both parties have taken advantage for their own purposes without regard to consequences to the welfare of the world—or of their own country, for that matter. ALIENS NOT WITHOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCEAs we have seen, the foreign born who become citizens, and as such are eligible to participate in our political processes, do so on the average only after a residence in this country of more than ten years. Also, notwithstanding the legend to the contrary, there appears to be no material distinction of race in their interest in our politics or their desire to become citizens. But it would be a cardinal mistake to suppose that the great mass of THERE IS NO “FOREIGN VOTE”What we have said of the mythical “labor vote” is equally true of the mythical “foreign vote.” Under circumstances of tense feeling between Italians and Jugo-Slavs, between Irish and English-born, between Swedes and Norwegians, the vote of Italian-born citizens and those of Serbian antecedents cannot be corralled together for a candidate of either racial origin, or for a ticket representing sympathy or tolerance for either, and so on down the lines; but no politician ever has been able to unite in one political movement all the heterogeneous mass that could, by any stretch of words, be called the “foreign vote.” There is no “foreign vote,” any more than there is a “labor vote.” The wholesale enfranchisement of women, native and foreign-born citizens alike, under the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, brings into the situation a new and confusing factor, about which it would be perilous to prophesy. Foreign-born women, largely ignorant of everything that we are accustomed to regard as “American,” subject to all of the influences and limitations involved in the word “foreign,” are swept by our naturalization laws helter-skelter into citizenship by the mere fact of their marriage OLD EVILS ABOLISHEDThere was a day in American political history when, especially in the great cities along the Atlantic seaboard, the immigrant, in many cases the newly landed immigrant, was herded to the ballot box, sometimes without even the empty formality of naturalization, to cast an open ballot thrust into his hand by his padrone or some one else of his race who saw to it that he got his pay, usually in cash, but sometimes in the form of a job. Such practices, while they survive sporadically in out-of-the-way mining regions or the like where supervision of elections is lax or lacking, are no longer in vogue. The naturalization law of 1906, faithfully executed by the Naturalization Bureau, has completely abolished the old naturalization frauds and abuses, and the increasingly effective protection surrounding the ballot box, with the substitution of official ballots for the old voting ticket or open ballot, with more or less of the nonpartisan, alphabetical arrangement of candidates known as the “Australian” ballot, has made direct It would be possible to occupy much space in this volume with a history of bygone days, when naturalization was a farce and a scandal, and the ignorant immigrant vote a real factor in American politics. As early as 1835, this was a source of alarm to the native Americans, the emotion being intensified and complicated by the religious sectarianism which was a large factor in the nativistic Know-Nothing movement. Congress was memorialized about ... the ease with which foreigners of doubtful morals and hostile political principles acquired the right to vote, and pointed to this as a source of real danger to the country. The petitioners saw with great concern the influx of Roman Catholics. To such persons, as men, they had no dislike. To their religion, as a religion, they had no objection. But against their political opinions, interwoven with their religious belief, they asked legislation. In those days the “New Immigration,” though the distinction between “old” and “new” now current had not been created, was more particularly of Irish and German—both races now generally regarded as of the “old,” the more desirable kind! Ostrogorski, in his Democracy and the Party System in the United States, says: Owing to the facilities offered by the American naturalization laws, the immigrants began to enjoy the rights of citizenship after a short period of residence. Ignorant, with no political education, these new members of the Commonwealth took service at once in the party organization, and blindly followed the word of command. Coming from countries the inhabitants of which were languishing in wretchedness and degradation, as in Ireland, or gasping under the vexatious regime of police-ridden and grandmotherly governments, as in Germany with its Polezei-Staat, the immigrants could not resist the seduction of the word “democrat,” and joined the ranks of the Democratic organization wholesale, bound hand and foot. Ostrogorski took his view from the situation in New York City, as many other writers have done; overlooking the fact that to a great extent the new voter, both native and foreign-born, has usually and naturally followed first the political partisan preference of his father and his racial associates, and second, the trend of party success. The dominating party machine in any city naturally has the prestige of success, and its ability to deliver patronage, large and small, draws those to whom a job is the vitally important thing in life. In New York City the power of the ignorant vote always has been a great source of strength to Tammany, which happens to be Democratic; in Philadelphia the same thing may be said of the local organization, which happens to be Republican. CORRUPTION WAS NOT AN IMPORTATIONIt is a common impression that the backbone of political corruption lies in the so-called “foreign vote.” Ostrogorski paid his respects to that idea. Said he: The most shameless venality is often met with in the country districts, particularly in the states of the Atlantic seaboard; nay, even in New England, inhabited by the descendants of the Puritans. Votes are sold there openly, like an article of commerce; there is a regular market quotation for them. And it is not only needy people Who make a traffic of their votes, but well-to-do farmers, of American stock, pious folk who always go to church on Sunday. If the farmer’s son is an elector and dwells under the paternal roof the father receives the price of his vote and that of their help, who is under a sort of moral obligation to vote for the same candidate as his master. A good many would not take a bribe from the party which they regard as hostile; they keep faith with their own party, but they, none the less, demand money for their vote, in the form of an indemnity for their trouble, for loss of time, for traveling expenses. In some country districts a quarter or a third of the electors make money out of their votes. HOME-GROWN IN ADAMS COUNTY, OHIO!Once at least in our political history we had an opportunity to see Ostrogorski’s assertion convincingly illustrated, and legally attested by “judicial notice” of a competent court, in the case of Adams County, Ohio, where, a decade ago, in 1910, one brave local judge, by the name of A. Z. Blair, haled before him a whole countryside of farmers, and disfranchised for confessed corruption pretty much the whole population. Here was exactly the situation described by Ostrogorski—“votes sold openly, like an article of commerce,” ... “a regular market quotation,” ... “well-to-do farmers, of American stock,” ... “a third of the electors make money out of their votes.” By stress of a special grand jury Judge Blair brought out complete and all but universal confessions, and imposed fines and disfranchisement upon the majority of voters in a whole rural county. It is instructive [said the Outlook in its editorial comment] to note that this slump of citizenship has not occurred among foreigners or negroes, nor in the slums of cities, but in a purely rural population, and among voters of native American stock. WHO IS THE BUYER OF VOTES?Incidentally it may be remarked that in all this business of election bribery, which in past years has been all but omnipresent in American politics, the emphasis is laid upon those, American or foreign-born, who sell their votes. Even if it were true that the purchasable voter was chiefly the voter of alien race, every sale implies a purchase. Before any voter can sell his vote, somebody must be prepared to buy it. The seat of corruption lies, not in the venal voter alone, but also in the system that gathers money for the purpose of buying him. And that system, from the very beginning, has been devised and engineered by the American politician, and those behind him in American business life who desire to control elections and the people’s representative selected therein, for their own “business” ends. It would not be difficult to point to elections of very great importance in America—even Presidential elections—in which the vote of great states was swayed one way or the other by the margin represented by the out-and-out purchase of votes at so much per head. Nor would any person above the age of six years seriously debate the question of the native-American origin of the people who incited and paid for the corruption. William S. Bennet, then a member of Congress from New York City, and of the House Committee on Immigration Much of our trouble in the past has sprung from the belief among newly made citizens, justified by far too much evidence, that we ourselves have regarded elections as contentions to be decided not at all by argument, persuasion, or reason, but by trickery, treachery, bribery, perjury, assault, forgery, deceit and even murder.... The new and impressionable citizen of even but twenty years ago had held out to him at election inducements to all that was worst in his character. If he held our elections and our institutions lightly, we had ourselves to blame for it.... Man moves much along lines of least resistance, and the stranger adapts himself to conditions as he finds them. Make your elections riotous and corrupt, and your new-made, foreign-born citizen riots and sells his vote with the native-born.... The new citizen has neither political inheritance, prejudice, nor scars of conflict. He votes always in the present, sometimes for the future, but never in the past. Being poor, it is quite true that when there is corruption, he is among those approached. Being ambitious, the lure of minor place sometimes weighs with him more than principle. Mr. Bennet, on the same occasion, emphasized the fact that a sharp distinction must be drawn between the mass of immigrants constituting the bulk of the foreign population, especially in the cities, and the small portion thereof actually participating in political activities: It should be carefully borne in mind that in no great city is the naturalized voter a newly arrived immigrant.... In cities the newly made voter is a resident in this country certainly for five, and usually for more, years, before he votes even There is no substantial support, either in any careful study of elections as a whole or in particular, or in the experience of those who have lived close to the political processes of our country, for the widespread impression that the foreign-born voter is more given to or victim of political corruption than any other class. ATTEMPTS TO FIND THE “FOREIGN VOTE”It is exceedingly difficult to identify the part played in any particular election, or in elections generally, by foreign-born voters. Political leaders and others who make analyses of election returns have their theories and prepossessions, and find in figures what they want to find, to defend policies, support theories, and sustain positions generally. In the presidential election of 1920, this was especially evident. Those who supported the Republican ticket and platform and those who supported the Democratic; those violently opposed to the League of Nations and those devotedly in favor of An exceptional instance of an attempt to analyze an election without preliminary bias appears in a study of “The Political Mind of Foreign-born Americans,” contributed by Dr. Abram Lipsky to Popular Science Monthly several years ago, One of the questions which Doctor Lipsky undertook to answer from the election figures was whether the voters in the selected districts “read the Hearst papers regularly.” He inferred his answer from the vote cast in those districts for the candidates which happened to be favored by the newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst. But the basic assumption was fallacious, overlooking entirely the notorious fact that repeatedly elections in New York City have been won in spite of the opposition, or lost in spite of the support, of virtually the entire newspaper press of the city. As logically might one assume from any election that the vote, pro or contra, on any subject represented the circulation of some particular group of newspapers whose views the election indorsed. Nearer the probabilities, but still subject to the same kind of discount, is Doctor Lipsky’s generalization as to the showing of one election on the subject of the attitude of certain racial groups as regards Tammany Hall and Socialism. This analysis is not without a certain degree of general significance. Doctor Lipsky’s conclusion that “native-born Americans of American parents are opposed to Tammany government” is based upon a comparison of figures from districts predominantly of native Americans, in the elections for governor in 1910 and for mayor of New York in 1913, his primary assumption being that the candidacy of Judge Edward E. McCall for mayor embodied “Tammany” pure and simple, while that of John A. Dix for governor did not make “Tammany” a state issue. From this point of view Doctor Lipsky interprets the fact that the percentage of votes for McCall TABLE XXXVII Per Cent of New York City Vote Cast for McCall in 1913 and Dix in 1910 by Voters of Native Parents
But the Russians and Austrians also said “No” to Tammany, as Doctor Lipsky reads the figures: TABLE XXXVIII Per Cent of New York City Vote Cast for McCall in 1913 and Dix in 1910 by Russians and Austrians
The Irish voted for Tammany, as usual: TABLE XXXIX Per Cent of New York City Vote Cast for McCall in 1913 and Dix in 1910 by the Irish
Allowance must be made here for some falling off of the vote in a municipal as compared with a state election; but a still greater allowance must be made for the fact that “Tammany” was indeed a state issue—Dix was distinctly charged by the opposition with being Tammany’s candidate, and there were, as always, confusing and inestimable factors of a subtle kind—such, for instance, as the fact that McCall had an Irish name, and Dix didn’t; or that the name “John A. Dix” had a sound historically familiar—even if not one regularly American-born person in a hundred could remember who the historic “John A. Dix” was! Some years the Germans are supposed to have supported Tammany; this particular time Doctor Lipsky seems to find that they did not—in districts in which Germans made up a considerable percentage of the population. (See Table XL.) Think what you will of the Italians’ attitude toward Tammany; you can stress the fact that the vote for McCall was so much below that of three years before for Dix, or you can philosophize about the fact that it was no greater! Doctor Lipsky’s inference that, on the TABLE XL Per Cent of New York City Vote Cast for McCall in 1913 and Dix in 1910 by Germans
TABLE XLI Per Cent of New York City Vote Cast for McCall in 1913 and Dix in 1910 by the Italians
“We are able,” says Doctor Lipsky, “to say that a decided ‘no’ was given to Tammany by native Americans of native parents, and by the Russians and Germans; a decided ‘Yes’ was given by the Italian and Irish.” The thing that stands out in these figures, whatever else may be said, would seem to be the fact that, like the native Americans of native parentage, the voters of foreign racial antecedents changed their support with changing circumstances and influences. The conventional On the subject of the “political mind of the foreign-born voter” as regards Socialism, Doctor Lipsky presents some interesting figures from ten assembly districts in which the Socialist candidate for mayor in 1913 received over 10 per cent of the total vote. TABLE XLII Per Cent of Socialistic Vote in New York City in 1910 and 1913 by Nationality
“Our conclusion therefore is,” says Doctor Lipsky, “that the bulk of the Socialist vote is derived from the Perhaps, but one may not ignore, for instance, the fact that in the district of these containing the largest percentage of native Americans of native parentage, the Socialist vote for Governor in 1910 was 12.5 per cent of the whole; or that in the one in which the Russian and Austrian percentage was very small and the German larger than in any other of the districts selected, the Socialist vote was about 13 per cent. We shall see later in this chapter the importance of the German factor in the Socialist party. All such analyses of particular elections, we may say again, are interesting and in a measure instructive; but generalizations are exceedingly perilous and greatly conditioned by personal preconceptions, special temporary and local forces and circumstances, and the purposes of the statistician for the time being—for all of which the candid student will, and must, make heavy discounts. RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE IDEASComing to the question of the Progressive party’s campaign in 1912, Doctor Lipsky says, in part: One of two facts in the election of 1912 ... are extremely suggestive even though they do not cover the whole ground. In that election Roosevelt ran ahead of Wilson in only four districts of the city. One was the 23d of Manhattan, in which Taft also ran ahead of Wilson—a strong Republican district. The other three were the 6th, the 8th, and the 26th, the three districts in which the Russians and Austrians constitute the great majority of the electorate. So there you are—make what you will of it. Why should the very districts in which we found heavy percentages of Russians and Austrians, and a relatively William S. Bennet, previously quoted in the same address, dwelt upon this matter in speaking of the influence of Mr. Hearst: Mr. Hearst’s vote among the foreign born was great, and, more than the other two candidates combined [speaking of an election in which Mr. Hearst was himself a candidate], he attracted that vote. It becomes important to analyze Mr. Hearst’s appeal. Much of it we find to have been on right lines. We cannot quarrel, because of those views, with a candidate who asks votes because he has fought against railroad rebates, corporation exactions, and fraudulent elections. Under New York City conditions we cannot quarrel with one who advocates the building of immediate transit facilities with city money. It was also rather begging the question to assert that Mr. Hearst exaggerated his efforts and usefulness in relation to those matters. The personal and temperamental fitness of a candidate is always an element to be considered, and in Mr. Hearst’s case it was, though more in private than in public discussion. His record as a persistent absentee during his congressional service and the legitimate argument from it that he would be a negligent mayor, cost Mr. Hearst more votes among those friendly to him among the foreign born than he probably imagines. Mr. Hearst never made an appeal for support on the ground The point to be noted, then, is that in the propaganda of the Socialists, of the Progressive party, of Mr. Hearst, there was much stress upon and slogans about the common welfare, the improvement of social conditions, the square deal, honest politics and government, human brotherhood. The note never was outwardly selfish or materialistic. Always, in the main, it was idealism—whatever may have been the private motives actually underlying in any particular case. It is the common experience of those who have worked with the foreign-born voter that he usually is responsive to this kind of appeal. Is it not really a tribute to ourselves, as well as an index of his own idea of what “America” stands for, that he acts at the ballot box as if he would like to see these things incarnated in the life of his adopted country? Mr. Bennet went on to say that “we learn, certainly, concerning our most recent citizens, from the Hearst vote”: 1. They are independent voters. 2. They are not constrained to remain in the party in power nationally. 3. Nor do they remain with a party simply because it is usually dominant locally. 4. They are not afraid to sacrifice immediate possible benefit by attaching themselves to a lesser party and temporary movement. 5. They are moved by appeals to good citizenship. 6. They are quite certain to range themselves on the right side of a question of morals. 7. A certain proportion of them are moved by direct appeals, based on alleged class distinctions. 8. The thinly veiled policy of license advanced by the Tammany candidate did not draw them from Mr. Hearst, though he vigorously condemned license and its advocacy. And Mr. Bennet added, “these things have been proved concerning the immigrant. Without going into specifications, which are, however, well understood locally, these things are not proved”: 1. That he always votes for a fellow countryman or a coreligionist. 2. That he can be invariably stampeded by a race or religious issue. 3. That he votes blindly. SOME RESULTS FROM CLEVELANDIt is impossible to forecast the working out in our politics of the passions aroused by the World War among the various racial groups by the relations and enmities of their respective fatherlands in that vast turmoil, and the effects of the behavior of native-American elements toward particular races, and even toward “foreigners” generally. It is evident that for any intelligent understanding of what, in the long run and under approximately normal conditions, are the political attitudes and activities, we must derive our facts largely from an earlier period—at least antedating the armistice and the bitter conflicts growing out of the Peace Treaty and the partisanship characterizing the controversy about the League of Nations which so greatly confused the issues in the presidential election of 1920. A series of elections in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, in the period between 1911 and 1918 seemed to offer opportunities for study of a number of large racial groups under reasonably normal conditions. It is not claimed that this Study was conclusive in its results or The first step was to select for study a group of election precincts including as large a proportion as possible of the various nationalities, and for comparison another group of districts which would show the action of native-born voters. Ten of the latter were selected, including populations both relatively wealthy and relatively poor, and both habitually Republican and habitually Democratic. For foreign-born racial groups the following were selected as most important: Czechs, Magyars, Poles, Jugo-Slavs, Italians, and Jews. Owing to the scattered nature of the racial distribution, it was impossible to find a large number of districts predominantly of any particular race; but it was possible to segregate three for each of these races, and four for one, for comparison with them of the native born; so that 29 precincts were studied, as follows: TABLE XLIII Distribution of Nationality in Twenty-nine Precincts in Cleveland
Eight elections were covered by the inquiry, comparing the votes for:
The returns were examined also for indications as to attitudes about woman suffrage and the question of no-license and prohibition, in elections between 1912 and 1918. Of the native-born precincts, so called, five indicated almost straight Democratic tendencies; three were consistently Republican; and two were of varying complexion as between the two great parties. It should be remembered that the prevailing general complexion of the city of Cleveland in recent years, and regardless of the “landslide” of 1920, has been Democratic. Therefore the districts selected to show the tendencies of the native born were fairly representative of the situation. The first election, 1911, was a straight partisan contest between Mr. Baker, a Democrat, and Mr. Hogen, a Republican. In 1913, the city tried, for the first time, its municipal nonpartisan ballot; but in that year the old political parties were as powerful as ever. In the election of 1915, Mr. Baker was not a candidate, but Peter Witt, long associated with Mayor Tom L. Johnson, was the Democratic candidate. This election exhibits circumstances and results significant not only of Mr. Witt had just completed four years of service as Street Railway Commissioner, and among the business and professional classes of the town had won a rather reluctant recognition for efficiency, the reluctance being largely due to the fact that in days when he was campaigning for Tom Johnson he had been regarded as ultra-radical. But his opponent in this campaign had no recognized record of administrative capacity, and the Republicans themselves acknowledged some doubt as to his ability, compared with the known ability of Witt, to fulfill the duties of the mayoralty. Both candidates were regarded without opposition by the “wet” element, though Mr. Davis was perhaps more circumspect in his utterances on the liquor question. The campaign did not touch the questions involved in the European War until the very end, when, on the Sunday before election, some supporter of Davis published and widely circulated among the Bohemians (Czechs), Russians, and Italians a pamphlet in which Witt was bitterly accused of being pro-German. Now the results of the election in the wards dominated by those nationalities might rationally be held to show a pronounced effect of that propaganda, but it was no secret, the old “aristocratic” wards were presumably as keen about pro-Germanism as those inhabited by voters of alien origin, and there, if anywhere, would be the seat of the prejudice against Witt on the ground of alleged radicalism. Why, then, did the native-born conservatives waive their prejudices against Witt, the supposed radical, and overlook the charges of pro-Germanism? And why did the foreign born, who are conventionally expected to be radical, suddenly The following tables show what happened in the precincts studied: TABLE XLIV Distribution of Democratic and Republican Votes in Cleveland in 1913 and 1915 Among Certain Racial Groups
The three elections following—the presidential in 1916, the mayoralty election in 1917, and the governorship election in 1918—exhibit no tendencies attributable either to the war or to any special causes from which one may generalize anything with regard to the political activities and attitudes of the foreign-born voters which would distinguish them from the native-born. In 1912 Wilson carried Polish, Magyar, and The Cleveland nonpartisan ballot provides for three choices. One of the objections urged against the nonpartisan ballot has been that the second and third choices would be used only by the more intelligent voter; that the less intelligent would vote for but one. In the elections studied in which this three-choice system was used, 20 per cent of the native born expressed second choices; the foreign born followed in this order: TABLE XLV Per Cent of Certain Races Exercising Second and Third Choices
A smaller per cent exercises third choice, but three foreign-born groups equaled the native born with 7 per cent. The Jews with 5 per cent, Magyars with 4 per cent, Polish with 3 per cent, were the lowest. While there is little in these figures to justify generalization, it may be said that, on the whole, the voters presumably more intelligent are in practice rather afraid of the second- and third-choice business because they recognize some danger that in expressing a second choice they may, in the final count, negative their first When one comes to consider what might be called the human aspects of politics, these elections in Cleveland show, what elections everywhere show, interesting but in no way surprising facts. One is that the voters of any race tend to support a candidate of that race, or a man well known as friendly to its members. Mr. Davis was exceedingly well known and popular among the Bohemians, who are both numerically strong and racially influential in Cleveland. In the first election studied, that of 1911, Mr. Baker, a Democrat, carried the three Bohemian (Czech) precincts by substantial pluralities as against Mr. Hogen. His total vote in these precincts aggregated 445 to Hogen’s 183. But in 1913 Mr. Davis carried one of the precincts. And over against this fact is the consideration that in 1913 Baker was generally much weaker as a candidate than in 1911—for reasons having no appreciable racial bearing. In 1915, as shown in the table above, there was a heavy swing in the three Bohemian districts in favor of Davis, the Republican candidate. Under the head of human tendencies one may consider the question of the immigrants’ attitude toward prohibition. The reaction is just what would be expected from voters of foreign extraction. The Magyars (Hungarians), normally Democratic, swung greatly enhanced Democratic pluralities when that party was recognized as opposed to prohibition. And the old-country attitudes about the position of woman showed clearly in the vote on woman suffrage, as they all voted against the “dry” proposals and candidates. In the earlier days in Cleveland the Italians were led by a very influential Italian who was a Republican, and until recent years the Italian vote was preponderantly Republican. Now, however, the Cleveland politicians will tell you that this preponderance has passed; the Italians are said to be fairly evenly divided. But in any particular election the Italian vote may sway this way or that, under the influence of temporary factors that swing elections everywhere. In one Italian precinct, in four municipal elections, the Republican candidate was preferred in every case. Hughes had a small plurality over Wilson. But in two state elections the Democrats won—admittedly because the Republican candidate was regarded as “dry.” Again the human factor—take the Jews. One of the Cleveland precincts studied is made up of an overwhelming majority of the more prosperous class of Jewish people. The other two are located in the Ghetto of the city. There is no similarity in the political trends of the two parts of the city. The wealthier Jews vote as a rule for Democrat or Republican. In 1917 the Socialist candidate for mayor carried both of the poorer districts. But do the Jews move away from the Socialist districts because they are opposed to Socialism, or do they turn from Socialism when they become more prosperous? Persistent in most of the studies of this subject is the fallacy of assuming or attempting to find some constant factor attaching either to this or that particular race, or to the state of being foreign born or of foreign antecedents. The Jugo-Slavs in Cleveland are said, and appear to be shown in the statistics above, to be preponderantly Democratic. In 1916 Wilson received in the three Jugo-Slav precincts more than 70 per cent of the total vote. But, aside from the fact that Socialism “CIVIC INTEREST” IN GRAND RAPIDSWhen we come down to the larger question, of the response of voters of foreign birth and origin to constructive efforts to interest them in civic matters, we are on surer ground. Given a sufficiently comprehensive survey, we can tell whether the “foreign wards” of a city are apathetic toward movements which they can recognize as embodying concrete things close to their own lives, and meaning a forward step in public administration. The testimony of all sorts of workers among the foreign born is unanimous on this point. The foreign-born voters are more responsive to things of this kind than the native-born. Possibly this is because their more recent introduction into American life makes them more naÏve, less blasÉ—what you will as to the reason, the fact remains the same. It so happens that we have a peculiarly apt and informing exhibit of this in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in statistics of five elections involving questions of municipal import, and showing in most striking fashion the results of a sustained effort, not to influence votes this way or that, but to impress citizens with the importance of voting at all. The following tables show the total vote cast in the three wards of the city of Grand Rapids at these elections: TABLE XLVI Vote Cast in Precincts of Varying Racial Make-up in Three Wards of Grand Rapids, 1918, 1919
The population of Grand Rapids, about 112,500 by the census of 1910, by the spring of 1918 had grown to approximately 132,000. This would afford a potential male vote of upward of 26,000; so that at the primary election that March, considerably less than half of the possible vote was polled. At the election in August, 1918, this was increased to nearly 70 per cent, and to 80 per cent in November. In 1919, however, the women came into the picture, and the efforts of the Americanization Society The last two columns in the table above show the totals including the women voters, and the striking increase between the March primary and the April election in 1919. With a possible total vote of upward of 50,000 we have the results of the Americanization Society’s work as showing in the actual personal presence at the polls of at least 75 per cent of the voters of all racial groups. The vote cast on March 5, 1919, was 28,705, composed, it is said, of about half men and half women. At the election on April 7th, nearly 38,000 votes were cast, and it is estimated that from 7,000 to 10,000 voters were turned away from the polling places because of inadequate election facilities. A fairly impressive exhibit of the response of American That it was the appeal to civic interest and duty, and nothing else, which in largest measure produced this result may be seen, for instance, in a comparison of the registration of women in Grand Rapids with that at the same time (February, 1919) in other Michigan cities in which there was no such intensive campaign to get the women out to the registration places: TABLE XLVII Per Cent of Women Registered in Thirteen Michigan Cities
Even then, however, the Grand Rapids movement was spreading to other Michigan cities; some of the results of that influence may well be visible in the larger percentages shown by some of these cities. Since then, indeed, the movement has become state-wide; and the results already visible show notably the same facts and tendencies so strikingly exhibited in the case of Grand Rapids, where it began. MUNICIPAL VOTERS’ LEAGUE OF CHICAGOThe most conspicuously successful effort to mobilize all the resources of a great city behind the general movement for honesty and efficiency in city government is undoubtedly the Municipal Voters’ League of Chicago. Its record of accomplishment is too long and too brilliant to permit any serious discouragement from the fact that immediately following the war there appeared to be a setback and reaction in Chicago’s local elections. For the time being there seems to be everywhere a recession in nearly all forms of social idealism. That is the inevitable result of the moral overstrain that accompanies war. Much work must be done over again, but, at the worst, it must be recognized that the tide of advance during the past quarter-century left marks which will not be forgotten; standards of social welfare and responsibility which, in the long run, will continue to stand as a minimum of progress. Another thing: Into Chicago has come, during the past few years, a vast population of negroes from the South, among whom never anywhere has a particle of work been done tending to teach them the smallest thing about political responsibility or civic pride. In the election of April, 1919, when William Hale Thompson was re-elected mayor of Chicago, despite the opposition of all the constructive elements in the city, a The genius of this organization of public-spirited volunteers lies in its reliance wholly upon publicity of the records of candidates. These records, carefully investigated, with full opportunity for the candidates or their friends to bring forward any facts or arguments in their behalf, were published in the newspapers and spread broadcast by means of pamphlets. The influence has been enormous and accelerating. In the early days the main stress was laid upon mere personal character—candidates must not be thieves; increasingly during succeeding years the test came to be that of capacity as well as character. The war reactions and results have not destroyed, but only interrupted, this magnificent work. How did the foreign-born voter respond to this effort and propaganda? The answer to this question, as found all through the twenty-odd years before the entrance But the uplifting influence of a campaign like that of the League penetrates even into the most obdurate regions. The Seventeenth Ward of Chicago was long the scene of one of the hardest fights of the League. Through the hard work of Prof. Graham Taylor and the group of good citizens centering in and about the Chicago-Commons social settlement, the work came to great success—and held it—as long as the population was characteristically Scandinavian, German, Scotch, and Irish. In recent years, however, these people gradually moved out of the ward, and it came to be heavily Polish, under the domination of a reactionary The Italians as a whole, in Chicago as in many other places, have been more united in their action than most other racial groups, and under their ancient habits of padrone leadership have shown a tendency to accept boss rule, though the Italian voter as an individual is no more amenable to corrupt influences than voters of any other race. Over the whole history of the League’s activity it has been true that the races most responsive to its appeal are the Scandinavian, German, Irish, and Bohemian. Given a candidate of any race, other things being equal, the voters of that race will support him; as between two competing outsiders, the voters of these races have been more than willing to heed disinterested appeals from the point of view of good government. Some of the best aldermen during the past twenty years in Chicago have been Germans. The late Alderman Beilfuss, Republican, a native of Germany and an excellent official, was re-elected time after time in the Fifteenth Ward; but as the Scandinavians and Germans—especially Lutheran Germans—moved away and the scale of prosperity in the ward’s population deteriorated, In the predominantly Bohemian Twelfth Ward aldermanic candidates recommended by the League were elected almost without exception for many years, regardless of political alignment. In that ward, from 1904 to 1909, inclusive, the Republican Bohemian and the Democratic German candidates, both indorsed by the League, alternated in winning elections, the pluralities running from 3,400 on one side to 3,100 on the other—in a ward casting a total of perhaps 15,000 votes a shift of 6,500. When Mayor Thompson, Republican, in 1915, carried the ward by nearly 4,000, Alderman Kerner, a Bohemian Democrat of excellent record, carried it in the same election by 3,350. In other words, there was a politically independent swing of nearly one-half of the 15,000 votes cast in the election. The Irish voters generally pay close attention to what the League says. In the spring campaign of 1919, the League’s condemnation of a Democratic Irish alderman in the Thirtieth Ward furnished his opponent, whom the League recommended, with enough ammunition to defeat him for renomination, whereupon an Irish Republican, a former alderman with a good record, who received the final indorsement of the League, turned in and beat the Democratic nominee. In the Thirteenth Ward, largely Irish, which Mayor Thompson, Republican, lost in 1919 by more than 4,000, a Democratic alderman condemned by the League was defeated by a native-born Republican whom the League indorsed, by more than 1,800 votes. SOME OTHER INSTANCESDr. Charles W. Eliot told the Good Government Conference at Cincinnati in 1909 of an incident in Massachusetts A few years ago, largely through the efforts of a single citizen, the Massachusetts Legislature changed the number of the school committee of Boston from twenty-four to five—in itself a prodigious improvement. Now, Boston is the home of three Roman Catholic races, the Irish, the French Canadians, and the Italians. The Italians have lately come in large numbers, and many of them are from southern Italy and not from northern Italy. What did the voters of Boston do in electing a school committee of five at large? The election was not by wards, but at large. They elected at the very first election—and have maintained the composition of the committee as then determined ever since—two Catholics, two Protestants, and one Jew, and the Jew has lately been the chairman of the committee. Now is not that creditable to the Roman Catholic majority in the city of Boston? They have a clear majority. Moreover, does it not tell us something encouraging about the manner in which voters of foreign birth will use the power of the vote in our country? A. C. Pleydell of New York, on the same occasion, contributed a testimony of the same general character: In New Jersey a large settlement of Italians in a small country township until lately have been the prey of the political leaders, who are just as corrupt as in the city. A gentleman whom I know who is, I believe, of a different political faith, moved out there some years ago and began to take an interest in the local life of the community. He started to clean up the school board and get decent schoolhouses. There were sixty or seventy Italian children at that little village school. The village has a population of only a few hundred. This man got subscriptions from these poor people, a little help from the outside, and contributed something himself. For two or three years they have had neighborhood meetings without regard to party, which these foreigners attended. One of the finest and most inspiring sights I have There is just as much democracy in those people as we have, and we do not want to lose sight of the fact that they are human beings just like everybody else. I am the son of an immigrant from another part of Europe. The immigrants from the southern part have just as much ambition as the immigrants from the northern part. I. M. Wise of Cincinnati in the same discussion said: We have had a very fine example of the independence of the foreign voter during the last few years in Cincinnati. We had a movement started for the purpose of electing a prosecutor, and we found, after investigating the returns of the election, that the victory was due almost entirely to the foreign vote. But we had another example some years ago when there was a movement to sell the Cincinnati Southern Railway. This measure was defeated by a small majority, due entirely to the German citizens who usually show more independence than the other foreign citizens. William Bennett Munro, in his Government of American Cities, We have the testimony of seasoned campaigners that the alien-born voter is inclined to think for himself if he has the opportunity; but too often he does not secure even that small amount of fair information which is necessary to furnish food for thought. As a rule, practically all he gets concerning the facts of the municipal situation comes to him in such form that it leads to one conclusion only.... Experience has proved that he cannot always be stampeded by appeals to class prejudice, or delivered blindly to some political faction. Given a fair chance, he is, according to authoritative testimony, a voter of at least normal independence. Considering the bewilderment with which thousands of old-stock native-born voters confront the complications of our Federal, state, and local governments, and the complexity of our inordinately long official ballots, it is small wonder that, like them, the foreign-born voter, even after many years’ residence in this country, follow shibboleths and leaders who to them represent a certain definiteness and clarity of purpose and action. This is especially true when the whole subject of governmental reform and efficiency comes to them in the guise of relatively arid abstractions in which they do not see their own interests, and by the voice of men living in far distant parts of the community, who do not understand their intimate problems, or speak the language of their daily lives. In almost every instance in which the issue was made clear and intelligible to them, the foreign-born voters of almost every nationality have responded in surprising fashion. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
