Social Problems
Henry George
[1883 / Chapter 2 / Political Dangers]
[01] THE American Republic is today unquestionably foremost of the
nations - the van leader of modern civilization. Of all the great
peoples of the European family, her people are the most homogeneous,
the most active and most assimilative. Their average standard of
intelligence and comfort is higher; they have most fully adopted
modern industrial improvements, and are quickest to utilize discovery
and invention; their political institutions are most in accordance
with modern ideas, their position exempts them from dangers and
difficulties besetting the European nations, and a vast area of
unoccupied land gives them room to grow.
[02] At the rate of increase so far maintained, the English-speaking
people of America will, by the close of the century, number nearly one
hundred million - a population as large as owned the sway of Rome in
her palmiest days. By the middle of the next century - a time which
children now born will live to see - they will, at the same rate,
number more than the present population of Europe; and by its close
nearly equal the population which, at the beginning of this century,
the whole earth was believed to contain. .
[03] But the increase of power is more rapid than the increase of
population, and goes on in accelerating progression. Discovery and
invention stimulate discovery and invention; and it is only when we
consider that the industrial progress of the last fifty years bids
fair to pale before the achievements of the next that we can vaguely
imagine the future that seems opening before the American people. The
center of wealth, of art, of luxury and learning, must pass to this
side of the Atlantic even before the center of population. It seems as
if this continent had been reserved - shrouded for ages from the rest
of the world - as the field upon which European civilization might
freely bloom. And for the very reason that our growth is so rapid and
our progress so swift; for the very reason that all the tendencies of
modern civilization assert themselves here more quickly and strongly
than anywhere else, the problems which modern civilization must meet,
will here first fully present themselves, and will most imperiously
demand to be thought out or fought out. .
[04] It is difficult for any one to turn from the history of the past
to think of the incomparable greatness promised by the rapid growth of
the United States without something of awe - something of that feeling
which induced Amasis of Egypt to dissolve his alliance with the
successful Polycrates, because "the gods do not permit to mortals
such prosperity." Of this, at least, we may be certain: the
rapidity of our development brings dangers that can be guarded against
only by alert intelligence and earnest patriotism. .
[05] There is a suggestive fact that must impress any one who thinks
over the history of past eras and preceding civilizations. The great,
wealthy and powerful nations have always lost their freedom; it is
only in small, poor and isolated communities that Liberty has been
maintained. So true is this that the poets have always sung that
Liberty loves the rocks and the mountains; that she shrinks from
wealth and power and splendor, from the crowded city and the busy
mart. So true is this that philosophical historians have sought in the
richness of material resources the causes of the corruption and
enslavement of peoples. .
[06] Liberty is natural. Primitive perceptions are of the equal
rights of the citizen, and political organization always starts from
this base. It is as social development goes on that we find power
concentrating, in institutions based upon the equality of rights
passing into institutions which make the many the slaves of the few.
How this is we may see. In all institutions which involve the lodgment
of governing power there is, with social growth, a tendency to the
exaltation of their function and the centralization of their power,
and in the stronger of these institutions a tendency to the absorption
of the powers of the rest. Thus the tendency of social growth is to
make government the business of a special class. And as numbers
increase and the power and importance of each become less and less as
compared with that of all, so, for this reason, does government tend
to pass beyond the scrutiny and control of the masses. The leader of a
handful of warriors, or head man of a little village, can command or
govern only by common consent, and anyone aggrieved can readily appeal
to his fellows. But when a tribe becomes a nation and the village
expands to a populous country, the powers of the chieftain, without
formal addition, become practically much greater. For with increase of
numbers scrutiny of his acts becomes more difficult, it is harder and
harder successfully to appeal from them, and the aggregate power which
he directs becomes irresistible as against individuals. And gradually,
as power thus concentrates, primitive ideas are lost, and the habit of
thought grows up which regards the masses as born but for the service
of their rulers. .
[07] Thus the mere growth of society involves danger of the gradual
conversion of government into something independent of and beyond the
people, and the gradual seizure of its powers by a ruling class -
though not necessarily a class marked off by personal titles and a
hereditary status, for, as history shows, personal titles and
hereditary status do not accompany the concentration of power, but
follow it. The same methods which, in a little town where each knows
his neighbor and matters of common interest are under the common eye,
enable the citizens freely to govern themselves, may, in a great city,
as we have in many cases seen, enable an organized ring of plunderers
to gain and hold the government. So, too, as we see in Congress, and
even in our State legislatures, the growth of the country and the
greater number of interests make the proportion of the votes of a
representative, of which his constituents know or care to know, less
and less. And so, too, the executive and judicial departments tend
constantly to pass beyond the scrutiny of the people. .
[08] But to the changes produced by growth are, with us, added the
changes brought about by improved industrial methods. The tendency of
steam and of machinery is to the division of labor, to the
concentration of wealth and power. Workmen are becoming massed by
hundreds and thousands in the employ of single individuals and firms;
small storekeepers and merchants are becoming the clerks and salesmen
of great business houses; we have already corporations whose revenues
and payrolls belittle those of the greatest States. And with this
concentration grows the facility of combination among these great
business interests. How readily the railroad companies, the coal
operators, the steel producers, even the match manufacturers, combine,
either to regulate prices or to use the powers of government! The
tendency in all branches of industry is to the formation of rings
against which the individual is helpless, and which exert their power
upon government whenever their interests may thus be served. .
[09] It is not merely positively, but negatively, that great
aggregations of wealth, whether individual or corporate, tend to
corrupt government and take it out of the control of the masses of the
people. "Nothing is more timorous than a million dollars - except
two million dollars." Great wealth always supports the party in
power, no matter how corrupt it may be. It never exerts itself for
reform, for it instinctively fears change. It never struggles against
misgovernment. When threatened by the holders of political power it
does not agitate, nor appeal to the people; it buys them off. It is in
this way, no less than by its direct interference, that aggregated
wealth corrupts government, and helps to make politics a trade. Our
organized lobbies, both legislative and Congressional, rely as much
upon the fears as upon the hopes of moneyed interests. When "business"
is dull, their resource is to get up a bill which some moneyed
interest will pay them to beat. So, too, these large moneyed interests
will subscribe to political funds, on the principle of keeping on the
right side of those in power, just as the railroad companies deadhead
President Arthur when he goes to Florida to fish. .
[10] The more corrupt a government the easier wealth can use it.
Where legislation is to be bought, the rich make the laws; where
justice is to be purchased, the rich have the ear of the courts. And
if, for this reason, great wealth does not absolutely prefer corrupt
government to pure government, it becomes none the less a corrupting
influence. A community composed of very rich and very poor falls an
easy prey to whoever can seize power. The very poor have not spirit
and intelligence enough to resist; the very rich have too much at
stake. .
[11] The rise in the United States of monstrous fortunes, the
aggregation of enormous wealth in the hands of corporations,
necessarily implies the loss by the people of governmental control.
Democratic forms may be maintained, but there can be as much tyranny
and misgovernment under democratic forms as any other - in fact, they
lend themselves most readily to tyranny and misgovernment. Forms count
for little. The Romans expelled their kings, and continued to abhor
the very name of king. But under the name of Cæsars and
Imperators, that at first meant no more than our "Boss,"
they crouched before tyrants more absolute than kings. We have
already, under the popular name of "bosses," developed
political Cæsars in municipalities and states. If this
development continues, in time there will come a national boss. We are
young but we are growing. The day may arrive when the "Boss of
America" will be to the modern world what Cæsar was to the
Roman world. This, at least, is certain: Democratic government in more
than name can exist only where wealth is distributed with something
like equality - where the great mass of citizens are personally free
and independent, neither fettered by their poverty nor made subject by
their wealth. There is, after all, some sense in a property
qualification. The man who is dependent on a master for his living is
not a free man. To give the suffrage to slaves is only to give votes
to their owners. That universal suffrage may add to, instead of
decreasing, the political power of wealth we see when mill-owners and
mine operators vote their hands. The freedom to earn, without fear or
favor, a comfortable living, ought to go with the freedom to vote.
Thus alone can a sound basis for republican institutions be secured.
How can a man be said to have a country where he has no right to a
square inch of soil; where he has nothing but his hands, and, urged by
starvation, must bid against his fellows for the privilege of using
them? When it comes to voting tramps, some principle has been carried
to a ridiculous and dangerous extreme. I have known elections to be
decided by the carting of paupers from the almshouse to the polls. But
such decisions can scarcely be in the interest of good government. .
[12] Beneath all political problems lies the social problem of the
distribution of wealth. This our people do not generally recognize,
and they listen to quacks who propose to cure the symptoms without
touching the disease. "Let us elect good men to office," say
the quacks. Yes; let us catch little birds by sprinkling salt on their
tails! .
[13] It behooves us to look facts in the face. The experiment of
popular government in the United States is clearly a failure. Not that
it is a failure everywhere and in everything. An experiment of this
kind does not have to be fully worked out to be proved a failure. But
speaking generally of the whole country, from the Atlantic to the
Pacific, and from the Lakes to the Gulf, our government by the people
has in large degree become, is in larger degree becoming, government
by the strong and unscrupulous. .
[14] The people, of course, continue to vote; but the people are
losing their power. Money and organization tell more and more in
elections. In some sections bribery has become chronic, and numbers of
voters expect regularly to sell their votes. In some sections large
employers regularly bulldoze their hands into voting as they wish. In
municipal, State and Federal politics the power of the "machine"
is increasing. In many places it has become so strong that the
ordinary citizen has no more influence in the government under which
he lives than he would have in China. He is, in reality, not one of
the governing classes, but one of the governed. He occasionally, in
disgust, votes for "the other man," or "the other
party;" but, generally, to find that he has effected only a
change of masters, or secured the same masters under different names.
And he is beginning to accept the situation, and to leave politics to
politicians, as something with which an honest, self-respecting man
cannot afford to meddle. .
[15] We are steadily differentiating a governing class, or rather a
class of Pretorians, who make a business of gaining political power
and then selling it. The type of the rising party leader is not the
orator or statesman of an earlier day, but the shrewd manager, who
knows how to handle the workers, how to combine pecuniary interests,
how to obtain money and to spend it, how to gather to himself
followers and to secure their allegiance. One party machine is
becoming complementary to the other party machine, the politicians,
like the railroad managers, having discovered that combination pays
better than competition. So rings are made impregnable and great
pecuniary interests secure their ends no matter how elections go.
There are sovereign States so completely in the hands of rings and
corporations that it seems as if nothing short of a revolutionary
uprising of the people could dispossess them. Indeed, whether the
General Government has not already passed beyond popular control may
be doubted. Certain it is that possession of the General Government
has for some time past secured possession. And for one term, at least,
the Presidential chair has been occupied by a man not elected to it.
This, of course, was largely due to the crookedness of the man who was
elected, and to the lack of principle in his supporters. Nevertheless,
it occurred. .
[16] As for the great railroad managers, they may well say, "The
people be d--d!" When they want the power of the people they buy
the people's masters. The map of the United States is colored to show
States and Territories. A map of real political powers would ignore
State lines. Here would be a big patch representing the domains of
Vanderbilt; there Jay Gould's dominions would be brightly marked. In
another place would be set off the empire of Stanford and Huntington;
in another the newer empire of Henry Villard. The States and parts of
States that own the sway of the Pennsylvania Central would be
distinguished from those ruled by the Baltimore and Ohio; and so on.
In our National Senate, sovereign members of the Union are supposed to
be represented; but what are more truly represented are railroad kings
and great moneyed interests, though occasionally a jobber from Nevada
or Colorado, not inimical to the ruling powers, is suffered to buy
himself a seat for glory. And the Bench as well as the Senate is being
filled with corporation henchmen. A railroad king makes his attorney a
judge of last resort, as the great lord used to make his chaplain a
bishop. .
[17] We do not get even cheap government. We might keep a royal
family, house them in palaces like Versailles or Sans Souci, provide
them with courts and guards, masters of robes and rangers of parks,
let them give balls more costly than Mrs. Vanderbilt's, and build
yachts finer than Jay Gould's, for much less than is wasted and stolen
under our nominal government of the people. What a noble income would
be that of a Duke of New York, a Marquis of Philadelphia, or a Count
of San Francisco, who would administer the government of these
municipalities for fifty per cent. of present waste and stealage!
Unless we got an esthetic Chinook, where could we get an absolute
ruler who would erect such a monument of extravagant vulgarity as the
new Capitol of the State of New York? While, as we saw in the Congress
just adjourned, the benevolent gentlemen whose desire it is to protect
us against the pauper labor of Europe quarrel over their respective
shares of the spoil with as little regard for the taxpayer as a pirate
crew would have for the consignees of a captured vessel. .
[18] The people are largely conscious of all this, and there is among
the masses much dissatisfaction. But there is a lack of that
intelligent interest necessary to adapt political organization to
changing conditions. The popular idea of reform seems to be merely a
change of men or a change of parties, not a change of system.
Political children, we attribute to bad men or wicked parties what
really springs from deep general causes. Our two great political
parties have really nothing more to propose than the keeping or the
taking of the offices from the other party. On their outskirts are the
Greenbackers, who, with a more or less definite idea of what they want
to do with the currency, represent vague social dissatisfaction; civil
service reformers, who hope to accomplish a political reform while
keeping it out of politics; and anti-monopolists, who propose to tie
up locomotives with packthread. Even the labor organizations seem to
fear to go further in their platforms than some such propositions as
eight-hour laws, bureaus of labor statistics, mechanics' liens, and
prohibition of prison contracts. .
[19] All this shows want of grasp and timidity of thought. It is not
by accident that government grows corrupt and passes out of the hands
of the people. If we would really make and continue this a government
of the people, for the people and by the people, we must give to our
politics earnest attention; we must be prepared to review our
opinions, to give up old ideas and to accept new ones. We must abandon
prejudice, and make our reckoning with free minds. The sailor, who, no
matter how the wind might change, should persist in keeping his vessel
under the same sail and on the same tack, would never reach his haven.
.
|