I.2. The Political “Machine”

In modern states, the more complicated public life becomes and the further the democratisation of the constitution advances, the harder it becomes to represent political ideas otherwise than within the frame of a party organisation. That holds, understandably, for no commonwealth so much as for the United States. It is, after all, the only great state with a really democratic constitution in which political relations have undergone a further complication through the federal organisation.

“A great state”: twenty times as large as the German Empire — “with a really democratic constitution”, which means the following: universal suffrage now exists as the rule in all the states of the Union. The restrictions still in force are insignificant. But out of this universal suffrage there proceed not only, as in the European states (with the exception of Switzerland), the legislative bodies, but also — and that is the point — almost all the higher administrative officials and the higher judges. Everywhere the highest official of the state — the governor — is chosen by election; his term of office is (in roughly equal numbers of states) four or two years. The majority of the states also elect the lieutenant-governor, that is, the governor’s deputy. The highest judges are likewise elected by the people, and likewise for short terms, in two-thirds of the states — in all the western and southern states, New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. That the highest official of the Union and his deputy also proceed from public elections is well known.

To these elections of the Union and the states are now added the elections to the “county” and city parliaments, as well as the elections of various officials of the local administrations, in particular of the mayor.

So a conscientious citizen can spend a good part of his life in “voting”. For let us just make clear to ourselves how many occasions for voting come together, for example, in a state like Ohio. There are to be elected:

Otherwise, however, the long list of officials enumerated here is to be elected directly by the people! And those offices are still left out that are found only in one of the two great cities — Cincinnati or Cleveland. Even so, the following rounds of voting result:

That makes an average of 22 elections that every citizen has to perform in the course of a year. Not that he would have to go to the ballot-box 22 different times (the elections to different offices are rather often laid on one day); but he must after all choose 22 men every year whom he considers qualified, each for his office.

This demand on the capacity of the normal citizen need only be stated for its impossibility to be recognised. For if one considers that a considerable part of the elections is to take place uniformly over a larger area — most of the American “states” are larger than Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg together, some reach the size of the Kingdom of Prussia, indeed of the German Empire — and that therefore (if complete confusion is not to reign) an understanding about the candidates to be put up must be brought about among the inhabitants of a city, a county, a state (and, at the presidential election, of the whole Union), and that support must be drummed up for the candidates put up, then it needs no long reflection to see that the individual primary voter cannot possibly be left to himself in these proceedings, that rather people must be there who make a profession of it, who concern themselves unceasingly with the problem of the elections: be it to find suitable candidates, be it to set up uniform lists, be it to push the election of the candidates put up.

In the beginnings of American democracy — when the number of voters, like the number of elective offices, was still small, until about 1824 — the masses of voters were led by the legislative bodies themselves. These formed committees in their midst — the Congressional or Legislative caucus — by which the candidates were put up whose election was recommended to the people. When then, with the beginning of the third decade of the nineteenth century, the democratic flood tide came, this function too (the leadership of the masses of voters) was “democratised”, that is, shifted from above to below. It was at first some demagogues in New York, growing ever larger with its motley jumble of population, who sought to seize the electoral machinery — the name of the well-known Aaron Burr stands at the head — and who, with the help of a crowd of dependent creatures, organised the notorious guild of professional politicians, in whose hands the “business” of politics in the United States has rested ever since, and whose rule has strengthened in the measure that the electoral machinery has become more complicated and respectable society has withdrawn more and more from taking part in politics.

The “work” of the professional politician — of the “politician” — is now, however, indeed a quite enormous one. The electoral mechanism, as it has gradually developed, is roughly this: in each electoral district meetings of the primary voters are called by the managers when need arises — the so-called primaries. In these, delegates are elected (naturally at the word of command of the organisers), who then come together in the so-called “conventions”. In these conventions the nomination of the candidates takes place. Once the list is settled, the task is to drum up support for it and on election day to drag the mass of voters (who only then make their appearance) to the ballot-box — the polls. Now as many “conventions”, that is, assemblies of delegates, must come together as there are spheres of competence of the offices to be filled. Often a whole number of candidates can be put up in one delegates’ assembly — for example, the State Convention — governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary of state, treasurer, attorney-general, members of the supreme court of the state (Supreme Court) and so on. Often, however, the spheres of competence of the offices to be filled do not coincide, and then several assemblies of delegates have to be formed. So it comes about that the chain of conventions is in some circumstances very long. There is then a County Convention; a Ward Convention (an assembly of city district in larger cities); a City Convention; a convention for the state legislative district (legislative assembly district convention); a convention for the state senatorial district (senatorial district), in which the members of the upper house of each state are elected; one for the congressional district (congressional district), in which the members of the national legislature are to be elected; one for the judicial districts (judicial convention); and finally the State Convention already named and (for the presidential election) the National Convention. For a part of the conventions the members are elected directly in the primaries, for others (State and National Convention) by the conventions of lower degree (the legislative districts conventions).

If this gigantic “machine” is to function tolerably well, an immense mass of brilliantly organised professional politicians must be unceasingly at work. In every district a staff of trained workers (the workers) must be at the disposal of the actual wire-pullers (the wire pullers), who are themselves in turn kept in good order by the stage-managers above them (the head wire pullers).

And as great as the mass of people must be the money that makes the good functioning of the “machine” possible. A few figures make this evident: Bryce (2, 142) estimates the cost of the elections in New York in an “ordinary” (that is, not a presidential-election) year at 700,000 dollars, of which the city bears 290,000 dollars. The campaign for the mayoral election in New York shows the following performances in work and money: Tammany (the organisation of the Democratic Party) held 3,700 meetings, the Fusionists (its opponents) 4,000. Tammany employed 1,500 speakers, its opponents 2,500. The expenditure on printed matter was 60,000 dollars on the one side and 10,000 dollars less on the other. For processions and other demonstrations for electoral purposes 25,000 dollars were spent by the two parties. In all, the campaign cost Tammany 900,000 dollars and the Fusionists 500,000 dollars. The total expenditure for the presidential campaign is estimated at 5,000,000 dollars. These, then, are the performances that a party must offer that wishes to fight for its “ideas” in America. And it leaps to the eye what difficulties must result from this situation for the founding and the success of a workers’ party, of a “Social Democracy”. Even if it were a question of the beginning of political life. But now there is the further fact that the political “machine” has been resting for years in the hands of long-established parties. The difficulty for a new party is thus doubled: it has to take up the struggle with old parties that are in possession. What particular obstacles result from this state of affairs for the development of an independent socialist party organisation deserves closer consideration.