Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 450
READINGS SUGGESTED
Hart, A. B., Actual Government (1903), part iv.
Courtney, L., The Working Constitution of the United Kingdom (1901), part ii, chap. i, p-220.
Lowell, A. L., Governments and Parties in Continental Europe (1897), vol. i, chap. i, p-43, 308-334.
FURTHER AUTHORITIES
Odgers, W., Local Government (1901).
Eaton, D. B., Government of Municipalities (1899).
Ducrocq, Cours de Droit Administratif, vol. i (1881).
Seligman, E. R., Essays in Taxation (3d edition, 1900).
Report of the Industrial Commission, vol. xix.
Ely, R., Taxation in American States and Cities (1888).
Leroy-Beaulieu, P., Traité de la Science des Finances (6th edition, 1899), vol. i.
O’Meara, J. J., Municipal Taxation at Home and Abroad (1894).
Jenks, E., Outline of English Local Government (1894).
Bryce’s American Commonwealth (1889), vol. i.
Fiske, J., Civil Government in the United States (1891).
CHAPTER VIII. PARTY GOVERNMENT
1. CONFLICT OF Opinion on the Merits of Party Government. — 2. Origin and Development of the Party System in England. — 3. Origin and Growth of Political Parties in the United States. — 4. The Organization of American Political Parties. — 5. Reform of the System. — 6. Party Machinery in Great Britain. — 7. The Party Groups of Continental Europe.
1. Conflict of Opinion on the Merits of Party Government. By a political party we mean a more or less organized group of citizens who act together as a political unit. They share, or profess to share, the same opinions on public questions, and by exercising their voting power towards a common end, seek to obtain control of the government. They constitute something like a joint stock company to which each member contributes his share of political power. They are thus collectively able to acquire the strength which it would have been impossible for them, acting singly, to obtain. In all except the autocratic modern governments this system of deliberate collective action supplies the motive power which keeps the wheels of administration moving. Though standing almost outside of the legal structure of the state, party government is the vital principle of its operation. The Constitution of the United States does not indeed presume the existence of political parties; but in the evolution of American government in the nineteenth century, they have come to be its central feature. In the United Kingdom the law of the constitution knows nothing of any such institution. But the customary operation of the Constitution is altogether based on the supposition of this sort of collective action. For the whole cabinet system — which we have seen to be the central fact of British government — presupposes the united action which alone can render its existence possible. The countries which have deliberately adopted parliamentary government — France, Italy, Canada, Australia, etc. — have done so on the same assumption. The law cannot, indeed, expressly decree the existence of parties, but it can set up institutions, as in the countries named, which become meaningless without them. For a proper study of modern government it is, therefore, necessary to take full account of this form of joint political effort and to study the organization and operation of modern parties. We may thus form some judgment as to the value and efficiency of the political expedient thus devised.
Party government, indeed, has been variously judged. It has been extolled as the most natural and condemned as the most unnatural of political phenomena. Those who judge it harshly are shocked by the peculiarly artificial agreement which it sets up among the group of party adherents, and their equally artificial disagreement with their opponents. Each side remains in a state of willful inconvincibility, with individual judgment frozen tight in the shape of the party mould. This kind of unanimity seems to its critics false and injurious; it suppresses that very freedom of individual opinion and action which is meant to be the vital principle of democratic government. Where two great political parties dispute the field, it presumes, as has been said by Professor Goldwin Smith, “a bisection of human character,” which does not in reality exist. Those who defend party government take an entirely opposite ground. They draw attention to the fact that in a certain sense the bisection of human nature is altogether in accordance with fact. There are naturally, they claim, four kinds of men, — those who wish to return to the methods and institutions of the past (reactionaries), those who wish to retain those of the present (conservatives), those who wish to reform present institutions (liberals), and those who desire to abolish them (radicals). If for evident reasons of expediency the two former classes and the two latter act together politically we get a division into two great political parties, resting on fundamental psychological principles. It is further argued that far from being in conflict with the theory of democratic government, it is the only thing which renders the latter feasible. For it is impossible for all the people to rule all the time — taken singly. The rule of the people can only mean the rule of a majority. Now the only way in which any particular set of people can remain together as a majority, and thus render possible a stable and consistent administration of public affairs, is that the members of the ruling group shall “agree to agree” with one another. A modern democratic state without this somewhat artificial and yet essential unanimity would become a brawling chaos of individual opinions.
The validity of the two contentions thus urged will depend in some measure on the circumstances of the time and country. It often happens — as in the case of the slavery question or the silver question in the United States, the free-trade question in England, etc. — that some one paramount political issue presents itself which of necessity separates the community into affirmative and negative divisions. The importance of the issue is such that the supporters of either side are perfectly willing to subordinate to it all minor matters and to act in concert in everything for the sake of the main point to be gained. Two free-traders or two free-silver men might consent to vote and act together, and to put their interests into the hands of the same representative, even if the one of them was a prohibitionist and the other an anti-prohibitionist. It is in such cases as this that the party system seems eminently a defensible one; it offers a natural and reasonable method of reaching the main object to be achieved. This was the condition in the United States in the middle of the century. It was also the chronic condition in England during a large part of the nineteenth century, the general idea of liberal reform being opposed to the general immobility of conservatism. It was owing to the existence of this state of things that party government grew to be invested with an air of inevitability, and seemed to carry with it its own defense. On the other hand, where no such main issues exist the party system must depend for existence on the strength of its organization. It must have pledges first and principles after, and its members, having first decided to agree, must next make up their minds what it is they agree about. This is the present position of the party system in the United States. Failing this, for default of a main issue, political parties will take the form of numerous and rapidly changing groups, the government being carried on by temporary and unstable combinations, and the parties, having neither traditions nor standing power, being animated with a dangerous sense of irresponsibility. This is the position of affairs in France, Italy, and several Continental countries. At the present juncture, then, the party system meets with keen criticism and speculation is rife as to its future evolution.
2. Origin and Development of the Party System in England. The origins of party government are found in England and may be considered as dating from the Elizabethan era. The Puritans, opposed to the intolerance and the extreme prerogative of the queen’s government, exerted themselves to gain seats in Parliament, where their representatives acted as an organized party in arresting the royal grants of monopolies, etc. On the basis thus formed grew up the popular party, whose cohesion was rendered stronger by the arbitrary government of the Stuart kings. “Sandys, Coke, Eliot, Selden and Pym, may be regarded,” says Sir Thomas May, “as the first leaders of a regular parliamentary opposition.” As the resistance to the royal tyranny increased, the defenders of popular rights and the adherents of the crown changed from political parties to the opposing factions of a civil war. But after the Restoration the same parliamentary division reappears under the name of the Court Party and the Country Party of the reign of Charles II. With the debates over the Exclusion Bill of 1680 (for debarring the king’s brother from the throne) the nicknames of Whig and Tory (terms equivalent to “dough-face” and “highwayman”) first appear. Henceforth for a century and a half these names indicate the two great political parties by whom the parliamentary activity of the United Kingdom was controlled. The Whigs were the opponents of the royal prerogative and the adherents of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy; the Tories advocated the power of the crown. Their relation to the later parties must not be mistaken. Neither was by its origin the party of progress or reform; neither the party of stability or order. They represented merely two different theories of English constitutional relations. After the accession of the House of Hanover the two parties found their positions curiously reversed. The Whigs, the opponents of prerogative, were the supporters of the new dynasty, while the Tories, the advocates of prerogative, were the opponents of the holder of the crown. This blunted the edge of their original hostility, and helped to convert them from the position of inimical factions to the decorous and official form of opposition since maintained. Moreover the practical triumph of the principle of parliamentary supremacy, and the recognition of the hopelessness of the Stuart cause, led to an alteration in the distinctive characteristics of the two groups. From the accession of George III onwards, the Whigs tended to become the advocates of reform and progress; the Tories placed their faith in order and security. Thus the two changed into the great Liberal and Conservative parties of the nineteenth century. The doctrine of liberalism favored the increased “democratization” of the constitution, the grant of equal political privileges to all, the abolition of the remaining religious disabilities and tests, the establishment of economic liberty of trade and industry. To this the Conservatives opposed the historic view of political rights that had grown up under the constitution, the safeguarding of vested interests, and the resistance of dangerous innovation. But since the middle of the nineteenth century, these original characteristics of the two parties have largely been obscured. The Conservative administrations have participated in many of the great reforms of the latter part of the nineteenth century, — the extension of the suffrage, the reform of local government, of Irish land tenure, and so forth. The present complexion and organization of party life in the United Kingdom will be considered in a later paragraph.
3. Origin and Growth of Political Parties in the United States. In America we may consider distinct political parties as beginning with the colonial controversies of the eighteenth century. The standing opposition of the representative portion of the colonial governments to the governor and his associates, naturally divided political sympathy on much the same lines as in the mother country. As in England during the Stuart period, the war of the Revolution changed the partisans into armed combatants. But with the making of the first truly national government (1787) political parties reappear on an entirely new basis. Those who favored the establishment of a strong central government became known as the Federalists, while those in favor of the restriction of the federal power were termed Anti-federalists. After the adoption of the Constitution the term Federalist indicated those in favor of consolidating and strengthening the federal power, while those in favor of the rights of the states were called Republicans. The latter, being supported by the general trend of public opinion in favor of the rights of the individual and the restriction of governmental functions to a minimum, then current both in Europe and America, eventually carried the day. The Federalists declined in numbers and influence, and in the early twenties were practically extinct. Their opponents had in the early years of the Constitution strengthened their hold upon popular sympathy by adopting the name Democratic Republican, which has developed into the present term of Democrat. After the disappearance of the Federalists, the absence of definitely marked political parties led to a sort of interregnum known historically as the Era of Good Feeling; this designation and the lapse of time has surrounded with an undeserved halo a decade which “was really,” says Professor Hart, “a period of bitterness and rancor and legislative ineptitude.”
With the advent of Andrew Jackson (1829) the Democratic party entered on a new phase, in which it stood for extreme individualism, the extension of the suffrage, and the rights of “the people” in the special sense of the term. This raised up in opposition the party of the Whigs, advocates of strong government, national improvements (roads, canals, etc.), and a protective tariff. The rising predominance of the question of slavery (1820-1860) sundered the Whig party and removed them from the political arena. In their place sprang up anti-slavery parties of different degrees of opposition. The voting strength of these was finally gathered together as the Republican party, opposed to the further extension of slavery, though not (as a party) opposed to its existence. The Civil War removed the main issue by abolishing slavery. Since then the same two great parties have remained in name, but their evolution in the last forty years has rather taken the form of a consolidation of the organization of party structure than a collective adherence to any single principle or policy. The Republicans are in favor of protection, but the Democrats are certainly not free-traders. The Republicans, but not all of them, are in favor of the gold standard, and for a time some of the Democrats, but not all of them, opposed it. The states of the South have remained solidly Democratic, but this is by the historic continuity with past conditions. The plain truth is that both parties are largely opportunistic, adapting their policy on current questions to the circumstances of the day, and mainly governed in their selection of political opinions by the probability of political success. The party organization has become the leading factor, and the party opinions have taken a secondary place. A Republican is no longer to be defined as a man who holds such and such opinions, but as a man who adheres to the Republican organization and will support its candidates. At present, then, the striking fact in connection with American political parties is the complete mechanism of their organization.
4. The Organization of American Political Parties. That parties should have become highly organized is the natural outcome of the circumstances of the country. Among the contributory causes are to be noted in the first place the disjunction of executive and legislative power, which naturally calls for a bond of union in the shape of a party organization. To this we must add the great extent of territory to be covered, the impossibility of selecting candidates for the presidency, or for the state governorships, secretaryships, etc., in any purely spontaneous fashion. Nor is there under the American system any set of persons among those holding power who are placed in the same position of evident party leadership as has always been the case with the party leaders in England. The attempt of the members of Congress to assume this position and to nominate candidates for the presidency in a party “caucus,” soon fell into disrepute, and in 1824 broke down altogether. The similar attempt of the state legislatures in the decade following was equally ineffective. In place of this there sprang up in the twenties, in accord with the general American idea of the sovereignty of the people, the practice of holding a special “convention” or meeting of representatives selected by the members of a political party, to make the choice of its candidates. The system thus established grew apace. As long as the great slavery issue was before the nation, the convention failed to give to the political parties the highly mechanical aspect they have since assumed. But from the close of the Civil War the machinery has become more and more definite, until it has reached the elaborate form in which it now exists.
The scheme of its construction is as follows. Its organization follows the division of areas made for the purposes of elections. In each of these a special meeting of party adherents is held for the selection of candidates. The basis of it is found in what is known as the primary, often called a “caucus,” in the New England states. In theory this consists of a meeting of all the qualified party voters resident in the smallest voting area: township, county, or precinct, as the case may be. In actual fact it is only a minority of the voters of the party who are to be found at a meeting of the primary. Many absent themselves from indifference, others for lack of the technical requirements for admission. Others properly qualified are excluded by unfair means. This is particularly true of primaries held in urban areas, where the voters have but little individual acquaintance with one another. The duty of a primary meeting is threefold. It appoints the standing committee of the party for that area, it nominates party candidates for the elections held in its district, and, most important of all, it sends up delegates to the party meetings held in the area of which its own forms a subdivision. In these larger areas, such as a congressional district, or state assembly district, or state senate district, it is impossible for all the voters to be gathered together. In them, therefore, the party meeting takes the form of a “convention,” composed of delegates sent from the primary meeting. The functions of such a convention are similar to those of the primary itself. It appoints a committee, it makes nominations for office in the district, and in the case of some areas it sends up delegates to the state convention. The state convention similarly nominates candidates for the governorship, etc., appoints the state party committee, and sends delegates to the national convention held once in four years. This national convention stands at the apex of the system. It is held for the selection of the party candidates for the presidency of the United States. It consists of twice as many members as the state has members of Congress, two delegates being sent from every congressional district, and four from each state at large; these together with six representatives from each territory make in all 994 delegates, which is at present the full complement of a national convention. A duplicate set of members known as “alternates,” or substitutes in case of accident, are also appointed. The convention thus constituted draws up the national platform of the party, and makes its nominations for the presidency. The nomination is made by ballot; in the Republican party a simple majority suffices, in the Democratic a majority of two thirds is needed. In the Republican party the members of the delegation sent from a state may vote individually for different persons; in the Democratic party they must vote as a unit for the same person.
