Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T20:57:24.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The 1938 Elections and the American Party System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Extract

Political parties have been subjected to more vigorous criticism than any other institution of modern democracy. It is charged that their divisions split a country artificially. It is further contended that the line-up into the two camps of government and opposition makes it impossible for a country to avail itself of all its political talent, since those belonging to the opposition party are, temporarily at least, unavailable for constructive work, and are instead making every effort to obstruct the government in power. In the United States the point has frequently been made that the two major parties are no longer justified because neither of them contains anything which it could consider characteristic of itself. “The party term Republican isn't definitive any more. It isn't even descriptive. No more so is the party term Democrat. They are labels on empty bottles, signs on untenanted houses, cloaks that cover but do not conceal the skeletons beneath them.” More recently a similar charge has been made by Dr. Mortimer Adler, a writer who brilliantly combines his analysis of the present with a knowledge of the past. He directs attention to the fact that parties, instead of responding to issues, tend to create them. According to Dr. Adler, parties would be justified if they served only the purpose for which they have been created and then dissolved; of course, in reality, they perpetuate their existence. On somewhat similar lines the famous biographer of the modern party organization, Ostrogorski, proceeded from theoretical criticism to practical suggestions. His plan was to replace existing parties by “leagues,” which were to respond to one issue only, and be dissolved as soon as that issue should be settled.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Blythe, S., “Why Not Scrap Them Both,” The Saturday Evening Post, 03 25, 1922Google Scholar.

2 “Parties and the Common Good,” The Review of Politics, 03, 1939Google Scholar.

3 Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, Vol. II, New York 1922, pp. 658 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 Wirlschaft und Cesellschaft, Tübingen, 1922, p. 167Google Scholar.

5 Friedrich, C. J., Constitutional Government and Politics, New York 1937, p. 298Google Scholar.

6 Maurras, Ch., Enquête sur la Monarchic, Paris, 1925, p. 119Google Scholar.

7 The theory of political parlies, which this definition implies, is similar to the one given by Lowell, L., The Government of England. Vol. II, London 1921, p. 96Google Scholar. Bryce, James, Modern Democracies, vol. I, New York 1931, pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar, makes some remarks on this subject which reveal his deep wisdom as well as his comprehensive knowledge at their best. Yet, in this instance as in others, Bryce fails to be thoroughly systematic. Both Ostrogorski (Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, loc. cit.) and Michels, Robert, Political Parties, A Sociological Study of Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, New York, 1915Google Scholar, confine their attention to the organization of political parties, instead of basing their analyses on an understanding of the function which has called these organizations into being.

8 Constitutional Government in the Untied States, p. 220.

9 Loc. cit., p. 52.

10 Hermens, F. A., “The Meaning of Democracy,” Centralblatt and Social Justice, 06, 1937Google Scholar.

11 “Lehman Plurality Officially 64,004,” New York Times, 12 8, 1938Google Scholar.

12 For the figures see “35 Write in Votes cast for Governor,” New York Times, 11 30, 1938Google Scholar.

13 “Public Jobs for Reds are Banned in Both Lehman and Dewey Pledges,” New York Times, 11 5, 1938Google Scholar.

14 Waltman, F., in his column of 11 13, 1938, here quoted from the Chicago Sunday Times of the same dateGoogle Scholar.

15 For further details of the problem see Marx, F. Morstein, “Bureaucracy and Consultation,” The Review of Politics, 03 1939Google Scholar.

16 The deficiencies of bureaucracy have often been discussed by English writers. For a convenient summary see Laski, H. J., The Limitations of the Expert, London 1930Google Scholar.

17 Bismarck complained emphatically about this feature in the outlook of his Prussian bureaucracy; once he spoke of the ministerial departments as “the eight confederate ministerial states.” (“Gedanken und Erinnerungen,” edition for the Deutsche Buchgemeinschaft, Stuttgart, p. 547.)

18 This happened during the world war, when Winston Churchill prevailed upon the British military leaders to undertake the expedition of Gallipoli. This enterprise was to a certain extent sabotaged by the naval authorities, but the historians of the war now more or less agree that if it had been carried out as suggested Constantinople could easily have been taken and the war might have ended in 1915. Also, it might be mentioned that when later the collapse of the armies of the Central powers was brought about, this was not done in France, where the German forces, although retreating, were kept intact until the armistice. The disintegration came on the minor fronts, in particular in Serbia and in Italy, and the attacks which led to this result had been forced upon the military leaders by Mr. Lloyd George.

19 On the selective functions of the British House of Commons see Low, S., The Governance of England, London 1915, pp. 95 ff.Google Scholar

20 We must be careful, of course, not to expect perfection. What an institution really accomplishes can be seen only by comparison with a possible alternative. A good example is offered by the conditions prevailing during the war. In Germany typical bureaucrats, such as v. Bethmann Hollweg and Michaelis, became Chancellors. In England and France, however, the respective parliaments did not come to a rest until Mr. Lloyd George and Clemenceau were in power. Who would deny that these “political lawyers” did a job which was superior to that of their bureaucratic opponents in Berlin?

21 Enquête sur la Monarchie, loc. cit., p. 119.

22 Congressional Government, Boston 1890, p. 215Google Scholar.

23 On this matter see, for example, Disraeli, Coningsby, bk II, ch. 1.

24 It may be asked why these attempts were not more successful than they proved to be. To this question an answer must be given which has a bearing on most of the problems discussed in the course of this article: The reason is that power is not vested in the majority party as such, but in an executive independent from it. On this matter see Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government, loc. cit., and on its more immediate aspects, see “President vs. Congress,” editorial in the New York Times, 02 17, 1939Google Scholar.

25 Such as Bruce Barton. See “Republican Unity Urged by Barton. Offer Better Government for 1940, but Do Not ‘Out-Promise’ New Deal, He Warns,” New York Times, 12 20, 1938Google Scholar.

26 Quoted from “National Unity,” editorial in the New York Times, 11 26, 1938Google Scholar.

27 Dorothy Thompson in her column of November 10, 1938, here quoted from the South Bend Tribune of the same date.

29 Pettengill, S. B., Jefferson, The Forgotten Man, New York 1938, p. 101Google Scholar.

30 Tableau Politique de la France de l'Ouest sous la Troisième République, Paris 1913, pp. 497 and IXGoogle Scholar.

31 On the history of the attempts to create “real” parties in this country see Commager, H. St., “Can Roosevelt Draw New Party Lines? His aim to separate Liberal and Conservative, a Historian holds, runs counter to traditions.” New York Times Magazine, 09 4, 1938Google Scholar.

32 Cardinal Amette of Paris declared in a letter addressed to his people in 1921: “It is your duty to vote wisely, that is to say, in such a way as not to waste your votes. It would be better to cast them for candidates who, although not giving complete satisfaction to all our legitimate demands, would lead us to expect from them a line of conduct useful to the country, rather than to keep your votes for others whose program would indeed be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open the door to the enemies of religion and the social order.” (Quoted from Ryan, J. A. and Millar, Moorhouse F. X., The State and the Church, New York 1936, p. 274Google Scholar.) The fact that this admonition to practice a policy of the lesser evil was given in France is of particular interest. French Catholics had often acted contrary to such advice, and had sometimes preferred an alliance with Rightists whose moral principles were of a questionable character (For details see Gurian, W., Die politischen und sozialen Ideen des francösischen Katholizismus, 1789–1914, München-Gladbach 1928, pp. 268 ff.Google Scholar) to cooperation with moderate Republicans. After the War this policy was reversed by those Catholics who were most active politically, and the result was that in a comparatively short time most of the conflicts existing between Church and State could be removed.

33 “Cases of conscience do no doubt arise, and are sometimes perplexing, but twenty-seven years in the British House of Commons have led me to believe that they are less frequent than one would, looking at the matter a priori, have expected them to be.” (Modern Democracies, loc. cit., p. 120.)

34 See The Works of Aristotle, Vol. X, ch. 8. par. 8, “Constitution of Athens,” translated by Jowett, B., Forster, E. S., and SirKenyon, F. G., Oxford 1921Google Scholar.

35 Hermens, F. A., “The Corporative Idea and the Crisis of Democracy,” Centralblatt and Social Justice, 03 1939Google Scholar.

36 Brecht, A., “Constitutions and Leadership,” Social Research, 08 1934Google Scholar.

37 “Hash by the Billion,” The Saturday Evening Post, 08 29, 1936Google Scholar.

38 In his message on the budget for 1938–39.