Part IV - Liberty Through Political Action

Burke's expression of this purpose is classic: "A party is a body of men, united, for promoting by their joint endeavors, the national interest, upon some principle in which they are all agreed." John C. Calhoun offered a somewhat more realistic ap praisal: "... the community will be divided into two great par ties-a major and a minor, between which there will be incessant struggles. on the one side to retain on· the other to obtain the majority-and thereby to control the government and the advantages it confers. . . ." That is the ideal concept of a two-party system-one party 237 The Myth of a Two-Party System to govern; the other to oppose and criticize and, when ma jority sentiment changes, to take over. In practice, the two-party system has demonstrated great superiority over the multi-party system in efficiency, in sta bility, and in the preservation of liberty. This magnificent ideal. of .governing the republic through two alternative parties has been preserved through all the vicissitudes of· our national life. In the past it has probably done more to preserve liberty than any other national tradi tion. No effort to achieve an immediate purpose, however worthy, should aim at replacing this ideal. On the other hand, the preservation of our free institutions demands that this ideal become a workable reality. The facts of our party system deride the principle.

For nearly a century, we have had no real national two party system. Because of reasons for which responsibility need not and cannot be fixed, a very large section of the country has rejected the Republican Party. More recently, in an effort to express the essential schism in the nominal Dem ocratic Party, a large proportion of Southern statesmen have rejected the leadership of that party. And all over the North and West the Republican and Democratic parties have re vealed such internal differences on principle that neither party can be described in the terms of classic definitions. What is called a two-party system in the United States is a myth that still enjoys a hazy but durable respect. Historical experience as well as common sense justify the two-party system. Two parties have been and should be the great harmonizing agencies in our republic. From the begin ning, two parties made possible the operation of our meticu lously disjointed Federal system. In the preservation of the essential continuity of government services, the parties have performed a function neither provided by the Constitution nor perhaps anticipated by its framers. They have made pos sible harmonious action among the units of government238 The Two-Party Ideal Federal, state, and local-without denying them independ ..

ence. There have been rough seas for party government. In the generation that reached maturity in the 1860'S, the Federal system almost perished. In that struggle fissures were opened that have never been completely closed. But the Republican Party, despite· its sins and stupidities after the Civil. War, made it possible for the nation to survive the crisis and to escape chaos. For the Democratic Party was torn asunder and for a time ceased to function. . Our parties, despite their shortcomings, perform a notable service to national unity. They have harmonized, however imperfectly, the social, economic, religious, racial, and geo graphic interests of the nation. For both the parties have al ways proclaimed the prirtciple of the unity of the nation. Their protestations altogether too frequently have been gross hypocrisy. But hypocrisy, "the· homage that vice pays to virtue," served a benign purpose. It prevented the pp.blic display of bitter differences and prejudices among groups and factions, notably religious and racial.

The proof of this is that when nonpartisanship becomes embedded in legally constituted local institutions, the void left by the evicted parties is occupied by loyalties with little " relevance· to political affairs. Prejudice and bigotry then raise their heads. The voter confronted in an !election merely by a choice between personalities lacks the guidance and .sense of group action that a party provides. Hence, he tends to identify his choice with some other sort of group. He may vote for 4 candidate because he is a Pole, an Irishman, a Catholic, a Protestant, or a Jew. Or he may vote as a member of an occupational group-a labor union, farm organization, chamber of commerce, or what not. These substitutes for party cohesion are not only unsuit able for political action, but their appearance in politics cre ates dangerous class, racial, and religious antagonisms. Inter .. 239 The Myth of a Two-Party System ests are inevitable in society, but the broader the base of unity, the less room they will have for the exercise of selfish aggrandizement.

These great national services are possible of real fulfill ment through a two-party system. But they are growing more and more difficult, because our two national parties lack vi tality. ·We have the names and the formal organization and the requisite legal formalities, but not the reality. Parties are Born with a Purpose Generally, parties in America originated in the interests of great economic groups. The Federalist Party was the first to appear after American independence had been won. It was a means of rescuing the republic from the chaos that pre vailed under the. Articles of Confederation. Hamilton and others realistically built their party firmly upon solid eco nomic interests. These were, in the main, interests that crossed state lines. They were personified in the merchants engaged in foreign and interstate trade, bankers concerned with sound money, and owners of government securities, who were concerned with establishing a national govern ment that could redeem its promises. There were also those who lived on the frontiers, who needed the backing of an authentic government as they faced foreign soil. And among Federalists there were many who regarded democracy as re pugnant to their traditions.

To oppose the Federalists, Jefferson and others equally realistically created the Republican Party and based it upon smaller, intrastate interests-farmers, shopkeepers and, here and there, large landowners. The Whigs later supplanted the Federalists, and the Jef fersonian Republicans were succeeded by the Democrats. Then, in the 1850'S, the Whig Party died and was succeeded by the present Republican Party, which was dedicated to the 240 Partiesare Born with a Purpose Union, free labor, and the new industrial and agricultural life of the East, the North, and the emerging West. Our present alignment, therefore, arose out of the great conflict in the mid-years of the nineteenth century. The Democratic Party barely survived the struggle, but managed to live through many years of Republican suprem acy because it had the support of the Southern states and of some powerful urban machines in the North. It would un doubtedly have disintegrated and disappeared, but for those bastions that, it should be noted, were provided for it by groups of voters whose purposes were wholly unlike and who in many economic issues were bitterly opposed to each other.

The incongruity of the members of this party was remark able. It included Southern capitalists and farmers, masses of newly naturalized immigrants, free traders, inflationists of all sorts, and certain nationalistic strains. Some were attached to it by tradition; some, merely by the glory of the word "Democratic." In its national gatherings it paid vague and usually irra tional tribute to Jefferson as its founder and Jackson as its hero. Unity was found only in a desire to defeat Republicans and get office for itself. It won Presidential elections only when Republicans fought among themselves. Even in 1932, the Democratic Party needed an economic cataclysm to attain a majority. Its revival since 1933 has been possible only be cause the South has found no way to escape from it; because the rising power of minorities such as labor unions has sup ported it; because the memory of the great depression lingers on; and because Republicans have had no unity in foreign policy.

PartiesLive to Governand Enjoy Great economic issues rise to national importance only once or twice in a generation. The elections of 1800, 1828, 18()o~ 241 The Myth of a Two-Party System and 1896 were probably the only times when fundamental decisions were debated and made. After 1932 it was proved that a great decision had been made in that election. But it was not clear in that campaign that a fundamental economic issue was at stake. In other elections issues were relatively minor, and only the power and perquisites of government were at stake. This, however, is a reason neither to dispense with elec tions nor to minimize the importance of continuing parties, contending however selfishly for the right to govern. The routine processes of government are essential, and it is im portant that they be carried on with reasonable efficiency, intelligence, and honesty. Hence, a party is not only an agency through which citi zens express their convictions on great issues, but it is a means of providing people for public office. The party regulars ac quire a special interest of their own, not necessarily antago nistic to but distinguished from the interests of citizens in general. The politician ~onceives of issues only as means of attracting votes. He is concerned with power and with the preservation of his official status, usually at any cost to his personal convictions .

. Again and again, this has been revealed in Republican behavior., For years after the Civil War, Republican politi cians thrived on the bitterness and hatreds born of armed conflict. Those who were in power after Lincoln were con cerned only with perpetuating a Republican Administration. 'Their course proved profitable to themselves but cata strophic in its effect on the two-party system. The burdens :and indignities they laid upon the South and its leaders were :so unbearable that the South found the way to political pro tection by denying existence to the Republican Party within its borders. It found security in remaining solid. When the South made this decision in the days of "recon str~ction," it might well have said with· prophetic vision to 242 The South Has'No Party System its Republican persecutors, as did Socrates to his enemies: "A fate far worse than you have inflicted upon me shall surely await you."

That curse has hung over the Republican Party for two decades. But like most kinds of retaliation, it visits a part of its force upon its creator. For the South is a prisoner in a party from which in every passing year it has less and less to gain. And it may be added that, with characteristic political ingratitude, the Democratic Party it helped now adopts what remains of Republican reconstruction policy in its civil rights program. Never have we seen a more ironical turn in political evolution. The South Has No Party System Not only is the two-party system in the South practically extinct, but by the strange process of social and economic evolution the South has lost the reality of any party system. This fact, so significant in appraising our present national problems', is convincingly set forth in a notable bo'ok, South .. ern Politics) by Professor V. o. Key, ]r.,and associates. After making his case. with a wealth of striking detail, Professor Key offers these conclusions: The one-party system of the South is an institution with an odd dual personality. In state politics the Democratic party is no party at all but a multiplicity of factions struggling·for office~ In national politics, on' the contrary, the party is the Solid South; it is, or at least has been, the instrument for the conduct of the "for eign relations" of the South with the rest of the nation. 1 The resulting political maneuverings under this dualar rangement are indeed strange to see: The Democratic party in most states of the South is merely a holding-company for a congeries of transient squabbling factions, 1 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 1949),p. 315.

243 The Myth of a Two-PartySystem most of which fail by far to meet the standards of permanence, cohesiveness, and responsibility that characterize the political party .... In the conduct of campaigns for the control of legis latures, for the control of governorships, and for representatives in the national Congress, the South must depend for political leadership, not on political parties, but on lone-wolf operators, on fortuitous groupings of individuals, usually of a transient na ture, on spectacular demagogues odd enough to command the attention of a considerable number of voters, on men who have become persons of political consequence in their own little baili wicks, and on other types of leaders whose methods to attract electoral attention serve as substitutes for leadership of a party organization. 2 This passage calls to mind the great diversity of the South. It suggests colorful names, titles, movements, sections, inter ests-the planters, "rednecks," "Pappy" O'Daniel, the "Texas Regulars," James Byrnes, Harry Byrd, the Delta and the Piedmont, city and parish, the "Kingfish" and all his men, the Black Belt, hillbilly bands, Mister Crump, "Big Jim" Folsom, "The Little Man's Big Friend," the Tal madges, the Populists, the "Big Mules," "Dixiecrats," and many more.

All together under the banner of the Democratic Party, this diversity has presented the rest of the nation with the Solid South. Yet, the incessant strife and shifting about among organized political groups in the South lead the observer to the inescapable conclusion that for most practical purposes true parties are lacking. The discipline that accrues from a party system does not exist, nor can it be expected to exist for some time to come. Only in Virginia is there a single, disciplined hierarchical party. In some other states there are partially formed parties. But generally, high office goes to the leader who can sway the voters throughout a sufficient number of counties beyond his 2 Ibid., p. 16. 244 Southern Republicanism, a Hungry Dream home, and win a state election over other ambitious leaders in other groups of counties. Southern Republicanism, a Hungry Dream In the South the Republican Party is a minority so small that it serves none of the' useful purposes of party govern ment. It consists of a handful of Republican Party officials in each state, such as national committeemen, county and state party chairmen, and a scattering of voting party members. In eastern Tennessee there is a small area of Republicanism, largely a relic of Southern Unionism in the Civil War. There has been some increase in the Republican vote in sections where many Northerners, attracted by industrial opportunity or by the salubrious winter climate, have moved in, carrying with them their traditional political attachments. In some states these new arrivals are already becoming a vital' force in primaries and, in a few cases, in elections. Since a consid erable proportion of them are Republicans and, conservative by interest and tradition, they often throw their weight with the more conservative ,Democrats. This was quite apparent in the 1950 primaries in Florida and North Carolina. The Republican vote in Florida has been gaining rapidly both' absolutely and relatively, and there is some validity to the claim that before long the parties in that state may be fairly evenly balanced. In North Carolina in the vote for President in 1944 and 1948, the Republican ticket captured about one third of the vote, a great gain over previous years. The Dewey vote in Texas in 1948 was nearly fifty per cent higher than in 1944. .

But a party must grow from the bottom, and on the county and local levels traditional Democracy is firmly embedded. Generations have grown to maturity with nothing but Demo cratic loyalties. The idea that decisions are made at primaries 245 • The Myth of a Two-Party System rather than at elections is part of the mores. In the counties, townships, and parishes, small political machines hold a firm grip. The possibilitY of developing a vital Republican Party over most of the South is limited also by the character of the official Republican organizations in several of the states. Gen erally, those who hold the nominal party offices live only in the hungry expectation of a Republican in the White House elected by Northern votes. Then there will be Federal jobs again· for those who have sustained the vigil over these long years. Some of these nominal leaders do not even have the confidence of authentic Republicans who have moved South during the great economic developments of the past few years. They have done little to build their party from the grass roots.

Even in Texas, where the former "Texas Regulars" are still a well-integrated group opposed to the Democratic na tional Administration, and despite the gain in the Republi can Presidential vote,.Republican ascendancy is very remote. Conservative Democrats themselves, .even when opposed to the national Democratic machine, discount the idea. Moreover, as long as the national Republican Party clings to the issue of civil rights enfor~ed by Federal law, no candi date of that party can hope to make much progress in the South. Northern Democrats, Homeless or in Captivity Since about seven million Northerners voted for a Demo crat as conservative as John W. Davis in .1924, while they had the choice of Robert M. LaFollette as another alternative to Calvin Coolidge, and these millions voted for Alfred E. Smith in 1928 and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, both run.. ning on conservative platforms, it can be assumed that sev..

246 ..

Northern Democrats, Homeless or in Captivity eral million traditional Democrats are by·ideals and interests wholly antagonistic to. the socialistic implications of the Fair Deal. It can be further assumed that the party that nomi nated ·President Truman in .1948 and approved the platform then adopted was dominated by other millions and their leaders, who are in fact a minority not only of the total body of eligible voters, but of those who voted at the polls and of those who"votedfor Truman. FranklinD. Roosevelt, and the powerful leaders who sup ported him, calculated toward the end of his first term that there were about 15,000,000 Democrats who could be counted on to vote by habit and tradition for any Demo cratic candidate. There were also some 18,000,000 voters who were Republicans by habit and tradition. Since on any fairly conservative program the Democratic Party was doomed to minority status, it was essential to attract several more mil lions by a radical appeal. Hence, the later Roosevelt program and the present Tr:uman program have been designed· to at tract the decisive votes of a minority of certainly not· more than eight· or ten million, and probably considerably fewer than that.

It also should be noted that a few million who were by conviction opposed to the Roosevelt-Truman domestic pro gram voted Democratic in 1940, 1944, and 1948 on the issue of foreign affairs. . The conclusion must be reached, therefore, that under the wry, disjointed party system by which we live we are being rushed along toward an objective that a large majority of our people do not want. Without a clear way of making.a deci sion in a national election, we are taxed, regimented, and generally governed according to policies that we would re pudiate if we could. The plight of the millions.of Democrats who by habit and tradition do not favor the Truman program, but who find it hard to break away from their political moorings and vote 247 The Myth of a Two-Party System Republican, points forcibly to the necessity of new means by which they can once more make their power felt in determin ing the policies of their government.

The Infirmities of the Republican Party In thirty-two states the Republicans are reasonably weIr established as a fairly responsible party. They elect fre quently, and in perhaps half these states they usually elect Governors, Senators, and most of the Congressmen. They have in the past swept enough of these states to win Presi dential elections, despite the handicap of the Solid South. But the party also has handicaps within these thirty-two states. In several states, mostly Western, election laws cre ated in the great surge of progressivism forty years ago make it very difficult to maintain a responsible party organization. Direct primaries, the filing of names of the· various candi dates under more than .one party designation in primaries, and freedom for voters to cross party lines in primaries are all serious bars to party responsibility. Thus, the Republican Party is not a true national party.

It is something less than two thirds or something more than half of a national party. It cannot fairly be called a sectional party, although it is excluded from an important part of the nation. It has vitally important, almost malignant internal weak nesses. In foreign affairs it has serious schisms that endanger its very existence. In domestic policies its extremists, radical and conservative, almost pull it apart at the seams. Torn by differences in ideology and by personal ambitions, it walln\vs in the high seas of policy like a ship in a mutiny. In 1948, with a victory in sight almost too easy to imagine, it chose a role of vagueness and generality, and the voters whose sup port it should have had remained at home and allowed it to 248 The Infirmities of the Republican Party lose. It has lost votes since 1940,. while the nation's voting potential has increased by many millions. Whenever· it seeks to create a credo, its varied elements bury their divergent convictions ina mess of ambiguous phrases. ·It has strong members, but as a party it has no spe cific plan or program and little confidence in itself. And now, despite the wealth of many of·its nominal members, it has very little money.

It has a successful past, but a part of that past prevents it from winning the marginal vote that might mean so much in its future. It clings to principles of the 1870's, when it sought by Federal force bills to establish civil rights in the South. This is a threefold mistake. It denies the party the opportunity. to gain strength· in the South· and in the border states. It gains no votes. among Northern Negroes, for they dance to the seductive music of Democratic statism. And in espousing the various civil rights proposals, it is attempting to pass patently unenforceable laws. Under the delusion that it is the party of Federalism, it has failed to make a strong issue of the stolen powers and respon sibilities of the states. It cannot regain the policies of Hamil ton and Theodore Roosevelt. Those were appropriated by Franklin D. Roosevelt years ago. In foreign affairs it has permitted three· DemocraticPresi ...

dents to steal its laurels. Despite a. distinguished record in world politics, with the luster of such men of vision as Sew ard, Blaine, Hay, Root, and Hughes, it has permitted its ene mies to convince millions that it is a party of a little and iso lated America. In four successive Presidential campaigns the Republican Party has not shown itself to be a responsible agency to which men may rally for the preservation of liberty and of conser vative principles. To a greater and greater degree it has failed· to win the support of young voters. Its candidates have hopelessly compromised with the opposition. Its voters have 249 The Myth of a Two-Party System been' divided on foreign affairs and on the issue of govern ment intervention in the domestic economy. Even in the Republican membership in the Senate and the House of Representatives, the party has failed to maintain the discipline necessary to a responsible party. The caucus, which should be the very heart of a responsible party, oper ates with very limited efficiency. There is either compromise with party radicals or there is open division within the party on vital votes.

The Federal Machine Takes Over With party government thus broken, scattered, and disin tegrated, the Federal machine has taken over under the direc tion of the Federal Executive. The wonder is that this has not happened before. For some years there has been an evo lution from a party system to machine dictatorship. Instead of a system under which a responsible majority party controls those who hold the reins of government, as is still true in England, we have a system in which those in official power control their party. This is always a mark of political deca dence. It happened to the party of Jackson in the politically dark years of the 1840's and 1850's. Federal office-holders now control conventions, write party declarations, shape party policy, and make dubious alliances with groups that are nei ther authentically Democratic nor of any party at alL This perversion of the party began with Franklin D.

Roosevelt. Rapidly, in the first years of his ascendancy, he gathered the party controls into his own hands. In his second term his White House favorites virtually took over party management, patronage, and policy-making. The momen tous Supreme Court Plan was not developed in consultation with party leaders. It was a personal scheme. When it was ready, bewildered party leaders were told, not consulted. A 250 The Federal Machine Takes Over bold effort to purge the Senate the next year was managed by intimates who had no standing in the party at all, despite the protests of the national chairman of the Democratic Party. All this has been spelled out by James A. Farley arid oth ers.Farley believed in party government and finally retired. Since then, Presidents have employed and directed party chairmen like messenger boys. The Democratic Party became the private army of the President. When Harry S. Truman humbly bowed before the awe some post to which Roosevelt's death had elevated him, he was regarded as a mediocre man. But it was not appreciated that the job he confrontedwas.that of running a political ma chine, not the infinitely difficult task of leading a party. For tunately for him, among his meager talents was the well learned trade of a professional machine politician. Carlyle observed that a dwarf behind a steam engine can move moun t~ins. A political machine, well organized and well. financed, has a certain momentum. Anew master can survive a long ti~e if he is shrewd and if he understands simple political mechanics.

Harry S. Truman, who knew little of statesmanship but a lot about the prosaic knack of politics, shrewdly did what he was trained to do. He knew how to give orders, because he knew how to take them. He had breathed the atmosphere of politics from the beginning of his adult life. He had given his allegiance to the Pendergast machine in Jackson County and Kansas City. He had labored in .its interest and accepted its discipline and rewards. Truman made no protest against its habitual, proved-corruption .. And when fate carried him to high places and his home machine was in trouble, he loyally defended it. His unexpected election in 1948 was in part due to this sedulous development of machine loyalty throughout his offi cial family. Since that election, his supreme confidence in machine methods has been openly proclaimed. He uses those 251 The Myth of a Two-Party System methods to build and perpetuate his regime. His Fair Deal program is regarded by him not as a pattern for a nation's destiny but as a means of attracting votes.

Such a mind is essentially not concerned with the real mer its or consequence of government policies. It is concerned with their usefulness in winning votes and building power. To a large degree it considers national interest to be identical with machine interest. Victory at the polls determines right; defeat, wrong. And when such a mentality is entrenched in the powerful Presidential office, it enforces its standards and purposes on every subordinate. Deviation from loyalty is re garded as a personal attack and is punished as such. Machine loyalty is rewarded at the expense of the national interest. Criticism of policies is regarded as political and personal en mity. Truman has gathered into his Cabinet a larger number of professional politicians than has any President in recent times. Th.e entourage around the White House has the com plexion of practical politics, as have the heads of great so called "independent" agencies such as the Social Security agency. Even the more recent Truman appointments to the Supreme Court have the color of agreeable political crony ism.

In five short years, this man has managed and directed the most potent Federal political machine in our history. And he has made it clear that whoever works for the government works for the Democratic Party. Keeping in mind this political mentality at the top, con sider the available resources of power. In many states the number of Federal employees is as great or greater than a normal electoral majority margin. If the dependents of these employees are considered, some state elections could be meas urably influenced from Washington. s 3 But the influence of Federal employees has been overemphasized. It must always be remembered that employees may feel resentment against, as well as 252 Propo$~ tor Coalition Other factors in machine power ate those who receive the favor of the ,government through loans, contracts, special privileges, -and benefits of all kinds. This dispensation resembles the traditional Democratic Party only in name. It is no longer a party. It isa machine hard, disciplined, ambitious, and puissant.

Party government has ceased to function. Proposalsfor Coalition The foregoing analysis of the disintegration of our two party system would draw no serious criticism from most Northern Republicans or conservative Southern Democrats. Five successive defeats have heavily underlined the weakness of the Republican Party-a weakness apparent to even the most loyal of its members. The-party might speak through its chosen Presidential candidates with the tongue of an angel which it has not-but it must enter every campaign with a handicap of more than one hundred electoral votes. Even if it should win, it would still represent only a majority of the conservative strength of the nation. Under the prevailing conditions it cannot become a securely established governing party. . Recognizing this clearly, many intelligent Republicans .have been seeking some form of party reconstruction, either to alter the party to make it acceptable in the South, or to cre ate a workable coalition with the conservative elements in the South.

A favorite idea is to change the name of the party. Some loyalty to, their employers. In Washington, where the conscience of govern ment employees is in a great many cases stricken by what they see of waste, favoritism, and lax moral· standards under the protection of civil service, there is a great deal of virile opposition to the party in power. The RepUbli can vote in Maryland and Virginia counties, where many government em· ployees live, is proof of this. There can be no sound reason for assuming that Federal employees can be counted upon as a certain political asset to the party in power. 253 The Myth of a Two-PartySystem suggestions have been made to rechristen it the Union Party, or the Un,ion-Republican Party, or the Freedom Party. There are also those, mostly of dubious Republican iden tity, who would adopt a rival statist program and thus steal from the Democrats the allegiance of some voting elements in the North. These "me-too" people have made no impor tant. headway. Desperate as traditional Republicans may be, they cannot now accept such a course.