Part 29

Chapter 293,432 wordsPublic domain

An exceptional instance of an attempt to analyze an election without preliminary bias appears in a study of “The Political Mind of Foreign-born Americans,” contributed by Dr. Abram Lipsky to _Popular Science Monthly_ several years ago,[169] in which he undertook by analysis of the election returns from a number of Assembly Districts in Greater New York, predominantly of a certain racial complexion, to infer the attitude of those racial groups on certain subjects. But it is clear that the inferences, however they may have been justified by the figures from this election, were based upon questionable assumptions. Still more important, it is altogether fallacious to assume that in another election, wherein the issues were stated differently or the general political atmosphere was different, these very districts, these very individual voters of whatever race, might not vote quite otherwise. A state of mind among the Italian-born voters, provoked, for example, by their understanding of the attitude of Mr. Wilson on the subject of Fiume, might produce Republican votes in one election; whereas a year later, in an election in which their interests at home or abroad were believed by them to be otherwise affected, their votes might be overwhelmingly Democratic.

One of the questions which Doctor Lipsky undertook to answer from the election figures was whether the voters in the selected districts “read the Hearst papers regularly.” He inferred his answer from the vote cast in those districts for the candidates which happened to be favored by the newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst. But the basic assumption was fallacious, overlooking entirely the notorious fact that repeatedly elections in New York City have been won in spite of the opposition, or lost in spite of the support, of virtually the entire newspaper press of the city. As logically might one assume from any election that the vote, pro or contra, on any subject represented the circulation of some particular group of newspapers whose views the election indorsed.

Nearer the probabilities, but still subject to the same kind of discount, is Doctor Lipsky’s generalization as to the showing of one election on the subject of the attitude of certain racial groups as regards Tammany Hall and Socialism. This analysis is not without a certain degree of general significance.

Doctor Lipsky’s conclusion that “native-born Americans of American parents are opposed to Tammany government” is based upon a comparison of figures from districts predominantly of native Americans, in the elections for governor in 1910 and for mayor of New York in 1913, his primary assumption being that the candidacy of Judge Edward E. McCall for mayor embodied “Tammany” pure and simple, while that of John A. Dix for governor did not make “Tammany” a state issue. From this point of view Doctor Lipsky interprets the fact that the percentage of votes for McCall in those districts was strikingly lower than those for Dix in the state election of three years before:

TABLE XXXVII

PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN 1910 BY VOTERS OF NATIVE PARENTS

====================================================== | PER CENT | | ASSEMBLY DISTRICT | OF NATIVE | 1913 | 1910 | PARENTS | MCCALL | DIX --------------------+-----------+----------+----------- 15th Manhattan | 45.3 | 33.7 | 58.1 19th “ | 40.0 | 33.2 | 52.3 25th “ | 44.1 | 35.3 | 48.4 27th “ | 51.5 | 37.6 | 55.8 4th Queens | 41.3 | 31.1 | 46.2 17th Brooklyn | 45.6 | 24.7 | 43.6 11th “ | 38.0 | 34.9 | 50.5 18th | 39.0 | 28.3 | 46.3 5th | 38.1 | 25.3 | 44.1 10th “ | 38.6 | 36.6 | 53.3 ======================================================

But the Russians and Austrians also said “No” to Tammany, as Doctor Lipsky reads the figures:

TABLE XXXVIII

PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN 1910 BY RUSSIANS AND AUSTRIANS

============================================================ |RUSSIANS|AUSTRIANS| BOTH | | ASSEMBLY | PER | PER | PER | 1913 | 1910 DISTRICT | CENT | CENT | CENT | MCCALL | DIX ---------------+--------+---------+--------+--------+------- 8th Manhattan | 54.4 | 14.2 | 68.6 | 40.2 | 52.3 6th “ | 30.4 | 30.8 | 61.2 | 22.8 | 40.0 4th “ | 35.6 | 25.2 | 60.2 | 51.1 | 61.7 26th “ | 34.6 | 6.7 | 41.3 | 30.0 | 41.0 2d “ | 35.6 | 1.4 | 37.0 | 57.6 | 67.5 10th “ | 22.3 | 12.5 | 34.8 | 29.3 | 52.2 31st “ | 12.9 | 4.9 | 17.8 | 24.1 | 44.7 21st Brooklyn | 31.2 | 5.9 | 37.1 | 27.1 | 48.6 23d “ | 33.3 | 3.9 | 37.2 | 25.7 | 40.9 14th “ | 16.1 | 5.9 | 22.0 | 46.6 | 61.5 22d “ | 13.0 | 3.0 | 16.0 | 24.3 | 38.5 ============================================================

The Irish voted for Tammany, as usual:

TABLE XXXIX

PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN 1910 BY THE IRISH

=============================================== ASSEMBLY DISTRICT | PER CENT | 1913 | 1910 | OF IRISH | MCCALL | DIX -------------------+----------+--------+------- 13th Manhattan | 16.4 | 61.0 | 58.1 16th “ | 14.0 | 51.7 | 61.4 11th “ | 12.2 | 55.6 | 60.5 14th “ | 12.4 | 54.7 | 61.2 5th “ | 11.2 | 64.4 | 67.6 ===============================================

Allowance must be made here for some falling off of the vote in a municipal as compared with a state election; but a still greater allowance must be made for the fact that “Tammany” was indeed a state issue--Dix was distinctly charged by the opposition with being Tammany’s candidate, and there were, as always, confusing and inestimable factors of a subtle kind--such, for instance, as the fact that McCall had an Irish name, and Dix didn’t; or that the name “John A. Dix” had a sound historically familiar--even if not one regularly American-born person in a hundred could remember who the historic “John A. Dix” was!

Some years the Germans are supposed to have supported Tammany; this particular time Doctor Lipsky seems to find that they did not--in districts in which Germans made up a considerable percentage of the population. (See Table XL.)

Think what you will of the Italians’ attitude toward Tammany; you can stress the fact that the vote for McCall was so much below that of three years before for Dix, or you can philosophize about the fact that it was no greater! Doctor Lipsky’s inference that, on the whole, they supported Tammany is based on the figures from six districts. (See Table XLI.)

TABLE XL

PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN 1910 BY GERMANS

================================================== ASSEMBLY DISTRICT | PER CENT | 1913 | 1910 | OF GERMANS | MCCALL | DIX --------------------+------------+--------+------- 3d Queens | 21.4 | 31.1 | 49.8 20th Brooklyn | 20.2 | 26.8 | 41.8 19th “ | 13.6 | 31.9 | 48.3 23d “ | 11.2 | 34.6 | 49.4 1st Queens | 11.1 | 41.4 | 55.2 22d Manhattan | 21.2 | 38.4 | 50.2 ==================================================

TABLE XLI

PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN 1910 BY THE ITALIANS

==================================================== ASSEMBLY DISTRICT | PER CENT | 1913 | 1910 | OF ITALIANS | MCCALL | DIX ---------------------+-------------+--------+------- 3d Manhattan | 30.3 | 67.6 | 77.7 1st “ | 25.2 | 59.6 | 67.8 28th “ | 26.8 | 42.6 | 55.8 3d Brooklyn | 23.2 | 63.7 | 73.1 2d Manhattan | 18.5 | 57.6 | 67.4 ====================================================

“We are able,” says Doctor Lipsky, “to say that a decided ‘no’ was given to Tammany by native Americans of native parents, and by the Russians and Germans; a decided ‘Yes’ was given by the Italian and Irish.”

The thing that stands out in these figures, whatever else may be said, would seem to be the fact that, like the native Americans of native parentage, the voters of foreign racial antecedents changed their support with changing circumstances and influences. The conventional view of the foreign-born voter is that he votes in herds, as he is told to vote, and that in New York City Tammany does the herding. Well, in the mayoralty election of 1913, judging by these figures, it is evident that Tammany’s “herding” was not wholly successful with those “new-immigration” voters classed as Russians and Austrians! All sorts of factors, local and general, fundamental and temporary, almost Wholly incalculable, enter into elections, and one is free to analyze and interpret to suit himself.

On the subject of the “political mind of the foreign-born voter” as regards Socialism, Doctor Lipsky presents some interesting figures from ten assembly districts in which the Socialist candidate for mayor in 1913 received over 10 per cent of the total vote.

TABLE XLII

PER CENT OF SOCIALISTIC VOTE IN NEW YORK CITY IN 1910 AND 1913 BY NATIONALITY

===================================================================== | SOCIALIST |NATIVE| | | | | ASSEMBLY | VOTE | OF | | | | | DISTRICT +------+------+NATIVE|AUSTR-|GERMAN|IRISH| ITAL-| RUSS- | 1910 | 1913 |PAREN-| IAN | | | IAN | IAN | | | TAGE | | | | | --------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------ 21st Brooklyn | 12.4 | 16.1 | 12.6 | 5.9 | 4.1 | ... | 9.1 | 31.2 23d “ | 12.5 | 15.8 | 19.6 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 4.6 | 33.3 19th “ | 11.0 | 12.8 | 12.6 | .8 | 13.6 | ... | 9.9 | 11.9 4th Manhattan| 12.6 | 11.9 | 7.0 | 25.2 | .4 | 1.1 | 2.5 | 35.6 26th “ | 10.2 | 11.8 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 4.6 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 34.6 8th “ | 14.6 | 11.7 | 2.5 | 14.2 | .7 | ... | 4.1 | 54.4 22d “ | 13.1 | 11.7 | 10.6 | 4.6 | 21.2 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 3.6 6th “ | 10.0 | 11.2 | 2.4 | 30.8 | 1.1 | .7 | .7 | 30.4 24th “ | 10.4 | 11.2 | 11.1 | 3.9 | 4.3 | 6.2 | 11.1 | 20.6 10th “ | 11.1 | 10.8 | 5.9 | 12.5 | 4.7 | ... | 13.9 | 22.3 =====================================================================

“Our conclusion therefore is,” says Doctor Lipsky, “that the bulk of the Socialist vote is derived from the foreign Jewish element, and to a less degree from the Germans.”

Perhaps, but one may not ignore, for instance, the fact that in the district of these containing the largest percentage of native Americans of native parentage, the Socialist vote for Governor in 1910 was 12.5 per cent of the whole; or that in the one in which the Russian and Austrian percentage was very small and the German larger than in any other of the districts selected, the Socialist vote was about 13 per cent. We shall see later in this chapter the importance of the German factor in the Socialist party.

All such analyses of particular elections, we may say again, are interesting and in a measure instructive; but generalizations are exceedingly perilous and greatly conditioned by personal preconceptions, special temporary and local forces and circumstances, and the purposes of the statistician for the time being--for all of which the candid student will, and must, make heavy discounts.

RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE IDEAS

Coming to the question of the Progressive party’s campaign in 1912, Doctor Lipsky says, in part:

One of two facts in the election of 1912 ... are extremely suggestive even though they do not cover the whole ground. In that election Roosevelt ran ahead of Wilson in only four districts of the city. One was the 23d of Manhattan, in which Taft also ran ahead of Wilson--a strong Republican district. The other three were the 6th, the 8th, and the 26th, the three districts in which the Russians and Austrians constitute the great majority of the electorate.

So there you are--make what you will of it. Why should the very districts in which we found heavy percentages of Russians and Austrians, and a relatively heavy Socialist vote, produce a preponderant vote for Roosevelt and the Progressive platform? Is there, after all, a common factor, overlooked--or anyway not dwelt upon--by Doctor Lipsky, to account for what otherwise might seem inexplicable? Here again one may philosophize to suit himself, but it is worth while to consider one phase of the matter too often ignored in discussions of the motives and impulses behind the radical vote.

William S. Bennet, previously quoted in the same address, dwelt upon this matter in speaking of the influence of Mr. Hearst:[170]

Mr. Hearst’s vote among the foreign born was great, and, more than the other two candidates combined [speaking of an election in which Mr. Hearst was himself a candidate], he attracted that vote. It becomes important to analyze Mr. Hearst’s appeal. Much of it we find to have been on right lines. We cannot quarrel, because of those views, with a candidate who asks votes because he has fought against railroad rebates, corporation exactions, and fraudulent elections. Under New York City conditions we cannot quarrel with one who advocates the building of immediate transit facilities with city money. It was also rather begging the question to assert that Mr. Hearst exaggerated his efforts and usefulness in relation to those matters. The personal and temperamental fitness of a candidate is always an element to be considered, and in Mr. Hearst’s case it was, though more in private than in public discussion. His record as a persistent absentee during his congressional service and the legitimate argument from it that he would be a negligent mayor, cost Mr. Hearst more votes among those friendly to him among the foreign born than he probably imagines.

Mr. Hearst never made an appeal for support on the ground that it would be of any personal assistance to himself. His appeal was frequently to the self-interest of the individual, and quite generally to his highest interest as a citizen in the welfare of the whole body politic. He favored policies because, in his expressed judgment, they were right, not because they might be immediately successful; and opposed others because wrong, though by many deemed expedient.

The point to be noted, then, is that in the propaganda of the Socialists, of the Progressive party, of Mr. Hearst, there was much stress upon and slogans about the common welfare, the improvement of social conditions, the square deal, honest politics and government, human brotherhood. The note never was outwardly selfish or materialistic. Always, in the main, it was idealism--whatever may have been the private motives actually underlying in any particular case.

It is the common experience of those who have worked with the foreign-born voter that he usually is responsive to this kind of appeal. Is it not really a tribute to ourselves, as well as an index of his own idea of what “America” stands for, that he acts at the ballot box as if he would like to see these things incarnated in the life of his adopted country?

Mr. Bennet went on to say that “we learn, certainly, concerning our most recent citizens, from the Hearst vote”:

1. They are independent voters.

2. They are not constrained to remain in the party in power nationally.

3. Nor do they remain with a party simply because it is usually dominant locally.

4. They are not afraid to sacrifice immediate possible benefit by attaching themselves to a lesser party and temporary movement.

5. They are moved by appeals to good citizenship.

6. They are quite certain to range themselves on the right side of a question of morals.

7. A certain proportion of them are moved by direct appeals, based on alleged class distinctions.

8. The thinly veiled policy of license advanced by the Tammany candidate did not draw them from Mr. Hearst, though he vigorously condemned license and its advocacy.

And Mr. Bennet added, “these things have been proved concerning the immigrant. Without going into specifications, which are, however, well understood locally, these things are _not_ proved”:

1. That he always votes for a fellow countryman or a coreligionist.

2. That he can be invariably stampeded by a race or religious issue.

3. That he votes blindly.

SOME RESULTS FROM CLEVELAND

It is impossible to forecast the working out in our politics of the passions aroused by the World War among the various racial groups by the relations and enmities of their respective fatherlands in that vast turmoil, and the effects of the behavior of native-American elements toward particular races, and even toward “foreigners” generally. It is evident that for any intelligent understanding of what, in the long run and under approximately normal conditions, are the political attitudes and activities, we must derive our facts largely from an earlier period--at least antedating the armistice and the bitter conflicts growing out of the Peace Treaty and the partisanship characterizing the controversy about the League of Nations which so greatly confused the issues in the presidential election of 1920.

A series of elections in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, in the period between 1911 and 1918 seemed to offer opportunities for study of a number of large racial groups under reasonably normal conditions. It is not claimed that this Study was conclusive in its results or fully scientific in its method; but it certainly produced a significant exhibit of facts, and in general confirmed what is known to everyone who ever has worked With or candidly observed at first hand the part played by the foreign-born voter in American politics--namely, that he is in no important respect different from the native-born; that he is swayed by the same motives and emotions, and is not essentially different in respect of responsiveness to appeals to his civic pride.

The first step was to select for study a group of election precincts including as large a proportion as possible of the various nationalities, and for comparison another group of districts which would show the action of native-born voters. Ten of the latter were selected, including populations both relatively wealthy and relatively poor, and both habitually Republican and habitually Democratic. For foreign-born racial groups the following were selected as most important: Czechs, Magyars, Poles, Jugo-Slavs, Italians, and Jews. Owing to the scattered nature of the racial distribution, it was impossible to find a large number of districts predominantly of any particular race; but it was possible to segregate three for each of these races, and four for one, for comparison with them of the native born; so that 29 precincts were studied, as follows:

TABLE XLIII

DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONALITY IN TWENTY-NINE PRECINCTS IN CLEVELAND

Eight elections were covered by the inquiry, comparing the votes for:

Mayor 1911--Baker _vs._ Hogen. Mayor 1913--Baker _vs._ Davis. Mayor 1915--Witt, Davis, Ruthenberg. Mayor 1917--Stinchcomb, Davis, Ruthenberg. President 1916--Wilson, Hughes, Debs. Governor 1916--Cox _vs._ Willis. Governor 1918--Cox _vs._ Willis. Congressman 1918--Candidates differing in different districts.

The returns were examined also for indications as to attitudes about woman suffrage and the question of no-license and prohibition, in elections between 1912 and 1918.

Of the native-born precincts, so called, five indicated almost straight Democratic tendencies; three were consistently Republican; and two were of varying complexion as between the two great parties. It should be remembered that the prevailing general complexion of the city of Cleveland in recent years, and regardless of the “landslide” of 1920, has been Democratic. Therefore the districts selected to show the tendencies of the native born were fairly representative of the situation.

The first election, 1911, was a straight partisan contest between Mr. Baker, a Democrat, and Mr. Hogen, a Republican. In 1913, the city tried, for the first time, its municipal nonpartisan ballot; but in that year the old political parties were as powerful as ever. In the election of 1915, Mr. Baker was not a candidate, but Peter Witt, long associated with Mayor Tom L. Johnson, was the Democratic candidate. This election exhibits circumstances and results significant not only of the attitude of the foreign-born voter and his responsiveness to political cross-currents, but of the extreme difficulty of isolating particular factors as especially influential upon these voters.

Mr. Witt had just completed four years of service as Street Railway Commissioner, and among the business and professional classes of the town had won a rather reluctant recognition for efficiency, the reluctance being largely due to the fact that in days when he was campaigning for Tom Johnson he had been regarded as ultra-radical. But his opponent in this campaign had no recognized record of administrative capacity, and the Republicans themselves acknowledged some doubt as to his ability, compared with the known ability of Witt, to fulfill the duties of the mayoralty. Both candidates were regarded without opposition by the “wet” element, though Mr. Davis was perhaps more circumspect in his utterances on the liquor question. The campaign did not touch the questions involved in the European War until the very end, when, on the Sunday before election, some supporter of Davis published and widely circulated among the Bohemians (Czechs), Russians, and Italians a pamphlet in which Witt was bitterly accused of being pro-German.