fl'i&i&ecrit-d-

ftbPtfTg-

“LET’S KICK

OUT BOTH

PARTIES!”

George H. Fisher

Price $1.00



A donkey that had spent most of its life

walking in a circle, hitched to a small rotary

grist mill, was finally given his freedom and

mercifully turned out upon a fresh, green

pasture. Due to his prolonged enslavement,

however, he failed to grasp the meaning of

his newly-acquired liberty and he merely

continued to walk round and round in

circles.

For a hundred years we American voters

were literally tied to boss-controlled politi-

cal machines. But during the past few dec-

ades we have gradually forged the weapons

for our political emancipation! Let us no

longer plod along, like the donkey, in cir-.

cular political ruts— as if these valuable
new tools had never been developed!



“LET’S KICK

OCT BOTH
PARTIES!”

by

GEORGE H. FISHER

Copyright 1954

NATIONAL NON-PARTISAN LEAGUE
(Formerly “California Committee to Save Cross-Filing**

)

Box 4995 Los Angeles 1



CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. America’s Political Quagmire 5

II. “The Mute, Inarticulate Masses” 12

III. Our Totem-Pole Civilization 19

IV. “All We Want Is The Facts, Ma’am!” ... 26

V. California In Her Accustomed Role .... 34

VI. Television—Our Modern Aladdin’s Lamp . . 39

VII. The Founding Fathers’ Prophecy Comes True 44

VIII. “Sugar And Spice, And Everything Nice!” . . 51

IX. “What Shall We Substitute For The Parties?” 71

X. Let’s Get To Work! ......... 87

2



PREFACE

A couple of passengers were canvassing the smoking-car,

trying to scare up some players for a few hands of poker.

One old gentleman they approached happened to be pre-

occupied with his newspaper.

He was not the type to be abrupt with anyone, how-

ever, so he politely laid down his paper, cleared his throat

with a muffled grunt, carefully dusted the ash from his

cigar, plucked his horn-rimmed spectacles from his nose

and peered benignly up at the intruders with the gracious

air of one who is about to decline the nomination for

Governor.

“No, gentlemen,” he apologized, in a patronizing tone.

“I’m sorry I can’t join you. In fact there are three reasons

why I can’t. In the first place I haven’t any money, and—”

“That’s enough, Mister,” broke in his visitor, walking

away,—“the other two reasons aren’t important!”

* * * *

Its like that with our America. Her political problems

are numerous, variegated and complex. But we may as

well forget all the rest if we cannot solve the primary one

—that of restoring interest and confidence in the ballot!
For in order to steer a true course a democracy must first

be motivated by the wisdom of many minds, just as a ship

must have driving power before its rudder can become

effective.

3



Politically, our ship is listing badly, and taking water.

If we hope to keep afloat we must be ready when the time

comes to throw overboard the dead weight of many of our

obsolete political belongings.

To match the fierce tempo of our jet-propelled age

Nature herself seems to be speeding up our thinking in

this respect. As we note in Chapter Two she is already
forcing us to jettison much of the mental excess baggage

we have dragged along with us from our nation’s political

adolescence.

But, as Maeterlinck says in Our Social Duty: “At

every crossway on the road that leads to the future, each

progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed

to guard the past . . . The least we can do is refuse to

add to the immense dead weight that Nature must drag

along!”

—GEORGE H. FISHER

South Gate
9 California•

4



CHAPTER ONE

AMERICA’S

POLITICAL QUAGMIRE

Today, in America, the
noun “politics” has

become a sort of cuss word.
When one man calls

another a politician his
tone is likely.to imply

that the man is a scoundrel,
mid without legal

parentage. At the same time,
interest m voting

has been dropping steadily
since the Civil War.

In fact, at the present
alarming rate of downspin

we may all be ruled, in a few
more years, by two

small, hard cores of machine
voters—men and

women who have turned into
mere ballot-box

stuffers who vote as The Party tells
them to vote,

lust as in Russia. Such groups
of robots wearing

two different party labels but
with the same cal-

lous indifference to the
majority’s interests would

5



be a pushover for any ambitious dictator on a

creamy-white stallion!

The growing avalanche of disillusionment with

these party machines—instead of scaring us all
to our ballot-boxes in self defense—has developed
a dangerously cynical attitude toward the whole

“art of politics.” America—leader among the
world’s democracies—today has proportionately
the world’s poorest attendance at her voting

booths—and also the world’s only powerful poli-
tical machines!

Corruption in the government of a democracy

is, of course, nothing new. As long ago as 400

B.C. the ancient Greek city-state of Athens had

to wrestle with the same types of bribery, tax-

favoritism and job selling that bedevil America

today. Trading with the enemy, although it has

now become a commonplace and “a necessity”

of modern warfare, was even in ancient times con-

sidered treasonous if committed by “unauthor-

ized personnel.” It was one of the crimes of

Alcibiades, that Athenian warrior-politician who

was caught peddling military information to the

Spartans.

We may rest assured that it is not going to be

6



easy to find new solutions to such old problems.

Human nature being what it is, political incom-

petence will no doubt be with us for a long time

into the future—-or until it pushes us all over the

precipice of atomic suicide ! But if you and I are

interested in saving our precious necks we had

better begin to get our sights properly adjusted

—

had better begin to learn just where the enemy

is located, and what he is like.

The fight for good government cannot be suc-

cessfully waged by singling out and persecuting a

few hapless individuals—any more than the battle
against narcotics could be won by convicting a

handful of dope addicts. The vicious, obstructive

yoke of the national organizations which protect

and nourish the crime must first be thrown off

—

whether the war is against illicit drugs or against

political corruption.

Like a pair of old slum buildings hopelessly

contaminated with disease and vermin, the rotten

party structures which organize, shelter, and try

to dignify the graft and hypocrisy of America’s

politics on a nationwide scale must eventually be

cleansed from our democracy—if confidence in
government and a wholesome, widespread atten-

7



dance at the polls are to be restored.

For election day seems to have lost its glamour

for roughly fifty percent of America’s adult citi-

zens. Apparently they have grown tired of mere-

ly alternating between two meaningless political

party labels. Since Civil War days the two big

party machines have been able to make a mockery

of our pathetic efforts to set up “third” parties in

competition with them.

Soon after the peace was signed at Appomattox,

governmental services (automatically translated

into “political jobs”) began to multiply far be-

yond anyone’s wildest dreams. Patronage and gov-

ernment contracts soon took the place of “tradi-

tion” and “principles” as the stock in trade of the

two existing parties. Both managed to dig in and

perpetuate themselves during this period, alter-

nately holding the reins of power and filling the

statute books of our 48 states will all manner of

inhibiting legislation to resist any new party that

might have the temerity to strike out against

them.

No other such mis-named “political parties” in
the world’s history have ever been able to trans-

form themselves in this fashion into such power-

8



wielding machines—continuing
to write dummy

“platforms” for window-dressing
m their employ-

ment-agency and contract-brokerage
business to

which they both so easily
“converted.

^

The basic weakness of our
socalled “two-party

system” is that it rewards
victory, not virtue. I he

party machines, by their very
nature, must con-

cern themselves with the
quantity of winners, not

their quality. A Republican or Democratic
candi-

date is valuable to the
machine only if and when

he wins his election. The moment
he does soothe

machine must begin to coddle and
“take care of

him because of the jobs and influence
which may

be attached to his victory. He may be a
rascal or

an incompetent when he enters
the race and a

bigger one after being in office a
while, but as

long as he can get in and stay in
he can throw

his weight around inside the
machine.

As a matter of fact, election
laws throughout

America have, in effect, made it
impractical for

political parties to attempt to
separate the sheep

from the goats. Modern “direct
primary legisla-

tion lias reserved that
function for the citizens

themselves. Thus, such will-o-the-wisps
as party

responsibility” and “party loyalty” in
the atomic

9



age are as obsolete in concept as those fraudulent

abstractions called “party tradition” and “party

principles.”

Many of our states have already ousted the

party machines from their city, county, school

and judicial elections on the theory that it is un-

dignified to permit pork-barrels in schoolrooms

and courtrooms. But is it more dignified to allow

these free-lunch feeding-troughs in our State and

National Capitols?

Perhaps if we kick the worthless and degrading

Party Machines out of the picture entirely—and
celebrate the exodus as a dramatic spectacle

(in the “stupendous, gigantic, collossal” tradition

made famous in Hollywood) most of the back-

sliding voters can be inspired to return to the polls

with a fresh, new enthusiasm and a renewed faith

!

It might prove to be just the exhilorating stimu-

lant we need to revive our jaded and lagging

interest in the affairs of our government—perhaps
bring a buoyant hope for the future, where only

cynicism and resignation now dwell!

A promising introductory step in exactly that
direction has already been taken by the sovereign

citizens of California (in the elections of Novem-

10



ber 4, 1952). The present essay
is an attempt to

measure the broader implications of that
historic

gesture. The study is unique in this one respect

at least: for a change the subject is
approached

from the standpoint of what the people think

not what their leaders think they ought to think

!

In short, it is practical, not theoretic; it
contains

a simple observation and a logical conclusion

not a sermon from the Oracle of Delphi.

11



CHAPTER TWO

“THE MUTE,

INARTICULATE MASSES”

On the morning of November 5, 1952, the
Eisenhower - Nixon victory crowded everything

else off the front pages of California’s newspapers.

Editors were busy playing up each little sidelight

in the contrasting personalities of Ike and Dick,

and the divergent past histories and family life

of the two winners were dramatized in tireless

detail.

The glamorous world hero from the Kansas

plains, with his sparkling animation and his broad

grin, made excellent photo material alongside the

comparatively quiet favorite son of California,

who—only a few short years before—had an-
swered a newspaper ad which asked for “a man
to run for Congress.”

Such colorful copy left little space to tell of

12



the amazing defeat of
“Proposition 13” — the

cross-filing measure. “Unlucky
13” was an initi-

ative question submitted to the
voters of Cali-

fornia, seeking to stop candidates
for public office

from running on both Democratic
and Republican

tickets at the same time. (Cross-filing
has been

the custom of office-seekers in the
freedom-loving

Golden State since 1913—defended by the
Cali-

fornia Committee To Save Cross-Filing. )

The move to prohibit the
practice had been

backed by an impressive list of
proponents. The

surprise beating the repealer
took, therefore, at

the hands of the voters was one
of the most star-

tling political upsets of
California s picturesque

and checkered history—even though it did fail to
make the headlines. Although the

story of the

strange defeat was pushed back
to the inside

pages, it did seem, on November 3 at
least, that

if the honorary sponsors of
i

abolish cross-filing

had been laid end to end they
would have ex-

tended clear back to Revolutionary
days. For

although cross-filing is a comparatively
modern

invention, personalities from almost every
page of

American History were quoted in support
of its

prohibition. However, cross-filing survived

!

13



During the campaign a list as long as a city

editor’s arm was published of the organizations

which apparently had reserved large blocks of

seats on the “repeal” bandwagon. To convince

oneself how formidable and ramified this offen-

sive was one has only to take a gander at a few

names at the head of the list:

—

American Political Science Association.

National Municipal League.

California League of Women Voters.
California State Federation of Labor (AFL).

California Industrial Union Council (CIO).

Further down the list one encounters the names

of influential local newspapers both big and little,

past Presidents of the United States, Governors,

Mayors, Congressmen, Senators. A galaxy of as-
sorted big shots from the world of Labor and civic

life managed to scramble aboard also — on an
individual basis. Indeed it seemed hard to find

anyone at all in the brass section of public life

who was willing to oppose the abolition move-

ment.

For several months in advance of election day

a “24-hour” metropolitan daily newspaper serv-

ing Los Angeles County (where almost half the

14



state’s vote is concentrated) ran a daily article

urging “Yes on #13.” And along about nutting

time die yeasty smell of billboard paste began to

dilate the nostrils of motorists along the high-

ways, and soon the tourist’s view of our sunkissed

landscapes was blocked by slogans a foot high

imploring us all to “Save The Two-Party System

—Vote Yes on #13!”

Radios began to blare, televisions began to

glare: “Preserve The American Way—Vote Yes
on #13.” Skywriters gayly traced out smoke-

signals against the great blue yonder, admonish-

ing us to “Block the Crooked Lobby—Vote Yes
on #13!” Even in our busses and streetcars the

weary strap-hangers were reminded that “Poli-

ticians Should Be Forced To Show Their True

Colors—Vote Yes on #13!”

But the Heavy Artillery itself was manned by

the “Abolish Cross-Filing Committee,” headed by

John B. Elliott, a prominent figure in California’s

oil industry. His committee assumed informal

charge of the “Yes” campaign. It published a 64-

page speaker’s manual and sent spellbinders into

union meetings and civic gatherings who left

behind them a red, white and blue trail of “Yes”

15



literature. The manual served as a complete ref-

erence work for the campaign. It discussed every

possible argument in favor of abolition of cross-

filing—and from every conceivable angle. It listed
the dozens of organizations and newspapers and

the scores of public figures who had either come

out flatly for prohibition of cross-filing or were

quoted as “believing in the American two-party

system,”—which was supposed to boil down to
the same thing. (What was not mentioned, how-

ever, was that due to the State’s political inde-

pendence the big oil interests had no political

party club to swing in Washington in the “off-

shore oil” controversy!)

This undying devotion to the “two-party sys-

tem” was, in fact, the central theme and keynote

of the whole complex propaganda drive, although

many other reasons were offered why a citizen

should vote Yes on #13. (Oil was not one of them,

however.) But if one loved his Country, his Flag,

the Constitution, the Declaration of Indepen-

dence, The American Way of Life, the Ideals of
our Founding Fathers, Our National Heritage,

Our Basic Traditions, The American Dream

—

etc., etc.—then he should, perforce, vote Yes on

16



#13. Or, negatively, if he
was against Commu-

nism, Fascism, Nazism,
Gangsterism, illegal liquor,

off-track betting, syndicated
gambling, crooked

lobbies—or just against Sin in General—then also
he should vote Yes on #13!

The absence of an opposition
campaign of any

comparable magnitude caused
the issue to be

clearly drawn, since there
was little of the

customary back-and-forth
banter of claim and

counter-claim to confuse the
voter. On this one

Proposition, at least, the
conscientious citizen was

able to form his opinion decisively
and express it

plainly — for once in his harried political Iite.
With all the “good” arguments and

all the out-

standing leadership” parked
lopsidedly on one

side there seemed little, if any,
excuse for a JNo

vote on #13.
. , .

.

Special precaution was taken, m this scienti-

fically-organized campaign, to prevent
any pos-

sible misunderstanding in marking
one s. ballot.

All publicity and sloganizing ended
with the

words “Vote Yes on #13!” The sign
“#” was

used instead of the abbreviation
“No.” for num-

ber,” to avoid any possible association
with the

negative, “NO.” (Since the No campaign was

17



quiet and poorly financed anyway there was, in

truth, little danger of such confusion.)

Everybody and his brother, apparently, wanted

to prohibit cross-filing!

And thus, on the night of Monday, November

3, all the dopesters and their wise money were

well over into the Yes column, as far as #13

was concerned.

But lo, on the night of the following day, as

the ballots began to trickle in, it gradually and

shockingly became evident that “the mute and

inarticulate masses” had kicked over the traces

—and had decreed “NO on #13!”
How contrary can you get? There stood the

verdict—bold and clear and unadorned. The
fetish of partyism had taken a beating! Because

of the blunt manner in which the issue had been

laid before the electorate no interpretation could

possibly be placed on the returns except that a

telltale crack was beginning to appear in Humpty

Dumpty’s wall! The proud citadel of Tweedle-

dum and Tweedledee was under siege!

18



CHAPTER THREE

OUR TOTEM-POLE

CIVILIZATION

What, then, is this strongly touted “two-party

system” that seems to be so universally prized by

“leadership” but upon which the common man

appears to place little, if any, value—which he
seems ready, in fact, to vote out of existence at

his earliest opportunity! A snap answer might
be that America’s vaunted two-party system is

actually the least-understood social institution the

world has ever known—although such answer, of
course, would not be much help to us, except

perhaps to indicate the scope and complexity of

our puzzle.

The truth is that in the powder-keg world of

today there is litde of a social nature that is left

19



sacred for the man in the street. Individuals find

themselves grappling with their gods and their

governments, and governments with each other,

often forsaking old gods for new—or for none at
all. Each fights for what he has been taught to

sum up briefly as his “freedom,” for in war-cries

and slogans one must be both brief and sonorous.

“Frustrations” sometimes appears to be a more

accurate summation of our grievances in general
—“freedoms” seem to grow obsolete so suddenly

!

(Of course, “frustrations” would sound lousy in

a slogan.)

In the confused political atmosphere that seems

to engulf most of the world men are no longer

bashful about asking blunt questions and de-

manding straight answers about the social insti-

tutions which are supposed to be guiding them.

They want to know whether the altars to which

they have been taught to carry burnt offerings

are really an essential part of their culture or

merely worthless fetishes.

For in the last analysis the whole story of man-

kind is largely an account of his never-ending

struggle to free himself from his fetishes. Since

he first climbed down out of the trees his leaders

20



have managed to confuse
and confound him, as

well as delay his
progress, with all manner of

charms and symbols—supposedly
to protect him

from evil spirits.

In every age his tribal
chiefs and witch doctors

have set up new totem-poles for
him, or whittled

out a new head for an old one.
And what was

worse, they have convinced
him that his fellow

creatures were his enemies if they
refused to bow

down and worship at that same
particular post.

They have draped lucky beads
and amulets

around his neck and stuck all sorts
of gimmicks

atop his gullible head—and then driven
him oil

to war in defense of these absurd
talismans

.

Strange, mystic designs have
been painted and

tattooed on his long-suffering
carcass, while gaudy

trinkets to bemuse the spirits
encumbered ms

arms and hobbled liis legs. Holy
rings have hung

from his nose and his ears have
been pinned back

with the sanctified dried bones
of his fightingest

ancestors—in an effort to increase his pugnacity
and egg him on into battle. His brow

has been

anointed with magical oils and his
balding pate

moistened with high - priority waters.
Sacred

plants and animals in endless variety have
been

21



assigned to remind him of his subordination to

this or that god.

Great religious leaders have uttered words of

infinite wisdom for his guidance, but sooner or

later their foolish apostles have permitted these

messages also to petrify into hollow, ritualistic

fetishes. A basic aim of most of these good teach-
ers, for example, has been to discourage warfare

among men; yet today, just as in the days of

barbarism, their modern disciples piously follow

us to our battlefields with their sacred writings

—

to sustain us spiritually while we break every

commandment in the book-fetish they so solemnly

hold aloft!

For their scriptures, too, have been transmuted,

in large measure, into rigid, meaningless symbol-

isms—merely by the act of declaring them “sa-
cred.” Once they were declared sacred they were

not subject to revision to fit the rapidly changing

world, and they have seemed as cold and unre-

warding to new generations of men as the glisten-

ing gold was to King Midas.

Ancient and modern religions by the thousand

have followed one another into oblivion because

the short-sighted disciples—always against the

22



admonitions of the founders—have allowed the
teachings of the master to become dogmatized

and doctrinized—and thus hopelessly fossilized,
too. They have foolishly called upon their people

to worship the words themselves as being “holy

writ”—regardless of how incomprehensible they
may have become in new environments.

Protestant, Catholic and Jew—Buddhist, Mo-
hammedan and all the rest of the moderns

—

sooner or later have found themselves marching

in great numbers against the idolatries of their

own churches. Many of us in the West raise our
eyebrows at the Buddhist who kneels before his

hand-carved statue, or the desert tribesman who

worships his turban—whose flowing folds have
protected him and his ancestors from the relent-

less sandstorms of the Sahara.

The non-Catholic scoffs at the ritualized Con-

fessional, the non-Jew at the ritualized abstention

from easily-infected meats. Yet many Protestants

have themselves allowed the religion of Jesus to

atrophy into an incoherent mumbo - jumbo of
bibliolatry — twisting the simple wisdom and
tolerant compassion of the Man of Galilee into a
hundred arguing, babbling creeds. Their Deca-

23



logue has become so devitalized that after pound-

ing their various altars and waving their bibles

for hundreds of years many of them seem unable

to comprehend their own Second Commandment

(much less the shamefully betrayed Sixth
! )

As in

days of old, its always the other fellow’s Graven

Images that we are taught to abhor, never our

own!

After twenty centuries of knuckling under to

warmaking rulers a discouraging number of our

religious leaders seem content to keep us sub-

merged in the symbolic “blood of the Savior”

—

with neither the time nor the inclination, nor the

courage to crusade against the spilling of our

living blood on today’s battlefields! Small won-

der, then, that in a world that sometimes appears

to be standing on the very precipice of eternity,

and whose people continue to plead for some sort

of spiritual guidance, the religion based on the

teachings of Christ lies perilously near to the fate

of its numerous predecessors—bound, like Gulli-
ver in Lilliput, by its own flimsy fetishes!

At Hiroshima a frightened world suddenly “got

religion”—but also got a new wave of group im-

24



morality that has reached into almost every de-

partment of our lives!

In the stark world crisis that confronts hu-

manity today the Graven Images offered us by

prophet and politician alike are being contemptu-

ously pushed aside and trampled underfoot by

the people themselves. Fetishes of all kinds —
whether concrete or abstract — are coming un-
glued, splitting at the seams and going down the

drain.

In refusing to outlaw cross-filing the citizens

of the sophisticated commonwealth of California

merely re-stated, in voting booth terms, the well-

understood fact that precious little of their love

is to be wasted, anymore, on the fetish of party

labels and party promises. Away from the meet-
ing halls and the “official circles”—back where
the ballots are actually marked in the compara-

tive quiet of the home precincts—there the people
seem to pride themselves on being able to “vote

for the man, not the party.”—Evidently they
intend to keep it that way

!

25



CHAPTER FOUR

“ALL WE WANT IS

THE FACTS, MA’AM!”

The Democratic politicians object to cross-filing

because, for one thing, it has permitted the

Republican former Governor Earl Warren (now

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme

Court) to demonstrate his popularity in the Dem-

ocratic Party as well as in his own. Warren was

thrice elected to the governorship in this over-

whelmingly Democratic state—the only governor
ever to be so honored, and the only American

governor ever nominated as the candidate of both

Republican and Democratic Parties at the same

election. It is this type of political independence,

of course, that took him unerringly toward the

Chief Justiceship.

26



Throughout his political career his staunch

non-partisanism found an appropriate election-

day vehicle in California’s cross-filing procedure

—which, over the years, has implemented and
buttressed each of his middle-of-the-road admini-

strations.

At the 1952 Republican Convention Warren

dramatically demonstrated his penchant for fair

play—and without realizing it he clinched the job
he now holds in the highest Court in the land.

For in the bitter debate between the Taft and

Eisenhower forces over the seating of the Georgia

and Texas delegations Warren could easily have

chosen to enhance his own “dark horse” chances

for the Presidential nomination by remaining

neutral in the controversy. Instead, he vocifer-

ously dared to take sides against the traditional

steam-roller tactics of the Old Guard, bringing

to Eisenhower’s comer the force of the California

delegation and marking the climax of the Con-

vention.

Just as Warren, Dewey and others exposed and
dramatized the characteristic “railroading” tech-

niques of the party machine, so cross-filing, dur-

ing its forty years’ history, has emphasized and

27



spotlighted the absurdity of all party-lines in an

American direct primary election!

For many years the Southern Pacific Railroad

lobby controlled both Democratic and Republican

politics in California. The introduction of cross-

filing by Governor Hiram Johnson’s progressive

regime, in 1913, broke up this obnoxious lobby

by pulverizing party-machine control of the Legis-

lature. The railroad’s gravy train for politicians

was permanently derailed and the party bosses

were ditched, and left floundering around in

search of new means of support. From that day

to this the machine bosses have vented their

spleens against lobbies in general, both good and

bad, since both types have eliminated party bosses

as unnecessary middlemen.

Although the corrupt lobby forms the backbone

of reactionary politics all over America the fact

remains that the legitimate lobby provides valu-

able technical assistance to legislators. It has be-

come a vital, extra-governmental part of the law-

making function in our highly technical and

highly industrialized society. In California, as

elsewhere, its influence is proportionate to the

state’s importance in industry and commerce.

28



Likewise, of course, the corrupt lobby wields its

evil influence in about the same proportion.

.

The running battle against dishonest lobbies

—

entrenched, as they are, with big moneyed inter-

ests—is both complicated and difficult. However,
this struggle against corruption is certainly not

aided by those pseudo-liberals who help the poli-

ticians mislead and confuse us all by irrelevantly

blaming cross-filing for the fact that crooked

legislators sell their votes to the highest bidder.

California voters have had far too much experi-

ence with their initiative and referendum pro-

cedures to be taken in by such routine propaganda

tricks. The history of the state convinces them

that the party bosses do not conscientiously fight

the lobby—but fight, instead, to become a part
of the lobby.

Neither were the citizens fooled, on that No-

vember 4th, by the completely fraudulent slogan

which implied that repeal would force candidates

to “show their true colors.” (This overworked

phrase became number one of the official “Eleven

Points Against Cross-Filing.”)

But after the abolishers had screamed the slo-

gan from the housetops the Legislature swept the

29



ground from under their feet several weeks before

election day. They placed a separate proposition

on the ballot to compel all candidates to plainly

state the name of their party after their own

names, on any ballot on which their candidacy

was filed.

Did the repealers applaud this simple and

direct solution to the “true colors” problem? On
the contrary! Strangely enough—and hypocriti-
cally enough—they turned irately upon theirbene-
factors and fought tooth and nail in the Courts to

have the measure scratched from the ballot—so
that voters might not even have opportunity tdi

pass on it!

True colors, indeed! In turning tail on this

paramount issue which they had previously blown

up into an emotionally patriotic matter they pro-

ceeded to show their own true colors for all the

world to see! And the world saw—at least that
sunkissed slice of the world that forms the south-

western corner of the nation! In this one piece

of demagoguery alone the ringleaders of the pro

hibition movement lost whatever they had left of

the genuine liberals among the rank and file of

their “following.”

30



And so in the “true colors” slogan as in so many

others, the repealers gave their hand away, ex-

posing the fact that it was not cross-filing, speci-

fically, that they were attacking. As one continued

to read and listen to the emotional outbursts in

the press and on radio and TV he began to get
[the creepy feeling that the real target of the

abolishers was the entire direct primary law!

Every paragraph of every page in the official

manual was either a complete falsehood, a twisted

half-truth, an absurd irrelevancy, or, in the case

of about half the material—it exposed a crass
ignorance of California’s election laws, and al-

though a bulky section of the manual was devoted

to The Lobby, by some strange editorial slip the

word “oil” did not occur even once

!

Every campaign dodge known to the trade was

dragged out of political back rooms. Misrepre-

sentation, tortured interpretations, hypocrisy, race-

and-minority baiting—no holds were barred. The
big Los Angeles daily which spearheaded the

campaign in the press ran a long article detailing

the statistics of the various races and minorities

of the state with the implication that they were

being persecuted politically by the cross-filing

31



provision. This, of course, was a complete piece

of deceit, since nothing in the device of cross-

filing relates in the remotest fashion to any race

or minority.

In any election, of course, the incumbent has

the advantage, all the way from President on

down. This is a necessary evil of all democratic

structures. The notion that cross-filing is respon-

sible for this centuries-old principle is childish

in the extreme. But the irrelevancy of any argu-

ment did not bar it from the yes campaign as was

evident here, as also in the lobby argument, the

“true colors” hypocrisy, and the falsification that

“a YES vote will bring greater ballot-box free-
dom to the voter.” (On June 10, 1952, the Los
Angeles Daily News stated editorially in cold,

unashamed 10-point: “Of course, we don’t believe

voters should shop around over the entire field

in their voting.”— !?!?)

This was largely the same crew which, a few

years back, engineered a plot inside the Los

Angeles County Democratic Central Committee

to set up a party mechanism for “recommending”

a slate of handpicked machine candidates to the

electorate in the primaries. In this bold, daylight

32



iattempt to illegally abridge the direct primary

P

aw the Bosses failed ignominiously, just as they

ailed on November 4, 1952!

As one thumbs his way through the manual

and notes the long parade of politicians and their

stooges who have spearheaded this affront to

American democracy, one cannot help but wonder

what has happened to the liberal movement in this

Land of the Free. Where are the progeny of those

stalwart patriots who stamped out the tyranny

of King George III in our virile Colonies and later

battled to keep the despotism of party bosses from

the halls of government? Many of those who to-
day enjoy wallowing in their pretended “liber-

alism” seem to have forgotten that the very

essence of the word connotes a rugged determin-

ation to be free of all political bondage

!

33



CHAPTER FIVE

CALIFORNIA IN HER

ACCUSTOMED ROLE

The live, ever-changing pattern of California’s

politics has taught the plain citizens that impor-

tant decisions, whether good or bad, are made

by bold, quick-witted men of flesh and blood.

They have noted that these decisions are seldom,

if ever, dictated by the dead letter of last season’s

party platforms with all their crystal-ball pre-

tensions and their catch-all package deals.

The independent spirit that has impelled citi-

zens of the Golden State to “rise above narrow

partisan considerations” (which the orators love

to scream about but which Californians have

made a reality) has its roots far back in the

state’s pioneering history. For it was in the rugged

Gold Rush era that the hardy settlers first began

34



earning their reputations as staunch trail-blazers

for political progress. They started nullifying the

power of their political bosses back in 1866, when

they passed the nation’s first Direct Primary Law

—whose modern counterparts have finally written
finis to boss control throughout America!

Yet, although California’s progress toward a

genuinely democratic republic has been both

steady and orderly, many of us seem to have

difficulty in perceiving that after gaining the

direct primary, cross-filing is simply the next logi-

cal step in the long-term campaign to cancel out

the party-boss system entirely and give the politi-

cal power to the sovereign people as their rightful

heritage.

Ever since California was admitted to the

Union in 1850 the bold, free spirit at the grass

roots has set new political trends which all Amer-

ica has eventually adopted. Her entry as a full-

fledged state seemed in itself a prophetic omen for

political progress. In those formative days Slavery

was an important issue, and it was only after

heated debate in Congress that California was

finally admitted as a “free” state. But from that

memorable day forward the nation never again

35



lost her free-state controlling majority in the

United States Senate!

This portentious event proved to be the founda-

tion for a tradition of social emancipation in the

Golden State, for since those early beginnings

her citizens have consistently carried the ball in

the never-ending struggle to make democracy

amount to something more than an orator’s cliche.

No sooner had the Civil War ended than a cam-
paign was started in California to sweep away

the lingering remnants of those irritating issues

which had led to the war between the states, and

which still lay smouldering in the hearts of many

of the vanquished. California herself, isolated as

she was both geographically and psychologically

from most of these issues, found herself in the

logical position from which to lead a campaign

of reform, reconstruction and political house-

cleaning.

So when these dead issues had been officially

buried after the war the forthright citizens of

California began, as a starter, to wrest from their

self-appointed political overlords the power to

name their own candidates for public office. It

was a faltering step and actually produced very

36



weak results—but it was a start. Today the Direct
Primary has become a standard feature of the

election machinery of all but one state. And after

what happened at Chicago in the 1952 conven-

tions it seems certain that some kind of direct

primary for nominating presidents also is “in

the cards.”

In a steady, unbroken chain of courageous

gestures the plain citizens who kept pouring into

California in search of social and economic liber-

ties have wrested power from professional politi-

cians with the same vigor they demonstrated in

building a new empire on the sunny Pacific Slope.

They blazed the trail for popular election of

United States Senators (originally chosen by state

legislatures). They pioneered in the non-partisan

election of city, county, and school officials, and

of local and state judges. They led the fight for

“home rule” for cities, as a basic principle in

American local self-government. They were ten

years ahead of the Federal Government with

woman’s suffrage. And over the years they have
utilized their initiative, referendum and recall

prerogatives more frequently than all other states

combined

!

37



When cross-filing came to California (during

the progressive regime of Hiram Johnson) few

seemed to realize that it would supply the people

with the much-needed by-pass around the im-

movable mountain of partyism that had grown

up in America. Independent, non-partisan candi-

dates began to have their names on both tickets

for the same reason that a farmer plows around

an obstructive rock when he finds he cannot plow

through it. Nowadays it is seldom that anyone

is elected to anything, in California, unless he has

arranged to give voters of both parties a chance

at him in the primaries.

Strange, indeed, that a basic political freedom

so universally accepted by both voter and candi-

date should be opposed by so glittering an array

of pretended “leadership.”

Stranger still that David’s tiny sling (the peo-

ples’ voice) could slay the well-heeled propa-

ganda giant of that befouled leadership

!



CHAPTER SIX

TELEVISION—OUR MODERN

ALADDIN’S LAMP

Thousands of years before Christ the first crude

water-wheel irrigated the fertile Valley of the

Nile. As the early Egyptian soil-tillers watched

their fragile buckets bring water to their thirsty

acres few of them could have prophesied that in

this wooden contraption they held not only the

key to modern scientific farming but also the

symbol of a new kind of civilization to come.

Since the development of that first, primitive,

hand-carved machine each succeeding technical

advancement has likewise brought with it a pro-

portionate social revolution — and the magic of
television certainly promises to be no exception.

Visionaries of even a generation ago would not

39



have dared prophesy the extent of the impact that

TV has already made on America’s way of life

—

any more than the ancient farmers along the Nile

could understand the deeper significance of that

first flapping, wheezing water-wheel.

Television, as a product of technology, is follow-

ing that same pattern of social revolution, but at

an infinitely accelerated pace. It is only recently

that we began to realize the far-reaching possi-

bilities of the new medium in the educational

field. If we are wise enough to apply its magic

to our modem electioneering techniques we can
break down one of the last strongholds of political

party fetishism.

The 1952 national party conventions, the first

ever to be televised, will probably go down in

history as the last of their kind to be staged in

America. For during those two, sweltering, Klieg-

lighted weeks of bedlam in the Windy City the

ordinary citizens across the nation discovered the

true nature of their political organizations. At

first hand the voters learned the habits, outcries

and protective colorings of their party politicians

under fire.

At long last, thanks to the very candid cameras

40



of TV, the people in their
living rooms received

eye-witness proof that the
mammoth ‘ rat-r^es

held each leap year are
designed not to focus

the popular will but rather
to cancel it out alto-

gether. Belatedly the folks
back home are begin-

ning to perceive that
inside the two sprawling

party organizations are
sheltered and pampere

all the big and little political
vice-lords from the

precinct clubs to the nation’s
Capitol.

We saw Senator Kefauver learning
the hard

way that even a President
of the United States

will intervene to block
the nomination of an mtra-

party crime-buster—no
matter how clamorously

the people may demand the
latter’s nomination!

And we also watched another
famous crime-

buster, Governor Tom Dewey, forced
to split his

own party down the middle in
order to dramatize

and expose the strong-arm
methods used by the

Old Guard in an attempt to
block the nomination

of another popular idol,
General Eisenhower. The

Taft men apparently were willing
to agree with

Truman that “state preference
primaries are a

lot of eyewash
!” Contempt for the public s wishes

is a characteristic of both
machines.

The opaque screen in our living-rooms
has

41



provided us with the means to meet and judge
candidates for ourselves, in the comfort and re-
laxed atmosphere of our firesides. Without being
trapped in crowded, tiresome mass-meetings “we
the people” can now examine and choose our
own men and women for public office, independ-
ent of smoke-filled rooms, caucuses and all the
rest of the under-counter sleight-of-hand of party
bosses. No longer can two opposing candidates
employ the same glib-penned ghost-writer for
their forensic offertories.

No longer can a hostile press twist and distort
the words of a candidate. Each speaker can be
held strictly accountable for his every statement.

Even the old oratorical tricks, the applause-
baiting, etc., are nullified on this modern speaker’s
rostrum. Standing before us—seemingly at arms’
reach—-all pomposity is glaring magnified; each
mannerism the slightest twitch of a face muscle

is exposed to the television audience. Almost
overnight that glowing picture tube has reformed
the art of political speechifying! While he is
before the television camera a speaker’s words
must reveal, not conceal, the facts.

The conventions of ’52 conceivably could stand

42



as the final punctuation
mark for a passing phase

of our political history,
if only we are willing

put behind us our
childish e ephant and

donkey

playthings. Without these
make-believe appurten-

ances, and the vested
interests they represent,

the

deep-lying riches and
dignity inherent in a

American election day could
be recaptured

.

For on the unforgettable
November 4 of that

same convention year the
folks at the California

grass roots demonstrated
that, no matter how

tough the odds, popular
sovereignty can readily

be retrieved in these
United States

!

43



CHAPTER SEVEN

THE FOUNDING FATHERS’

PROPHECY COMES TRUE

The founders of our republic, with a foresight

that today seems uncanny in its prophecy, tried

in vain to prevent the formation of our absurd

political divisions. In our written Declaration of

Independence and our Constitution they made

America the only nation in history to spell out

boldly in advance its national philosophy, tradi-

tions, precepts, principles and scheme of organi-

zation. These pioneering leaders hoped that by

carefully defining them all in detail beforehand

we might avert the development of what they

referred to as “the corroding influence of partyism

and factionalism that could serve only to divide

an already unified people into meaningless sec-

tions.”

44



These men were able to foresee that new issues

and new problems would constantly arise and

that difference of opinion would come too. But

they were not so foolish as to assume that such

problems and issues could be classified and tagged

with some random party label

!

In a major portion of his “Farewell Address,”

George Washington pleaded with his countrymen

to avoid being weakened by wholesale political

vivisection. He devoted the latter half of his

speech to an enthusiastic denunciation of “the

cancerous growths which attach themselves like

bloodsucking leeches — functionless — to a free
government, subverting the real issues and hiding

the corruption of their cohorts— gradually allow-
ing the integrity of a democracy to rot away.”

“Political parties,” continued the ‘Father of His

Country’ (in words which, in today’s political

setting, are breath-taking in their foreboding)

“will organize factions to give them an artificial

and extra-ordinary force, and put in place of

the delegated will of the Nation the will of a

party — often a small but artful and enter-
prising minority of the population; and accord-

ing to the alternate triumphs of different parties

45



to make the public administration the mirror

of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of

faction.” (One gets the wierd feeling that he is

listening to a modern roundtable television dis-

cussion, rather than to ideas expressed almost

two centuries ago!)

Washington concluded his last official message

to his people with the fervent hope that above

all else the nation he loved so dearly and served

so devotedly, and whose leadership he was now

turning over to others, would not fall into the

hands of selfish men who would corral the citi-

zenry into “ridiculously irrelevant categories to

carry on sham battles with one another while

their leaders divide the spoils of their meaning-

less victories.”

James Madison, the “brain of the Constitu-

tion,” as he was called, also bent his vast prestige

and his fiery pen to the task of warning his

colleagues of the partisan pitfalls which even at

the nation’s infancy seemed to be looming ahead.

“The instability, injustice and confusion,” wrote

Madison in his “Federalist Papers,” in the year

1787, “that are introduced into the public coun-

cils by parties have in truth been the mortal

46



diseases under which popular
governments every-

where have perished.” (No doubt
many of those

Californians who voted No on abolition of
cross-

filing were students of Madison !

)

Adams, Jackson, Monroe—almost every note-
worthy leader during those

apprehensive and

formative days, joined in the crusade
to do

battle with faction, caucus and party—
to keep

the reins of government always directly
in the

hands of the people.” Correspondence
between

Jackson and Monroe is replete with earnest
dis-

cussion as to the best manner of avoiding
party

growths.

Yet all the words of wisdom that poured
from

the lips and pens of these sincere
students of

democracy were not powerful enough to
stand

against the irresistible force of the
spoils system

which inevitably was to grow rapidly in our
lush,

young country. An energetic, hard-working and

fast - growing population demanded more
and

more services from the government. Xhere was

no Civil Service in those days to examine,
and

qualify people of competence for the administra-

tive departments. Political “handouts”—jobs and
contracts—seemed to most people as a wholly

47



necessary evil. Soon there arose in America some-

thing new under the sun, and never since dupli-

cated elsewhere—the spectacle of two employ-
ment agencies and contract brokerages calling

themselves political parties but now lacking even

the remotest resemblance to the classical defini-

tion of the term

!

Here is the heart of the whole matter! We
Americans have simply failed to comprehend the

tremendous political impact of the government-

job market that has been built up in our vast,

highly industrialized, highly commercialized na-

tion. No one has sat down with pencil and adding
machine and totalled up the number of public

servants that we have required in the functioning

of this great empire.

But each tiny cross-roads hamlet, each strug-

gling village, each bustling town and giant metro-

polis, each county seat and state capital, the

network of office buildings at Washington, our

farflung public works systems, our foreign service

and a hundred and one other agencies both at

home and abroad—all have contributed to the
building of so mighty an army of political job-

holders as to stagger the imagination. Control of

48



this vast network is the only real bone of con-

tention between the two parties.

We need more of the merit system at every

level of government. Furthermore we need to
free

it from the domination of the party
hacks so it

can function efficiently. Civil Service is
the enemy

of the party machine. Which of these two can we

do without?

The profitable trade in political jobs and con-

tracts came into full bloom under the skilled

hand of that master patronage dispenser, Presi-

dent Martin Van Buren. And who could have

foreseen, in those early years, that some day these

innocent - looking political plums would swell

across a great nation to such mountainous pro-

portions—and wield such blind, Frankensteinian

p0wer—as to completely dominate the govern-
ment they pretend to serve, and through the

government the whole economy

!

Who could have foretold that one day such

great hydra-headed dragons would not only re-

duce democratic government to a mockery but

silence the voices of all its critics to boot! Brave

indeed is the editor or public office holder who has

dared to speak out the truth about the octopus-

49



like grip which the party machines
have exerted

over our political lives. Not Alexander,
Caesar nor

Charlemagne — not Napoleon, Hitler nor Stalin
ever dared to dream of a more subservient

follow-

ing of “loyal subjects.”

In contradistinction to such
subjection, the

voters of California have sought
to vindicate

America’s proud boast that we are ^the world
s

first and foremost democratic republic!

The tyranny of the machine over our popularly

chosen public officials has been broken,
in Cali-

fornia. It can be broken, also, throughout
the

nation

!

50



CHAPTER EIGHT

“SUGAR AND SPICE,

AND EVERYTHING NICE!”

“But if we eliminate the parties, what shall

we put in their place?” The question is as in-

evitable as dawn after darkness — although no
such problem existed when parties were voided

from many of our local governmental jurisdic-

tions. Still, it is natural, one might assume, that

anything so big, so awesome, so all-pervading as

the Democratic and Republican Parties cannot

simply be shoved over the edge of the California

Palisades into the blue Pacific— even though the
idea may catch the fancy of certain Californians

!

However, the question will be asked seriously

and must be answered seriously. To find the an-
swer we must place the Parties under a high-

51



powered microscope and try to determine their

real nature— and their real function, if any.
The Democratic and Republican Parties both

came into existence during periods of national

expansion — chiefly to protect westward-moving
pioneers against entrenched business interests.

The issue vanished, of course, when the geograph-

ical frontier vanished, and we should have given

the Parties to the Indians then and there!

As it is, their machines have lingered on like

some grotesque form of mercenary ghost, manag-

ing to keep themselves alive far into this twentieth

century and forcing us all to worship their ante-

dated totem-poles so they can continue traffick-

ing in jobs, contracts and influence.

What is the secret of their longevity? How
have they been able to prevent the rise of the

dozens of third parties that have ventured to

compete with them? These two questions have

engaged the attention of several generations of

political scientists and students of American

history.

The complex nature of the Parties has made

it difficult to bring them into focus for study.

Composed of hundreds of conflicting elements

—



some old, some new, some concrete, some ab-

stract — they are the end result of mixing lots
of theory with a little reality — great gobs of
legend with a savory sprinkling of fact— a pork-
barrel full of callous cynicism with a nostalgic bit

of torchlight romanticism. And millions of sincere

men and women with perhaps a hundred or so

powerful, self-seeking shysters!

No wonder they are the despair of our social
scientists who all but drive themselves mad trying

to force these two shapeless, elusive, intangible

masses into conventional, traditional, political

party molds. Untiringly and fruitlessly they at-

tempt to rationalize and compare our American

Parties with “orthodox” parties past and present,

on both sides of the globe.

To discover the American Party machines’

fountain of youth and their secret for smothering

out all their rivals we must first seek their counter-

parts in nature. We must find some tangible
organism to which they can be likened, compared

or contrasted. And the more we explore into

natural structures the stronger grows our con-

viction that the only biological counterpart of

America’s two political party machines is to be

53



found in the phylum of protozoa — the lowest);
form of animal life!

This particular animalcule, second cousin to an

amoeba, under a powerful microscope resembles

more than anything else a bowl of Lemon Jello

without the bowl, that someone has spilled on the

kitchen floor on a warm day. Just a big blob of

quivering protoplasm
! j

This protozoon can live forever, devouring its

enemies for food much as the political machine

swallows up third parties. It doesn’t actually

digest their substance at all, for it has no stomach:

for assimilating new things anyway. Lacking the

guts to deal with a proposition head on it sidles

cagily up to its prey and tries to court it by turn-

«

ing a few graceful flip-flops. It thus turns first)]

one side and then another toward its intended;

victim until it finds a receptive section of its own;

body that can be softened up to “accept” the]

incongruous, yet tempting, morsel.

By late Autumn the “third party” tidbit man-

ages to make a dent somewhere in the thick hide

of the big, flabby creature—perhaps in some !
remote and less sensitive portion of its structure. .

Thus “encouraged” the weaker elements inside the
j

,

54



smaller unit begin to show signs of wanting to

“amalgamate” with the big, influential “brother-

in-law-to-a-sponge.”

Gradually the new “party” moves in, punctur-

ing its way through the oozey texture of its

spineless host — irritating certain elements here
and there and causing miscellaneous internal

splits. But the agitation soon subsides and the

cracks finally heal. Before long the bloated proto-

zoon appears much the same as before except for

a slight bulge which vaguely gives the impression

of an awkward two-headedness. This condition,

too, is soon ironed out and life goes on again,

occasionally repeating the process while the proto-

zoon grows fat and smug.

Just as the protozoon owes its continuing exist-

ence to the one-celled simplicity of its structure,

so our modern party machines can trace their

longevity to the hearty, single-purpose life they

lead. They trouble themselves with only one func-

tion — to win elections so they can continue
bartering jobs, contracts and influence.

The machines have three natural enemies

—

Civil Service, The Lobby, and third parties —
with each of which they must compete for their

55



sustenance, for their very life’s blood. They devote

much of their time, energy and money in seeking

to prevent competent men and women from

obtaining government jobs through qualifying

examinations — and they tangle constantly with
The Lobby over legislators’ votes, influence and

patronage. And some three or four dozen third

parties have been “absorbed” by the machines

during the past century and a half.

Leaders of the machines love to tell of their

devotion to the “deathless traditions, principles

and issues sacred to the party.” History shows,

however, that such traditions, issues and prin-

ciples have been paid tribute by individuals in

all parties. Hence the “Republicanism” of Lincoln

closely resembled the “Democracy” of Jefferson

—

the “Democracy” of Buchanan the “Republi-

canism” of Harding, etc.

Spokesmen for all our parties have been ati

some time or other champions of war and of I

peace, of booze and of temperance, of slavery and

of abolition, of capital and of labor, of free trade

and of tariff, etc. The temper of the times — not
the party label — has determined, and always
will, the “opinions” of statesmen. It would prove

56



suicidal for the party itself to have official
“opin-

ions” on any subject.

Those who dream idly of building “third par-

ties”—except in terms of a “following” for some
outstanding leader, have failed to understand

the

jdynamic that has fashioned every third
party in

our history. For in third parties, too, citizens,
in

the final analysis, vote for the man, not the party.

Third parties arise when strong leaders stand

at the helm, beckoning to their people. Never do

they take root merely because someone decides

'that “a need for a new party exists.”

Something like that is true, also, of “realign-

ment.” Voters line up behind a great
public figure,

regardless of his or their party label, and as a

result a realignment of the party registration

;

follows. But the strange notion persists anyhow

that “liberals” and “conservatives” (who can de-

fine them in today’s confusion?) should be arbi-

trarily sorted out and separated into two neat

.packages with or without their consent! Anyone

who got as far as McGuffey’s Third Reader

should know that our American democratic re-

public is itself founded upon a “liberal” — nay,
a “radical”—revolutionary principle of freedom!

57



Who wants to be classed as conservative? Only aj
tiny handful in Congress are willing to so label

themselves, even when the “rightists” are in

ascendency. Same in our legislatures.

When President Eisenhower took office and

began to grapple with foreign affairs (which had

dominated campaign oratory) he found himself

doing just about what Adlai Stevenson would

have done. Non-aggressive nations like America

can do no more than prepare to retaliate decisively

in case a foreign aggressor makes a daring ad-

vance. Unlike an industrial plant, for example,

a peace-seeking, non-imperial nation cannot have

long-range programs. Only totalitarian states

have “five-year plans” and aggressive, long-range

schemes for government-controlled production

and warfare.

Leaders of Federalist, Democratic, Whig and

Republican Parties have been ready to change

their opinions on important issues as the changing

times and conditions have warranted. Thus the

great issues which are supposed to divide the

parties are shown to have been non-partisan

through the years. For instance the Democrat,

Madison, opposed formation of the United States

58



Bank, prior to the War of 1812, but after the

War he changed his mind, since the war had

drastically altered economic conditions. He also

signed the first Protective Tariff law, (although

tariffs are assumed to be the private province

of Republicans!) As a matter of fact the first

four tariff laws in our history, those of 1816, 1824,

1828 and 1832 were drafted and promoted by

Democrats.

Other outspoken leaders of the parties have

reversed themselves on basic, socalled “party”

issues, Webster and Calhoun trading sides in the

controversy over the fundamental banking issues

that raged in the early days of our democracy. In

later days we find the Republican, McKinley,

favoring bi-metalism and then repudiating his

stand in order to oppose the great “free-silver”

advocate, William Jennings Bryan, the Democrat.

Each year the terms “liberal” and “conserva-

tive” grow less useful in classifying statesmen.

More and more our political decisions are becom-

ing scientific and technical in their nature. Less

and less can they be classified as either “left” or

“right.” The beautious traditions and sentiments

which the party orators pretend to adore are

59



irrelevant in an age which must decide — often
hastily — just how much national defense, and
what kind, must be provided immediately.

If Jefferson and Lincoln could come back today

they would very probably not go near the present

Democratic and Republican Parties with a ten-

foot pole, although the party hacks never tire of

referring to the “traditions” of these two fighters

for social justice. But the only traditions that still

live today which could, by any stretch of the

imagination be considered the peculiar heritage

of the Democratic Party itself are the unique

gangster methods of party organizing. The tech-

nique was made famous by Tammany Hall and
its outlying branches, the machines of bosses

Crump, Hague, Kelly and Nash, Pendergast, etc.

These local organizations represent the real heart-

beat of the Party. Without their Hooliganism and

payoff systems the Party certainly could never

have achieved its present “greatness!”

As for the “conservative” Republican Party, its

basic traditions are fully recorded in its first

newspaper, Horace Greeley’s “farmer-labor” New
York Tribune. The Party leadership and its paper

were both considered quite leftish in their day,

60



with Karl Marx himself as European corres-

pondent and a regular column on “Utopian Social-

ism” by Albert Brisbane — in addition to the
“radical” Abe Lincoln, who was the Party’s first

President. (Of course, styles have a way of chang'

ing abruptly sometimes—even in a party’s “basic
traditions!”)

It was Republicans like La Follette, Norris,

Borah, Olsen, Lindbergh, Nye, Lemke, Amlie,

etc., who formed the solid backbone of 20th

Century progressivism in the vast agricultural

Northwest. Yet, Republican Old Guard leader-

ship prefers to emphasize instead the much briefer

pro-tariff conservatism of the McKinley era, just

prior to the turn of the century. “Traditions” are

exactly what any contemporary party hack wishes

to make them — no more, no less.
“Voice of the People” is a favorite term applied

to the Parties by their temporary leaders. A mom-
ent’s reflection will brush away any notion that

either of the big parties could ever serve in such

capacity. For example, citizens in every American

community will often gather spontaneously in

small, local mass meetings to discuss some imme-

diate and urgent problem. Let us say it is a glar-

61



ing tax injustice, a sudden crime epidemic, an

imminent threat against public health, a school-

fund scandal— or whatnot.
But harken to the opening words of the tem-

porary chairman ! At these grass roots gatherings

—which usually “mean business” and mince no
words about it — those first words are something
like this: “Ladies and gentlemen, let me empha-

size at the outset that this group is determined

to remain strictly non-partisan in every manner

and respect!” Instinctively the people seem to

realize that the parties, by their very definition

will surely “part”— not unify— the power of the
group, and that their strength would be immedi-

ately dissipated if they allowed party lines to

bi-sect them. And conversely the power of the

machine would be dissipated too if it permitted

issues to fragmentize them.

So it is in national and foreign affairs also. The

best wisdom of the times must be concentrated

on each problem as it appears. Even if party

traditions were valid they could scarcely aid us

in solving the ticklish diplomatic problems of our

atomic age.

Analysis of the bales of voting records of state

62



legislators and Congressmen on all issues both

domestic and foreign indicates that party lines

play a very small part in determining a member’s

vote. Party whips and floor leaders will bend

every effort, of course, to swing party power

behind important legislation but their control of

votes has approached zero during the past two or

three decades. Reasons for voting this way or

that are many and varied, but party ties seem to

have little or no significance in legislative halls,

except in minor matters where a party vote may

bring some trifling advantage to a member. Inde-

pendence is valued as highly in our great deliber-

ative bodies as in the precinct voting booth!

Yet it is in the organizing of each Congress

that the power of The Party is supposed to be

most evident. For example, aside from the matter

of seniority a legislator’s chance for “promotion”

to important committees may depend to a greater

or less extent upon the regularity of his party

votes. But on the whole, the spirit of Party, and

machine control of either house, is fast fading

from the American scene.

What about “party responsibility” at the grass

roots? Under our direct primary laws— which all

63



but one state have adopted — any citizen may
run for any elective office he chooses, and on any

party ticket he believes will spell victory for him.

He carries on his own primary campaign, inter-

preting issues as he himself sees them — in fact
the Party is morally, and sometimes legally, in-

hibited from taking sides in a primary election.

The strange notion that a party machine or

any of its bosses — or any part of the organi-
zation — could “stand responsible” for any and
all candidates who choose to run, for each one’s

personal integrity as well as all of his pet projects

and issues— is not very far short of complete
nonsense. As for supporting the “official plat-

form,” only a hypocrite or a complete fool would

make such a pretense in the primary election since

platforms are written by men chosen at the same

primary; hence platforms don’t even exist at the

time the “pledges of support” are in order!

One of the crudest of all hoaxes perpetrated

upon the people at the grass roots is that widely

accepted fiction that the Democratic Party, some-

how or other, is the party of “labor.” Poor, tired

old Sam Gompers, first President and founder of
the American Federation of Labor, devoted half

64



his life and most of his energy to a vain and

totally unrewarding attempt to put down this

completely false doctrine which has proved

disastrous to the cause of working people every-

where. There is no specialized group on the

American scene that stands to profit more by a

steadfast policy of non-partisanism; yet it seems

that at the eleventh hour before each election

day the moguls of Organized Labor and the

Democratic bigwigs “manage to get together”

—

or discover that they “agree in principle.” Any-

way, just in the nick of time Labor’s political

torchlight parade is headed off into the Demo-

cratic camp, and all is forgiven.

Long before the days of Sam Gompers a politi-

cal technique for ensnaring the trade unions was

developed inside the Republican Party. When

President Grant ran for his second term he put

up a shoe cobbler as his Vice-Presidential running

mate, to attract the “working man’s vote.” Dur-

ing the ensuing administration several vain-

glorious labor leaders from the newly-formed

Knights of Labor were given worthless “chair-

manships” in the party councils—thereby setting
a pattern followed til this day for keeping Organ-

65



ized Labor “in line.”

It was President Cleveland — a Democrat —
who cynically and illegally called out Federal

troops against the workers in the Pullman Strike

of 1894 — which was the first great precedent-
making assault upon Organized Labor by Ameri-

can soldiers. In modern times, such “labor-

control” laws as the Smith-Connally Act and the

Taft-Hartley Act have been supported equally by

Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

Even in the “anti-labor” Senate a recent tally of

the “top dozen” pro-labor-voting members showed

an equal distribution from each Party. As a

matter of fact in the top nine were five Republi-

cans and only four Democrats—Morse, Smith,
Lodge, Aiken, Saltonstall and Ives (Rep.)

and Douglas, Kefauver, Lehman, and Fulbright

(Dem.). And, as indicated a few pages back, the

Republican Party began life as a “farmer-labor”

party anyway.

Another political myth that is recklessly bandied

about is to the effect that the party out of power

is “essential to our form of government” because

it serves as a “loyal opposition” — constantly
nudging our public officials into good behaviour

66



by being ready at all times to offer criticism and

dissent. (The complete phrase was originally “His

Majesty’s Loyal Opposition” and represents one

of our many stupid attempts to borrow old-world

political concepts.)

In the British Parliament “His Majesty’s Loyal

Opposition” plays a rather distinct role. But the

form and functioning of the British Government

and its political parties have so little in common

with ours that for us to adopt a chopped-off half

of one of their political terms seems rather silly

and infantile, to put it mildly.

It is common practice for prominent men and

women in every field— and particularly in public
life — to sharply criticise government admini-
strators, from the President on down, for what the

former might consider a bad course of action.

Organizations, too—civic, patriotic, labor, farm-
er, business, educational or whatnot — also are
found raking the government or its agents over

the coals for some specific deed believed by them

to be not in the public interest.

And such criticism is very often immediately

effective, bringing a sudden reversal of policy and

a hint of an apology, even, from the particular

67



executive or underling who “went too far” (or

perhaps merely used poor judgement or timing.)

But the point that must be emphasized here is

that no political party nor its “spokesman,” as

such, has either the facilities or the authority to

present anything akin to “loyal opposition” suffi-

cient to even discipline or reprimand a fellow

party member, let alone a public office holder of

the opposition party! It is the quick-witted,

sharp-tongued individual that scares the official

—not the party.
To know the real party, as a concrete, going

concern, one must visit a County- or State-

Central Committee meeting in some populous

region. Here is the actual “business office” of the

party machine. In these gatherings, and in the

smoke-filled rooms close by, occur the life-and-

death struggles for existence of the patronage-

mongers. It is here that the running fight against

the Civil Service merit system is planned and

organized; it is here that the strategy is laid down

for muscling in on the payoff that The Lobby

receives for legislative favors, from commercial

and industrial interests.

Throughout our national history each of the

68



forty-eight states has experimented with hun-

dreds of election laws designed to curb the power

of the Machine and to encourage independent

voting. A detailed study of this 175-year-old
crazy-quilt of legislation would, by itself, fill a

five-foot shelf of books. Such study would prove

rewarding, however, for it would demonstrate

how sordid have been the motives and how un-

scrupulous the methods of those who have held

the reins of behind-the-scenes political power in

America.

Millions of American voters each year have

felt more and more ridiculous as they drew the

voting-booth curtain behind them and tried to

affect a patriotic solemnity while making their

random choice between a machine-bossed Demo-

crat on the ballot and a machine-bossed Republi-

can!

In this enlightened day, the human creatures

on this whirling gyroscope called Earth have

learned that the letter of the law grows obso-

lescent at a rapidly increasing pace. Whether we

like it or not we must place our confidence in the

human leaders among us. When their best judge-
ment falters, when their integrity withers away,

69



we must replace them as hastily as we can, and

find new ones. Leadership — genuine leadership
— must, as always, come from living, contem-
porary leaders if it is to be dynamic and effective,

and not from hand-me-down totem-poles nor

fetishes, either written or graven ! On November

4, California chose human leadership in prefer-

ence to totem-poles ! Instinctively the people acted

to shake free from their political shackles — as a
growing tadpole struggles to slough off its out-

grown and obstructive tail.

Is the rest of the nation willing once again to

“look toward the sunset” and accept the challenge

laid down by the pioneering citizens who have
carved a new agricultural and industrial empire
in the sunny hills and valleys of California—and
have carved also a bold, new political tradition?

70



CHAPTER NINE

“WHAT SHALL WE SUBSTITUTE

FOR THE PARTIES?”

In earlier chapters we noted that various ab-

stract “key words” were used by party spokesmen

to suggest definite functions and properties of the

parties. For example, we saw that each party is

supposed to possess its own set of “traditions,”

“principles,” and “issues” which are claimed as

the specific appurtenances of this party or that.

We found that the parties are assumed to pro-
mote “responsibility,” “loyalty,” “regularity” and

“discipline.” They are said to serve as “unifiers

of public opinion,” “forums for debating and

clarifying new ideas,” — and to form a “loyal
opposition.”

However, we discovered on close scrutiny that

71



the relationship of each of these fine-sounding

intangibles to any existing parties was either

(1) hopelessly obsolete, (2) purely theoretical,

(3) completely fictitious, (4) fantastically legend-

ary—or (5) just plain phony! In the strong sun-
light the entire category evaporates like a filmy

soap-bubble

!

What does one substitute for a soap-bubble?

Let us turn, instead, to the more concrete ele-

ments of the party and see if we can discover

some part of the structure that is really perform-

ing a useful function. We will find that the tan-
gible segments of our jig-saw puzzle are just three

in number, comprising the mechanisms for organ-

izing campaigns, elections, and legislative bodies.

Let us look at each of these functions separately.

CAMPAIGNS

Every candidate who runs for public office in

America—whether for town constable, legislator
or president—begins with a small or large per-
sonal following of citizens who are convinced

that the particular candidate concerned can and

72



should be elected. Without such more or less

spontaneous and well-defined nucleus the candi-

date could not launch his campaign. The party

organizations have nothing whatever to do with

the forming and developing of these personal

followings. Only if and when the candidate

succeeds in winning the party nomination under

his own steam does the party machine swing

into action behind him with all its bunting,

brass-bands and ballyhoo. If he is elected his top

assistants are chosen from this following — with
or without the sanction of the Machine.

Throughout his political career the man in

public life must develop and expand his personal

following — which is the measure of his political
strength. Party bosses may smile or frown upon

his candidacy or his incumbency, but the man

with the strong personal following is unbeatable,

nevertheless.

F.D.R., who has been called the greatest poli-

tician of modern times, feared no party. Eisen-

hower didn’t fear the parties either: in fact when

his campaign was just budding he said he would

not run unless both conventions nominated him!

In his political technique he stood in sharp con-

73



trast to Roosevelt but both men demonstrated

the impotence of party machines against a man

with a strong personal following. It is the latter

that does the campaigning — eventually com-
prising the dominant portion of the party ma-

chine. After Eisenhower was nominated he made

a series of “deals” with the regular party bosses

(led by the late Senator Taft) in order to gain

their support for the general election in the Fall.

But note that he, like every other executive

worthy of the name, has made many appointments

over the heads of party machine bosses.

He named three Democrats to his original cabi-
net (Durkin, Anderson and Hobby) causing a

violent rasping of gears inside the machine

!

In victory, the “following” forms the sinews

of government, filling most of the top govern-

mental posts. In defeat it becomes the genuine

“loyal opposition” and the potential threat which

keeps the incumbents “in line.”

California’s cross-filing law permitted former

Governor Earl Warren to campaign in Republi-

can and Democratic Parties at the same time and

become the first Governor in history to be nomi-

nated by voters of both parties. It was his broad-

74



minded non-partisanism, in fact, that led to his

eventual appointment as Chief Justice of the

United States Supreme Court — the first Cali-
fornian to fill this post. Like F.D.R. and Eisen-

hower, he was able to build up a wide following

of campaigners and boosters in both parties. The

careers of all three men are a vindication of Cali-

fornia’s determination to keep cross-filing. For

each of these leaders fashioned his own “party”

to a large extent, to fit his own temperament, his

own principles — and the particular problems
which confronted him at the moment. Each of

them chose their own top aides to fill important

policy-making posts — even though it meant
breaking with the party hacks to do so

!

All great leaders, in free governments, have

done the same, and when the leader passed on

the personalized “party” he built disintegrated

along with his bones. And new leaders came along,

in time, to grapple with new issues and new

problems— and to form new “parties” of follow-
ers and campaign workers. Particularly in a

dynamic, pioneering, trail-blazing democracy

such as ours the stupidity of the theory of fixed,

75



tradition-bound political parties should have been

recognized long ago.

In an age whose world diplomacy is constantly

being punctuated by unheralded explosions of

atomic and hydrogen bombs we ought to be able

to recognize that the traditions which are sup-

posed to be idolized by our two parties are hope-

lessly irrelevant and impotent. The torchlight

sentimentalism of the “two-party system” belongs

to a period of our history that has passed; it can

no more be “restored” or “renewed” than Euro-

pean Feudalism or the Dark Ages can be rein-

carnated in the Old World!

LEGISLATIVE BODIES

The choosing of officers and committees in Con-

gress and State Legislatures according to party

lines is a piece of ritualism that has thwarted and

frustrated genuine statesmanship in America for

many generations. The party base of the commit-

tees serves no constructive purpose but simply aids

in the party’s back-stage wire pulling, log-rolling

and mutual back-scratching. In the committee

room, in the cloakroom, and out on the floor the

76



party organization has the same obstructionist

effect upon legislation for the general welfare as

the firmly entrenched “seniority system” for as-

signing the committees’ chairmanships. There is

nothing in any of these protocols that could not be

easily and profitably cancelled out as soon as we

decide we are ready to sweep a few musty cob-

webs from our wagon-rut thinking.

ELECTIONS

Here, at last, is where we run up against

a stone wall. The election machinery of America

is rooted in a vast network of legislation— legis-
lation that is engraved on the statute books of

the forty-eight states; and in no two states do

we find identical election procedures. Each set

of laws is designed with an eye to regulating,

restricting and defining the privileges of that

state’s political parties. They are the fruition of

much debate and soul-searching, for the struggles

of our ancestors to find true democracy at the

ballot boxes of the nation has been a rough and

tortuous road. At every election-day milepost

77



there has loomed the threat of what we have

recently learned to call “the smoke-filled room.”

In each state the maze of restrictive legislation is

complex enough, but multiplied by forty-eight it

becomes a veritable barb-wire entanglement!

In moving from one state to another people

naturally try to bring their voting habits with

them, just as they bring along their religions and

their lodge membership. But the mammoth crazy-

quilt of strange election-day procedure that is

waiting to confuse the roving citizen when he

ventures across his own state line is, as a rule,

something he hasn’t counted on. This is one tragic

reason why so many Americans have given up

voting altogether. Many have come to feel that
their bewilderment is the result of some cynical

conspiracy and have resigned themselves to “leave

politics to those who understand it” — with the
present disastrous effect upon the integrity of our

democratic processes.

It is this “stone wall” phase of the party struc-

ture that has engaged the attention of California

voters. Citizens of the Gold Rush State — with
the bold, forthrightness of pioneers written into

their state’s history — care “not a hoot nor a

78



holler” for all the tired old party promises and

inane platforms which represent so shoddy an

example of the “responsibility” which the Bosses

like to orate about. California’s progressive elec-

torate seems content to simply get away from it

all and vote for those men, regardless of party

labels, who either have demonstrated their ability

and integrity or who seem worth taking a chance

on. And to balance up the odds in the gamble the

voters have developed the initiative, referendum

and recall to a high degree of efficiency. They pre-

fer these non-partisan weapons — and the merit
system for filling “political jobs”—to any fanciful
“party responsibility.”

Before cross-filing was introduced, the state’s

“closed primary” system formed a Maginot Line

against all independent voters. For in California

each voter receives only the ballot of his own

party as he enters the voting booth, and the non-

partisan who “declines to state” a party prefer-
ence forfeits his chance to vote in the primaries.

However, since the candidates may cross-file

their names to both party ballots the non-partisan

can, as an alternative, name either party as his

“preference” and still find almost all candidates

79



listed on his ballot regardless of party. This non-

partisan action on his part in no way interferes

with his neighbor’s privilege of voting a “straight

party ticket” should he so desire.

In our democratic republic the struggle to re-

main unfettered has centered around such issues

as: (1) the direct primary, (2) the initiative, ref-

erendum and recall, (3) the introduction of civil

service merit systems, (4) relaxation of voting

restrictions, (5) re-enfranchisement of “decline-

to-state” voters, (6) popular election of United

States Senators, judges, school boards and local

administrators, (7) woman’s suffrage, and (8) the

greatest seven-league stride of all, the cross-filing

of candidates’ names to both party ballots so that

every voter can see the entire field.

These are peculiarly non-partisan issues. Ameri-

cans have had to battle the party bosses every

inch of the way to push them through ! And they

are still at it, for eternal vigilance is the price of

liberty. It is disconcerting, therefore, to find so

many of our so-called “liberal leaders” ready, at

the drop of the hat, to throw in their lot with the

notorious party bosses—just as though America
had no finer brand of liberalism to defend than

80



that exemplified, for instance, at the 1952 national

conventions

!

One cannot help but recall the bitter, challeng-

ing words of Walt Whitman, one of America’s

best-loved poets, who penned the following re-

marks as he observed a political campaign of a

century ago:

“Today, of all the persons in public office in the

States, not one in a thousand has been chosen by a

spontaneous movement of the people; all have been

nominated and put. through by great or small

caucuses of the politicians, or appointed as rewards

for electioneering.

“Well, what more? Is nothing but breed upon

breed like these to be represented? Where is the

real America ? Where are the laboring persons,

ploughmen, men with axes, scythes, flails? Where
are the carpenters, machinists, masons? Where is the

spirit of manliness and commonsense in these States?

It does not appear in the Government. Never were

these States so insulted, and attempted to be betrayed.

“Whence the delegates of the politicians? Whence

the Buchanan and Fillmore conventions? [represent-

ing the Democratic and Whig Parties] Not from
sturdy American Freemen; not from industrious

homes nor thrifty farms; not from the ranks of fresh-

bodied young men— not from among teachers,
savants,— not from among learned, beloved and
temperate persons. . . .”

More and more frequently, nowadays, as the

enemies of freedom all over the world close in on

81



their victims, we hear the question echoed in

America by some lone, despairing voice
—
“What

is happening to liberalism in the United States?”

With each repetition the query seems to grow

more academic and rhetorical.

Why has the question of liberalism in America
become academic? Is it because the study of poli-

tical science in our schools has become content

to remain academic? Is America paying the pen-

alty today because political science in our univer-

sities has remained a dry-as-dust “descriptive”

and “analytic” subject, like nineteenth century

history or grammar? Perhaps it has concentrated

too heavily on classifying and pigeon-holing the

experiments and blunders of our groping past.

No doubt if American political scientists, like

present-day biologists or geologists, for example,

strove to relate their subject to the actual prob-

lems that confront us today our textbooks would

not be filled as they are with obsolete gibberish

about “party programs” and “party responsi-

bility.” If the basic, grass-roots drives and politi-

cal trends were as clearly understood by the

high-brows in our colleges as they are by the

“rabble” who mark ballots in voting booths we

82



might have a better chance to avoid the chaos

that sometimes appears to be just around the

corner.

Yet the “cultural lag” theory is supposed to

refer principally to that mythical “man in the

street”—the hoi-polloi ! In the September 1950,
issue of the “American Political Science Review”

an effort was made to summarize the best think-

ing of the entire profession relative to the strength-

ening of our Country’s political structure. The

mountain labored and brought forth a mouse

entitled “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party

System.” This lengthy study was so completely

unrelated to the actualities of the American poli-

tical scene that it could well be recommended to

weary social science students as “escape liter-

ature!” It seemed to be discussing, not the struc-

ture of American democracy, but the imaginary

figment of some strange scene on a far-away

planet.

We have failed to build political structures to
encourage the rapid development of competent

leadership and to facilitate the speedy handling

of the urgent issues which confront our atomic

age. Instead we have allowed “politics -for-profit”

83



to develop as a normal facet of our dollar-dom-

inated “American way of life.” Foreign observers

have noted that “In the United States everything

is for sale—even the politicians.” It is an unfair
generalization, of course, though not entirely

unjustified.

We have sown the wind and are reaping the
whirlwind. In recent years the parties, with their

torchlight parades, conventions and carnivals,

seem to have concentrated on trying to out-clown

one another.

Only well-fed, geographically-isolated America

could possibly have gotten away with so frivolous

an attitude toward politics

!

But the invention of the airplane has sobered

some of us, and the invention of the atomic bomb

has scared the rest of us stiff. We are beginning
to sense that something more than a pair of sym-

bolic animals will be required to save us and our

civilization from complete annihilation.

The tools we need to clean out the sink-holes

of American politics and equip ourselves to cope

with the perilous stalemates of international

affairs are immediately within our grasp. But we

have been too preoccupied with prostrating our-

84



selves before political totem-poles to develop these

tools intelligently. We have failed to utilize the
very democracy which the pioneers of our nation

have bequeathed to us.

In the foregoing pages we have seen that Amer-

ica’s political parties are more legendary than

they are real. What many of us have ludicrously

assumed to be all-encompassing and all-powerful

we find to be composed largely of superstition and

mysticism. Frequently we have been like the small

boy who complained that

“Last night, on the stair,

I saw a funny little man

Who wasn’t even there

!

He wasn’t there again today

—

(Oh, how I wish he’d go away!)”

America is mature enough to lay aside the

bogey-men and tall tales surrounding her political

structure and grapple with the tangible realities.

And these realities, as we have seen, can be ap-

proached only on a non-partisan basis.

Since the days of the Founding Fathers non-

partisanism, as a courageous movement against

85



centralized power in our political life, has had a

difficult time of it. During our own generation it

has burst forth as a spontaneous Midwestern re-

volt of agrarianism against an intolerable banking

structure, and more recently as the united political

voice of workingmen. The Non-Partisan League

of the wheat farmers and Labor’s Non-Partisan

League twenty years later were destined to be

short-lived, however, since they argued only for

two segments of America’s economy.

There is no doubting, however, that the basic

approach of these great movements—involving
disenchantment from the hypnotic spell of the

party machine bosses—is clearly indicated in the
present stage of political erosion into which we
have finally muddled.

86



CHAPTER TEN

LET’S GET TO WORK!

Today, American citizens, regardless of occu-

pation, who still believe democracy can be made

to function, can easily carry the political balance

of power against the entrenched Machines. If we

will act in unison the proud banner of non-

partisanism can wave for every citizen who has a

stake in our nation’s future and who abhors the

corruption in his government and the moral stag-

nation in high places close to the government.

But we must mobilize the high-principled, moral

elements in our schools and churches, in our civic,

business, labor, professional and veteran’s groups,

in our governmental agencies and patriotic organi-

zations. We need to enlist all who are convinced
that by a united non-partisan effort we can re-

87



move the selfish political forces which have a

tight strangle-hold on our election machinery.

Unhampered by the legal restrictions which

would surround us if we formed “just another

third party” our non-partisan league in each

community can select people of competence and

independence for every elective office, whether

local, state or national. We will run them as
candidates on whatever party ticket promises

greatest success. After working for their election

we will support them in their legislative halls as

a loyal peoples’ lobby—providing them the grass-
roots support which legislators have seldom en-

joyed in the past!

To prevent corruption of state and local non-

partisan leagues the major aims of each one

should be indellibly and unchangeably engraved

into the charter of the local organization. If any

league should abandon its basic tenets it will also

abandon its right to use the title of the organi-

zation.

Unlike a political party, each local non-partisan

league can be kept self-cleansing— eliminating
traitors and “phonies” as soon as they are found

violating the charter. Each local and state league

88



will manage its own affairs and raise its own

funds to elect its own chosen slates of candidates.

The national organization will serve chiefly as

a clearing house for accumulating and coordinat-

ing information and statistics to aid the overall

national picture.

At the County Seat or Town Hall one can

usually get copies of maps for determining bound-

aries of the various election districts. When local

non-partisan leagues have been organized for

choosing and electing state legislators and town

and county officials, these groups should be

brought together on a Congressional District basis

to undertake the selection of a Representative in

Congress. For endorsing and campaigning for

United States Senators, Governors and other state-

wide officers the Congressional Districts should

send delegates to state councils.

As soon as any local or state league becomes

powerful enough to accomplish results the pro-

fessional party politicians will attempt to move

in and take over. Whether they are successful or

not must remain the responsibility of the consci-

entious leaders of each group. Of course, if the

customary run of party-minded individuals are

89



permitted to run the show from a party stand-

point, then the betrayed name of the organization

will automatically be detached from the corrupted

unit. Much will depend, of course, on the fibre

of those who ascend to leadership in each local

league. Only those wholeheartedly and unswerv-

ingly committed to the league’s ideals should be

permitted a voice in the group’s affairs.

The new type of organization should succeed

in developing a host of tough-minded meeting-

chairmen who do not tolerate the slightest devi-

ation or distraction from the central goal. Those

who waste the organization’s time with such tac-

tics must be disciplined together with the long-

winded member who makes a hundred words do

the work of ten. If every non-partisan league

meeting is very brief and very much to the point

the over-all success of the movement will be

assured.

The program will vary according to the political

situation and election laws in each state. The

immediate work of the local league should be

concentrated toward finding and electing a high

type of men and women to fill every elective office

in every election district. In each district the

90



voters should be urged to register into the party

of that candidate which the league has chosen

to back—regardless of former sentimental affili-
ations. If we are to be successful we must be at

least as realistic as the enemy—we must use the
legal party machinery as it is presently geared to

operate: as a practical instrumentality rather than

as a romantic fetish.

When each election is over the interest and the

membership that have been built up must be put

to work planning for the long-term objectives to

which the local league is to dedicate itself. The

basic essentials should be the development and

promotion of:

—

1. Cross-filing laws where none exist.

2. Non-partisan ballots to re-enfranchise “decline-to-

state” voters in primary elections.

3. A national primary for choosing Presidential and Vice-
Presidential candidates.

4. Introduction of the initiative, referendum and recall

where they do not already exist.

5. Extension of civil service merit systems to all levels of

government.

6. Drafting laws to disqualify candidates for their own
false statements during a campaign.

7. Providing state-controlled publicity allocations for all

candidates and issues—in press, radio and television.

91



8. Proclamation of all election days as legal holidays.

9. Shifting of alcoholic beverage licensing from state to

local control, in order to protect juveniles, and im-

prove local law enforcement.

10. Place narcotics law enforcement in the hands of citi-

zens’ committees not approachable by the political

“payoff.”

11. Conversion of state legislatures into unicameral bodies,

thus raising the standards and pay of the members

—

as well as facilitating control of lobbies.

12. Encouragement of “peoples’ lobbies” and staffs of

government-supported technical experts to advise leg-

islative committees—in order to eliminate the present
one-sided influence of private lobbyists. Tightening of

lobby registrations laws.

13. Extending the democratic principle of home rule to

cities and counties.

14. Liberalizing of voting restrictions to broaden the base

of the electorate.

15. Extension of free public educational facilities.

16. Improvement of local industrial health and safety laws,

workmen’s compensation, and child-labor restrictions.

17. More equitable administration of veterans’ affairs, to

favor the returned service man rather than the lend-

ing institutions.

18. Applying the principle of “ability to pay” to all tax

levies.

19. Rewriting of obsolete state constitutions to streamline

governmental functions and eliminate duplication and

overlapping.

92



20. Stimulating popular interest in politics by dramatizing

and celebrating the dislodgment of political bosses,

their corrupt machines and their spoils system.

Other issues, both immediate and long-term,

will be waiting for the local leagues to grapple

with—issues which the two parties have been
unwilling to tackle because of their “controversial

nature.” In fact the non-partisan league will find

itself actually performing those little chores which

are traditionally and theoretically, but never

actually, the province of the Party. These will

include “clarifying” new ideas, “debating” con-

troversial matters, spotting and ousting the trait-

ors and fakers from the ranks, actively taking

sides on all issues and aggressively working to

elect a high type of candidate to each office

—

they are all “party” duties which American poli-

tical parties, paradoxically, cannot perform, for

such is the stupid partisan morass into which we
have blindly led ourselves!

The national office of the league will stand

ready to put you into contact with others in your

state and community who see promise in such

a program as outlined above. It will attempt to

provide a national cohesion and national view-

93



point for educational and election campaigns on

the nation-wide level. Further than that it will

have no jurisdiction. The conditions in each state

must dictate the local program.

Our new concept of political organization will

face the fact of state sovereignty — 48 separate
entities, 48 separate sets of laws, 48 sets of histori-

cal precedents each one jealously guarded. The

peculiar combination of national cohesion and

state sovereignty has never been held in political

balance by the parties. The latter have had no

effective national organization to perfect such a

balance. They have, instead, endeavored to be all

things to all men and to all big interests. As a

result they have been nothing, from the stand-

point of cohesion and historical effectiveness. The

non-partisan league can, if it wills to do it, face

all issues and all men squarely, and in the doing

it will provide, also, a genuine program and a

genuine responsibility, without farce and without

flinching

!

With a purpose such as this formed into a

dynamic program, carried forward by determined

men and women eager to recapture their fading
dream of “popular sovereignty” a thrilling new

94



vitality will soon spread across the land. It will

infect the great bulk of the conscientious citizenry

of every state of the 48—and in time remake the
entire warp and woof of our present shakey poli-

tical structure.

And in the offing will eventually appear the

irresistible force of a revived democracy to re-

claim the confidence of all those who love freedom

everywhere. We shall present an overwhelming
challenge to warmakers and corrupters of the

people’s will wherever they occur.

The Machines, with ail their end-products of

disillusionment, despair and cynical resignation

will not have to be kicked out! In the warm
sunlight of a re-awakened and re-energized

American democracy they will disappear like

the last snows of winter!

95



Tnw\
“The juices of history seem to be working

on our two major parties.**

—ROBERT BENDINER

(Politics and People, Dec. 1949.)

* •» *

“
. . . the Democratic platform is sheer plati-

tudes and the Republican is mere noisy ambi-

guity ...”

—WALTER LIPPMANN

(after the 1952 Conventions•)

* *

“What is called a two-party system in the

United States is a myth ...”

—RAYMOND MOLEY

(How to Keep Our Liberty.—Dec. *52)

* * *

(i
The United States cannot afford one more

of these quadrennial orgies. It is time for

America to grow up.**

—DOROTHY THOMPSON

(after the 1952 elections.)

96



CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE TO SAVE CROSS-FILING

Harold M. Guthrie (for Education)

(Professor of History, West Coast University)

Thomas R. Kennedy (for Agriculture)

Fresno , Calif.

Norman Bancroft (for Labor)

(U.R.M, Local HI)

J. K. Lambertson, D.D. (for the Churches)

(Pastor, Southwest Lutheran Church, Los Angeles)

James M. Hall (for Veterans)

(U.S.N. retired*)

Harvey Ackerman (for Business)

(Pres. Monmoth Machine Corp.)

Helen M. Turner (for ’Women’s Groups)

George H, Fisher (at large) Chairman

Francis B. Turner (at large)

Martha Danielson (at large)

Peter Roberts (at large)



“On a shelf In my cellar are two bulky

wiine bottles which remind me of America’s

political parties. Both have gaudy labels,

boasting luridly of their contents. However,

hoth are empty !”,

—JAMES BRYCE
(“The American Commonwealth”)

“In America the party goals are not good

government but merely the sordid spoils of

victory.”

—ALEXlS DE TOCQUEVILLE
(“Democracy In America?’)