LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN IN MEMORY OF STEWART S. HOWE JOURNALISM CLASS OF 1928 STEWART S. HOWE FOUNDATION 329 W156p cop. ?. I .H.S. THE POLITICIAN His Habits, Outcries and Protective Coloring Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just. And this be our motto — 'In God is our trust.* And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave." Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/politicianhishabOOwall Drawn by Rollin Kirby, courtesy N. Y. World "FEE, FI, FO, FUM, I SMELL THE BLOOD OF AN ENGLISHMAN' The POLITICIAN His Habits, Outcries and Protective Coloring A TEXTBOOK FOR OFFICE-SEEKERS (AND FOR ENLIGHTENED VOTERS) , SETTING FORTH INFAL- LIBLE GUIDES TO POLITICAL SUCCESS, ILLUS- TRATED AND ENRICHED WITH MANY EXAMPLES FROM THE CAREERS OF CON- TEMPORARY AMERICAN POLITICIANS, COMPLETE WITH AN APPENDIX, A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTELLIGIBLE INDEX AND OTHER ACCESSORIES PROPER TO A TEXTBOOK By J. H. WALLIS With Nine Engravings from Cartoons FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY NEW YORK MCMXXXV Copyright, 1935, by Frederick A. Stokes Company All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced without the written permission of the publishers. Printed in the United States of America J^n, \jj- , To NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI WHO HAS BEEN DEAD A LONG TIME, BUT WHOSE PRINCIPLES AND PRE- CEPTS ENDURE IN THE ACTS AND THE UTTERANCES OF AMERICAN POLITICIANS PREFACE It is now well over four hundred years since Niccolo Machiavelli, the great and much-maligned Florentine, wrote his famous treatise, The Prince. This remarkable work, intended to be and used as a textbook for despots, has been and remains one of the most influential creations of man. Emperors, kings, princes, ministers of state, for centuries, have consulted it and have followed its precepts. This book has been mightier than armies in affecting the course of history. The views of Machiavelli are still potent in the chancellories of Europe and in the political oligarchies of America. The underlying principles of Machiavelli's magnum opus hold good to-day as truly as four hundred years ago,"" but, in the application of those principles to present conditions, new methods are neces- sary. This is especially true of conditions in the United States of America. Machiavelli wrote The Prince when the world was ruled by despots. Political power was based directly on force, on the physical conquest of rivals — by arms or by craft. Much of Machiavelli's book is devoted to advice to a prince on how to maintain himself by force of arms. However appropriate this may be to present-day Euro- pean dictators, it does not apply exactly to the rulers or would-be rulers of America. For, to-day at least, resort to arms is not practicable for those who would rule America. Our peaceful and enlightened nation is ruled by poli- ticians, not by despots backed by military force. Obvi- ously, the American politician, to attain power and to hold it, cannot employ the same methods and tools that despots of four hundred years ago employed. He cannot, * See Appendix, Note i. PREFACE as a rule, build up and maintain a private army of his own, nor can he employ a condottiere, such a professional captain as the Renaissance despot employed, with his paid band of soldiers. The American ruler, or aspirant to rule, must be more subtle, in that respect at least. There is no textbook in existence frankly devoted to setting forth the principles and methods of achieving success in American politics. Obviously, the ambitious American — man or woman — desirous of winning and holding important offices in America, of being a ruler, can extract only the most general principles from Machia- velli's Prince. Yet American democracy is as worthy of a treatise or textbook for its politicians as the despotism of the Renaissance was worthy of a treatise for its despots. Not only is American democracy as worthy of a text- book as was Renaissance despotism, but the methods and practices of American politicians are as worthy of being recorded and analyzed as were those of Italian despots. Machiavelli held up Cesare Borgia as the ideal prince, the man whose actions and whose craft served as a model to be emulated by all aspiring to rule. And it must be agreed that Cesare Borgia acted with almost perfect skill in coping with the conditions of his time. Yet even this ideal prince, as Machiavelli points out, made one mistake — and it was fatal. In the United States we do not have now, nor have we had in recent years, one politician who stands out above his fellows as the handsome and ruthless son of Alexander VI stood out above the other Italian princes of his day. But America has had and now has successful politicians whose careers furnish to aspiring office-seekers examples of conduct as valuable as those Machiavelli was able to find in the life of his perfect, or almost-perfect, hero. And, if some of the American politicians whose skill made them worthy of emulation were defeated after a period of great success, they remain, PREFACE ix none the less, fitting and proper subjects of study. Was not Machiavelli's exemplary prince defeated also? Would any one be so irrational as to say that Cesare Borgia was not, for the most part, a shining example to would-be despots simply because he was unimportant in his later days and died in obscurity? Likewise, would any one be so stupid as to maintain, because they were ul- timately, or at times, defeated, that our own John F. Hylan, William Hale Thompson, Andrew J. Gillis, Thomas F. Heflin, Cole Blease, Smith W. Brookhart, James E. Wat- son, George H. Moses, Ogden L. Mills, Alfred E. Smith, and Herbert Hoover have done nothing worthy of imita- tion? Most of the men whose names illumine the pages of history met with defeats of one sort or another. No one would be so bold as to question the propriety of drawing examples from the careers of great American politicians who have not been defeated. Yet can one say with certitude that the present-undefeated will always remain so? Can one be sure that the President of the United States, whose political acumen is the envy of his opponents, and the present senior Senator from Louisiana, who holds his state in the hollow of his hand, will never be defeated? Instances of their skill are proper examples for office-seekers now and will be, no matter what hap- pens to them in the future. Indeed, even these two are already in the list of those who have known defeat, for Mr. Roosevelt was an unsuccessful candidate for Vice- President in 1920 and Senator Long was rejected by the voters when he first ran for Governor in 1924. While many of our American politicians are extraor- dinarily skillful, it is a matter of common knowledge that others are not. Every year, stupid blunders, errors in political technique, bring defeat to hundreds, to thou- sands, of office-seekers. Young men and women, attempt- ing to begin political careers, are especially prone to make costly mistakes. Of course, if they are intelligent, patient PREFACE and persistent, they learn correct procedure by those very mistakes. Any rational person can learn by his own experience. How much better, more economical of years and money, to learn by the experience of others! For the person desirous of entering any business or profession other than politics there are available countless textbooks carefully explaining the approved methods and technique. Men do not become doctors, ministers, dentists, sewage engineers, lawyers, barbers, morticians, without studying the textbooks leading to proficiency in those professions. There are plenty of textbooks on banking, on efficiency in manufacturing, in wholesale and retail business. There are others on how to win in the stock market. There are even books on the technique of sports and games — how to win at golf, tennis, croquet, bridge, ping-pong. But the aspiring man or woman seeking public office, hoping to win in the great profession of politics, is left to grope in the dark as far as textbooks are concerned. It is my hope that this deplorable condition will exist no longer. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote for his age as he found it. In The 'Prince he did not argue, pro or con, on the Tight- ness or wrongness of despotism. Despotism was the es- tablished order of the time, and he devoted himself, rightly, to sound and instructive observations for the bene- fit of those who would be successful despots. Likewise, in this present treatise, I write for the United States of America of to-day. I do not discuss the rightness or wrongness of democracy, but give instructions, with per- tinent illustrations and examples, on how the politician may succeed in existing conditions. The aim of this book is, frankly, very high. It attempts to do for the American politician of this period and for years to come what the great and wise Florentine did for Italian despots of the early sixteenth century and for monarchs and dictators thereafter. CONTENTS PAGE Preface vii CHAPTER I. Concerning the Motives, Aims and Goal of a Politician i II. Concerning the Mode of Life of a Politician: His Dress, His Home and Office, His Food and Drink 2 1 III. Concerning the Birth, the Training and Educa- tion, the Occupation and the Special Qualifi- cations of the Politician 45 IV. Concerning the Convictions and Principles of a Politician 60 V. Concerning a Politician's Cultivation of Friends and Enemies 69 VI. Concerning the Value of Enemies to a Politician 96 VII. More Concerning the Value of Enemies to a Poli- tician, with Information on How to Choose Them and How to Make Them 121 VIII. Concerning Some of the Methods Employed by Politicians, with Hints for Beginners in the Profession and for Advanced Practitioners 144 IX. Concerning More Methods Employed by the Poli- tician, with More Information for Harassed Practitioners 168 X. Concerning More of the Methods of the Poli- tician, Particularly the Process of Converting a Politician into a Human Being or into a Humaner Human Being 191 XI. Concerning that Compound of Many Virtues, Big Bill the Builder, the Possible King Arthur in AVALON 208 XII. Concerning Certain Special Equipment of a Poli- tician, His Nickname, His Slogan, His Menace 227 XIII. Concerning the Value of Lincoln to a Politician 242 xi xii CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE XIV. Concerning the Necessity of Publicity to a Poli- tician, with Examples of What to Avoid 251 XV. Concerning the Profitable Use of Greetings and Salutations by a Politician 263 XVI. Concerning Cesare Borgia and the Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr 286 Appendix 305 Index 313 ILLUSTRATIONS Frontispiece "Fee, fi, fo, fum, I Smell the Blood of an Englishman" FACING PAGE Incident in the Life of a ioo Per Center no Design of Medal for Socker of Huey Long 140 The Counter-Attack 142 Big Bill's Masterpiece 212 Giving Them a Good Laugh 214 Greeting "That Sturdy Patriot" 284 Old Familiar Faces — Hamilton Fish, Jr 288 The Old Red (Night) Mare 302 xni THE POLITICIAN His Habits, Outcries and Protective Coloring THE POLITICIAN CHAPTER I Concerning* the Motives, Aims and Goal of a Politician The Only Goal — The Necessity of Concealing Motive — Ex- amples of the Correct Attitude and Correct Announcements — The Honorable John Faithful Hylan — Senator Huey P. Long — The Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr. — Poor Technique, an Example — Andrew J. ("Bossy") Gillis — Deplorable and Un- avoidable Misfortunes in the Progress of a Politician — Unyield- ing Adherence to Determined Course — Rigid Devotion to Fundamental Aims — Gunfire at Primaries and Elections — Toll of the Slain — How Regarded — Other Difficulties to be Faced Heroically — Alienation of Friends and Family — Reasonable Limitation of Political Ambition — Examples — Conclusion — Not a Phenomenon of Nature. The Only Goal. — The aim of a politician is the same as that of almost all other men. It is his own advancement and advantage. Just as the prince in Machiavelli's day sought benefits for himself as practically his only goal, so, in America to-day, the politician seeks his own advantage almost entirely. If advantage to others flows from his acts and measures and achievements, such advantage is but incidental, a by-product of his plans and endeavors. It is well for the politician consistently to bear in mind that advantage to himself is his only goal. He should consider all proposals, all projects, all suggested measures, on that basis. * See Appendix, Note 2. 2 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, The Necessity of Concealing Motive. — The man en- gaged in any business other than politics is understood by every one to be seeking his own advantage. The farmer, the merchant, the day laborer, the lawyer, the fertilizer- manufacturer, the banker, the butcher — all are openly working to make money for themselves, and no one thinks the worse of them for it. Of course, at conventions and banquets of business organizations, speakers continually declare with great vehemence and earnestness that the aim of American business is service, not profit. But no one believes this, not even the speakers. It is one of the little traditional jokes of business men. Selfish advantage is the unconcealed motive of all business — all except politics. Although the aim of the politician is solely his own ad- vantage, he should be careful never to state to the public that such is the fact. His announced purpose in all his efforts is service of the people. He seeks only their ad- vantage. He is merely their instrument, their servant. This attitude he must constantly maintain, year after year, day and night, in his public addresses, in statements to the press, in conversations with friends and enemies, with fellow politicians, with business men, even in his own household. Although many persons, even a considerable percentage of those who vote for him, understand that he really seeks only his own advantage, the politician must never admit the truth of the matter to a single soul except his own. An admitted self-seeker might still command quite a following of those who expected selfish benefits from the measures he promised, but very often this fol- lowing would not be a majority of the voters of the politician's constituency. A following less than a major- ity is of no immediate profit or satisfaction to a politician. Cash-in-hand majorities are his meat and drink, bread and butter, clothing and rent. Those who would follow a politician if he admitted he was a self-seeker are his followers when he does not admit it, and, in addition, OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 3 when he claims to be only the servant of the people, he holds many others. A politician should never sacrifice even one vote unnecessarily. Political victories are occa- sionally gained by a majority of one. That a politician should always declare that he seeks the people's good, not his own, is elementary technique observed by nearly all American political practitioners. Our men and women who are, or would be, in public life are very vigilant, very meticulous, about this. However, I do not think that there is any truth in the statement that Washington politicians wear gags when they go to bed for fear that they might talk in their sleep and disclose their real motives. Examples of the Correct Attitude and Correct An- nouncements — The Honorable John Faithful Hylan — Senator Huey P. Long — The Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr. — A splendid example of what a politician should state his aim to be was furnished on June 27, 1929, by the Honorable John F. Hylan, an always virtuous and often victorious politician, for eight years Mayor of New York City. Mr. Hylan, defeated in the 1925 Democratic pri- mary by the Honorable James J. Walker (and the Honor- able Alfred E. Smith), thought in 1929 that his city needed his services as Mayor once more. The Better City Government League was organized to push Mr. Hylan's proposed candidacy, and it was hoped that he might re- ceive the support of Republicans as well. Mr. Hylan was nominated at an enthusiastic convention of the League held in Cooper Union on June 27. The nominee began his speech of acceptance as follows: "I want to express my deep appreciation for your confidence and support. My candidacy rises above the sphere of mere personal ambition, for that has already been gratified, probably far above my deserts. I enter this campaign in the solemn dis- charge of my civic duty, and I have an abiding faith in the favorable outcome of this struggle." 4 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Although Mr. Hylan subsequently withdrew from the race and supported Tammany and its leader, John F. Curry, that statement of his remains a shining example of a correct announcement by a politician of his aims and motives. It is a model worthy of imitation by any young politician. Indeed, Mr. Hylan's whole speech on that occasion might very well be studied by the earnest and as- piring office-seeker. In the whole address there is not one word hinting of selfishness. Throughout it runs a strain of high altruism and a desire and determination to serve the city that he loves. Mr. Hylan's withdrawal from the race for Mayor helped to insure the triumph of the politically and chronologically late James J. Walker over Fiorello H. La Guardia. It is interesting to note that Mr. Hylan, after Mr. Walker's reelection, became, by appointment, a Judge of the Children's Court at a substantial salary. Mr. Hylan kept the record straight in his address quoted above. He went on record as not being moved by personal ambition, but, somehow, he was able to keep the home fires burning. That the people's welfare is properly the announced aim of a politician has been exemplified more than once in statements made by that masterful and meteoric poli- tician, Senator Huey P. Long of Louisiana, a man whose success has provoked the astonished wonder of millions. On August 10, 1934, in a statement commending Presi- dent Roosevelt's nationalization of silver, the Senator claimed the idea was his own "brain child," and added: "The Long influence is being felt. The poor people of the country have some one to guide them — old Huey P. Long, the champion of the people." On another occasion, the Senator said: "I ain't afraid of anything except the people." The advantage and advance- ment of the people — the common people — are ever in OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 5 his mind. His words announce this often enough so that no one need be ignorant. So it is with all enlightened and informed politicians. Whatever they advocate, whatever party platform they may support, their efforts, their thoughts, are, they in- sist, for the people's good. Not my good, but the good of the people, is the politician's motto. Before the perfect achievement one is prone to pause and pay the tribute of silent wonder and awe. Thus one feels toward such miracles of human effort as the Venus de Milo, the Parthenon, the Great Pyramid of Egypt and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Thus one pauses in tribute, thus one feels toward a statement of motive issued by the Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr., at Omaha on May 7, 1935. On that occasion, Mr. Fish, mentioning himself as a Presi- dential possibility, said: "I am not ambitious. Ten years ago I was very ambitious. But I have been in Washington many years now. I have seen that it is a sixteen-hour-a-day job. My family knows that and does not want me to run. "If it were put up to me on the basis of party, I would not listen. If it were put up to me on the basis of country, that would be another matter. And the call would have to come from the West — I would not listen to it if it came merely from the East." Not for himself but for his country, was Mr. Fish's motto. That is the correct — public — attitude for all poli- ticians. To be sure, the only responses to Mr. Fish's state- ment, as far as I observed, came from two Democratic Representatives in Congress, who claimed to be eager to have Mr. Fish run on the Republican ticket. "Sure, he's my man," said Speaker Byrns, and Representative O'Con- nor of New York echoed that view. But we shall have more to say of Mr. Fish later — much more. Poor Technique, an Example — Andrew /. ("Bossy") Gillis. — In 1927 and for several years thereafter there 6 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, flamed across the Puritanical skies of Massachusetts, and more particularly the skies of Newburyport, a wild and portentous comet, originally named Andrew Joseph Gillis, but officially recorded as "Bossy" by political as- tronomers. And Bossy, according to his own statements, had not swum from the outer darkness into the Massa- chusetts political empyrean because of any love of the people or any desire to serve them. Dropping the comet before its tail becomes too entangling, let us say that Bossy's reasons for running for Mayor were plainly stated by himself and were published in many newspapers and magazines. The deeply lamented New York World ex- plained the matter editorially on August 26, 1928: "As to why he ran for Mayor he never made any concealment. It was for a perfectly simple reason, which was to gain personal advantage and to pay back a personal grudge. You see, he had been operating a gasoline station, and the allegation was made that he was doing it illegally. So the city authorities brought him into court and compelled him to give it up. Thereupon he announced that he would operate the station if he had to become Mayor to do it. And he became Mayor. In other words, he sought this office and obtained it in much the same frame of mind as a peasant would set a trap for another peasant's cows. Once in it, he remained in the same frame of mind. 'What the Hell?' he remarked, when asked whom he would appoint to various offices under his patronage. 'We won, didn't we? Don't the winners deserve the gravy?' Then he reopened the gasoline station." As a matter of fact, Bossy was not yet in the clear, as far as the gasoline station was concerned, even after he got himself elected Mayor. Legal proceedings were brought against him. He was fined and was sent to jail for two months. He issued from the jail in triumph, to be greeted by a band and by forty-five thousand cheering people. Three days later his candidates for the New- buryport City Council were victorious. He became un- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 7 disputed ruler of the town. In 1929 he was reelected for the term beginning in January, 1930. But two years later he was defeated by a mere wealthy shoe manufac- turer. Indeed, he was given a bad licking by the shoe man. Even Bossy's own ward returned a majority against him. "Well, 111 be damned— the Hell with them!" he said when he heard that news. Bossy has been a pretty tame rabbit since December, 1929. For a time he thought of going into vaudeville. He made a feeble stir early in 1932, when he charged in his weekly, The Asbestos, that bootleggers had been ap- pointed to the city's Fire Department. But, since then, silence. The blazing comet has disappeared into the outer darkness. Bossy Gillis as a politician may have had other defects, but there can be no doubt that one cause of his collapse was the certainty that his motive was his own selfish ad- vantage. He made no concealment of this. He wanted to operate that filling station, and he wanted to do it for his own benefit. In spite of certain sterling qualities and promising abilities, Bossy was doomed by the public admission that he sought his own advantage. For a short time, such a declaration may have been beneficial. It was a pleasing curiosity, as many frank and honest state- ments are. But it is futile for a politician to hope to survive if he flouts established principles. A politician may always seek his own advantage, but he must always say that he seeks the advantage of the people. Deplorable and Unavoidable Misfortunes in the Progress of a Politician — Unyielding Adherence to Determined Course — Rigid Devotion to Fundamental Aims. — The success of practically every victorious man or woman is accompanied by — is, in fact, the cause of — detriment, misfortune, defeat, or failure for some one else. In every community there are successful merchants whose opera- tions are the cause of the failure of their less capable or, 8 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, perhaps, more scrupulous rivals. Bossy Gillis's filling sta- tion experience reminds one that in nearly every American town and city to-day a battle of the filling stations rages, with the success of some meaning the failure of others. A doctor dies, and his practice is taken over by his fel- lows. Obviously, his being alive and engaged in his pro- fession was a detriment to the doctors who subsequently divided his patients. A vigorous and capable veterinary, tattoo artist or lawyer comes to town and takes business from those of his trade already established there. Per- haps some of the older practitioners are ruined. In many situations it is impossible that all should succeed. In the business world there are, of course, many in- stances of men rising to the heights of success through deliberately and carefully stamping their heels into the faces of their rivals. There are more instances of damage to rivals without directed effort. The less skillful goes down becauses the more skillful has risen, but without getting a kick directly in the face. Because of business difficulties or failures, many men turn to arson or em- bezzlement. Some commit suicide. The criminal fires, the embezzlements, the suicides, can be traced to the acts — to the successful rivalry — of the competitors of the arsonists, embezzlers and suicides. Nevertheless, no one expects business men to cease seeking their own success simply because, if gained, it means injury or even death to others. They set their faces resolutely toward the goal of triumph, and are not turned aside. Thus it is, and must be, with the politician if he wishes success. He must not be troubled or deterred by the mis- fortunes that befall others due, directly or indirectly, to his acts or omissions, his utterances or silences. It is more obvious — although not more true — in politics than in any other business that the success of one means the failure of one or more others. For almost always there are two candidates for each contested office. Fre- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 9 quently there are more than two. Every office-seeker's victory means, directly, a defeat for some one else. Defeats of candidates are, of course, the obvious injuries due to politics, injuries of some caused by the success of others. These setbacks, these failures, are so common that we think little of them, although often they mean poverty, want, or even death. But there are collateral injuries due to the activities of politicians which must be regarded with as stern and unyielding stoicism as the defeats of rivals. Gunfire at Primaries and Elections — Toll of the Slain — How Regarded. — In the United States, politics is a vast business, with many ramifications. The party organiza- tions are gigantic. Hundreds of thousands of men and women — from Presidents down through Senators, Repre- sentatives, Governors, Mayors, Aldermen, Constables, to gangsters and gunmen — have a selfish interest, a financial stake, in the result of elections. Naturally, in such vast organizations, especially in the political organizations of our great cities, there are some men who believe that the most effective activity, the most convincing method of persuasion, is physical. Each of the two great American parties — Republican and Democratic — has its low- stratum section which uses brute force in efforts to carry elections. Thus far — doubtless because they are so greatly in the minority up to date — we do not hear of armed bands of Socialists or Communists ranging the streets on election days terrorizing and intimidating voters. But we are all familiar with the strong-arm methods of gangs adhering to the Republican and Democratic parties. "Gunfire Sweeps Streets in Chicago Primary, Five Slain" is the sort of statement that does not surprise us in a newspaper headline on the morning after a hotly contested election in the Windy City. To be sure — and fair — it's not in Chicago alone that elections mean corpses. The Chicago killings are likely to receive more newspaper publicity. Political killings elsewhere do not always at- io THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, tract much attention. Murders are so common in Amer- ica that one has to possess some unusual feature if it's to get into print. An example of a political homicide outside Chicago that received only casual attention from the press oc- curred on November 26, 193 1, at Opelousas, Louisiana. On that day Charles De Jean, member of a prominent Louisiana family and adherent of Senator (then Governor) Huey P. Long, was shot to death by a bitter opponent of Long. The two men had held a political argument. Later, according to the account of the man who did the shoot- ing, they met on the street and De Jean advanced "in a threatening manner," upon which he was shot. The killer, a small man, explained by saying: "I couldn't physically fight a man of that size." Of course, Senator Long had no direct part in this tragedy. He could not be blamed for the death of Mr. De Jean. But Mr. De Jean died because of Senator Long's political career and the alignment of bitter factions that it caused. How should a politician look upon these deaths that occur on primary or election days as machine-guns sweep the streets or pistols bark at or near the polling places? Generally speaking, an American, unless he is murdered himself, does not take murders seriously. But the wise and instructed politician does take these murders seriously. Frequently he issues statements about them, and, if the dead are his partisans, he attends the funerals with scru- pulous solemnity. For such funerals he dresses himself with great care and usually manages to have a newspaper photographer catch him as he leaves the church or house at which the services have been held. If the political slain are his enemies — members of the other party or the other faction — the politician issues no public statement or merely says that he deplores the fact that such things can be. If they are his partisans, he OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING n proclaims them martyrs in the cause of the public good and demands the apprehension and punishment of their murderers. In any instance, the quality of the slain is easily determined. If they were members of Our Side, they were virtuous, public-spirited men fallen in the long war for progress and justice. If they were of the Other Side, they were unfortunate hoodlums and gangsters. The use of strong-arm methods in carrying elections is, of course, nothing new. It was in vogue in the time of the Roman Republic. Historians claiming to be im- partial tell how gangs headed by one Clodius and one Milo battled with each other on election days and raged through the streets of Rome, maiming and slaying, ter- rorizing quiet Roman citizens who wanted to vote in peace. But no less a person than Marcus Tullius Cicero, patriot, philosopher, statesman and orator — one of the greatest men of antiquity — tells us that Milo was a strong, noble, virtuous man seeking to protect and advance the public welfare, while Clodius was a foul criminal and murderer. Cicero was a politician, and, as far as he was concerned, Milo was on Our Side. So it has ever been, and so it is in America to-day. Steadfastly, heroically, the politician pursues the course toward his goal despite injuries and death to others. He deplores, but he is not deterred. Other Difficulties to be Faced Heroically — Alienation of Friends and Family. — The politician, always seeking his own advancement and advantage, but never saying so, often finds himself compelled to alienate his friends and even his relatives. What he must have, of course, is votes. Votes are the life-blood of a politician. The ideal poli- tician decides his every action on the basis of its ultimate result in votes. He seeks the support and suffrage of in- dividuals of every sort and of groups of every description. Sometimes, to gain desired support, it is necessary for him to engage in conduct, to take positions and make declara- 12 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, tions, that are totally at variance with his early training, with the traditions of his family or class, or even with his own previous conduct, positions and declarations. Old friends and supporters, near and dear relatives, may be surprised, astounded and angered by the politician's ac- tions. But, when he sees that his conduct means his own advantage, he holds to his course, sternly and stoically. Sometimes, in public statements, he magnanimously re- grets the benighted blindness of those who were friendly to him of yore. Sometimes it is necessary for him to point out how selfish is their conduct, while he himself sacri- ficially pursues the path of virtue and of public service. Senator Huey P. Long, the vigorous and vehement Louisiana politician, is one who has been forced to pursue his course despite the bitter opposition of members of his own family. In January, 1932, Huey, then Governor and Senator-elect, stumped Louisiana for C. K. Allen as his successor in the Governor's chair. Campaign manager and chief speaker in northern Louisiana for George Seth Guion, rival candidate to Allen in the Democratic primary, was Julius Long, Huey's elder brother. And, running for Lieutenant-Governor in opposition to a can- didate backed by Huey, was Earl K. Long, younger brother. Julius Long appealed to the people to help him save his brother Huey from politicians who were trying to ruin him. Earl Long accused Huey of trying to set himself up as a dictator, and perhaps Earl was correct. Huey's simple and quiet reply to his brothers was that they were ungrateful. Allen won the nomination and was elected Governor. Later, the out-of-office Long brothers became more violent in their language directed toward the famous Senator and "Kingfish." In February, 1933, a United States Senate subcommitee investigating charges of cor- ruption and fraud in the Democratic primary in which OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 13 John H. Overton, the Kingfish's candidate, defeated Sena- tor Broussard held sessions in New Orleans. Julius and Earl Long were among the witnesses hostile to the King- fish and his successful candidate. On February 14, Earl on the witness stand testified that Huey had told him that H. C. Abell, director of New Orleans Public Service, Inc., "had given him [Huey] $10,000 and that Huey was sort of afraid to use the money for fear that it was marked." Earl also testified that he "heard Governor Long tell Mr. Couch [Harvey C. Couch, another utility magnate] that he would have to put up something to help him keep those people from destroying him." During the day, as Brother Earl testified, Senator Long shouted from time to time: "That's a damn lie!" "Listen to that! Liar Earl Long!" Naturally, the Senator had to make a vehement denial of such charges. Such a de- nial was a political necessity. Other politicians might have chosen different words or a different method, but the Kingfish's conduct was appropriate to him. The hearing of February 16 was even stormier. On that day, Julius Long, the elder brother, was the chief witness. He testified that he had seen Mike Moss, an officer of the Union Indemnity Company, which, until its failure, had a virtual monopoly of the bonding business of Louisiana, give "Huey such big rolls of bills that, when he stuffed them into his pocket, they made his pants bag down." Other testimony given by Julius included: "In 1926, Huey told me that a mysterious agent of a trust had given him ten or twenty thousand-dollar bills. Huey was then running on a trust-busting platform. . . . "While he was running for Governor in 1924 on an anti-trust ticket, Huey P. Long, Jr., admitted to me that he had taken money from the Southwestern Gas and Electric Company, one of the biggest trusts ever known. . . . "Wall Street couldn't find a man in the world who would do i 4 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, them better service behind the scenes or who would stand hitched better than Huey P. Long, Jr." Such is the sort of thing that the politician, unflinch- ingly pursuing his course toward his goal, is likely to have to suffer from those who have been near and dear to him. Such are the charges — such the trials and tribula- tions. But be it noted that the strong and sagacious poli- tician has his reward. After nearly a year and a half of investigation, the Senate subcommittee reported, in Janu- ary, 1934. It criticized the conduct of elections in Louisiana, but it did not question the right of Senator Overton to his seat. So, the Kingfish triumphed, the virulent testimony of his brothers going for naught. Huey remained political dictator of Louisiana. And it may be said that, if he had received the large sums of money mentioned by his broth- ers, that would have been a reward of political life such as any business man could understand. But, of course, we do not believe stories of that sort. In passing, it may be mentioned that the report of the Senate subcommittee contained an interesting and sig- nificant passage: "The situation in Louisiana as it relates to elections cannot be defended. The political organizations play the political game according to the standard that the result is the important thing and the means of obtaining it a secondary consideration." This report was drawn by Senators, who were, of course, politicians themselves. One wonders if they had their tongues in their cheeks when they condemned such obvi- ous political wisdom as playing "the political game accord- ing to the standard that the result is the important thing and the means of obtaining it a secondary consideration." Reasonable Limitation of Political Ambition — Exam- ples — Conclusion, — It is well for one who aspires to be a successful politician to take thought seriously of the OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 15 ultimate public office that he plans to hold. Nearly all American politicians secretly hope to be President of the United States, and this secret hope is doubtless the undoing of some of them. A politician should remember that the chances against any one man's attaining the Presidency are very great. For most, it is a will-o'-the-wisp, a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. To become politically eligible for the Presidency one must make an appeal that is much more general than the appeal required for victory in a Congressional district or in a state. In attempting to make such a broad appeal, the politician runs a very great risk of cutting away the sure support that he has in his own section. For his own section probably has local interests, local passions and local prejudices that must be served if that section's votes are to be held, and those interests, passions and prejudices may not be held by the nation as a whole or by states sufficient to swing a Presi- dential election. A sure seat in the House of Representa- tives or the United States Senate is much to be preferred to a barren glimpse of a golden mirage of the Presidency. The wise politician is he who makes secure his own field. The widest reasonable field for the politician is his own state. The highest office that he should have definitely in mind is that of United States Senator. It does no harm in some instances for a shrewd and skillful politician to have a cautious and circumspect eye on the Presidency so long as he does not let his hopeful glances interfere with the assiduous manuring, cultivating and harvesting of his own field — his state. If Providence lifts a politician into the Presidency, well and good, but the part of true wisdom in nearly all cases is for the politician to build his strength within his own state. In making sure of his own field, the chance of pleasing the national field may be in- jured, but, as has been said, for most, that is of small concern. Exemplary conduct with respect to cultivating one's 16 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, own field — one's state — at the cost of offending other sec- tions has been displayed on more than one occasion by Representative Hamilton Fish, Jr., Republican, of New- York. This splendid and successful politician represents in Congress a heavily Republican upstate New York dis- trict, but, properly, he looks upon the whole state as his province. New York State as a whole has been and is strongly opposed to the proposal of developing the St. Lawrence River as a waterway capable of permitting the passage of ocean-going vessels to the Great Lakes. For many years there has been a powerful movement all through the Middle West in favor of this project. Cities on the Great Lakes, it is claimed, would be converted into seaports, and freight rates to and from Europe would be lowered for a dozen Middle Western states at least. But the City of New York fears that its importance as a port would be injured by the consummation of this vast project. All the cities along the Hudson River, all those along the Erie Canal, fear that the St. Lawrence seaway would cause a shriveling of their commerce. A few New York communities along the St. Lawrence favor the project, but all the rest of the state opposes it violently. Naturally, wise New York politicians are against the St. Lawrence project. If there must be a seaway for ocean-going craft, let the Erie Canal be enlarged so that ocean liners may use it. That, they point out, would be a patriotic project, an All-American project. It would not be tainted with internationalism by being partly in Canada, a foreign country. And this All-American Canal would, of course, develop, not injure, the cities of New York State. Let us see what the Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr., has had to say on the St. Lawrence project and the All-American Canal — these rival waterways: "The St. Lawrence project is an impracticability. It has been promised for the last ten years. But as yet not a spade has been OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 17 turned. Quebec and Montreal are opposed because they are hogging the trade and will not stand to see it pass by their front door to the inland American ports. In America we have a natural waterway, much better than the fog-bound and danger- ous St. Lawrence route. . . . The West is blinded by the St. Lawrence project. It is the duty of you delegates to explode the St. Lawrence myth." (From an address to the Atlantic Deeper Waterways Association convention, Poughkeepsie, New York, September 18, 1929.) "In view of Governor Roosevelt's apparent lack of interest in an ocean ship canal from Lake Ontario to the Hudson River, the Republican Legislature should assume the leadership, peti- tion Congress for the immediate construction of such a project. . . ." (From an address to the Putnam County, New York, Republican Committee, September 28, 1929.) "It is time we woke to the fact that they [a dozen Middle Western states] are spending upwards of $100,000 a year out there, spending the taxpayers' money, to create a lobby at Wash- ington. It is a preposterous proposition. They want the State of New York to contribute one-third of the cost of diverting trade from Troy, Albany and other New York State cities. It is a political myth, and I do not agree with the philosophy that we should remain silent and let these people get away with this vicious thing." (From an address to the Great Lakes-Hudson Waterways Association, Albany, June 27, 1930.) The Detroit News, strong supporter of the St. Lawrence project, in an editorial called, "Mr. Fish Makes a Fishy Speech," discussed on September 21, 1929, the speech quoted first above. Said the News: "In so far as he was quoted by the press, every single thing he said was wrong. . . . Mr. Fish should have posted himself before making himself ridiculous." But the Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr., knew what he was doing. He was catering to his own field. Those addresses quoted can be considered veritable models of excellence in this respect, and worthy of study by ambi- tious politicians. Mr. Fish was not a Representative from 18 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Michigan. If he had hailed from Detroit, or from Cleve- land or Milwaukee — all passionately yearning to be sea- ports by means of the St. Lawrence — perhaps he would have sung a different tune. Who knows? Obviously Mr. Fish's powerful opposition to the St. Lawrence project tends to make him unpopular in the dozen Middle Western states that, he said, were spending so much taxpayers' money in St. Lawrence propaganda. If he were definitely aiming at the Presidency (for which he has been mentioned and will be mentioned again) he could not afford to alienate that great group of states. Their electoral votes are vitally necessary for a Presiden- tial candidate, especially for a Republican candidate, as in past decades they have all been normally Republican states. But the exemplary Mr. Fish thinks primarily of New York State. He is not trying for a grand slam — yet. If his chance comes later, he will be clever enough to placate the Middle Western states in one way or another. Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to do it, and why not Hamilton Fish, Jr.? Another New York politician — a surprising and suc- cessful one — who has strongly and consistently opposed the St. Lawrence seaway is Senator Royal S. Copeland. Mr. Copeland, whose fondness for Pluto Water will be mentioned more fully later, may be said to have made a little slam (election to the Senatorship) thrice. He has astonished many commentators by his vote-getting capacity. But to those who have watched him carefully this capacity is no surprise; it is the inevitable result of logical action. Other examples could be cited of politicians wise enough to cultivate their own fields and let the nation and the Presidency go. Senator Hiram Johnson of California, recently triumphantly reelected for Heaven-knows-what term, has always understood the vital importance to California of a high price for nuts and citrous fruits. It OU TCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 19 may be assumed that the rest of the country (except Florida) would like to get these products as cheaply as possible. But, by arranging for a high tariff on nuts and fruits, Hiram has kept the price up and let the rest of the country pay and pay. California ueber alles! The Sena- tor has gazed more longingly than many others at the Presidency, but he has been sound enough always to make California safe for Johnson first. The tragic mischance in Senator Johnson's career is, of course, that he would have been President if he had accepted the Republican nomination for Vice-President in 1920 when it was offered him by the powers in control of the convention. But the Vice-Presidency did not appeal to him, and the country got Calvin Coolidge instead. The late Senator La Follette (the Elder) of Wisconsin was a conspicuous example of the wisdom of making sure one's own field rather than seeking to capture the great uncertain field of the nation. The Senator's social and economic program appealed to his own state but never (during his lifetime) with any great force to the nation as a whole. During the World War, before the United States entered it, Senator La Follette's utterances favorable to Germany produced a hostile feeling toward him throughout most of the country, but endeared him per- manently to the people of Wisconsin. Whatever chance he had of ever being President (and it was small) he sacrificed, but he assured himself of the position of Sena- tor from Wisconsin for life — or for even more than his own life. Senator La Follette's 1924 campaign for the Presidency made complete, in the career of one man, the lesson that a politician is wisest to confine himself to his own field. The Senator gained nothing at all by his futile campaign. But it must be noted that, even in 1924, his sagacity did not desert him. While he was running for President he was not called upon to give up or even to 2o THE POLITICIAN jeopardize his position as Senator from Wisconsin. He had several years more as Senator in any event. William Hale Thompson, the astute and affable Chi- cago politician, is another who has always been wise enough to direct his appeal not to the whole nation but to his own state, or his own city. A great many instances in proof of this might be cited, but, for the moment, one may point merely to Mayor Thompson's powerful ad- vocacy of the St. Lawrence project as contrasted with Mr. Fish's violent opposition to it. Mr. Thompson, "Big Bill the Builder," supported the attitude of his city and his state, and he was — politically — right. Some may object that Big Bill never reached the Senate — to which he seemed to aspire — and that he has totally disappeared from the political arena. It is not well to count Big Bill out too soon. Perhaps he is merely like King Arthur of Britain, who, according to the old legend, sleeps in Avalon but will return to rescue Britain in its need. Big Bill may not like being compared to a British king, even a legendary one, but the comparison may prove apt, for Big Bill may wake and return to rescue Chicago and Illinois. He need not hurry, for Chicago will always need rescuing. Not a Phenomenon of Nature, — Such are some actual instances, from the careers of great Americans, worthy of study and emulation, of the wisdom of a politician's cul- tivating intensively his own state rather than making a vague and tenuous appeal to the whole nation. It cannot be impressed too strongly on men and women who are or would be politicians that politics is an art and not a phenomenon of nature, and that the politician achieves success not by accident but by constant study and by the expert application of that study to his course of action. CHAPTER II Concerning the Mode of Life of a Politician: His Dress, His Home and Office, His Food and Drink Careful Regulation of Mode of Life — Allowances Made for Men of Wealth — But There are Limits — The Dress of a Politician — Suits, Derbies, Socks and Spats, Suspenders, Collars, Overalls, Pajamas and Other Items — The Food and Drink of a Politician — What He Eats — Crumbling and Dunking — The Great Corn- pone and Potlicker Contest — How the Politician Eats — A Warn- ing — What He Drinks — The Use of Tobacco — The Home of a Politician — Its Characteristics — Dangers — The Politician's Office. Careful Kegulation of Mode of Life — Allowances Made for Men of Wealth — But There are Limits. — No matter what might be his natural or acquired preferences, the politician who is clever and well-informed regulates his mode of life entirely with regard to its effect on his con- stituents. If advantageous, he deserts the social class to which he and his family have been accustomed, he gives up old friends, he moves into a different neighborhood. His dwelling, his place of business, his dress, his food and drink, his personal habits, his vocabulary, are such as will make a favorable impression on that majority of his con- stituency on which he depends for success. If he offends a minority that opposes him and that, in all probability, can never be his, he does not care. Indeed, the disapproval of this minority, which may be so extreme as to be dis- gust, is more than likely to be an asset to him, as he very well knows. The American voters are inclined to make liberal al- lowance for special circumstances. It may be said that the entrance into politics of a man of very great wealth 22 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, is still something rather special. Such a man is not ex- pected by the voters to live as do the run-of-the-mine politicians. As the highly educated man is allowed a somewhat fancier vocabulary, so the very wealthy man is allowed greater expenditure and a greater luxury of living. However, there are bounds for even the very wealthy when they decide to be politicians. They are safer if they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, quietly, for great paintings, which can be hidden in their homes, than for publicly displayed and often well-advertised luxury pos- sessions such as ocean-going yachts and racing stables. One of the wealthiest, perhaps the wealthiest, man active in American public life to-day is Ogden L. Mills, former Secretary of the Treasury and at present active contender for the Republican nomination for President in 1936. Mr. Mills's father died in 1929, leaving a net estate of $39,769,059.06, of which the son received as a trust fund approximately one-third, as well as New York property valued at over a million. But the then Under Secretary of the Treasury, whose interest in Rosie the Cow will be mentioned later, was wealthy before his father's death. In 1927 and 1928 he and a sister gained a good deal of notoriety through the victories of Dice, Diavolo, Dis- traction, Nixie and other horses of their racing stable. In the same summer, society columns of New York news- papers told of the arrival at Newport of the Under Secre- tary of the Treasury and his family in their yacht Alcalda. In March, 193 1, the New York Herald Tribune had a prominent article telling of the launching at Wilmington, Delaware, of a new yacht for Mr. Mills, the 169-foot, 1200-horse-power Avalon. A picture of the beautiful white-and-green vessel accompanied the article. It is a mistake for an American politician, no matter how wealthy, to own a racing stable or an ocean-going yacht, or to spend the summer at Newport. Senator OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 23 Couzens of Michigan is the one man in active public life who may rival Mr. Mills in wealth. One does not read of Mr. Couzens's racing horses or launching costly yachts or frequenting ultra-fashionable Newport. In general, high society, as such, is not for the politician. Senator Huey Long knew what he was doing when in De- cember, 1933, he asked that his name be removed from the Washington, D. C, Social Register. The Dress of a Politician — Suits, Derbies, Socks and Spats, Suspenders, Collars, Overalls, Pajamas and Other Items. — It has been said that a politician's dress is such as will make a favorable impression on his constituents. Of course, the wealthy and cultured politician, such as Mr. Mills or Mr. Fish, is not expected to dress in the same manner as the poor and, as it were, untutored politician. The lawyer politician is not correctly dressed — for political purposes — if he uses the same garb as the farmer politician. There are, it is evident, distinctions. Also, it may be said that American politicians are all expected to dress their best at the funerals that they are constantly attending. But, in spite of exceptions and special cases, certain generalities and certain hints as to the advanta- geous dress of a politician can be stated. In general, the American politician does well to dress in an inelegant, inartistic manner, clothing himself in a way that appeals to the people as their own. Further, it is to his advantage to have some individual eccentricity of dress, something entirely his own — a sort of trademark or identification tag that advertises him to the world and endears him to his constituents. One of the most famous trademarks of this sort of recent times was, of course, the brown derby of that popular and persuasive politician, Governor Alfred E. Smith of New York. (Mr. Smith was head of the state for so many terms that "Governor" has become as much his name as "Alfred.") The brown derby, in spite of the fact that souvenir- 24 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, hunters would occasionally grab at his head and that he had to give a good many hats to admirers, was a great political asset to Governor Smith. The brown derby, crowning his genial and friendly countenance in many a campaign or waved in his hand to cheering thousands, was a link with the common people and a rallying sign as distinctive as the helmet of Navarre. Nowadays, photographs of Al, hatted, usually show him with a shiny silk hat, but, if a vote of his admirers were taken and he abided by it, he would still be wearing the brown derby. William Hale Thompson, for three terms Mayor of Chicago, Mayor during Chicago's most interesting and most staccato period, employed in a capacity similar to Governor Smith's brown derby a great sombrero-like felt hat. This was not only a satisfactory identification-mark, but also served to remind the voters that Big Bill, no matter how long confined in the city in the service of the people, was really an outdoor man, a man of the great open spaces, rugged, strong, quick on the trigger in the people's interests. Former Senator Brookhart of Iowa, defeated in the 1932 Republican primary by Uncle Henry Field, did not pass from public life — temporarily — because of any sar- torial error. Mr. Brookhart knew how to dress politically. While he represented the Hawkeye State in the upper house at Washington, he never wore a dress-suit. This was not from lack of knowledge of what fashion dictated for men at evening functions. In a sack suit, he attended dinners at which others wore formal evening clothes. But the Senator knew the danger of dress-suits and other ele- gant and costly raiment. What was permitted for a rich Eastern politician or even for a big-city politician of the Middle West, he believed, very wisely, was not best for him. He declared that he would never wear a dress-suit until Judge William S. Kenyon, whom the Senator greatly OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 25 admired, was elected President. Judge Kenyon would probably have made a splendid President, but he had little chance of being elevated to that position at the time of the Brookhart declaration, and now the Judge is dead. Senator Brookhart's pledge always seemed to mean, and now must mean, that he expects never to wear a dress- suit. This is no injury to him politically. Dress-suits are dangerous, especially in the agricultural states, and more so of late years than ever. Senator Brookhart, whose sincerity and public spirit are appreciated by Democrats if not by his fellow Repub- licans, understands the art of political dressing in other respects than merely avoiding dress-suits. For example, while Senator, he seemed never to appear in a new suit of any sort, and one wondered if he had a method of aging his suits in private before showing them in public. His practice in this regard is worthy of emulation. His slouch hats, too, have always been well worn. He also understood the political value of overalls, and, some years ago, pictures of him so clad were well circulated. There have been other overalled politicians. Not so very many years ago — or so it seems to some of us — photographs of the late William Jennings Bryan, one of the most beloved and most berated of American politi- cians, clad in overalls and carrying milk-pails freshly filled by his own efforts, were distributed throughout the country. There was a splendid homely appeal about these pictures, as there often was about other clothing effects produced by Mr. Bryan, but, unfortunately for the great Commoner, they were counteracted by the report that he had had several thousand-dollar electric fixtures in- stalled in his home. Perhaps Ogden Mills (who has not yet been called "Old Honest Og") or Uncle Andy Mellon could quietly introduce thousand-dollar lighting fixtures into his home. But, with such and possibly a few other exceptions, it may be said that no home occupied by a 26 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, man seeking public office should contain even one lighting fixture costing a thousand dollars. Mr. Bryan knew this. He immediately denied that the fixtures had cost a thou- sand dollars each, and explained that the price had been two hundred and fifty dollars. However, even that is much too high a figure for an electric fixture for the home of a man in politics, and undoubtedly some damage was done by the original story and was not erased by the correction. The Bryan overalls seemed to lead us to the electric fixtures, but we are really not yet out of the politician's wardrobe. There are other, some minor, items of dress to be considered. And there are other politicians whose political use of clothing is to be mentioned. Former Senator James A. Reed of Missouri when he was active in politics well understood the clothing ques- tion. In those days he was a vigorous and victorious politician, and almost any act of his was worth recording and studying. Mr. Reed's primary campaign in 1922 against Breckinridge Long for the Democratic nomination for Senator was distinguished by a number of unusual features. Senator Reed that summer delivered practi- cally all his speeches while collarless and in rolled-up shirt- sleeves. He handled the issues not only without gloves but without cuffs. It must be understood that he appeared on the platform with carefully knotted necktie, with im- maculate collar, and with sleeves lowered to the wrist. When he removed his collar and necktie and rolled up his sleeves, his auditors knew beyond a doubt that he was one of them. And they knew that some fur — not Senator Reed's — was going to fly. The successful outcome of that campaign proved the efficacy of Senator Reed's methods. Former Senator Magnus Johnson of Minnesota is another who made good use of the act of ripping off the collar while addressing an audience. It seems to be established that the removal of the collar in the presence OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 27 of an audience is more effective than appearing before the audience without a collar in the first place. A famous politician of a somewhat earlier day — of forty years ago, in fact — discarded not his collar but his socks. This was a carefully conceived and executed part of his political technique. It was not due to any real personal antipathy to socks, but to a conviction that a sockless condition was advantageous for political purposes. The sockless one was the Populist Jerry Simpson, a Kansas hero of those distant days. A year or so ago, indignant Kansans, defending the memory of "Sockless Jerry" Simp- son, insisted that he had never appeared without socks and that the nickname had undoubtedly been given him by the capitalistic press of the time. But the Kansas City Times, searching the files of its big brother, the Kansas City Star, of forty years ago, found Simpson's admission that he deliberately discarded socks as a way of displaying his own plainness in contrast to the fashionable attire of his opponent. His bareness was of the people. The Times, after its researches, declared: "Although he cam- paigned without socks, he always wore them after elec- tion. But the restoration could not overcome the effect of the discarding. We now know that Jerry Simpson conceived the campaign trick and invited publicity con- cerning it. The thing was not 'tacked' on him." Sockless Jerry knew what he was doing. He had the correct political technique. What politician would not go without socks if that would elect him to Congress? Simpson's dress, or undress, had a distinctive feature — an identification-mark. And it was a feature that appealed to the people — to the bleeding heart or the bleeding feet of Kansas. He was the successful forerunner of the rip- pers-off of collars, the rollers-up of sleeves, the wearers of overalls, of well-ripened suits, of sombreros, of brown derbies. It is not so long ago that a newspaper told of a story 2 8 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, in circulation to the effect that Thomas J. Heflin, then Senator from Alabama, took off his socks when he entered his home state. I think this story was untrue, but, had it been true, the Senator would not have suffered politically. It is probably safer — politically — for a politician to remove some item of clothing usually considered neces- sary than to add something considered by the general public unnecessary. Particularly with respect to the ankles. In other words, it seems a well-established rule that politicians should not wear spats. Some, such as the late Nicholas Longworth, have been able to wear them and survive politically, but Longworth's was an example that others would do well not to follow. Late in 1930, Senator Joseph T. Robinson of Arkansas, one of the most able and affable of politicians, party leader of the Senate Democrats, created a good deal of criticism and exposed himself to unnecessary danger by wearing spats. He returned from abroad and, behold, he had succumbed to the weakening influence of effete and luxurious Europe. Columnists, including Heywood Broun in the New York Telegram, and Clinton W. Gil- bert in the Philadelphia Public Ledger and associated newspapers, poked a good deal of fun at the great Ar- kansas statesman. Broun said: "It is up to Joe Robinson to reconsider. Was he elected to preserve the rule of the people or to show his constituency what the well- dressed man will wear?" Gilbert said: "I do not know why spats are so dangerous politically, but no session of Congress passes without some one's having his moral char- acter assailed for no better reason than that he wears de- tachable cloth uppers to his shoes." Joe Robinson has managed to survive thus far, but probably the reason is that his reputation is so high that his constituents simply do not believe the libelous story of his wearing spats. It is a relief to turn from Senator Robinson's strange OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 29 aberration to the sterling and sensible conduct of Governor "Alfalfa Bill" Murray of Oklahoma. Alfalfa Bill may not know what spats are, and, if he does, he is shrewd enough not to confess it. Governor Murray's dress is, properly, that of the people. Pictures of Alfalfa Bill usually show him wearing the people's garment — or equip- ment — that is, suspenders, or galluses. Typical of his con- duct in this matter was the occasion of his arrival in Chicago on September 6, 193 1, when he came to deliver a Labor Day address. He was met at the station by a distinguished delegation, but handshaking was held up a moment while he adjusted his suspenders. "I unbuttoned them to be more comfortable on the train," the Governor explained. The homely garment, or device, and Alfalfa Bill's simple close-to-the-earth statement were in the best political tradition. His whole equipment that day was to be com- mended. A dispatch in the New York Times said: "The Governor wore a pair of brownish trousers, a gray coat, bulging with papers, and white canvas shoes. The coat and trousers had gone far since they left a tailor's goose. The ensemble was completed with a tie of lavender de- sign." Obviously, here was a man that the people could trust. And they have trusted him. One who makes skillful political use of clothing, but in a unique and unorthodox way, is the Honorable Huey Long, the Kingfish. The Louisiana Senator seems to think of clothing not so much as a way of proving his union with the common people as a means of acquiring publicity. The Kingfish realizes the inestimable value of publicity, and he is a great master of it. Further mention of this will be made later. Judged by the photographs of him that stream into the newspapers, the Senator is usually impeccably clad. But sometimes he wears pajamas. They are of different colors — lovely colors. And Huey's pajamas mean publicity. 3 o THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, The Kingfish's most famous pajamas were the Green Pajamas of 1930. It was in March of that famous year — famous because of this incident. The German cruiser Emden was at New Orleans. Lotha von Arnold de la Pieriere, its commander, decided to pay a courtesy call on the Governor of the state. Accompanied by the German Consul, Rolf L. Jaeger, the Emden's commander, in a most dignified manner, made his way to the Governor's residence. Governor Long, having been apprised of the coming visit, was clad in green silk pajamas, a red and blue dressing-gown and a pair of blue bedroom slippers when he received his distinguished guests. The representatives of the German Republic, after a hasty departure from the Governor's presence, declared that his "raiment was an insult" and demanded an apology. Governor Long did apologize, and issued an explanation: "I come from Winn- field, up in the hills of Louisiana. I know little of diplo- macy and much less of international courtesies." The Germans were mollified, and greeted Governor Long with a thunderous salute when, in formal dress, he went to the Emden to return its commander's visit. The voters were pleased by the Governor's reference to his humble origin in the hills of Louisiana. And it must be remembered that Louisiana is the one state with a large French population, and treating Germans in a somewhat careless manner is no crime there. The newspapers of the state and of the nation printed countless columns on the green pajamas incident. It kept Huey in the public eye. According to an Associated Press dispatch from New Orleans, Governor Long's pajamas had a distinguished de- fender, the Countess de Topor Lakopolanski, wife of a Polish nobleman, who was visiting in New Orleans. The Countess declared that some people took the green pajamas incident too seriously and insisted that "indecorous rai- ment" was not unprecedented in European royalty. "Pos- sibly the Governor wanted to identify himself more fully OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 31 with the class of famous dictators of whom the outstand- ing examples are Mussolini and de Rivera," said the Countess. She explained that Mussolini had received an international celebrity while dressed in intimate bedroom garments and that Primo de Rivera had greeted distin- guished visitors clad only in his "culottes." The Governor thanked the Countess for her spirited and timely defense. Whether he was then or has been since aping Mussolini or not, there is no doubt that Governor Long must have thought the green pajamas incident an asset. At any rate, he saw to it that there were other incidents of the same sort. On June 4, 1930, General Frank R. McCoy, Com- mander of the Southwestern Army Corps, and his staff called on Governor Long in his New Orleans residence. It was eleven in the morning, and the Governor had two hours' notice of the coming visit, which was on official business. The Governor received the General et al. in the gubernatorial bedroom. When the army officers, in uni- form, were shown in, they found Huey wearing an under- shirt and shorts. The famous green pajamas were on the bed. The Governor, it is reported, made some advance in his toilet during the official interview. This underwear episode caused some editorial comment. The Boston Herald, discussing both pajamas and underwear incidents, said: "Disappointingly, the papers do not say how the pajamas were cut, or whether the Governor wears the coat tucked in or hang- ing loose; or whether the underwear was woven or knit, form- molded or loose, colored or white. But there was nothing over it or the pajamas, anyway, and the citizens are wondering whether he is trying to set a precedent for gubernatorial attire and is unable to decide whether the underwear or the night wear shall be official." It is possible that the Herald was trying to make fun of Governor Long, but the Kingfish thrives on ridicule. He 32 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, went his way regardless. On January 25, 1932, the day on which he was received into the United States Senate, he appeared in lavender pajamas, not in the Senate cham- ber, but to receive newspaper men in his hotel. And this costume was duly recorded in the press. On January 29, 1934, the Senator, clad in red pajamas, gave a bedside in- terview to the Associated Press. The Senator had just been challenged to a duel by a New Orleans political opponent, but this was hardly of as much interest as the color of his pajamas. The American public is now well aware that Senator Long has, or has had, green pajamas, lavender pajamas and red pajamas. Politically, he has been bene- fited by these gay garments. And he may have others. We shall see. The Food and Drink of a Politician — What He Eats. — As there is a dress-technique to be observed by the politi- cian, so there are rules and precepts that a politician should follow in the matter of food and drink. There has been for many years a continuous drum-fire of propaganda on the subject of what is best for people to eat. The country has been surfeited, not with foods but with diets. We have had the Hollywood Eighteen-Day Diet, the Sansum Diet, the Hay (Doctor, not timothy or clover) Diet, the Raw Tomatoes Diet, the Bananas and Skimmed Milk Diet, and many others. Under the diet barrage, the people of the United States have become food and drink conscious. Each item offered for mastication is suspect, and, in gen- eral, foods and drinks are rejected unless they are swarm- ing with vitamines. The American people, when sober, have been propagandized and instructed into such a state that they will eat nothing unless they know that it is best for them. As the great American Citizen and his wife now eat what is best for them, so does the wise and instructed poli- tician eat what is best for him. But the citizen eats what is best for him from a bodily standpoint while the politi- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 33 cian eats what is best for him politically. He eats what will make a favorable impression on his constituents. Usually, to make a favorable impression on his constitu- ents, a politician must eat what they eat — what they eat or what they raise — and that's generally the same thing. The majority of the voters eat what they can afford to eat, not what they want to eat, and the politician, in eating the food of the people, may have to stomach foods that do not agree with his wishes or with his bowels. But votes are more important than a pleased palate or an easy colon. Since the people as a whole cannot afford rich and costly things, the politician eschews these, too, unless he is cer- tain that his eating of them can never be learned by his constituents. It is safer for the politician never to eat such foods at all. Generally, simple foods are the proper foods for a politician. Naturally, if a politician regulates his eating to please his constituents, he must see that the constituents are in- formed of what he is doing. Accordingly, he eats photo- graphically and journalistically. That is, he sees to it that his eating of foods popular with his people is recorded in the press by means of photographs and news-articles. He makes positive statements about his eating habits, his pref- erences — his pretended preferences. What constitutes a popular food or foods — foods best for a politician — varies according to the politician's habi- tat. He eats and he eulogizes the products of his state. The Louisiana politician eats sugar — a great deal of it — cane sugar. Sugar, he announces, is not only the best food, but is really a medicine as well. The Colorado and Utah politicians eat sugar too, but they make sure that it is beet sugar. They insist that beet sugar is the best. The Wiscon- sin politician eats cheese. The Iowa politician eats ham and bacon and cornmeal in various forms. The Minnesota and Dakota politicians eat wheat bread and loudly proclaim it to be energy food. It is the women and their dieting — 34 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, their fear of obesity — that have ruined the wheat farmer. The politicians from the wheat states call upon the women, with a good deal of violence, to stop their tomfoolery and to eat bread and plenty of it, for patriotic and for ener- getic reasons. In Maryland the politician stuffs himself with oysters, not bread. The expert observer and student of politics can, as he sits in the dining-room of a Washington hotel, place geo- graphically many of those who are feeding about him. The man who empties the plate of rolls, nibbles at one or two, and breaks beyond re-serving all of the rest, is from a wheat-growing state. He is consuming as much wheat as possible. The man who removes from the sugar bowl as much as he dares and soils his plunder beyond all further use is undoubtedly from Louisiana, Colorado or Utah. He is doing his bit for sugar. The man who is gulping oysters is probably from the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Crumbling and Dunking — The Great Com pone and Po flicker Contest. — Politicians from the great cotton- growing states cannot, of course, eat cotton. But they make a great point of eating traditional Southern dishes. The best-publicized Southern food, although perhaps not the most palatable, is cornpone, and, of course, all South- ern politicians are vocally very fond of it. Any North- erner running for President who hopes to carry the South is publicly very fond of it also. Early in 193 1, the indefatigable Huey Long brought cornpone to public attention in a manner that threatened to divide the South into hostile camps and to cause trouble for certain Northern statesmen aspiring to the Presidency who had their eyes on Southern delegates to the Demo- cratic Convention. These Northerners wanted to be right on the cornpone issue, but some of them were not sure what cornpone was. They were troubled still more be- cause in this agitation, which lasted for a month or more, OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 35 cornpone was coupled with some mysterious fluid called "potlicker" or "pot likker." Huey, who seems to be always making trouble for the more dignified statesmen of the South, started the battle on this occasion by declaring with his usual confidence that, when one ate cornpone and potlicker, the cornpone was "dunked" in the liquid. This apodeictic statement of the then Senator-elect was disputed by the Atlanta Con- stitution, For Northerners who do not know about such matters, it may be explained that the Atlanta Constitution is one of the great newspapers of the South, indeed, of the nation. And the Constitution is an authority on the traditions, manners and customs of the South. Said the Constitution, with quiet dignity, when Huey issued his pronouncement: "Cornpone, so-called, that can be dunked is not genuine cornpone, despite the assertion of Governor Long to the contrary." The Constitution insisted that genuine cornpone should be and, in fact, could only be crumbled into the potlicker. Real cornpone, it held, did not have the consistency to be dunked. Huey was not daunted. When was he ever? He tele- graphed to the Constitution: "I will stand for your ques- tioning my political sagacity and legal capacity, but my recipe for potlicker is given out from a source that cannot be questioned. ... I demand immediate correction." The Constitution, replying to the Governor, explained with patient good-humor: "Your telegram filled with indignation and potlicker is not clear. The Constitution did not question your recipe for the potlicker, but it loyally controverted your assertion that when potlicker and cornpone are eaten in combination the latter is 'dunked.' "The Constitution, which for more than sixty years has been a patriotic arbiter of all matters pertaining to potlicker, corn- pone, dumplings, fried collards, sweet 'tater biscuits and 'sim- 36 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, mon beer and 'possum, reiterates its assertion that cornpone is crumbled into the potlicker and not 'dunked.' . . ." The Constitution called upon Governor Long to yield and gave him a time-limit in which to do so. When he failed to give way, the newspaper claimed that the issue was joined, and it sent telegrams to the Governors of the Southern states asking their views — and to Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York, Georgia's adopted son. This catapulted the dispute into the newspapers of the nation, not of the South alone. And it made the Democratic Presidential candidates uneasy. Most Northerners, reading their newspaper accounts of this great battle that was earthquaking the South, smacked their lips. "Potlicker! Potlicker!" Must be something like a mint julep or perhaps stronger — something like old Ken- tucky Bourbon. One of those fascinating and thrilling beverages of the Old South. The Southerners really knew how to live! But a great many Northerners lost interest in the whole affair when they learned that there was no alcohol in pot- licker, that it was some sort of juice or residue obtained from boiling vegetables with a piece of pork or a hog jowl. Some benighted Northerners went so far as to say that the stuff sounded nauseating to them. This unfavorable impression in the North was enhanced by a statement issued by a sacrilegious and traitorous Southern newspaper, the Macon (Georgia) Telegraph, This statement, which had a wide circulation in the North, read: "The cornpone should be crumbled in the soup plate, Doctor of Laws Long to the contrary notwithstanding. The potlicker should be poured upon it. After that has been done, it is all ready to be poured in the hog trough. No human being should eat it." However the generality of Northerners may have felt, OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 37 the politicians of the South and the Democratic Presiden- tial candidates of the North did not lose interest in the dunking-versus-crumbling battle. They could not afford to ignore it. It was an issue close to the hearts or stomachs of the Southern people. Governor-Elect Russell of Lou- isiana, who was to succeed Governor Long, was bold enough to say that he crumbled — he crumbled the bread in the plate and poured the potlicker over it. His daring statement concluded tactfully: "I can't tell you too strongly, though, that I think it is powerfully good either way." Crafty politician! Governor Miller of Alabama supported neither dunkers nor crumblers, but advocated snap-bean potlicker with biscuits crumbled in it. A side- stepper! Governor Pollard of Virginia wired the Consti- tution: "Record me against introducing another likker question to divide the ranks of Democracy." Another evading the question! Governor Roosevelt was slow in replying. Governor Murray of Oklahoma (Alfalfa Bill) asked a truce in the war until his favorite dish of hog jowl and poke salad could be investigated. A sort of red herring that! Governor Horton of Tennessee said that he crum- bled, but had no prejudice against those who dunked. Another Mr. Facing-Two-Ways, Mr. Carrying-Water- (or Potlicker) -on-Both-Shoulders, was Governor Sterling of Texas, who said that "in the great State of Texas public opinion and social usage are so liberal that it is considered good etiquette either to dunk or crumble one's cornbread in one's potlicker." However, he added: "If there be any advantage, it would seem to be on the side of crumbling, for most Texas cornbread is made so delicate of texture and so exquisite of fiber in order for it to melt in one's mouth that it falls to pieces when one tries to dunk it, and therefore crumbling is the only practicable means of en- joying the delicacy." A clever compliment to the house- wives of Texas! 38 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, All this time Governor Roosevelt said nothing. There were those who declared that, with his usual political skill, he was waiting to hear the whisper of the voice of the majority. Senator Blease of South Carolina came out for crum- bling. The great New York newspapers — the Times, the deeply lamented World, the Herald Tribune — took up the battle, interviewing many residents of New York who had mi- grated from the South. Mayor Jimmie Walker was asked where he stood. At first, he said he did not like cornpone. Later, cornpone and potlicker were put on his desk, and he was said to have made a lunch of the combination. But no one saw him do it, and he did not say how. Although the controversy was now raging in New York City, Governor Roosevelt was silent. Governor Carlton of Florida came out with a statement: "Down here most of us are Baptists and we maintain that dunking does not go deep enough — that the immersion must be absolute and complete submersion, so that the process of perco- lation and soaking may be carried to a triumphant end." On February 25, after the war had been going on for weeks — or, at any rate, for some days — Governor Roose- velt, in a press conference at Albany, made public a tele- gram that he had sent to the Atlanta Constitution: "Because I am at least an adopted Georgian, I am deeply stirred by the great controversy. ... In order to avoid serious differences, I suggest referring the whole subject to the platform committee of the next Democratic National Convention. . . . In the meantime I am hoping the New York State Legislature will soon adjourn in order that I may return to Georgia for my own potlicker and cornpone. I must admit that I crumble mine." The crumblers seemed to have it. The defenses of the dunkers crumbled. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 39 Now, there were only two serious contenders for the 1932 Democratic nomination for President — Franklin D. Roosevelt and Alfred E. Smith. Mr. Roosevelt was a little slow in lining up on the potlicker-cornpone question, but he finally came clean — tactfully, but definitely. Al Smith, who is usually not tongue-tied, never said a word. What was the South to conclude from this? Governor Roose- velt's tact in this matter was such that he did not even lose the support of Huey Long, the great dunker himself, in the 1932 Convention. But Al got no support from the South. Is it too much to say that Al lost out at Chicago not because he was a Catholic or because he had the backing of Tammany or because Mr. McAdoo switched the Cali- fornia vote from Mr. Garner to Mr. Roosevelt, but because he failed completely in his handling, or lack of handling, of the potlicker-cornpone question? How could the South, still having the veto power in a Democratic Con- vention, accept a man who did not know what potlicker was and, even worse, apparently didn't care? How the 'Politician Eats — A Warning — What He Drinks — The Use of Tobacco. — What the politician eats is, as has been explained, of the highest importance. The places in which he eats it and even the manner of eating have their importance too. In these methods, as with re- spect to clothing, the antecedents, the training and culture, the wealth, of the politician have a bearing and permit dif- ferences in practice. Of course, the general principle is that the politician eats where and how it is best for him, politically, but what is best differs. Wealthy and highly educated politicians, such as Mr. Fish, Mr. Mills, former Senator Bingham, Senator Couzens, Governor Lehman, may eat in costly restaurants and hotels without injurious re- sult, and are expected to eat in a graceful, proper and ele- gant manner. The poorer politicians — indeed, the general run of politicians — do well to avoid costly eating-places. 4 o THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, And, for most, a dainty and fastidious manner of eating is not advised. The mass of the voters do not eat that way and they are not pleased to see those asking their suffrage eating in a delicate and superior manner. They may per- mit it in those born to wealth, but they do not like it in others. One of America's great politicians, now deceased, a man who knew the people's likes and prejudices as well as any, a man who attended a great many public dinners and ban- quets, was often criticized — sneered at — ridiculed — by the rich and fashionable because, as a general practice, he left his spoon in his cup of coffee and usually appeared at din- ners and banquets with food stains on his suit, to which more were added during the course of the meal. This great politician was not reared in luxury, and may have been socially ignorant when he began his political career. But he had enormous social experience as the years passed. Still, he did not change his ways. The spoon remained in the cup and the spots remained on the suits. Reports of the great man's practice in these matters — photographs of the spoon in the cup — brought smiles to the lips of the wealthy but endeared the ridiculed one to the common people. Be it noted that the banquets that this wise and expe- rienced politician attended were not banquets of the rich. They were political gatherings, gatherings of farmers, of small business men, of representatives of organized labor. Politicians should avoid big public banquets of the rich as they would the bubonic plague. The great James G. Blaine lost the Presidency because he was the honor guest at Belshazzar's Feast. The personal habits of the politician with respect to alcoholic drinks as well as his public utterances on the sub- ject are, of course, regulated by the wishes of his constitu- ents. Sometimes the politician may have a little difficulty in learning those wishes, but when he does, he acts accord- ingly. To drink or not to drink was, for a time, especially OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 41 during the prohibition era, a troublous question. In some parts of the country where sentiment is about evenly divided it is a hard question even to-day. To-day, with anti-prohibition sentiment generally dominant through- out the land, it is advisable for the politician almost every- where to be a drinker. It was always so in New York and New Jersey, even during prohibition. It was always so in Illinois and Wisconsin. In California, it was always desir- able for the politician to take an occasional glass of wine — that is, if it was certainly California wine. In Kansas, in Mississippi, the politician is a teetotaler. Instances have been known of reputed total abstainers carrying elections in "wet" districts by appearing some- what under the influence of liquor on the public street at a crucial moment and by having that fact well spread about by faithful lieutenants. The reassured and com- forted electorate responded favorably as a result. Even the use of tobacco is not to be passed over as unim- portant in the conduct of a politician. Years ago, it was inadvisable for a politician to smoke cigarettes. There was something effeminate, dainty, un-he-manly, about the practice. It was bad. It was better for the politician to smoke pipes — old, friendly, dirty, bubbling-with-juice pipes — and cigars — long black cigars such as made Uncle Joe Cannon famous. But, now that the tobacco com- panies have pretty well established in the public mind the belief that the smoking of cigarettes is as energizing as eating beefsteak, there is, in most localities, no great polit- ical harm in the practice. However, cigars and pipes are still safer — better political form. Before the advent of woman suffrage, chewing, or, as it is familiarly called, "eating," plug tobacco was unques- tionably an advantage to the politician. Wise politicians were ostentatiously addicted to the habit, even at the cost of injuring digestion. Women do not like the appearance of a tobacco-chewer. Accordingly, since the coming of 42 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, suffrage, the politician who eats tobacco does it only in the presence of sympathetic men — fellow chawers. The Home of a Politician — Its Characteristics — Dangers — The Politician's Office. — The rich politician, who is, as has been said, the exception, may, to be sure, occupy a more costly dwelling than the poor or average politician may dare to inhabit. But even the rich man is warned to be cautious and circumspect in this important matter. Most of the men and women of America, in spite of now- outdated foreign opinion to the contrary, are generally unable to pay all their bills at once and are often on the verge of being evicted for non-payment of rent. Since the depression set in the financial condition of most Amer- icans has grown worse. They do not enjoy seeing office- holders or office-seekers reveling in too-great luxury. The rich politician may have a fine home, but it should not be too large or too ostentatious — or too artistic. Most politicians should carefully avoid costly and pre- tentious dwellings, and should be even more careful in fleeing from any home that could be called artistic. The late Calvin Coolidge set an excellent example in this regard during the years when he was struggling upward. He paid thirty-five dollars a month rent for his home in North- ampton, which was half of a double house that could by no stretch of the imagination be called artistic. Mr. Cool- idge's course in this matter convinced hundreds of thou- sands, perhaps millions, of people in Massachusetts and throughout the nation that he was safe and steady. He was frugal and he was not interested in art. The American people, although changing slowly, are still very suspicious of art and of any one interested in it. A servant of the people should, usually, reside in a dwelling that the people will recognize as of themselves. As ninety-nine percent of the dwellings of America are not artistic, it follows inevitably that one who lives in an artistic home is looked upon with a certain amount of dis- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 43 trust. This is not very important to most business men, whose homes are not greatly advertised, but is very impor- tant indeed to the politician, whose acts and thoughts are all devoted to winning the confidence and the votes of the people. Politicians are well advised to remember that appreciation of the beautiful, as evidenced by the posses- sion of a beautiful dwelling, large or small, is dangerous. Large houses are not so dangerous if they are of the vintage of American architecture that abounded in conical towers, sharp minarets, pinnacles, battlemented turrets and great sweeping open porches with fancy turned columns and plenty of intricate grille-work. How insidious enemies may seek to injure a politician by spreading stories of his living in a costly house is illus- trated in the case of Senator Long. Like most politicians, he is continually beset by enemies plotting to ruin him. They stop at nothing. But he is too shrewd for them. On September 23, 1933, Senator Long's home in New Orleans was set afire twice. The flames were successfully extin- guished, with damage estimated at $1,700. The Senator stated that the incendiary attempt was the third in a few months. But it was not the fires that were damaging. They were rather an asset to Mr. Long. Showing the viru- lence of his enemies, they aroused greater enthusiasm in his friends. The injury at the time of these fires lay in the fact that they caused news-articles to be published to the effect that Senator Long's home was worth $40,000. That was bad. But worse was to follow. On October 30, 1933, a United Press dispatch from New Orleans stated that "an apostle of redistribution of wealth and 'sock the rich' pol- icies, Senator Long resides in splendor in a $60,000 man- sion." Property values in New Orleans must have leaped upward in a month, and a "home" had swollen to a "man- sion." For Ogden Mills or Senator Couzens, $60,000 for a home would be quite correct. In fact, it would be very 44 THE POLITICIAN modest. But it is not good for Huey Long. However, thus far, the Kingfish has been able to take care of himself, and it seems safe to say that the people of Louisiana do not believe that $40,000 and $60,000 nonsense. The office or place of business of the politician should always be one in which his constituents will feel at home. In the past, most American politicians have been lawyers, and, indeed, the vast majority of our practicing politicians to-day are members of the legal profession. As a rule, it is best for the lawyer-politician to avoid a luxurious office and expensive furniture. He prefers second-hand furni- ture, if he can get it. There should be no desk or chair in his office on which his friends and supporters may not comfortably place their feet. He shuns the new and ex- pensive office building in selecting the location of his office, choosing, rather, a suite on the second floor over some small retail store or in some old and not-too-clean office building. If the politician is a publisher or editor, he studiously avoids architectural value in his building and neatness in the rooms in which he meets callers. The people are distrustful of a politician whose place of business is kept in a manner that discourages familiarity. CHAPTER III Concerning the Birth, the Training and Educa- tion, the Occupation and the Special Qualifica- tions of the Politician Place of Birth — The Duty of Parents — Social and Economic Class — Rectification of Errors — Training and Education of a Politician — Alfred E. Smith, Huey P. Long — An Obscure Ex- ample — Is College Necessarily an Injury? — What College for the Politician? — The Most Favorable Businesses for Politicians — The Power of Oratory — Failures Due to Its Absence — The Poli- tician's Choice of Language — A Lovely Castle of Sound — The Opposite — The Advantages of Travel, Especially in Foreign Parts — What Senators Learn in Europe. Place of Birth — The Duty of Parents — Social and Eco- nomic Class — Rectification of Errors. — It is practically impossible nowadays for a politician to be born in a log cabin, although, no doubt, such remains the ideal birth- place. If married people would only plan the lives of their children a little bit ahead. ... It seems to me that a poli- tician would not be asking too much of his parents to require that they choose an advantageous dwelling for his birth — a dwelling advantageous to his future career. At such a time the politician cannot act for himself as he can in later years, and it would seem only reasonable that his parents should thus guard his interests for him. While foresighted and solicitous parents will, if they can, secure a log cabin for the confinement of the mother of the future politician, they will, of course, take the next best, if no such cabin is available. They will buy or rent a house suitable for the birth of the politician. In general, it will be a house of the people, such a house as described 45 46 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, in the last chapter as most appropriate for the politician's own residence, but more modest. It is desirable that the politician should, to some extent, rise in the world. He should not rise to a home that is artistic, but it is always well received if he rises to a dwelling larger and more mod- ern, even if uglier, than his birthplace. The politician who is rich from birth has in this, as in so many other respects, a handicap to overcome. That is the curse of a large heritage. But money is in so many ways helpful to politicians that the born-rich ones need not despair. The well-born, or eugenic, politician will not only ar- rive in the right sort of dwelling, but he will be born into that class of the population which is politically the most powerful in his district. In a predominantly agricultural section, he should be born of farmer parents. In a district under the political control of organized labor, he should have parents with union cards. In a district under the control of business, it is to his advantage to be born of business people. As parents dominate the pre-natal career of a politician, they can, in this matter of class, act skillfully for the best results. They can, and should, move, if necessary, into a district in which their own class dominates, so that the politician may be born and reared in favorable surround- ings. If the parents are stupid, neglectful or otherwise ineffective in this, it is desirable for the politician, when he is his own boss, to rectify this error. That is, if he is born and raised in a district unfavorable to his future operations, when he gets ready to function politically, he moves. Voters, as a whole, do not realize how many politicians shift their residences into districts favorable to their ambi- tions. It is not always a matter of social or economic class. There are often other reasons, which will be mentioned later. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 47 Training and Education of a Politician — Alfred E. Smith, Huey P. Long — An Obscure Example — Is College Necessarily an Injury? — What College for the Politician? — The question of what is education will not be discussed exhaustively in this treatise. That education is not iden- tical with learning acquired at schools is proved by the instance of one Alfred Emanuel Smith, patriotic and public-spirited politician, four times Governor of New York State, who, with very little help from schools, became an extraordinarily well-educated man. His educa- tion, as he earned it himself, was an ideal one for a success- ful politician. Mr. Smith has been the recipient of high-sounding honorary degrees from famous universities. But the degree of "F.F.M.," that is "Fulton Fish Market," which he gave himself, has been of more value to him than the others. This is not to say that kinds of education other than that of Mr. Smith are not sound and satisfactory. Politicians are drawn from different classes and groups — from the American aristocracy, from the great middle class of white collars, from the vast millions of the com- mon people. The training and schooling best for one would not be best for another. If true education is a preparation for life, the right sort of education for a politician naturally depends upon what sort of a politician he is constrained by circumstances to be. As has been mentioned, one of the most successful con- temporary American politicians is Senator Huey P. Long, the Kingfish. What was his training, his education? He was born on a Louisiana farm — and to be born on a farm retains its powerful appeal to political America. His par- ents were poor — and that is good. As a boy, the Senator- to-be worked behind the plow. What could be better than that? According to the Senator's own story, he sometimes went to school — a little country school, of course. When the boy was thirteen, an auctioneer of books allowed him 48 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, to use a library consisting mostly of the classics. Over these he pored assiduously. (How like Abraham Lincoln studying by candlelight!) As a result of this early study, he quotes the Bible fluently and Shakespeare upon occa- sions. At the age of fourteen, he became a salesman, in- deed, at times, a peddler. He sold lard, flour, cakes, patent medicines, and many other articles. In this work, he met intimately and talked to thousands upon thousands of men and women — a wonderful training for his later political appeal. He started cake-baking contests, and at one of these he met the young woman who became his wife. The married man, as many in that state know, needs money. Huey T . Long, realizing this, took up law, completed a three-year course in seven months, and was admitted to the bar. Here again was perfect preparation for politics, as most prominent politicians are lawyers. Thus equipped, he be- gan running for public office — and winning. For certain ways of life — for the astro-physicist, the medical scientist, the electrical engineer, the certified pub- lic accountant, for example — the education of Huey Long would have been inappropriate and ineffective. But for the life of a politician what education could have been better! Back in 1928, a young man, one Jeff Fowler, candidate for County Attorney of Throckmorton County, Texas, showed an understanding of what constituted sound up- bringing for a politician when he addressed a letter to the voters appealing for their support. His autobiographical sketch included: "As for myself, I am an 'Arkansas Hill-Billy/ born and raised in the Ozark Mountains; outran the dogs on Sunday morning to keep from having my face washed — did my sparging barefooted — never saw a train until I was 1 5 and was almost grown before I learned that Republicans walked on hind feet like people. Have farmed with a bull-tongued plow — taught school — prac- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 49 ticed law — and am a first-class mechanic, having worked a right smart around a molasses mill. Came to Texas two years ago, and married the finest little girl in Throckmorton County . . ." And there was more appealing material in Mr. Fowler's letter. I do not know what happened to Jeff in 1928 or since. But, if he stays in politics and shows as sound an under- standing of its principles as he did in that letter, he should go far. Particularly to be noticed is his mention of having married a Throckmorton County girl. Alfred E. Smith, Huey Long and Abraham Lincoln had little formal school education. But it would be a mistake to suppose that school education, even college education, is injurious to most politicians. Without any education at all, a man could neither read, write nor speak. Clearly, some sort of regular, standard education is necessary, and the question resolves itself into the kind and degree of edu- cation most beneficial. The fact is that the school educa- tion of most politicians is completed before they decide to become politicians. Yet, if a youth is foresighted enough to point for the career of a politician, I am convinced that college is an advantage in most instances. The college fur- nishes an opportunity for practice in politics; it can be used as a trial ground, with no permanent punishment for political mistakes. Valuable knowledge of human nature can be gained at college. A fair knowledge of history — in spite of Mr. Ford's old dictum that "history is bunk" — is very advantageous to a politician. Lessons can be learned from the successes and mistakes of politicians of the past. Also, for those who apply themselves, very valuable knowledge of and practice in public speaking can be acquired at college. — Of that more later. Although some Harvard men grow violent when the fact is mentioned, President Roosevelt is a Harvard grad- uate. So was the other President Roosevelt. President Taft, whose memory becomes more beloved as the years jo THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, pass, was a Yale graduate. Evidently it is not impossible for a Harvard or Yale graduate to reach the highest office in the land. But for most — and this treatise is not for exceptional cases — the boy f oresighted enough to decide in favor of a political career before entering college is well- advised to avoid Harvard and Yale. Some less prominent, less fashionable, institution is to be preferred. Most poli- ticians would find it hard to live down the stigma of a Yale or Harvard degree. It is wise to earn one's way through college, as this achievement effectively nullifies all opposition to the college training of a politician, turning what might easily be a liability into an asset. Wise politi- cians who have put themselves through college by their own earnings are careful to see to it that mention of the fact is made in their campaign literature. This takes the sting out of a college education. The Most Favorable Businesses for Politicians — The Power of Oratory — Failures Due to Its Absence. — In America very few men frankly take up politics — office- seeking — as their first and only occupation. They do not jump directly from school or college into running for Constable or Coroner or City Attorney. In Britain, men can do that sort of thing with impunity, without arousing hostility in the electorate. Public life over there is recog- nized as a proper vocation, a legitimate career. The Amer- ican voters will not stand for that sort of funny business. An American who wants to be an office-holder must be something else first. He may intend all along to be an office-holder all his life — if he can — but on no account must he make such an announcement. He must go through an apprenticeship as lawyer, editor, farmer, busi- ness man. President Coolidge, for example, was an office- holder for practically his entire adult life, but he qualified as a lawyer first. The fact is that most politicians who get very far are lawyers. They enter the sunny field of office-holding OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 51 through the portal of the law. Scratch a lawyer and you find a politician. If a lawyer is not now holding an office, he has held one in the past or hopes to hold one in the future. Tactically, the law is the supremely favorable vocation for a politician. Speeches, pleadings, arguments, talk, talk, talk — these are legitimate, expected, on the part of a lawyer, but not so well received from most other people. Without talk and the opportunity to talk, the pol- itician is in a hopeless position. Lawyers, even freshly incubated lawyers, are continually called upon for ad- dresses, at banquets, at the laying of cornerstones, at an- nual memorial services of fraternal organizations, and, most particularly, on national holidays. All this furnishes an easy entrance to public notice and thereby to public office. Editors have had considerable success as politicians, and, with their new class-consciousness, farmers and lead- ers of organized labor are not without success. It may be set down as a rule that no artist, scientist, literary man or philosopher can make a success as a politician in America. There have been and may be a few exceptions, but they are negligible. The people are too suspicious of art and of learning. A politician with artistic ability or with any depth or scope of learning must make every effort to con- ceal his abnormal and insidious vagary. Politicians, especially Presidents and candidates for the Presidency, do write books — or have books written for them. But, of course, such books are not literary products and do not put their authors or nominal authors in the undesirable class of literary men. The skillful politician in writing a book or an article carefully avoids any hint of erudition — or of originality — or of any really disturbing or daring statement. He knows that the people distrust all such. He may, for example, introduce a note of brave defiance, such as: "Dangerous as it may be in this day of ours, I am firmly of the opinion that our government 52 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, must be made an instrument to serve the people and the whole people." Such a platitudinous declaration can be made to sound very bold, but, of course, is not dangerous at all. A quatrain by "Axiphiles" in the deeply lamented New York World of October 7, 1930, put the rule very well: "From a Politician's Primer New thoughts excite The voters' dread. Be sure you're trite, And go ahead." "O, that mine enemy would write a book," is an old statement that still illustrates the danger to a politician inherent in authorship. Only a very shrewd politician should indulge in writing of any sort. At best, it is a political luxury, of very little value to any office-seeker — a minor matter, not in the same class with talk, with gab, with oratory. The importance of oratory to a politician — proving the desirability of a politician's starting as a lawyer — was indi- cated by the Honorable David Lloyd George some years ago when he stated that the orator wins against the news- paper every time. Certain it is that a politician who can- not speak loudly, confidently and emotionally from the platform wins to success very rarely indeed. Finished or polished oratory, in which correct and well-ordered lan- guage is employed, is not necessary to the politician, but the ability to sway an audience by loud, insistent, combative talk is highly desirable — for many politicians, absolutely necessary. The ability to speak in this fashion is natural to many politicians, but it can be acquired. Demosthenes, the ancient Athenian, one of the greatest politicians in all history, overcame a natural impediment in his speech by secret practice. He became able to shout with the best of them. Likewise, to-day, any man or woman seriously OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 53 determined to be a politician can, by application, gain the ability to speak loudly, passionately, movingly. Prac- tically every one is physically capable of speaking loudly, and those who do not do so are usually deterred by timid- ity, reticence or a false sense of propriety. Many people say that they are not influenced by ora- tory, and some of these tell the truth. But enough are so influenced to make oratory vital to the politician. Results are what count. The view of Mr. Lloyd George has been mentioned. The late William J. Bryan won his first nomi- nation for the Presidency entirely by a speech. His sub- sequent lucrative career was possible only through oratory. Enemies may call orators "gas-bags," "wind-bags," "flannel-mouths," or "high-binders," but they win — and we learned when we were boys that calling names does not hurt. Magnus Johnson, a real dirt farmer of Minnesota, reached Washington as a representative of the people through the power of his voice. He roared his way into the United States Senate. His lungs were his fortune; he had developed them by being a glass-blower in Sweden. An unusual training for the Senate. Senator Borah, mas- terful and mercurial politician, would never have had the highest mountain in Idaho named for him if he had not been an orator. Borah Peak is a great honor! Not every politician can have a mountain, or even a molehill, named for him. To be sure, Senator Borah's oratory has won him other honors, but that mountain peak is substantial and symbolic. Al Smith won his way upward through his homely, pungent, penetrating speech. Senator Walsh of Massa- chusetts is a famous orator. Senator Johnson of California has dominated the political scene of his state for decades largely through his oratorical powers. Senator Long, some of whose exploits we have already noted, with more to be mentioned later, talks on all occasions. Former Senator 54 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Reed of Missouri, who put himself in a small and choice class by retiring from public office without dying or being defeated, owed his seat in the United States Senate and his own power there and elsewhere entirely to his passionate, fiery addresses shouted at the top of his voice. The late Senator La Follette is another example of the value of ora- tory to a politician. For decades his speeches held the voters of his own state spellbound and deeply swayed the whole Middle West. The late Albert J. Beveridge is an- other example. For many years he was called a "flannel- mouth," a "windjammer," and a "boy orator" by his enemies, but that boyish oratory was enough to lift him to the Senate and to cause him to be seriously considered for the Presidency of the United States. Much of the strength of Franklin D. Roosevelt with the people of the United States is due to his oratorical appeal. His voice and the clarity of his language leave an impres- sion of sincerity and friendliness that is the joy of his sup- porters and the despair of his enemies. Truly, oratory — talk — remains a power in politics, now as in the days of Athens. The radio and amplifiers have, most certainly, had an enormous effect on oratory as applied to politics. In gen- eral, they have, of course, increased greatly the impor- tance of the spoken word. The radio carries to a vast audience — perhaps to millions on some occasions — speeches that, without it, could be heard by a few hundreds or thousands, making it more likely than ever that the orator will win against the newspaper or newspapers. This is all to the advantage of the orator. On the other hand, the radio does make passable speakers of some men who would have been hopeless in the old days of nature unassisted. For the manipulators of radio are able to magnify the voices of whisperers so that natural shouters have no advan- tage, in volume at least, over their poorly equipped breth- ren. Amplifiers do the same thing to a large degree for OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 55 speeches that are not sent over the radio. To-day, through these mechanical tricks, the whisperers are given a chance. No doubt, there will be some men who will in the future succeed in politics because of the radio who would have been failures in the past. But, in spite of radio's help to the weak, there can be no doubt that it has added to, rather than decreased, the real orator's advantage. To the politician, oratory has become more important than ever. I have pointed out examples of men whose success in politics is due largely to their oratorical ability. Those who have failed because they were not orators are naturally harder to find because they are inconspicuous. However, it is possible to discover some who became prominent in other fields, but whose lack of oratorical ability was inju- rious to them, perhaps fatal, in politics. Chief among these is William Randolph Hearst, the millionaire pub- lisher. Mr. Hearst, whose influence on the political fate of others has been enormous, had very little success when he ran for office himself. Mr. Hearst, years ago, was ambi- tious to hold public office, and, in many ways, he seems to possess characteristics of the ideal politician. To the cas- ual, unanalytical observer it must be surprising that he has not had a great political career. The secret is his inability or unwillingness to speak in public in the manner neces- sary for success. If Mr. Hearst had possessed such power of speech as many of those — the Honorable Hiram John- son and the Honorable James A. Reed, for example — to whom he gave his support, he might have gone far in the political world. It is possible that he might have attained the Presidency. "President William Randolph Hearst!" would have given thrills, of various sorts, to various people. If the radio had come sooner, it might have been the political salvation of Mr. Hearst. It could not have made an orator out of him, but it would have helped a lot. With all his other advantages, it might have been enough to push him to the top. 56 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, The radio did arrive in time to help Herbert Hoover. Mr. Hoover was like Mr. Hearst in having many of the most desirable qualities of a politician and was also like him in lacking the power of effective oratory. When Mr. Hoover first began speaking in public with a view to his political advancement, he was a whisperer. Determina- tion and practice increased the power of his voice some- what, but it was amplification by artificial means that made it politically acceptable. The 'Politician's Choice of Language — A Lovely Castle of Sound — And the Opposite. — The language best em- ployed by a politician in making his public addresses varies. It varies with the class and type of the politician, and it varies with the constituency to which it is directed. As the politician eats and dresses in a manner politically most advantageous to himself, so he chooses language that is best for him. It may not be the language that he would prefer if he were not a politician. It is the language that appeals to his constituents or to those of his constituents upon whom he bases his hopes of success. The wise poli- tician seeks to appeal to some majority, and chooses his words accordingly. Obviously, the politician seeking votes of residents of Park Avenue, New York, uses differ- ent words than one addressing a gathering on the Lower East Side or one wooing the farmers of North Dakota. For a politician is a wooer, and, as a wooer chooses his words according to the class and taste of his beloved, so the poli- tician selects words and phrases that his own constituents love to hear. While flowing and exalted language — resounding pe- riods — silver-tongued stuff — do not, perhaps, have quite the general appeal to-day that they had a generation or two ago, it must not be thought that voters are indifferent to oratorical gems, word artistry, lovely castles of sound builded with tender care by the masters of tongue and throat. Our fathers and grandfathers felt an exaltation OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 57 in listening to the glories of voice and vocables such as we do not often enjoy. But, once in a long while, the voters of to-day get such a pleasure, and generally they are not unappreciative. Early in March, 1930, there was such an occasion. The sacred Republican tariff was under fire at that time even in the nominally Republican United States Senate. It was then that the Honorable Guy Despard Goff of West Vir- ginia rose to defend the bulwark of American prosperity. His words were delivered in the Senate chamber, but they must have rolled and echoed through the lordly moun- tains and lovely valleys of his home state — that state later to be so traitorous to him. How could words like these fail to roll and echo: "It [the protective tariff] has touched our barren rugged hill- sides and caused the waters of commercial prosperity to flow all over the land. It has illuminated our valleys with the leaping flames of our furnaces and caused them to kiss the mountain tops in their ascent to prosperity. It has made the hum of our factories sweet music to the ears of those who labor and toil, and if we sustain the American system, and I pray to God we may, then we shall preserve and elevate the American home, the American schoolhouse, the dignity, the ambition and the inde- pendence of American labor and the equality of American pos- sibilities for the present as well as for the generations yet to come. If these American standards are continued and practiced, then the Republic of America will become the great altar stairs that will slope through the mortal struggles and disappointments of life up to God." A far cry from such gem-like elegance is the more homely language employed by Huey Long, the Kingfish, whose voice is not silvery but is megaphonic. He does not speak of leaping flames kissing the mountain tops or of great altar stairs sloping up to God. Rather, he refers to his opponents as "these birds," says that under Socialism a man couldn't even call his garters his own, and assures 58 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, his listeners that "I am running my job and Roosevelt ain't got nothing to do with me." Senator Long is well aware that "ain't got nothing" is not considered the best of Eng- lish in academic circles, but he is convinced that it is the best of English for his purposes, which are not academic. We shall have occasion to refer to Senator Long's vocab- ulary again. Another master of — political — English is William Hale Thompson, for many brave years Mayor of Chicago. And of him, too, shall we speak. . . . The Advantages of Travel, Especially in Foreign Parts — What Senators Learn in Europe. — Travel is considered of cultural value to all men and women, and travel in Eu- rope is usually thought of as exceedingly worth-while. It is a broadening and deepening influence. As foreign travel is beneficial to others, so is it to American politicians, espe- cially United States Senators. It is not that a politician really learns much by travel, although, of course, it is pos- sible that he may learn something, but travel gives him a reputation of learning, an appearance of authority on the places visited. A politician never changes his announced views on account of his travels. His travels always con- firm his previous opinions. However, I do not believe that there is any truth in the statement that the declarations made by United States Senators upon their return from Europe are prepared by them before they start from their home shores. That foreign travel always confirms the previous views and statements of American politicians has been well proved by the European trips made by United States Sen- ators since the war. Each Senator found in Europe ex- actly what he had stated before he left home existed there. Senators of divergent views before they left visited the same places, encountered the same facts, talked to the same European statesmen, and came back with the same diver- gent views they held when they left America. This may OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 59 have seemed mysterious to some who did not realize that Senators' views are properly not based on facts but on political advantage. A Senator — or any other politician — may change his views, but his changes must be based not on logic but on reliable information of the state of mind of his constituents. CHAPTER IV Concerning the Convictions and Principles of a Politician "The Last Infirmity" — They Die, but Do Not Resign — The Millennium Did Not Come — Shedding "Dry" Convictions at the Proper Time — The Fragrance of Alcohol — Hounds Chang- ing into Rabbits — Views of James M. Cox — Sometimes Best to Move — Or to Equivocate — Hamilton Fish, Jr. — Senator Fess and the Daisies — The Ignorance of Idealists — The Question of Sincerity — An Example and a Warning. "The Last Infirmity" — They Die, but Do Not Resign — the Millennium Did Not Come. — Convictions in a pol- itician are an infirmity and may prove a very serious injury. Fame has been called "the last infirmity of noble minds," and convictions are the last infirmity of some otherwise very splendid politicians. As sensuous and sel- fish thoughts drop away from the Buddhist who seeks per- fection, so all convictions are put aside by one seeking to become an ideal or perfect politician — that is, one who always wins. To be sure, the politician never fails to insist that he is true to his convictions and standing squarely for the principles in which he believes. Any advanced poli- tician can take this position with the utmost force. It is advisable and necessary that it be done. The voting public continues to be impressed by those who are true to their convictions or who say that they are with convincing vehemence — provided those convictions are the ones held by the voting public itself. The politician knowing that, to get votes and keep himself in power, he must advocate what a majority of his constituents want advocated, is well aware that he must retain no convictions of his own and 60 THE POLITICIAN 61 be guided by no principles of his own. He must, and does, pretend to adopt as his convictions the views that his constituents believe will lead to their profit. An American politician is radical, liberal or conserva- , tive, Fascist or Communist, according to the temper of those who can grant or refuse him office. He does not J attempt to lead but to represent. It is not part of the American politician's creed to hold to his convictions even if they are unpopular, seek to convince the voters of their righteousness, and go down to defeat if the voters dis- agree. That sort of thing may happen abroad. In Britain it is a fact that Cabinet ministers who disagree with the course of the government of which they are members sometimes resign. It has been said that American Cabinet members die, but never resign. If their previously an- nounced convictions differ from those of the President, they change the convictions, not the job. That is sound American political practice. The reluctance of politicians to give up anything within their grasp was the subject of comment by Senator Borah (for whom Borah Peak was named) in November, 1930. There had been reports that certain Republican Senators would vote to give the Democrats control of the Senate in the Seventy-second Congress if the progressive element forced the calling of a special session. Such a course would have meant unnecessary yielding by Republicans, then in majority, of choice committee posts to the Democrats. On this, Senator Borah said: "The talk about certain Republicans being willing to turn over the committees and refusing to organize the Senate is ridic- ulous. There isn't the slightest danger of the Republicans' giv- ing up those committees unless they have to. I wish I were just as sure of the Kingdom of Heaven as I am that they will not give up the committees as long as they have the votes to retain them. When Republicans give up offices, I will think the mil- lennium has arrived." 62 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, The Senator need not have limited the statement in his last sentence to Republicans. It may be mentioned that the millennium did not come. Shedding "Dry" Convictions at the Proper Time — The Fragrance of Alcohol — Hounds Changing Into Rabbits — Views of James M. Cox. — Liquor and prohibition fur- nished many examples of the fact that the politician must have no convictions other than those held by a majority of his constituents. At least he must not have any that are public and official. In 1930 the trend of public opin- ion in the United States against prohibition was growing stronger. The "wet" tide was rising. Politicians who had been "dry" for years — whose constituencies had been "dry" — began to feel the firm ground trembling beneath them. It was then that Senator Wesley L. Jones, Repub- lican, of Washington, long-established and emphatic "dry" and author of the law making five years' imprisonment and $10,000 fine the maximum penalty for Volstead law violators, announced that he would favor repeal or modi- fication of the Eighteenth Amendment if a referendum should show his state in favor of either. He was willing to make the view of the majority his own. The day after Senator Jones's declaration, the late Senator Thomas J. Walsh, Democrat, of Montana, long an ardent "dry," said that he would be perfectly willing to submit a prohibition referendum to the people of his state, and declared: "Of course, I would stand by the vote of the referendum." In that same year Representative Franklin Fort of New Jersey, enthusiastic "dry," contended with the late Dwight W. Morrow for the Republican nomination for United States Senator from New Jersey. Mr. Morrow, advocat- ing repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, was victor by a large majority. Mr. Fort later accepted an invitation to preside at the opening meeting of Mr. Morrow's campaign. In the same month, Representative Crampton, "dry," of Michigan, defeated in the Republican primary by Jesse P. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 63 Wolcott, "wet," said he would support the "wet" in the election campaign. It was also in the year 1930, when the winds that blew from all points of the compass had a fragrance of alcohol in them, that Representative Hamilton Fish, Jr., the able and accomplished New York politician, long counted a "dry," changed his tune on the liquor question. On July 11, at Binghamton, New York, he announced that he was in favor of a modification of the Eighteenth Amendment that would give "bottled beer to the working man." This was after Mr. Fish had been in Congress five terms and had never spoken on prohibition. Speech on the subject be- came a little easier for him later. He advocated the modi- fication of the Volstead Law to permit the sale of 4 per- cent beer, said he also favored light wines, and in Decem- ber announced that he had joined the House "wet" bloc. On March 14, 1933, he voted for the bill legalizing 3.2 percent beer. Mr. Fish's every political move is worthy of the closest study by all men and women seeking to pre- pare themselves for a political career, and his course with respect to liquor is a good example of his thoughtful skill. The will of the majority determines the convictions of a politician. The Honorable Coleman Livingston Blease ("Coley" Blease) of South Carolina, in politics for forty-six years, twenty-three times a candidate for office, sometime Gov- ernor of his state, later United States Senator, ought to know something about politics, and he does. When he was a Senator he was politically and officially "dry," but he made no secret of the fact that he drank liquor and enjoyed it. On this matter, Senator Blease was quoted as saying on April 4, 1929: "My position has not changed. I still drink occasionally and every one in South Carolina knows it. But I voted for pro- hibition because I represent people who believe in it. . . . There 64 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, is no inconsistency in my position. This is a representative gov- ernment and I do not presume to place my own views above the views of the people I represent. " It was probably not Senator Blease who was referred to by Frank R. Kent in his column in the Baltimore Sun on November 7, 1930. Mr. Kent, informed and astute polit- ical observer, was discussing the coming doom of prohi- bition and how Members of Congress were preparing to shift their ground. He quoted a "well-known dry Sena- tor" as saying, while holding a glass of liquor in his hand: "My boy, in my state the drys are the hounds, the wets the rabbits. The hounds now chase the rabbits and I run with the hounds. But they tell me the rabbits are multi- plying very rapidly and growing bigger. I say to you that, when the time comes that the rabbits outnumber the hounds and grow as big, the speed with which I shall change from hound to rabbit will simply astound you." There spoke the truly enlightened politician, well aware of the fact that the trained politician retains no unyielding convictions of his own, but puts them on and off like a coat according to the will of his constituency. And he keeps his ear to the ground listening — listening — for that will. Some years ago the Honorable James M. Cox, former Governor of Ohio and Democratic candidate for President in 1920, gave an interview in New York in which he said: "I think the man who is out of public life is a most for- tunate person, for the reason that it is an era of intellec- tual dishonesty and hypocrisy." Mr. Cox went on to mention the debate of the "wets" and "drys" then going on in Washington. Plainly he disapproved of the methods of America's then successful politicians. But in that same interview he declared that he was out of politics for good. It is easy for a man definitely out of politics to have and hold sincere convictions of his own and to speak out OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 65 accordingly. But active, functioning, still-ambitious poli- ticians can afford no such luxury. Sometimes Best to Move — Or to Equivocate — Hamilton Fish, Jr. — Senator Fess and the Daisies. — If a politician is so unfortunate as to be burdened with sincere convictions that he cannot silence or suppress, and these do not happen to be the convictions of a majority of his constituents, he should choose another constituency, move there, and start anew. But how much cheaper, more convenient, and politically surer it is to change views, if necessary, rather than to go moving about the country! In periods when the public opinion of a politician's dis- trict is about evenly divided on a question, it is sometimes expedient to play safe — equivocate — preserve the delicate balance — carry water on both shoulders. For example, during the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover regime the Repub- lican Administration skillfully managed to convince the "drys" that it was best to stick with the Republican Party, while at the same time conveying the impression to the "wets" that enforcement of the liquor laws would be "rea- sonable." It was during this period that Representative Hamilton Fish, Jr., made a statement indicative of how a well-trained politician can conduct himself when there is doubt of the preponderance of opinion on an issue. At Poughkeepsie, New York, on July 21, 1930, he said: "I have been in Congress five terms, and never once have I spoken on prohibition. Any Representative can make the front page by attacking or upholding the amendment and some of them make the same speech every three or four weeks for the sake of publicity. But I don't do that. I have never made a speech on the subject. I have never found it necessary. In this campaign, I will not commit myself to the Vets' and I will not commit myself to the 'drys.' I shall make no statements as to how I shall vote on questions pertaining to prohibition or modi- fication. Instead, I shall vote on every issue before the House on its merits alone." 66 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, An admirable, indeed, a perfect statement of refusal to commit on a great public question until — well, until the cat had jumped! Later, as mentioned above, Mr. Fish did commit himself to the "wets." He knew by that time. In the summer of 1930, Claudius Huston was being painfully eased out of the position of Chairman of the Re- publican National Committee, and Senator Fess of Ohio was the leading candidate as his successor. The Chicago Tribune, rock-bound Republican newspaper of the Middle West, did not want Senator Fess. In voicing its opposi- tion, the Tribune published an editorial that was meant as an argument against the elevation of Mr. Fess, but that was really a high compliment to the Ohio schoolmaster and Senator. The editorial ended thus: "Mr. Fess is such a stamping crusader as could walk ten miles on eggs and never crack a shell. This militant progressive could jump from daisy to daisy across a meadow and leave each stem unbowed. Under his chairmanship the National Committee will meet the public questions of the country with a loud whis- per of yes and no and maybe which will make history for future observers of political decision and action by a great party in a period of national uncertainties." This was, indeed, a tribute to the Senator's political skill and a recommendation of him as well fitted for the office to which he aspired. The Ignorance of Idealists — The Question of Sincerity — An Example and a Warning. — Persons who know noth- ing of politics — impractical idealists — grunt in disdain at what they call the insincerity of politicians. From the depths of this ignorance they declare that men in public life should have strong convictions and should be true to them, no matter if such a course means defeat. It is morally wrong, they say, to be hypocritical and insincere. It would be charitable to say that these idealists — these theorists — do not know what they are talking about. They may know the difference between right and wrong OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 6 7 according to books of ethics (although each ethical teacher has a different definition of right and wrong) , but they certainly know nothing of right and wrong in politics. The informed politician has a simple rule on this subject: that course is right that leads to victory, and that course is wrong that leads to defeat. The skillful politician cannot be called either sincere or insincere. Sincerity does not enter into his situation at all. Senator Johnson of California, politically so strong that in 1934 he was nominated for Senator by Democrats, Republicans and Progressives, is one who has been accused by his enemies of insincerity. The Senator has for many years called himself a progressive, and has been so called by others. This title, or appellation, would seem to imply, inter alia, that he was inclined to a lower tariff than that favored by the Old Guard of his Republican Party. Yet it is pointed out that the Senator was instrumental in having an extremely high tariff laid on all citrus fruits, and on nuts, because his constituents in California grow fruits and nuts. Would Senator Johnson have held or advanced his popularity in California if he had advocated and secured a low tariff on these products? A truthful answer to this question exposes the whole humbug of this criticism of the great California politician. Only an ignoramus supposes that an experienced politician gives or should give any consideration to the question of sincerity. The Honorable George Higgins Moses, when he was Senator from one of the New England states, is credited with having said that "there is another victory for the Republican Party in the League of Nations yet." It was silly of Senator Moses to say this in a manner that caused it to be made public — his tongue has been something of a trouble to him! But the attitude indicated by the expres- sion can be held up as an example for politicians. Many persons not in politics look on the League of Nations as an institution out of which will come good for humanity. 68 THE POLITICIAN Others think it is valueless or worse. But the trained poli- tician looks on the League solely from the point of view of votes. The question of conviction on the subject — of sincerity — does not enter his mind. The politician's only thought in deciding on an attitude to take on the League is, "Will advocacy of the League or opposition to the League get me more votes?" His decisions on all other questions are naturally reached in the same manner. A famous example of the injuries that ensue when a man in public life entertains and acts upon sincere con- victions may be cited as a warning. It is generally agreed that the one action that was most injurious to President Taft politically was his unyielding support of Secretary of the Interior Ballinger in the celebrated Ballinger- Pinchot disagreement. If President Taft had pursued a politically wise course in this wrangle — a course that any instructed politician would have pursued — he might have insured his reelection in 19 12. President Taft was con- vinced that Mr. Ballinger was an honest and faithful pub- lic servant, and it was against his principles to discharge or demand the resignation of such a servant. He, therefore, supported his Secretary of the Interior until he brought down his own political house about his head. Any experi- enced and accomplished politician, when he found that the public had been thoroughly aroused against Mr. Ballinger, would have discovered the iniquity of Mr. Ballinger and would have ousted the offending Secretary with great force and heat, thus making the affair a big political asset instead of a liability. But Mr. Taft was guided by his convictions in this crucial matter. Whether those con- victions were, from the outside viewpoint, correct or in- correct is beside the point entirely. The result of acting from such a strange motive was that Mr. Taft lost the Presidency. Such was the fate of one who foolishly acted \ on conviction rather than according to sound and accepted political practice. CHAPTER V Concerning a Politician's Cultivation of Friends and Enemies General Principles and Standard Methods — Surprises for the Layman — Who are the Best Friends and Associates — Care in Making a Choice — A Suggested Emblem for Politicians — Con- fidential Relationships — The Appeal to Classified Groups — Or- ganized and Unorganized — The Racial Elements — Great Racial Heroes — The Glories of Baron von Steuben — The Sufferings of School Children — Von Steuben Pursued into His Grave — Our Debt to the Germans — The Poles Supplied a Hero — In Fact, Two: Pulaski and Kosciusko — Governor Lehman Scores an Ad- vance — The School Children Suffer Again- — Our Debt to the Poles — Lafayette, the Forgotten Man — Who was Haym Salo- mon? — The Politician Must Know — The Undying Gratitude of Americans — Our Debt to the Jews — So Many Debts — A Dead Heat Between Mr. Hoover and Mr. Roosevelt — Who was Crispus Attucks? — Politicians Know — Tributes to the Negroes — Columbus and Others — Poor Spain — Our Debt to the Italians — History is Different in Minnesota — The Real Discoverer of America — The Plight of the Irish Missionaries — Chief Rising Sun. General "Principles and Standard Methods — Surprises for the Layman. — In politics, friends are valuable but enemies are valuable also. Friends are valuable directly and enemies indirectly. It is necessary for the politician to win friends, and it is imperative that he acquire enemies. By "friends," as far as a politician is concerned, is meant political supporters, men and women who vote right, that is, for Our Side. They may not be personally friendly. They may actually despise the politician. But they are properly called friends, politically, as long as they put 6 9 7o THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, the cross in the right square or pull the right lever. It's the votes, not the secret thoughts, that count. As a politician's goal is public office, he must, in a de- mocracy, win votes. Some of these he wins through actions and utterances that please some or many of the electorate and offend none or few; others he wins in a dif- ferent manner, a manner that may be surprising to most laymen. If votes are a politician's life-blood, the continual supply of that blood — healthy blood in sufficient quantity — de- pends upon the acquiring of friends as defined above. The skillful politician makes friends in bulk and individually, wholesale and retail. In general, he makes them by the time-honored, immemorial course of appealing to theiir selfish interests. He knows that selfishness is the only continuous, dependable motive. He proposes measures intended to benefit the majority to which he makes his appeal. He makes promises. He praises, cultivates and flatters great groups and sections of the electorate — and individuals. He appeals to passions and prejudices. He stages shows intended to amuse and divert. He unbends and ingratiates himself into the affection of the multitude by pretending an interest in their preferences and follies, such as baseball, fishing, barbecues, picnics and other affairs in which he really has no interest whatever. His in- terest is votes, and all these are means to that end. He suffers, if suffer he must, in order to gain the end desired. The politician also makes friends — many of them — by| / his attacks upon and denunciations of those whom he has determined to make his enemies. People like denuncia- tions and attacks — so long as these are not directed against themselves. The politician is constrained to attack some- body or something if he wishes to attract any notice or to make enough political friends to assure his success. Con- structive achievements have no such appeal to the voting OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 71 public as have vitriolic assaults upon people and institu- tions. The politician must understand — all informed politi- cians do understand — that the making of enemies — the right enemies — is not to be left to chance or accident or to the initiative of others. Enemies are a political necessity and are to be cultivated with the same care as are friends. The wise politician chooses his own enemies. When he has made these enemies, he sees that they stay enemies. If they seek to be friendly, he takes action compelling them to remain hostile. The old saying is that te a man is known by the company he keeps." A politician is exalted or ruined by the enemies he makes. Who are the Best Friends and Associates — Care in Making a Choice — A Suggested Emblem for Politicians — Confidential Relationships. — The politician chooses his friends and associates with great care. They must be rep- resentatives of the dominating element of his chosen terri- tory. If the larger business interests — the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturers' Association — are clearly in control of the community, the politician aligns himself with them. He takes their part against radicals, union labor and the like. If they dominate, they represent the "American system" and the others are tinged with sub- versive foreign influences. If the workers and farmers are dominant, the politician finds his views identical with theirs and cultivates them assiduously. They are then the true Americans, the rank and file of the people, the victims or possible victims of oppression by the wealthy and powerful. Of course, the calculating politician looks ahead. He aligns himself with the faction that he believes is going to win, not necessarily with the faction in power at the moment. So it is that we have radical politicians and reac- tionary politicians. We have politicians who make the eagle scream and politicians who paint the flag red with a 72 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, trace of the hammer and sickle superimposed upon it. Reasoned beliefs concerning principles of government are not involved; the politician's alignment and his friends and associates depend entirely upon the complexion of the dis- trict he has chosen. The true politician is a chameleon: he changes color in accord with his surroundings. A beautifully designed gold chameleon would make a splendid emblem for politicians to wear on vest or coat lapel or as a watch-charm. Or perhaps it might be well to have Gutzon Borglum carve a frieze of giant chame- leons around the Capitol at Washington. The politician may have, must have, friends — political friends — but he must have no confidants. Any politician who is not convinced of this by the experience and state- ments of others usually learns it soon enough for himself. There is no such thing as a confidential relationship so sure that it can be depended upon by a politician. Some folks are cynical enough to say that there is no faithfully ob- served confidential relationship at all. Relations between lawyer and client, doctor and patient, banker and bor- rower, are supposed to be confidential. Many people be- lieve that lawyer, doctor and banker do not divulge matters that come before them in such relationships. That is true in some instances. But the fact is that many lawyers, doctors and bankers talk, and talk a great deal. "Confidential" matters, if they are juicy enough, are somehow spread around. Likewise in politics, information communicated confidentially has a way of leaking out. People who have ears also have tongues, and they speak what they think it is advantageous to them to speak. The result is that the wise politician speaks as carefully to one listener, in private (as it is called, although there is no privacy politically when one is not alone) as he does to an audience of ten thousand — or to a radio audience of — as many millions as the campaign committees claim. This is true even in the midst of the politician's own family. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 73 It is always necessary, day and night, to guard every word as if it were to be published on the front page of a hostile newspaper. The truth is that the experienced politician never tells his friends anything that he does not want his enemies to hear. But it must not be thought that he lets his friends know this! Many and many a time he flatters and com- pliments a friend by whispering some great secret "in confidence," Tt mb rosa" or "under the hat." But it is always something that the politician is perfectly willing for the friend to tell. Indeed, often he wants — and ex- pects — it to be told. He insures the effective spreading of the advantageous something by telling it "in confidence." The Appeal to Classified Groups — Organized and Un- organized — The Racial Elements. — The political power of organized minorities of the American population has been the subject of much editorial comment in newspapers and magazines of the country during the past decade. There has been much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who have felt that the powerful minorities were selfishly getting the better of the unorganized and unde- fended people as a whole — or, really, causing expense to the weeping, wailing gnashers. Some of the great news- papers of New York City have been especially troubled by the campaigns of organized minority groups to get their "rights," that is to say, what they wanted, that is, in brief, money. The great New York newspapers voice the views and interests of many who, as taxpayers, would have to pay the money demanded by the organized groups. The money nerve is the most sensitive of all. And those newspapers themselves are large taxpayers and have sensi- tive money nerves. The American Legion, tirelessly and militantly seeking its bonus for the millions of American soldiers of the World War, has been the organized group whose power and whose success provoked the loudest and the deepest 74 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, agony in the New York press. The Legion's money de- mands — and receipts — have been a matter of billions — a constant irritation of the money nerve. But the labor unions, the prohibition forces, the tariff organizations, the farm organizations, the silver bloc, the Navy League, are others among many whose power has been demonstrated, and condemned or commended according to the interest of the commentator. Of course, the more publicity given to the organized groups the more the politicians have realized the necessity of taking them into consideration. Condemnation, verbal anguish, by great newspapers has served as excellent ad- vertisement for the organizations discussed. The politi- cian carefully weighs the power, the numbers, the votes, of any organization making demands. He supports the or- ganization's program if he thinks he will gain more votes than he will lose by such a course. He opposes if he is sure more votes are on the other side. If he is certain of a considerable disparity one way or the other, he takes his stand with great vigor and emphasis. If he believes the division is fairly close, he is quiet and cautious, speaking fair words for both sides, and voting in the end, if vote he must, with a prayer that he has chosen the side with the more votes. In this question of supporting the demands of organized groups — whether they want money or sumptuary legis- lation or anything else — the instructed politician is guided not by any abstract ethical principles, but by the perfectly practical question of where are the most votes, now and in the future. But it must not be supposed for a moment that the thoughtful politician makes his appeal to organized groups alone. The politically unorganized elements in the United States are just as real and just as powerful. Every politician of any capacity knows the value of appealing to great racial elements in the American popu- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 75 lation. Prior to the World War and since the War the racial element most carefully cultivated by politicians throughout the country as a whole has been the Germans. A close second has been the Irish. The Irish are politically powerful far beyond their numbers. They are office- holders and political leaders to a degree out of proportion to their percentage of the population. Our politicians know this and are always very careful to speak of the Irish only with praise. Italians form a large section of our population, especially in the Eastern cities, and their susceptibilities are delicately cultivated. Scandinavians, Bohemians, Slovaks, Austrians, Poles, Hungarians, Dutch, even the Swiss, come in for praise and commendation. All, according to the utterances of our politicians, have splendid sterling qualities and contribute in a most valu- able manner to the life and culture of our people. To the uninitiated it might seem odd that the good qualities of a race, as judged by the anxious solicitude and noisy utterances of American politicians, are so evidently in proportion to their numbers in the population — the voting population. Negroes are many in the South, but, as they don't vote there, they are not cultivated or praised. They get some praise and attention in the North, especially in New York City and Chicago, where they do vote. They are of the voting population in the North. Constant and emphatic laudation of the German ele- ment of our population in contrast to the ignoring or actual condemnation of the French, must seem strange to those who have made no study of politics. Most cultivated people believe that the French have contributed enor- mously to the progress of the world, in art, literature, science, government. Why the coldness of American politicians toward the French and their fever warmth to- ward the Germans? Many Germans, few French! The French are eulogized only in Louisiana, where they are really a considerable element of the population. In Ver- 76 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, mont and New Hampshire our politicians are a little care- ful in speaking of France and the French because there has been a penetration of French-Canadians in those states. In St. Louis are a handful of old French families. They get social but no political recognition. Politically, St. Louis is a great German city. One might expect, from the rule that the greatest praise and cultivation goes to the greatest racial element, that the English would come in for consistent eulogy by politicians. But such is emphatically not the case. It is generally agreed that Americans with some English blood far outnumber Americans with any other racial strain. But for the most part, the English blood came to America generations ago. Most possessors of it do not think of themselves as English or English-Americans but as Ameri- cans. England and the English get no praise because of them. As will be explained later, England is more likely to be denounced than praised. Of course, when an American politician pays tribute to a racial element in this country, he is always careful to emphasize the true Americanism of the element addressed. He may not believe that they are true Americans — for his purpose, he doesn't care — but he says so, anyway. During the War "hyphenated Americans" was a phrase much in use as a term of opprobrium, and the unpleasant odor of it to some extent lingers still. So it is that to-day the poli- tician does well to refer to the racial element he seeks to syrup as "Americans of German blood," or "Americans of Irish ancestry," rather than as "German-Americans" or "Irish-Americans." Great Racial Heroes — The Glories of Baron von Steuben — The Sufferings of School Children — Von Steuben Pur- sued into His Grave — Our Debt to the Germans. — Because the Nazi regime in Germany is so generally disapproved by Americans, even by a large percentage of German- Americans, the syruping of German- American voters by OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 77 politicians does not take the form of praise for contem- porary Germany and Herr Hitler. Politicians find it safer and more satisfactory to pay tribute to Baron Wilhelm von Steuben, hero of the American Revolution, than to Fuehrer Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany. That satisfies practically all German-Americans, and offends no one. Indeed, uttering panegyrics of foreign adventurers who aided the embattled Colonists in the Revolution is a favor- ite way of politicians in ingratiating themselves with all racial elements that supplied appropriate heroes. Eulogy of Von Steuben by American politicians has be- come a sort of test imposed by the German- Americans on those who would win their favor. It is a password, not guaranteeing the German vote to the eulogizer, but at least making him eligible to receive it. It has been so generally indulged in for so many years that no doubt there are many Americans to-day who believe General von Steuben, not George Washington, the chief hero of the Revolu- tionary War, the real Father of His Country. It may be mentioned in passing that there is a good deal of evidence to the effect that the General referred to him- self as "De Steuben," not "Von Steuben." Certain Ameri- cans favorable to France — there are a few of 'em left! — have sent letters to New York newspapers giving evidence of von de Steuben's guilt in this matter. But no politician ever dares to refer to this. It is "Von Steuben" always with the politician — must be — and a big "VON" at that. Some of our most eminent politicians have set a splendid example in their skillful handling of this Von Steuben matter. For example, Governor Alfred E. Smith of New York, on November 27, 1927, issued a proclamation urg- ing the people of the state, together with the Steuben Society of America, to celebrate December 1 as the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Baron's arrival in America. Al said on that occasion: 78 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, "An acknowledged military genius and known to possess every requirement of the art of warfare, he immediately infused into the unorganized bands of defeated soldiers at Valley Forge the sense of confidence which assured discipline and which brought the victory which won for him the title of Major-General, fol- lowing Washington's letter to Congress, wherein he stated that he would do an injustice if he were longer silent with regard to the merits of Steuben; and that his knowledge of military matters, added to the zeal displayed, made him an indispensable adjunct to the service." A long and somewhat involved sentence, but one breathing such warm admiration of Von Steuben that every German voter in New York must have realized that Al was right. The Governor on this occasion directed the Commis- sioner of Education to have the Von Steuben anniversary properly observed in the schools of the state. The school children are subjected to a good deal of suffering through the proclamations of our politicians, but it's all in a good cause. Of course, it was not to be supposed that Governor Smith could have exclusive rights to General von Steuben. Other great political figures, Presidents and aspirants to the Presidency, have realized Von Steuben's importance. For example, President Hoover, on July 16, 1930, sent a message to President von Hindenburg of Germany on the occasion of a dinner in Berlin in honor of the memory of General von Steuben at which President von Hindenburg was the guest of honor. The message, w r hich was made public at the White House, after greeting the German President, read: "General von Steuben's invaluable service in the cause of in- dependence is taught in every American school and is gratefully remembered by every American citizen. The people of the United States have also never forgotten the other great con- tributions to our national life that have been made by men of German birth or German blood in this country. They have OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 79 influenced our educational ideals and methods, our scientific and technical thought, and our cultural and artistic life. They have greatly served the land of their adoption and have done honor to the land of their origin. " A wholly admirable handling of the Von Steuben ma- terial; indeed, an exemplary treatment of the whole prob- lem of appealing to the German element. Our present President has been as adept in the use of Von Steuben as was his immediate predecessor. Indeed, Mr. Roosevelt's method was perhaps more subtle than Mr. Hoover's. It was on February 2, 1930, that he, then Gov- ernor of New York, instituted a movement to convert the grave of Von Steuben into a state memorial. It must be conceded by both friends and foes of Mr. Roosevelt that he showed a good deal of ingenuity in thus pursuing Gen- eral von Steuben into his grave. Mr. Roosevelt said at that time that the grave was buried from sight in a grove of trees and that the massive monument marking the grave was screened from the view of any except those searching for the spot. This was, of course, a deplorable condition. Mr. Roosevelt said that the memorial and the land sur- rounding it should be purchased and preserved by the people of New York State, taken care of for all time and made accessible to all. This admirable project was carried out. On September 12, 193 1, Governor Roosevelt and W. von Prittwitz, German Ambassador, delivered addresses eulogizing Von Steuben at the dedication of Steuben Memorial Park. Mr. Roosevelt's words, which, of course, were widely published, included the following: "The German people are rightly proud of Von Steuben, and his memory must for all time cement the friendship of our two great nations . . . Germans and Americans stand side by side to-day in renewing our tribute of appreciation and honor to one who so greatly helped the cause of human liberty." In delivering his admirable address, it is possible that 8o THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Governor Roosevelt may have given just a thought to the possibility that German-Americans might appreciate and honor not only the dead hero but the eulogizer of that hero. One sometimes wonders what rugged old Von Steuben himself would say to all the tributes paid to him by poli- ticians. But I'll have to be careful or I'll be paying a tribute to him myself, and I am not running for anything. The Poles Supplied a Hero — In Fact, Two: Ptdaski and Kosciusko — Governor Lehman Scores an Advance — The School Children Suffer Again — Our Debt to the Poles. — While Von Steuben is the leading example of a foreign hero and the Germans the leading element lauded by American politicians, there are other heroes and other peoples that get constant favorable attention. The Poles were not much behind the Germans in supplying us with a Revolutionary hero. In fact, they gave us two — Kosciusko and Pulaski — but, particularly and politically, Pulaski. For it was Count Casimir Pulaski who became a Brigadier-General in the Continental Army and was killed fighting in our cause. (The Poles have a bit the better of the Germans there.) Encomiums of Count Pulaski, ac- cordingly, are the approved political approach to the favor of the Polish section of the American population. On May 15, 1928, Representative Hickey, Republican, of Indiana, introduced a resolution in Congress to estab- lish a commission, to be known as the United States Pulaski Sesquicentennial Commission, to arrange a fitting com- memoration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the heroic death of the Revolutionary officer. At the moment, I don't know what happened to that resolution, but it must have been passed. One can't conceive of a resolution of that type being defeated. Representative Hickey 's technique was quite perfect. His action leads one to believe, without research, that there are a good many Poles in Indiana. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 81 Mr. Hoover, when President, rather outdid Representa- tive Hickey in honoring Count Pulaski. He praised Pulaski on October 10, 1929, in a cablegram to President Mosciski of Poland in connection with the commemora- tion of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the death of the hero. Mr. Hoover said on that occasion: "The memory of the young Polish nobleman who joined the forces of the American Colonists and fought so heroically and courageously from the time he was welcomed into General Washington's staff until mortally wounded in the siege of Savan- nah, will always be cherished in the hearts of American citizens and their heartfelt appreciation of his signal service in acquiring American independence will never die." A long sentence, but the tribute was well deserved by the long-dead hero and was no doubt well received by living American voters of Polish blood. In 193 1 Mr. Hoover went further and issued a procla- mation headed, "Pulaski Memorial Day," calling upon the people of the United States to observe October 1 1 , as the anniversary of the death of the Polish Count. Services, exercises and ceremonies in places of public worship or assembly were recommended, and it was ordered that the flag of the United States be appropriately displayed on all government buildings on that day. Here was recognition of Count Pulaski calculated to warm the hearts of all American voters of Polish birth or descent. Mr. Hoover issued a similar proclamation in 1932, this one being "in pursuance of the provisions of Public Resolution 32, Seventy-second Congress, approved July 2, 1932." Evidently the members of Congress had been thinking about Count Pulaski or about those of his race who were citizens of the United States. Unaccountably — unless I have overlooked his activities — President Roosevelt seems not to have been properly enthusiastic about Count Pulaski and Pulaski Memorial Day. The climax in this respect 82 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, was reached on April 15, 1935, when he vetoed a bill which would have proclaimed October 11 each year a Pulaski Memorial Day. To be sure, Mr. Roosevelt used very tactful language in this veto, which included: "Every American should have the deepest appreciation of the brilliant and gallant services of General Pulaski in the Rev- olutionary War. . . . General Pulaski was distinguished among the noble company who gave their all for that cause; some were Americans; some were from countries across the sea. I do not think that General Pulaski would have wished to be singled out from his fellows and comrades for more honor than we can give to them all. Our tributes to the memory of the officers who served on the staff of General Washington will be the more fitting and appropriate if we do not seek to legislate separate memorial days for each of them, however illustrious they may be. "For our own leader of the American Revolution, the greatest of Americans, and for him alone, have we as a people set apart one day a year." Very gracefully put indeed, but, after all, a rejection of the proposal to honor the great Pulaski. How Polish- American voters will receive this remains to be seen. The New York Sun had an editorial warmly commending this veto, but it must be remembered that the Sun is a rabidly Republican newspaper. Perhaps it saw in the President's act something of advantage to the Republican cause. Governor Lehman of New York has been duly appreci- ative of Count Pulaski. In 1932, when he was but Acting Governor, he proclaimed October 11 as Pulaski Memo- rial Day. In 1934, he designated October 11 for the com- memoration of the death of General Pulaski and October 13 as a day to honor the memory of General Kosciusko, this being the anniversary of his appointment as brevet Brigadier-General in the Continental Army. The Gov- ernor's proclamation included: "America shares with Poland the glorious memory of those fearless champions of freedom's cause, Casimir Pulaski and OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 83 Tadeusz Kosciusko, and forever gratefully acknowledges their gallant services. I request that appropriate exercises be held in the schools throughout the state dealing with the lives of these liberty-loving patriots and that the American flag be widely displayed on these two historic dates." There was a very fine statement in the best political technique, a statement worthy of being used as a model by all officials having a similar opportunity. Governor Lehman, who generally seems so occupied with state busi- ness as to neglect shamefully proper political practice, cer- tainly scored an advance when he proclaimed a Kosciusko Day as well as a Pulaski Day. Politicians more experienced and devoted than he must have trembled with envy."" But one can't help wondering where this thing is going to end. There may not be enough days in the year for all the heroes. And the school children — will they not suffer from Day Fever or Eulogyitis? Or ear trouble from the booming of panegyrics? But the reasonable necessities of our politicians must be served. Those American flags that are to be so widely displayed on all these occasions — they may be worn to shreds with so much use. But the nation-wide demand for millions of American flags would help to set the wheels of industry booming. Representative Hamilton Fish, Jr., whose political pro- ficiency has already been mentioned, has not been silent with respect to Messrs. Pulaski and Kosciusko. On Octo- ber 13, 1929, at Florida, N. Y., Mr. Fish addressed a gathering of American citizens of Polish origin and paid high tribute to the two heroes. His speech included: "The settlers of Orange and Sullivan counties in New York owe a special debt of gratitude to General Pulaski, as his legion was stationed at Minisink and protected them from the ferocious forays of the Indians during the winter of 1778 ." [An old debt but apparently not yet discharged.] * See Appendix, Note 3. 84 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, "It is an interesting fact, in view of the tremendous number of American citizens of Polish origin now living in New York State, that both the intrepid and dashing cavalry leader, General Pulaski, and that other Polish hero and patriot, General Thad- deus Kosciusko, rendered signal service in defense of the State of New York during the Revolutionary War." Lafayette, the Forgotten Man. — It may seem a little strange to those outside politics that, while we have Von Steuben Day and Pulaski Day and Kosciusko Day, there is no Lafayette Day. The ignorant may say that, next to Washington, the gallant Lafayette was the chief military figure of the Revolution. They may point out that there were more French than American soldiers present at York- town when Cornwallis surrendered. They may say that, without the French army and the French fleet, the Colonists would surely have been beaten. And they — the ignorant — may wonder why there is no Lafayette Day, to say nothing of a Rochambeau Day and a De Grasse Day. Why, they may ask, does no President, why does no Gov- ernor, call on the patient children to conduct exercises and listen to eulogies in honor of at least Lafayette? The politician, the instructed politician, knows the reason, of course. Honoring of Revolutionary heroes is not due to what they did, but to the presence in this country of a great number of men and women — voters — of their race. As has already been said, there are few French in the United States. Accordingly, Lafayette is the Forgotten Man. The wise politician (except in Louisiana) knows there is no profit in bothering with Lafayette. Who was Haym Salomon? — The Politician Must Know — The Undying Gratitude of Americans — Our Debt to the Jews — So Many Debts — A Dead Heat Between Mr. Hoover and Mr. Roosevelt. — Who was Haym Salomon? The average American certainly does not know. Even the patient school children, who know far more American history than their parents and whose steadfast fortitude OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 85 enables them to live through countless exercises decreed in honor of the heroes of the various races, do not generally know of Haym Salomon. But the politician aspiring to success in any city or district containing Jewish voters must know of Haym Salomon and must act accordingly. For the German voters, Von Steuben; for the Polish voters, Pulaski and Kosciusko; for the Jewish voters, Haym Salomon. In 1925, erection of a statue of Haym Salomon, who was described as the "financier of the American Revolu- tion/* was proposed for Madison Square, New York City. It was disapproved then by the Municipal Art Commis- sion on the ground that the Commission was not satisfied that Haym Salomon was so generous a contributor to the Colonial cause as had been depicted. But by the year 1929, the Commission had changed its ruling. By that time the project of a monument had been endorsed by Governor Roosevelt, Lieutenant-Governor Lehman, Sena- tor Wagner, Senator Copeland, Mayor Jimmie Walker and others. Supported by such judges of the value of Haym Salomon's services, the Commission in 1929 ap- proved erection of the proposed statue on a site at Broad- way and Sixty-sixth Street. Later, a committee was formed to raise $150,000 for the project. In 193 1 the Haym Salomon Monument Committee set out upon its money-raising campaign in earnest. It held its first national conference on February 24 of that year. The following heartening message from President Hoover was read at that conference: "The noble and disinterested public services of Haym Salomon deserve the undying gratitude of all Americans. The aid of his financial genius and his wealth was of critical importance in the Revolutionary struggle which created us a nation. It is indeed fitting that these services should be commemorated with an enduring monument that will remind us of his patriotism and self-sacrifice." 86 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, The declaration that Haym Salomon's services deserved the undying gratitude of all Americans must have made the Jews at that conference and many others who read it in the newspapers feel very friendly toward the distin- guished author. If such great political figures as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Alfred E. Smith, Herbert Hoover, Herbert H. Lehman, Robert E. Wagner, Royal S. Copeland and James J. Walker, find it advisable — or expedient — or appropriate — to eulogize Haym Salomon, that just about proves the case for lesser politicians. To put the matter bluntly, it is de- sirable for every politician whose constituency includes even one Jewish voter to be informed on the subject of Haym Salomon and to be prepared to panegyrize the patriot financier on appropriate occasions. As has been said before, the wise politician cultivates every vote. He does not neglect a Jew because he is lonely. Rather the contrary, for one voter made into an enthusiast may breed others. Even if the lonely Jew of a politician's constituency never himself heard of Haym Salomon, it is well for the politician to know and to extol the Revolutionary finan- cier. Perhaps even better if the lone voter does not know. Imagine the favorable effect produced if the politician is the first to inform that Jewish voter of the debt owed by all Americans to that financial genius who served the struggling Colonists! To be sure, all efforts by the politician to win the favor of the Jews should not take the form of praise for Haym Salomon. There are other effective approaches, as there are for other racial elements. President Hoover showed an understanding of the Jewish problem when, on March 9, 1930, he sent a message of commendation and appreciation to eight hundred Jews from all parts of the United States and Canada, gathered in Washington to begin a campaign to raise $6,000,000 for the upbuilding of Palestine. On OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 87 March 21, 193 1, another group of five hundred Jewish leaders from all parts of the United States met in New York to start a drive for $2,500,000 for the Joint Distri- bution Committee, Jewish welfare agency engaged in aiding Jews abroad. The gathering was cheered by a message of approval from President Hoover. It also listened to a speech by the Honorable Alfred E. Smith. On September 18, 1932, President Hoover gave to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency a message of greeting to the Jewish people on the occasion of their New Year (October 1) in which he said: "The approach of Rosh ha-Shanah serves to remind Americans of all creeds of the great debt that is owed by all our people to the Jewish race for their unparalleled contribution to the spiri- tual life of mankind, since to them, more than to any other race, we owe the exalted and pure conception of God and the highest ethical principles to be practiced in His service." There was a splendid statement, which must have been appreciated by all voters of Jewish blood who saw it, of the peculiar debt owed by Americans to the Jews. Americans, if one believes all the pronouncements of men in public life, owe so many important debts — to Jews, to Germans, to Poles, to Irish, to Swedes, Danes, Norwe- gians, Czechs, Austrians, Hungarians, Finns, Italians, Greeks, Serbs, et al., et al. — that it might be very distress- ing and burdensome except for the fact that nowadays Americans are inclined to take debts not too seriously. On November 2, 1932 — that was on the very edge of the Presidential election — President Hoover and Governor Roosevelt vied with each other in sending messages of greeting for the celebration of the fifteenth anniversary of the Balfour Declaration establishing a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. Said Mr. Hoover: "I have watched with genuine admiration the steady and unmistakable progress made in the rehabilitation of Palestine, which, desolate for centuries, is now renewing its youth and 88 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, vitality through the enthusiasm, hard work, and self-sacrifice of the Jewish pioneers, who toil there in a spirit of peace and social justice. . . ." Mr. Roosevelt said: "The Jewish development in Palestine since the Balfour Decla- ration is not only a tribute to the creative powers of the Jewish people, but by bringing great advancement into the sacred land has promoted the well-being of all the inhabitants thereof." A tie, a dead heat, between the two great protagonists of the Presidential contest. Most of the Jews of the coun- try probably voted for Mr. Roosevelt, but they must have done so rather sadly in view of Mr. Hoover's consistent solicitude for them. In voting for Mr. Roosevelt they merely followed the general and inevitable trend. Their action does not indicate that Mr. Hoover's course in this matter was incorrect. The practice of greetings and salutations is so general and so important that, in addition to instances already mentioned, I shall devote a whole chapter to it later. The various phases of my subject overlap here and there. Just now, we are concerned with the proper handling of racial groups and these messages are an important item in that. We shall see later their value in other connections. Who was Crispus Attacks? — Politicians Know — Trib- utes to the Negroes. — It is not very widely known that the Negroes have a Revolutionary hero. Most people suppose that the Negroes of the days of the Revolution were not concerned with that great political movement. But many politicians know of Crispus Attucks, and it would be well for more of them — in the North, at least — if they knew and could speak fluently of this Negro hero. In the North there are hundreds of thousands of Negroes who vote. Crispus Attucks of Boston was the first Negro killed in the Revolution. In his honor the Negro publishers of the country named their organization the Crispus Attucks OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 89 Press Association. On June 30, 1925, the Association held a celebration in Washington in honor of the purchase of a new headquarters. President Coolidge sent a letter of commendation and an autographed photograph. Others who sent letters and autographed photographs were "Uncle Joe" Cannon and Postmaster General New. President Hoover on May 18, 1932, sent a greeting to the National Association of Colored People, holding its annual conference in Washington, which contained: "Their [the colored race's] progress in education, in wealth, in participation in agriculture, industry and civic life within the relatively short period since the Civil War is an amazing story of courage and enterprise in which the colored people take a proper pride and which their neighbors of other races view with satisfaction and admiration." On June 10, 1932, President Hoover addressed the gradua- ting class of Howard University (a Negro institution maintained by the government in Washington) , his speech including the following: "Through the instruction which they receive here, your natural leaders become trained leaders; and this training is of the same kind and of equal efficiency with that which is pro- vided for the natural leaders of the white race. By this process the colored people are being integrated fully into the broad stream of the national life, sharing in the obligation and oppor- tunity for political service, for economic advancement, for edu- cational development of the individual and for enjoyment of all the benefits of science and art and general culture, including skilled medical service, more beautiful home surroundings and a share in the intellectual progress of mankind." On January 2, 1933, Mr. Hoover sent the following tele- gram to Negroes meeting at a church in New York City to observe the seventieth anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation: 90 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, "The seventy years since the Emancipation Proclamation of the Negro race have witnessed an astounding progress in their de- velopment in every field of business, agriculture and the pro- fessions. I heartily congratulate the colored people upon this record and I wish for them steady advance in their future well- being and happiness." As the Negroes usually vote the Republican ticket, it is imperative for Republicans to try to keep in their favor. Of course, it does no harm for Northern Democratic poli- ticians to attempt to make inroads. Columbus and Others — Poor Spain — Our Debt to the Italians, — The Italians apparently did not participate ex- tensively in our Revolutionary War. No Italian came charging across the ocean to aid the cause of liberty. But that was not necessary. The Italians were already pro- vided for. They had contributed the great Christopher Columbus many, many years before. For most of the country — not all— and for most of our politicians — not all — Christopher Columbus was the discoverer of America. He is the man to be praised when the Italian vote is to be considered. The wise politician keeps this ever in mind. Tributes to Columbus are, of course, sounded more or less continually by hundreds of American politicians, espe- cially on Columbus Day, October 12. There are, there- fore, scores of good examples of how the politician should go about this. But, as it is impossible here to do justice to all, or even to many, fine performers, we must be satis- fied with a couple of examples from men very highly placed. On October 6, 1928, the Italian Benevolent Society, Sons of Columbus Legion, in announcing a great festival to be held on Columbus Day in New York City, made public a letter from President Coolidge praising Colum- bus as "one of the few greatest among men." Praise of Italy and the Italians was not lacking in this admirable letter, which included the following: OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 91 "The discovery of America must always rank among the foremost accomplishments of a single man's genius and purpose against discouragement, ridicule and ignorance. . . . Yet to-day Columbus holds place as one of the few greatest among men. Probably of all achievements that may be credited to a single individual that of Columbus would be properly accepted as the foremost in history. ... It was fitting that a son of Italy should have been marked by destiny for this service, that Italy, so long the seat of ancient civilization, should thus pass on the torch to a new era and a new world. "It is the fortune of our country to have attracted hither an impressive number of sons and daughters of this land where leadership and lofty talent have so long found noble fruition. They have contributed richly of their industry, their love for liberty, their genius for the sciences, the arts and the humanities. They have given much to making our country what it is. . . ." There was what might be called a perfect panegyric, framed in a way that would appeal to every voter of Italian birth or ancestry. It is to be noticed that Spain and the Spaniards are never lauded in connection with Columbus's epochal journey to America. Those outside the sphere of politics might wonder at this neglect and might think Spain entitled to a little of the credit. But the trained politician knows better. In the United States are millions of Italian- Americans — voters — while Spanish-Americans are a negli- gible number. Eulogy of Spanish- Americans is a luxury not to be recommended except for those politicians who are so secure as to be able to indulge in wanton gambols. Praising Spain is like letting a lawn sprinkler continue spraying in the rain. A year after the Coolidge tribute, quoted above, the same Italian Benevolent Society, in charge of arranging an elaborate all-day celebration of Columbus Day, made public tributes to the discoverer from President Hoover and Governor Roosevelt. The President's was brief but 92 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, very good, while the Governor's was a bit long but very good also. Another dead heat. Mr. Hoover said: "All Americans share a common pride in the daring and perseverance of Columbus in his discovery of America. The story of his trials and triumph has colored the whole tradition of life on this continent, and will ever continue to be an inspiration to courageous youth bent upon the pursuit of difficult but great ideals." From Mr. Roosevelt's letter is the following: ". . . our great and courageous countryman, Christopher Columbus. The study I have made of his life has impressed me with the conviction that, in addition to the manly and daring qualities of the great explorer, he was possessed of an overwhelm- ing desire to help humanity. Truly, his was a kindly spirit, evidenced time after time by his patience and generosity. His courage and determination have been an inspiration in the life of every youth. . . . The most fleeting thought of his persist- ence excites in all of us a sense of the debt of gratitude we owe him. . . ." Governor Lehman of New York, in delivering an ad- dress at a Columbus Day celebration in New York City in 1934, lauded the valor of Italians and paid a tribute to the great discoverer. Of Columbus, the Governor said: "The life of Columbus is inspiring in the troubled conditions that exist to-day. The problems of to-day must be met with the same faith, courage and fortitude that Columbus displayed in sailing the uncharted seas." Senator Copeland of New York, addressing the same meet- ing, said that "there are no better citizens than the Italian people." The Governor and the Senator were in the midst of their campaigns for reelection. There are in the neigh- borhood of 1,000,000 persons of Italian blood in New York City. Of course, some of them are minors. It was President Hoover and not Governor Roosevelt OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 93 who stepped outside the trodden path by paying a startling tribute to the poet Vergil. Mr. Hoover's message, read on November 18, 1930, at a festival in New York City in celebration of the two thousandth anniversary of the birth of Vergil, read: "I am heartily in sympathy with American participation in the celebration of the two thousandth birthday of Vergil, whose immortal works have so stimulated the imagination and en- riched the cultural life of so many generations. . . . The youth- ful struggles to master Vergil's lines have been forgotten by millions who in maturity recall only that he brought to life and the world about us a new meaning and fresh beauty." At first thought, eulogies of Vergil might seem a political waste, but there are probably some Italian voters who know that the author of the ZEneid hailed from Italy, and some may know that he was a supreme panegyrist of Italy himself. History is Different in Minnesota — The Real Discoverer of America — The 'Plight of the Irish Missionaries — Chief Rising Sun. — I have said above that for most of the United States — not all — and for most of our politicians — not all — Christopher Columbus was the discoverer of America. If a conscientious historian has any doubts about who dis- covered America, he conducts painful and exhaustive re- searches into all the evidence available and reaches his conclusion accordingly. But the proficient politician knows that who discovered America depends upon the racial composition of his constituency. Where the Italian popu- lation is strong, it was emphatically Columbus. In most sections of the United States there is, aside from the Italians, no powerful racial element with a special claim, and it is also Columbus. In Minnesota it is decidedly not Columbus. It is Leif Ericson. And this same conviction obtains pretty strongly in the Dakotas. Johnsons, Nelsons, Hansons and other Sons make up 94 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, the population of Minnesota and spread over into the Dakotas. These sturdy Scandinavians are the political power in the regions that they dominate. Years ago, they did not know much about any discovery of America ex- cept their own. Now, a great many of them are well aware that it was Leif Ericson, "Leif the Lucky," son of Eric the Red, who discovered America, and did the job nearly five hundred years before Christopher Columbus. Only the most inexperienced or most ignorant politician would mention the name of Christopher Columbus in Minnesota. There, the eulogies are in honor of the great Leif, the real discoverer. There is some literature avail- able on this subject, and Minnesota politicians are advised to study it carefully. In recent years there has been a rather feeble effort to establish that America was really discovered by Christian missionaries from Ireland. If the claim were pressed seri- ously, many of our politicians would be in difficulties, for the Irish vote and the Italian vote are both strong in many cities. In New York City, the politician would have a desperate time deciding between Columbus and the Irish missionaries. But, fortunately, a very large percentage of the influential Irish became connected with the Knights of Columbus before the claim of the missionaries was ad- vanced. Accordingly, the Irish as a whole are themselves committed to Columbus, and the politicians are relieved thereby. In this battle over the real discoverer of America, the claim of the red Indians seems to have been overlooked entirely. It seems established beyond doubt that there were plenty of Indians here when Columbus and Ericson and the Irish missionaries arrived, and in some places they had developed quite an advanced civilization. But there are very few voting Indians in the United States. If the Indian vote ever becomes a factor in any section of our country, we shall find politicians there eulogizing Chief OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 95 Rising Sun (or whoever else it may be) , the real discoverer of America, who made the perilous crossing via the Aleu- tian Islands route in the epochal year of 8000 B.C. Examples could be given of praise by experienced office- holders and office-seekers of nations, peoples, races and racial heroes other than those cited, but enough has been quoted to illustrate approved and effective practice in this respect. It is time to turn to another phase of the poli- tician's program of making political friends, and we shall see that race and racial groups play a part here, too. The concrete examples given above of the correct handling of racial elements indicate how the politician should deal with other groups — religious sects, fraternal organizations, war veterans, labor unions, chambers of commerce, and many others. In addressing these bodies or in sending them messages, the politician must keep in mind that all have the highest ideals that poor humans can possess and that all have made and are making notable and unique contributions to American life and culture. It would probably be possible to frame a form with a stand- ard message of eulogy which could be sent to almost any organized body. This could be used when necessary by the busy, hard-pressed politician. But most organizations would prefer something special, and the preparation of something special offers a field for the ingenuity of the politician. Racial groups are in a way the easiest to handle. All they want is eulogy of their heroes, their homeland and themselves. They do not ask for legislation granting special privileges to Germans, Jews, Irish, Poles, Swedes, Italians, et al. But some of the other groups mentioned above do ask and press violently for legislation. In such instances, of course, the politician, in or out of office, con- siders carefully where lies his own interest and, accord- ingly, speaks or votes for or against the proposed legislation. CHAPTER VI Concerning the Value of Enemies to a Politician Denunciations and Attacks — The Use of Passion and Prejudice — The Ancient Enemy — Pirates of the Caribbean — Freedom for India and Ireland — Attacking the Japanese — Other Valuable Denouncees — Use of Religious Prejudice — The Mystery of the Poisoned Violin — Moving Versus Changing One's ' Religion — The Dependable "Interests" and the Evil Rich — Benedict Ar- nold and Judas Iscariot — America in Chains — Profitable Use of Morgan and Rockefeller — Submarines in Oklahoma. Denunciations and Attacks — The Use of Passion and Prejudice. — It was stated at the beginning of the previous chapter that it is imperative that a politician acquire enemies. A few lines later I said that the politician wins some friends in a manner that may be surprising to most laymen. A hint of this manner was given when it was stated that the politician makes friends by his attacks upon and denunciations of those whom he has determined to make his enemies. I said then that people like denuncia- tions and attacks so long as these are not directed against themselves. We have now to consider this subject of de- nunciations and attacks, and it is a very important one. It is part of the business of the politician to be thor- oughly acquainted with human nature and to use his knowledge to the uttermost. It is human nature to rejoice in the discomfiture of one's enemies, in the unhappiness of the other side. The politician knows this well. He at- tempts to please those whose support he wants by injuring those whom he has chosen as his enemies. Usually, but not always, the injuries he inflicts are only mouth injuries, that is, denunciations, and good emphatic denunciations. 96 THE POLITICIAN 97 The wise and clever politician makes the passions and prejudices of his constituents one of his principal assets. Nearly all people vote not according to the best interests of the community or even according to their own best interests as decided by calm and logical reasoning, but according to their passions and their prejudices. Such be- ing the case, it is plainly the task of the politician, in his campaigns to get into office and to keep in office, to appeal to the passions and prejudices of his constituents. It is to his advantage to attack what they hate or despise and to praise what they love and approve. The praising has been dealt with above, and we are considering the other class now. If prejudices have been partly forgotten and pas- sions have been allowed to cool, the politician, by carefully prepared utterances, can often reawaken them, to his benefit. Of course, he always makes his appeal to the prejudices held by the majority. Being sure his statements are in accord with those prejudices, he cares not for the opposition and the inflamed passions of the minority. In- deed, he welcomes them; they play into his hands. An aroused minority, attacking a politician who is appealing to the prejudices of the majority and fanning the flame of their passions, is an asset to that politician. His attackers are really his lieutenants. Race prejudice, class prejudice, religious prejudice, are three great forces to which the politician may appeal suc- cessfully. It is a rare human being indeed who does not harbor one or another of those common prejudices. The shrewd politician ascertains, from his own observation and from reliable statistics, what are the racial antecedents, the religious affiliations and the class loyalties of his con- stituents, and then appeals to the majority elements, or, at least, to one or two of them to which he can with the most propriety, or the least impropriety, address himself. The Ancient Enemy — Pirates of the Caribbean — Free- dom for India and Ireland. — We have seen above how 98 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, the politician can win the favor of racial elements by- praising them and their heroes. But he wins those ele- ments even more surely by denouncing other races against whom those whose favor he seeks are prejudiced. Gener- ally, in the past, the race that it has been profitable to attack has been the English, and England has for genera- tions taken a lot of punishment from American politicians. This state of things is not so much in vogue right now and may be less so in the future. There are reasons for the change. But there were also good — political — reasons for the long-sustained and well-rewarded denunciation. England was the ancient enemy. For generations, every American boy and girl was taught in grade school and in high school that England was the oppressor, the tyrant. It was from the English despot that our Revolutionary heroes had won liberty for the new and perfect nation. Childhood impressions — early prejudices — are likely to be lasting. The ancient tyrannical oppressor-enemy com- plex furnished a substratum of anti-English feeling that applied pretty well to the whole nation. But other anti- English influences were added. Chief of these for many years was the hostility of the Irish toward England. There may be friendship between the English and the Irish in the future, but in the past most Irish have been hostile to the English. And that Old World hostility was brought over here. After the outbreak of the war in Europe in 19 14 most German- Americans turned violently against the English. For many, many years denunciation of the English was pretty sound political doctrine, especially in sections with a large Irish population, and after 19 14 it became pretty sound doctrine where the Germans abounded. Most notable of all recent denouncers of England and the English — most successful too — was Mayor William Hale Thompson of Chicago, now retired, but perhaps, as I suggested above, only waiting like King Arthur in Avalon OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 99 for the time when Chicago's need will call him forth again. King Arth — Mayor Thompson knew very well, and exploited very skillfully, the prejudice against the English held for generations by the Irish and since 19 14 by the Germans. His effective methods merit the closest scrutiny and most assiduous study by the budding, or even the experienced, office-seeker. It may be difficult for some to understand how a mayor, whose office has nothing to do with foreign affairs or international relations, could find pretexts for denunciation of a foreign power and a foreign people. That Mayor Thompson, for years, was able to make a valuable asset of the prejudice of Chicago voters against England proves the exemplary political skill and cleverness of the man. He was thor- oughly aware that most voters do not care about the logic or rationality of an argument or appeal, but are moved by passion and prejudice. He did not worry about the incongruity of dragging King George V and even King George III into a Chicago political campaign. He cared for and cultivated only the fact that the Germans and the Irish, as well as some others, were hostile to the Eng- lish, and that the way to win them was to put the English in their place. But, in spite of his unhappy retirement, Mayor Thomp- son offers so many examples of correct procedure for the politician that it seems best not to break him up into a lot of separate illustrations but to give him a chapter to himself. Another skillful politician who made good use of the English, or British, was Mayor John F. Hylan of New York City. New York, as every one knows, is a great hodge-podge of races. There are huge racial groups in New York made up almost entirely of relatively recent arrivals in America. Millions of New Yorkers are either European-born or are separated from Europe by only one generation. But of these millions very few are of English ioo THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, birth. The English stock of early times has been over- whelmed in the ocean of later immigration. The majority of active politicians in New York City are Irish, and there is a very large German element. After the World War, the British tendency to favor fair play for Germany won a good deal of friendly feeling among the Germans of the Fatherland, but this sentiment was slow in penetrat- ing among the Germans of America. Our Germans were still hating England when the home Germans had re- turned to their traditional hatred of France. And the Germans here are the ones who vote here. Mayor Hylan was able to find English injustices and English plots in the most unexpected places, and his exposure of them made excellent political material. Senator Borah, the independent and indispensable Idaho politician, has had his fling at the British upon occasion. On February 23, 1926, he delivered in the German- Amer- ican city of Milwaukee a powerful address against Amer- ican adherence to the World Court. In the course of this, he said: "Since childhood I have always been a little reluctant about dealing across the table with a Britisher. . . . When we settled the British war debt to us, we gave England a discount of $3,- 500,000,000 against the interest of the taxpayers of America. . . . About a year ago raw rubber was selling for seventeen cents a pound. Great Britain controls seventy-five or eighty percent of the rubber supply. ... In less than a year raw rubber has jumped to $1.01 a pound, five or six times what it was when we gave Great Britain the three and a half billion. . . . Now, my friends, if we can't trust Great Britain in ref- erence to rubber, do you think we can trust her in great prin- ciples involving the life and death of the American republic?" This attack on the British must have made a very favor- able impression in Milwaukee. Senator Wallace H. White, Republican, of Maine, is another of our practised politicians who has had his fling OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 101 at the British. In 1930, when he was a Representative, he was chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee of the House. At that time, Mr. White was much troubled by efforts of the Cunard Line (British) to capture a large share of the trade between the United States and Cuba, which Mr. White wanted for American lines. On February 20, 1930, he delivered a speech in the House suggesting that the law be changed so that the Cunard ships would be classified as fighting ships, which would have prohibited their pernicious activity. On De- cember 21, 1930, Mr. White asserted that foreign ships operating only during the winter season between the United States and Caribbean ports were "virtually pirates." Shades of Elizabethan England, with British buccaneers infesting the tropic seas again! Representative Hamilton Fish, Jr., Republican, New York, to whose political wisdom I have already paid and shall later pay tribute, has not hesitated to denounce the British when he thought it appropriate. On September 15, 1929, at a meeting held in New York City to ex- press the sympathy of American Christians and Jews for the distressed people in Palestine, Mr. Fish declared that the British administration under the mandate in Palestine not only was lax but was criminally negligent. On Oc- tober 7, 1929, Mr. Fish declared in an address before the Government Club at the Hotel Astor in New York City that British delegates were responsible for the collapse of the 1927 Geneva Conference to limit naval armament. Representative Fish's strictures on England have not been very violent, but the upstate New York district that he represents in Congress is not dominated by anti-British elements. There are ways of twisting the British lion's tail other than by perfectly direct denunciation. For example, the late Senator Blaine of Wisconsin on January 6, 1930, intro- 102 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, duced a resolution in the United States Senate providing that the Senate pledge its constitutional support to the President in recognizing the sovereignty and independence of India. Now, there were surely very few Indians — East Indians — in Wisconsin. The people of Wisconsin had little interest in India. But Wisconsin is heavily German, and there can be no doubt that this resolution, proposed, of course, without any expectation of adoption, made a favorable impression on the Germans of Wisconsin because it was directed against England. The late Senator Lodge of Massachusetts took a some- what similar course when, during the debate in the Senate on the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations, he arranged for the passage of a resolution or reservation or something of the sort expressing hope for Irish freedom. As every one knows, Massachusetts is now largely con- trolled by the Irish, and the Senator was soon to come up for reelection. It was at that time, too, that he de- veloped a benevolent interest in the Jews, of whom there are many in Boston. He succeeded in getting a resolution through the Senate in favor of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. To be sure, the creation of this homeland was to be accomplished through the efforts of the British, but resolutions of benign favor put through the Senate cost the author of them nothing. It will also be recalled that Senator Lodge, during the post-war debates, had some- thing favorable to say of the Italian claim to Fiume, the former Austrian city wanted by both Italy and Jugo- slavia. There were, and still are, a great many Italians in Massachusetts and few Jugoslavs. Senator Lodge was very nearly beaten in 1922 by Colonel Gaston, the Demo- cratic candidate. It is quite possible that he would have been beaten if he had not conducted himself as he did to make a favorable impression on Irish, Italian and Jewish voters. He reaped the reward of his skill. Many more examples of attacks on the British could OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 103 be quoted, and more will be — good ones — in the chapter devoted to William Hale Thompson. But enough have been cited to give the student of political practice an idea of how the thing has been and still is done. Millions of voters who have been unfriendly to the British have been made their supporters by politicians who have de- nounced and defied England and all its ways. It is only fair to warn the politician, young and old, that the British are somewhat more popular than they were years ago. On that account it is highly advisable for the politician to be quite sure of the sentiments and prejudices of his constituency before he begins twisting the lion's tail. At the present time in most sections of the country it is safer to denounce the French than the British. Attacking the Japanese. — In California for many years politicians have found it advantageous to attack the Japanese, to arouse and sustain the hostility of the white voters against the distant inhabitants of Nippon and the few Japanese in California. There are about seventy-five thousand Japanese in California and over three million whites. A large percentage of the seventy-five thousand Japs do not vote. So, attacking the Japanese is politically very profitable in California, and any one aspiring to the career of a politician in the Golden or Epic State is well advised to do so. The yellow peril of the industrious Japanese is dependable political material in the Sunkist Land. The California politician always sees the Japs of Japan threatening a war to seize the Pacific Coast and the Japs of California threatening the economic ruin of the Native Sons and all other whites of the state. If, instead of seventy-five thousand Japanese in California, there were a million, all citizens, the Japanese menace would disappear. The California Japanese are now a minority that the politicians want as enemies. If there were a million of them, they would be necessary to political suc- cess. In such a situation we should doubtless find io 4 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, California politicians praising the thrift, the industry, the law-abiding nature, of the Japanese. There would be Japanese heroes to be lauded as Von Steuben, Pulaski, Kosciusko, Columbus and Haym Salomon are lauded now. Other Valuable Denouncees — Use of Religious Preju- dice. — In the making of political friends, that is, voters who vote right, through what might be called reverse action, that is, denunciation, the politician does not always turn his attention to evil racial groups. There are other elements — minorities, of course — the castigation of which wins for him the warm approval of those he is cultivat- ing. In certain sections and at certain times, denuncia- tion of selected religious groups is politically beneficial. More often, denunciation of the rich, some of them, the right ones, is advisable. And there are special groups whose enmity is to be incubated and nurtured — and there are conspirators whose foulness needs to be exposed. Enlightened but uninformed persons would be aston- ished did they learn how many adult men and women in the United States are decisively influenced in their votes by religious prejudice. But intelligent politicians know all about this, and political parties take unannounced note of it and act accordingly. For many years it was assumed that no Roman Catholic could be elected Presi- dent of the United States, and no political party dared to make a test of this. In 1928, when Governor Smith of New York had become the great leader of the Demo- cratic Party, it became impossible to deny him the Presi- dential nomination. In spite of his splendid record, his personal popularity, and his exceptional ability, there were many practical Democratic politicians who were con- vinced that his religion made Al Smith's candidacy a wasted effort. The Smith nomination caused a flaring-up of anti-Catholic feeling, of which the Republicans made very skillful use. Their campaign blew the flame into a fierce conflagration. The object, of course, was to bring OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 105 about a political division on the basis of Catholic and non- Catholic. There are localities in the United States where the Catholics dominate. There is even one state — Massa- chusetts — where they appear to control. But, in every other state and in the country as a whole, they are defi- nitely in the minority. The success of the Republican religious campaign confirmed the previously held views of shrewd politicians. It is safe to say that no great party — no party hoping to win — will nominate a Roman Catholic for President again for a long time. Indeed, a major party is more likely to nominate a Jew than a Catholic, although very unlikely to do either. In all of the country except New York City the Jews are so small a minority of the population that it is impossible to look upon them as a menace. The Jews are not popu- lar, but even the smartest politicians can't conjure them into a threat against the safety of the country and the liberties of the people. But the Catholics are numerous enough to be magnified into a serious menace whenever political exigency requires. In every state political leaders and managers choose candidates with careful regard to their religious affilia- tions. In Boston, a Catholic stronghold, the Republicans try to defeat the Irish Catholic Democrats with Irish Catholic Republicans, and sometimes succeed. In New York City, the great strength of the Democratic Party lies in an informal alliance of Catholic and Jewish ele- ments. Taken together, the Catholics and the Jews con- stitute much more than a majority of the people of New York. The Democratic nominee for Mayor of New York is always a Catholic. The Jews are given a fair represen- tation on the ticket, with some good offices, but the Democratic nominees for most of the offices are usually Catholics. The Protestant element of the Democratic Party is given some recognition. Frequently the Democratic candidate for Controller, a very important office, is a io* THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Protestant. Protestant representation on the Democratic state ticket is always proportionately greater. than on the city ticket, as upstate New York, which is predominantly Protestant, has to be considered. Thus, when Al Smith was the candidate for Governor, a large percentage of candidates on the ticket with him were Protestants, and, if it were the year for election of a Senator, that Demo- cratic candidate was always a Protestant. That "bal- anced" the ticket. Thus it was that Senator Copeland (whose interest in Pluto Water will be mentioned later) got his start for Washington. And Senator Wagner also. The strength of the Republican Party in New York State and in New York City is Protestant. The leaders of the Republican State ticket are nearly always Protestants. In New York City, if the Republicans enter a ticket in their own name, it is only a gesture. They have no expectation or hope of winning under the Re- publican label. The only chance New York City Re- publicans have to vote for a winning ticket in a municipal election is when they unite with anti-Tammany Demo- crats and offer a Fusion ticket. This plan is occasionally successful — if the Tammany administration preceding the election has been very bad. The present Mayor of New York, Fiorello H. La Guardia, was elected on such a Fusion ticket after the corruption of the Walker regime had been exposed. When a Fusion ticket is put together, the religious af- filiations of the candidates are very carefully considered. Usually a Catholic Democrat is chosen as the candidate for Mayor, the Fusionists trying to defeat a Tammany Catholic with a Catholic of their own. The late John Purroy Mitchel, still looked upon by New Yorkers with great appreciation, was such a Catholic Democrat. Mr. La Guardia is neither Catholic nor Democrat. He is Epis- copalian and radical Republican. But perhaps the Fusion organizers thought the fact that he was an Italian OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 107 would cause most of the Catholic population of the city to think he was of their number. However, they "bal- anced" the Fusion ticket pretty well by naming Catholic Democrats for most of the other principal offices. The religious prejudices of the voters of the great city were carefully considered. Because New York City has such large and powerful factions of all religious views, it is best for the politician to assume, in public at least, a broad and tolerant posi- tion. As long as the informal Catholic-Jew alliance holds, the Protestant element will be in the minority and Catho- lics and Jews will continue to get most of the municipal offices. But the Protestants are too numerous and power- ful to be ignored or denounced. And, of course, no sane New York politician would think of denouncing or criti- cizing Jews or Catholics. The item that defeated Joseph V. McKee and assured the election of Fiorello H. LaGuardia in the 1933 Mayoralty campaign in New York City was an article written by McKee eighteen years be- fore, when he was a school-teacher, criticizing the aims and ideals of some Jewish students. It does not pay for the politician to speak unfavorably of any religious group in New York City. It is not always thus elsewhere. Chicago is a Protestant city, and the anti-Catholic feeling has sometimes been used effectively there. When the Ku Klux Klan ruled Indiana, it was advantageous to the politician to denounce the Catholics and many did so. The same situation ob- tained in parts of the South when the Klan was running things. Many politicians did their denouncing very quietly, carrying on what are often called "whispering campaigns." That is the recommended procedure gen- erally followed by the expert and experienced. But others were not as reticent. Chief among the outspoken ones was Thomas J. Heflin, who was Senator from Alabama when he did his most powerful attacking. Mr. Heflin io8 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, may be said to have specialized in the use of the Catholic Church as political material. In January, 1927, Senator Heflin charged in the Senate that the Knights of Columbus were seeking to involve the United States in a war with Mexico because of Mexico's unfavorable treatment of the Catholic Church. One year later, on January 18, 1928, Senator Heflin, in an address in the Senate, attacked Governor Alfred E. Smith, then the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, his remarks including: "Would you want this Roman Catholic wet in the White House? Would you want this Al Smith in charge of the govern- ment, with power to appoint a Secretary of State, with power to appoint the Ambassador to Mexico, with power to send American boys to Mexico to be killed in the service of the Pope of Rome? ... I am going to ask the Senate to deport every man and woman who think they owe double allegiance, first to Romanism and second to Americanism." That might be called an open and undisguised denuncia- tion. It was, of course, only one of many attacks made by Senator Heflin on Governor Smith and the Catholic Church. During the year 1928 the Senator delivered many addresses to gatherings of the Ku Klux Klan and these were characterized by sharp words for the Governor and the Church. On May 7, 1928, Senator Heflin introduced a resolu- tion in the Senate declaring it to be the "solemn duty" of Congress to see that no flag flies above the Stars and Stripes. He had seen a picture of the cruiser Cincinnati with a flag flying above the national emblem. In his resolution he said that it had been alleged that "the Roman Catholic flag, the same design as the flag flown at the Vatican in Rome, has been recently hoisted above and flown above the United States Flag on the United States Battleship Cincinnati" and also on the battleship Florida, OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 109 It was explained by the Navy Department that the only flag ever flown above the American flag was the regular "church pennant," a blue cross on a white field, which flies from the masthead of all ships in Christian navies when religious services of any kind are taking place. Sena- tor Heflin was not much impressed by this explanation, and it seems probable that many of his constituents thought his action in this matter, although his resolution was not adopted, was helpful in preventing the Papal flag from flying over the Capitol and the White House. In February, 1929, Senator Heflin proposed in an amendment to the cruiser bill that the church flag should not be flown above the Stars and Stripes during divine service on naval vessels, but his proposal was beaten, 68 to 10. This defeat, he declared, was because the "Catholic influence" had "cracked its whip." "Senators flew to cover who were afraid of the Catholic influence," he said. The Mystery of the Poisoned Violin. — The Senator's plainly expressed hostility to Catholics and their Church put him in some strange situations and dangers — or so he thought — and, no doubt, his courage in such circum- stances made a powerful appeal to his partizans. Late in February, 1928, Senator Heflin received through the mail a mysterious package. It seemed to him mysteri- ous and suspicious. He thought that it might contain a bomb, and, on that account, had it opened by post-office agents. The contents proved to be not a bomb but a violin. Now, a bomb in a mysterious package may be said to be normal, so normal in some circumstances as to be scarcely alarming. But a violin in a mysterious package is so uncommon an occurrence as to be decidedly perturb- ing. The Senator was so perturbed by this bizarre gift that he sent the violin to the chemical laboratory of the Navy Department to have it tested for germs. At the same time, in discussing the menacing occurrence, the Senator said: no THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, "I have received so many threats that I am very suspicious and obliged to be constantly on guard. Another Senator suggested that very likely the violin was laden with deadly germs which, if I played it, would be dislodged and wafted up into my nostrils ... I have not touched it. The detective who handled it washed his hands very carefully afterward. All the wrappings and markings were saved. They will take fingerprints, if they find any. . . . "Only a few weeks ago I received through the mails a very mysterious document. In the middle of a sheet of paper was the black imprint of a hand. Around the edges were finger impressions in real blood. Neatly typed at the top of the sheet was a message which said if I did not cease my attacks on the Roman Catholics that I would be shut up forever. It did not frighten me much. I feel I might as well keep calm. If I am going to be murdered, I don't know how I can prevent it except by being careful. . . . "They said they would get me if I came to Chicago, but I went and made my speech. ... I believe that the threats of reprisal which have been made by my friends in my behalf have served to protect my life so far. The day that I am murdered, a hundred priests in the South will be marked for death. Other Catholics in high office will be killed in retaliation. The Cath- olics know this. That is why they hesitate to murder me." It developed that, at the same time the violin arrived at Senator Heflin's office, several Senators received the following letter: "My dear Senator: Having recently received a famous fiddle, you are most cor- dially invited to attend my first public recital, to be given from the top of the Washington Monument, this city, on the evening of St. Patrick's Day, March 17, 1928, at eight o'clock. I desire to show the world that having out-Neroed Nero in persecuting and denouncing that hated sect of Roman Catholics, I can also equal if not surpass him as a fiddler. Very truly yours, J. Thomas Heflin." Drawn by Rollin Kirby, courtesy N. Y. World INCIDENT IN THE LIFE OF A 100 PER CENTER OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING in Senator Heflin declared that the letters were forgeries, each being a separate criminal offense punishable by a year in prison. The dangers the Senator unflinchingly endured and the denunciations he so fearlessly uttered brought him an enormous amount of publicity and many violent partizans. It is interesting to note that, in spite of all the threats, he is still alive, although not in office. It is sad to relate that, because the Senator did not support Governor Smith in the 1928 Presidential cam- paign, he was barred by the State Democratic Executive Committee as a candidate to succeed himself. He made the race as an independent in 1930, but, as the regular Democratic candidate always wins in Alabama, he was defeated. In 1934 he tried to win the Democratic nomi- nation for Representative in Congress from his district but was defeated. There are some, even outside of Alabama, who felt very sorrowful at his defeat, believing that his presence added something quite distinctive to the Capitol. It is possible that Senator Heflin carried his denuncia- tions too far or continued them too long, that is, when the temper of the majority had changed. However, there is no doubt that, for a time, for a considerable time, his use of religious prejudice was very beneficial to him and was a model for politicians in similar circumstances. Moving versus Changing Chte's Religion. — The wise and intelligent politician sees that he is thoroughly in- formed concerning the religious complexion of his con- stituency and acts accordingly. If he is a candidate in a community in which no religious element has a sure dominance, he does well to assume and announce a broad tolerance. Of course, carefully worded private hints of acceptable sentiments can be given, perhaps to all fac- tions. Where hostility toward the Jews is popular, it is advisable for the politician to be hostile to the Jews. If the politician is a Protestant and his district is hostile to ii2 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Catholics, he is also hostile, judiciously. A Catholic, as- piring to be a politician, if originally located in such a district, is well advised to move elsewhere, just as a Protestant politician in an anti-Protestant district takes the shrewd course when he moves. And it is better to do the moving early in the political career. This moving on account of the unfavorable religious dominance of a district is a much more common political phenomenon than might be supposed. When a politician moves his residence for such a reason he does not disclose the cause of his action, but he moves just the same. Changing one's religious affiliation to suit the district is not usually well received. It is better to change the district. The Dependable "Interests" and the Evil Rich — Bene- diet Arnold and Judas Iscariot. — It must be said that there is some danger to the politician in the use of religious prejudice and in the denunciation of — minority — religious groups. Subtlety and skill are required in this matter if a politician is to use this material successfully over a long period. The involuntary retirement of Mr. Heflin (who, of course, may return to favor) is a case in point. But politicians do not run such risk nor need they be so subtle when they use class prejudice, particularly when they de- nounce "the Interests." It may be said that the chief function of the Interests is to be denounced. Always, in every country, the great majority falls in the class of the "common people." That is, most of the people everywhere have little property and little, if any, income above their expenditure. Nearly every one is chronically and permanently hard up. Of late years, more people than ever before fall in this class. But there are always some few persons — the clever or lucky rascals! — who have a great deal of property and large incomes, who, in short, are rich, whose money permits them to buy what they want, to go where they please, to do as they wish. They are the Other Side, the natural enemy OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 113 of the common people. It is only human for the people who Have Not to feel oppressed, aggrieved, unfairly- treated, and to develop and cherish hostility and opposition to those who Have. Of course, there are saintly souls who do not feel this way at all, who are above worldly and material things, who look upon wealth as a danger and an evil, whose hearts know no envy or covetousness. But they are too few to be given consideration in our textbook. As for the multitude, they are not pleased at being poor and they do not feel friendly toward the rich. This unfriendly feel- ing of the masses has often been made good use of by politicians and can still be used to advantage. This can- not always be done, for there are many districts in the country controlled politically by the rich. The politician must be perspicacious and must discriminate. He must know his district and the forces in it. It is to be noted that the rich New Yorkers are par- ticularly subject to denunciation by American politicians in all parts of the country. Wall Street and its denizens are looked upon as peculiarly vicious and dangerous by many Americans, and this feeling has not declined since the stock market collapse. The informed politician guards himself against rich New Yorkers. Intimacy or friendship with them he avoids as he would the Black Death. He wants them as enemies, and he takes such steps as he can to arouse them against him. Theodore Roosevelt won the hearts of millions of American voters by attacking the Predatory Interests and condemning malefactors of great wealth. Attacking these dependable Predatory Interests has been the path of success for many politicians, and the old path is open still. John Faithful Hylan, for a good many years a skillful and successful politician, now seemingly in a state of puz- zled and persistent wistfulness, is one who in his prime made good use of the Interests. The Interests for him ii 4 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, took the form of Wall Street, Big Business, the Traction Interests, the International Bankers, and when he was Mayor of New York all these were the objects of his constant attacks in behalf of the common people. Mayor Hylan triumphantly made himself the champion of the common people against the wealthy. He succeeded in giving a majority of the six millions then dwelling in New York the impression that he alone stood between them and having their family stockings picked by the Interests. Principally due to this impression, Mayor Hylan was elected for his second term by a majority of 417,000 votes over the very estimable Major Henry H. Curran, who was made by Mr. Hylan to appear to represent the Interests while the Mayor represented the people. Such success as Mayor Hylan won on that occasion is the fruit of thought and skill in employing the materials available. In 1925 Mayor Hylan was headed for a third term. He had succeeded in giving the impression that, single- handed and with his back to the wall, he was fighting for the cause of the people against vast, maleficent powers. Now, that is an impression that the politician usually wants to give, an impression that generally results in election to public office. Everything seemed favorable to the Mayor's determination to succeed himself and make it twelve years. Then, suddenly, like an evil bolt from the blue, Al Smith leaped into the political arena against the Mayor. Some- how, this seemed unsportsmanlike, below the belt, for the Great Champion to descend from his lofty place in order to oust the Mayor. And if Governor Smith had wanted the job for himself, it would not have seemed so strange and so unfair. But no, he was not himself a candidate; he merely wanted to get Mayor Hylan out. To do this, in the Democratic primary he threw all the strength of his name and his campaigning powers behind the man whom he had chosen as Mr. Hylan's successor, one James J. Walker. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 115 Hindsight is better than foresight. There are those who today declare that Governor Smith might better have let Mayor Hylan fight the Interests for four years more. And there are others who think that Jimmie Walker, for all his faults, was better for the progress of New York City than But, at any rate, the campaign was on — Mayor Hylan against Al Smith, James J. Walker and the Interests. Governor Smith called the battle "Tammany's family quarrel." In family quarrels there are likely to be bitter words, and there were some in this one. Said the Mayor: "In the days of Benedict Arnold, traitors were frowned upon, but to-day if some little individual deserts the people's cause the papers come out with big headlines and direct sympathy to the deserter. "The newspapers have referred to Governor Smith as 'Our Al.' They speak of him as coming from Oliver Street (on the lower East Side), whereas he has been living at the Biltmore and paying sixty dollars a day without eats. You know he doesn't wear his brown derby any more. He associated with the Rocke- fellers, the increased fare lawyers and others. . . ." That statement of the Mayor's, as did many others, seemed in the best form. He connected his chief opponent with luxury, with great wealth, with the RockefellerSj with the Interests. And very cleverly he likened the Governor to Benedict Arnold. I may say in passing that it's a poor political campaign into which Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot do not enter before the votes are counted. They are the never-failing standards of com- parison cited by politicians of all parties when describing their opponents. But, in spite of Mr. Hylan's capacity, experience and skill, Governor Smith was successful in nominating Jimmie Walker and on September 16, 1925, Mayor Hylan was announcing his coming return to private life. He thanked his supporters and declared that u6 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, his every effort during his eight years as Mayor had "been directed for the people's interest." That was a sad occasion. It must be admitted that there are times when even the most approved political conduct does not lead to success, just as the correct bidding of a hand of bridge does not always mean victory. But sound bridge bidding is devised for the general rule, not the exceptional hand, and so is sound political practice. America in Chains — Profitable Use of Morgan and Rockefeller — Submarines in Oklahoma. — Senator Huey P. Long, the Kingfish of Louisiana, has profited politi- cally by denunciation of the Interests and the rich. The Interests to which he has turned his attention are not exactly identical with those Mr. Hylan's keen eyes were able to discern at work so ubiquitously, but in their evil essence they are the same. There are no great fortunes in Louisiana in the sense the phrase is used in the North. There are, of course, well-to-do and influential people, many of whom are troubled by some of Mr. Long's pro- posals and expressions. But, on the whole, the voters of Louisiana, being poor and dissatisfied with their lot, ap- prove and applaud attacks on the rich. In December, 1930, the Kingfish, then Governor and just elected Senator, published an article in his own Louisiana Progress, to which he gave the title, "Will the God of Greed Pull the Temple Down on Himself?" In this the then Governor said: "Our wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few people. All our businesses have been taken over by a few men. The chain banks in Wall Street control money in the remotest corners of the nation. The chain groceries have killed off our grocery-stores; the chain drugstores have destroyed our neigh- borhood drugstores; the chain drygoods, cigar and tobacco, cof- fee and even packing-houses have about routed all independent business in their lines. These concerns carry with them chain accountants, chain doctors and chain lawyers. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 117 [It appears, indeed, that America is in chains, chains longer and more varied than that dragged by Marley's ghost. A par- lous situation! But Providence has sent men to help us.] "For the past thirty years the Oil Trust has seldom allowed any one to enter that business. The Power Trust has harnessed all on this side of the globe. [The Kingfish's enemies maliciously point to his intimacy with Harvey Couch, the principal power magnate of Louisiana, but that is pure spite.] So what business is there left in this country for our people to thrive on? . . . "There is something wrong when the people starve for food and shiver for clothes, and cannot get them because there is too much in the land. "Nations of ancient and modern times, kingdoms and rulers controlling the destinies of the world, have tottered and toppled when the wealth of the land was gathered into a few hands, pill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, where wealth accumulates and men decay.'] "The greed of such overlords is beyond all that their human appetite can demand or consume. . . . Their greed is un- bounded. They must reach into the recesses and corners of the universe, ransack the globe, until there is nothing of profit and thrift that is not under them." This carefully prepared article of Mr. Long's may be said to be quite perfect in its field. Young politicians try- ing to get a start and older politicians wondering why too many voters are pulling the wrong lever might well take it as a model. The Kingfish covered a good deal of ground — the wealthy few, Wall Street, the chains, the Oil Trust, the Power Trust, the unbounded greed of our overlords — and covered it admirably. But he has done as well on many other occasions. In a speech in the United States Senate on April 29, 1932, Senator Long denounced the "plutocracy of wealth," demanded a "redistribution," and offered a reso- lution instructing the Senate Finance Committee to frame the tax bill to prevent any one from receiving a yearly income of more than $1,000,000 or an inheritance of over n8 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, $5,000,000. When Senator Robinson of Arkansas, the Democratic leader, opposed the resolution, Senator Long declared that the noted Arkansan favored the views of "Baruch, Morgan and Rockefeller," toward vested wealth. On May 12, 1933, the Senate defeated a proposal of Sena- tor Long's for the federal government to confiscate in- comes of over $1,000,000, inheritances over $5,000,000 and private property holdings and gifts in excess of $100,000,000. When Senator Borah asked Senator Long how he would distribute wealth that he expected to flow into the Treasury under his proposal, the Kingfish replied: "That is very easy. You will relieve the great majority of the people of taxes. In fifteen years at most you would have one-third of the nation's wealth in the hands of the government for redistribution to the people." On May 26, 1933, the Kingfish attacked Secretary of the Treasury Woodin and other Treasury officials, saying that they were "mired with the mud of Wall Street and the House of Morgan." Analyzing Senator Long's political technique upon the three occasions just cited, we observe several significant and valuable points. First, there is the denunciation of evil wealth as a whole, wealth the ruler, the "plutocracy of wealth." Second, there is the naming of "Baruch, Morgan and Rockefeller" and the "House of Morgan." Now, Senator Long was not doing as well when he men- tioned Bernard M. Baruch, for Mr. Baruch does not sym- bolize anything in the public mind. But the Senator was proceeding according to standard practice in bringing "Morgan and Rockefeller" upon the scene. J. P. Morgan and the John D. Rockefellers may be public-spirited and beneficent citizens, but there is no doubt that the politi- cians have made Mr. Morgan and the "House of Morgan" a symbol of the power of wealth, and the name of "Rocke- feller" has somewhat the same significance. It was no- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 119 ticed a few pages back that Mayor Hylan, using excellent political judgment, insisted that Governor Smith had been associating with the Rockefellers. Senator Long was on tried and sure ground here. The third point to be noticed is that he proposed a very splendid benefit to the common people, the Have-Nots, by presenting them with prop- erty taken from the Haves. This particular action of the Senator does not exactly fall in the classification of mat- ters we are now discussing, that is, denunciations, but its effect in winning friends among the Have-Nots must be very much the same. On October 21, 1933, the Kingfish, in an address at Shreveport, Louisiana, again attacked the rich and advo- cated a redistribution of wealth, now his favorite project. He came to Shreveport in the private railway car of Harvey and C. P. Couch, railway and utilities magnates, but that did not trouble him or his auditors. Yet it must be said, I think, that this association of the Senator with men of large means while he is denouncing the Interests of various sorts is not in the best political technique. It seems that he would do well to abstain from it. The bed of the successful politician is not a luxurious Railway Couch. Governor William H. Murray of Oklahoma, "Alfalfa Bill," he of the exposed galluses, he whom the virtuous and volatile William Allen White once saw in "the shadow of the White House," he who is all this and more, has done his bit of denouncing of the Interests at appropriate times. The utilities, gas — natural gas — and electric, were the particular Interests toward which he directed his ire. The utilities, especially the wicked Power Trust, have taken a dreadful pummeling during the past few years, and Governor Murray was one who did not pull his punches. He brought the gas villains to book by the use of militia. Then, saying that the power companies' rates needed reducing too, he declared that he would not fight 120 THE POLITICIAN in the way desired by the companies, but would "bring into play bombing planes, submarines, grapeshot and shrapnel and everything necessary to bring them to obedi- ence to law and a reasonable rate." Alfalfa Bill was not explicit in disclosing how he was going to obtain and operate submarines, but his vehement statement must be regarded as a splendid and creditable piece of work. It is typical of the sort of denunciation that makes some enemies (of those the politician wants as enemies) but creates many friends. In Governor Mur- ray's case it was practically certain that the Interests were going to be his enemies, anyway, and it is rudimentary in politics to denounce and exploit those who are certain to be against you. CHAPTER VII More Concerning the Value of Enemies to a Politician, With Information on How to Choose Them and How to Make Them Plots and Conspiracies — The Scheming International Bankers — Possible Assassination of Governor Murray — Spies and Counter- Spies — A Plot in New Jersey — Surprising Discovery of Senator Moses — The Press Not Immune — When It Should be Denounced — Examples — A Rare Specimen — The Last Word in Safety — Political Eunuchs — The Individual Enemy and His Exploitation — Invective — Dr. Schmidt's Researches — Thriving on Hostil- ity — Exalted by His Enemies — Something Happened at Sands Point — Men in Buckram — A Commemorative Medal. Plots and Conspiracies. — The Scheming International Bankers. — The rich, the Interests, do not by any means exhaust the list of those whom politicians find it profitable to denounce. As will be seen later, denunciation of in- dividuals is the most common practice of all, and there are other classes of denouncees. One class that comes in for powerful attack year after year is that of plotters, the conspirators, who are scheming and working ceaselessly against the program and the progress of the virtuous politician. Mr. Hylan when he was Mayor of New York discov- ered many plots against him and his projects. Usually these were hatched by the English or the Interests, and he was never backward about denouncing both. Senator William E. Borah, masterful and majestic Idaho politician, in the fall of 1926 denounced a manifesto of international financiers for a lowering of tariffs in such language that the New York Times* headline read: "Borah Scents Plot 122 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, in Anti-Tariff Plea." Proposals made by this group, the Senator said, "are all in harmony with the same general plan — our foreign policy, our industry, and our money are to be sacrificed in this general scheme of readjusting our relationship with the world." The man for whom the tallest peak in Idaho has been named made no mistake in attacking the international financiers. They are a group the denunciation of which by politicians is almost automatic. "Plot to Control Foreign Policy Laid to Bankers" was a prominent headline in the New York Herald Tribune, February 23, 1929, over a dispatch from Washington telling of a speech in the House by Representative George Holden Tinkham, of Massachusetts. Mr. Tinkham spoke in support of a resolution demanding an investigation of expenditures by international bankers and others to in- fluence internationalism by this country. Accusing Amer- ican bankers of intrigue to control America's foreign policy, Mr. Tinkham said, in part: "The international Standard Oil interests, with John D. Rockefeller and their agent, Ivy Lee, now open propagandists against the interests of the United States, have no country, no flag and no allegiance except to the power of money and what money can compel or buy. "These interests and these men assume the attractive habili- ments of lofty sentiments and high-sounding phrases, but un- derneath there is no love of country, but a desire for personal power and their own selfish aims. What John D. Rockefeller thinks is right never conflicts with his financial interests. "Men of this character have lately become bold and open in their activities in public affairs and at present in our interna- tional affairs. . . . "Since the introduction on January 3 of the order of investi- gation, the following startling and convincing events have occurred: OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 123 "1. The appointment of J. Pierpont Morgan, the leading in- ternational banker of the United States, and of Owen D. Young, the president of one of the largest United States international business organizations, as semi-official rep- resentatives approved by the government to the confer- ence to be held in Europe in relation to German reparations. . . . "2. The mission of Elihu Root, an ex-Secretary of State, formerly known as the leading adviser of international bankers ... to a conference of jurists appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. . . . "3. The recent employment of Charles Evans Hughes, an- other ex-Secretary of State, by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to represent a committee formed by the latter to obtain control of a great international oil company. . . . Not only is Mr. Hughes one of the best-known advisers of international bankers and international business organi- zations, but he has recently been elected to membership on the Permanent Court of International Justice of the League of Nations, which court he wishes the United States to join. . . ." There was a blast for you! Primarily a denunciation of a "plot" of international bankers, it spread out and ef- fectively covered a good deal of reliably productive ground. Included in the splendid scope of Representa- tive Tinkham's condemnation were the international Standard Oil interests, John D. Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., J. Pierpont Morgan, Owen D. Young, Elihu Root, Charles Evans Hughes, the League of Nations and the World Court. Messrs. Young, Root and Hughes as individuals did not help the bold and bearded Massa- chusetts politician's case, for these names did not have any unfavorable significance in the public mind. But he was able to connect them with such dreaded institutions as the League of Nations and the World Court. Of course, denunciation of Messrs. Morgan and the Rockefellers, the international bankers, and other internationalists was good 124 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, procedure. On the whole, it was an example of rich and full denunciation, a very good piece of political work, and must have made a favorable impression in Mr. Tink- ham's district. Possible Assassination of Governor Murray — Spies and Counter-Spies — A Plot in Neiv Jersey. — "Alfalfa Bill" of Oklahoma, he of the submarines and the shadow of the White House, once upon a time discovered a plot himself. An Associated Press dispatch from Oklahoma City, Janu- ary 17, 1934, declared that fatalism had entered the philosophy of Governor Murray and that his cares had been increased by expectation of an attempt by his enemies to impeach him. His enemies, he said, would stop at noth- ing, even assassination being a possibility. Stoically dis- cussing the plans and wickedness of his enemies, the Gov- ernor said: "I am not afraid of bullets. God has willed that I live sixty- one years so far and when my time comes I'll go and not before." After mentioning the expected attempt of the plotters to impeach him, he said: "When that fails they will not hesitate to try to assassinate me." The conspirators, he said, had employed spies, but he added: "I have mine to keep me informed. They will try to defeat my policies. When impeachment is mentioned, I'll have one hundred thousand citizens at my side in twenty-four hours." The Governor's heroism, holding firm for the people, in the face of the plot to impeach or even assassinate him, must have heightened the loyalty of his admiring support- ers. His exposure of the plot of his enemies undoubtedly had a valuable effect. Alfalfa Bill's belief that he might be assassinated is typical of the view of so many of our great politicians. Because they are guarding the people's interests, they are, they say they are, in constant danger of being murdered. Mention has been made of ex-Senator Heflin's apprehen- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 125 sions on this subject. On February 2, 1935, in a public hearing at Baton Rouge, Senator Huey P. Long accused the Standard Oil Company of abetting a plot for his as- sassination. Questioning a witness — one George R. ("Red") Davis, former Deputy Sheriff of Baton Rouge — the Kingfish elicited a confession that Davis had tried to murder him on four or five occasions. Davis, who did not implicate the wicked oil Interests, seems not to have been punished for his frustrated scheme. But his dark and dreadful words indicated clearly the menace under which our great public servants live. Yet, strangely, although our lofty leaders believe their lives in ever-present threat of being murdered, so few of them ever are murdered. There are men and women in this country, good citizens too, who declare that we should all be better off if more of our politicians were m But we shall pass that over in silence. Judge William L. Dill, Democratic candidate for Governor of New Jersey in the 1934 election, discovered and announced a very interesting plot a little over a week before election day. He declared in a radio address on October 28 that Enoch Johnson, Republican leader of Atlantic City, was preparing to steal the election from him. Judge Dill declared that he was going to request the federal government and the Attorney-General of the United States to investigate the Republican fraud. The fraud, according to the Democratic candidate, consisted in padding the registration lists with many thousands of names of non-existent persons. It did seem that there was something odd about the Atlantic City voting lists, inasmuch as there was a registration of 40,000 and the total population was 60,000, including 15,000 children. The Judge uncovered the plot at the correct time, an- nounced and denounced in proper style, but perhaps he did not succeed in getting quite enough names of phantom Republicans removed from those voting lists, for he was i26 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, defeated by eight thousand votes. This plot was a good one, but there were some powerful factors against him. Surprising Discovery of Senator Moses. — It is a little surprising to find among the discoverers and denouncers of plots the sophisticated and scintillating George Hig- gins Moses, New Hampshire politician. The gayety of the nation received a setback when the worthy and whimsical Mr. Moses went down in the great Democratic landslide of 1932. He saw treachery, and, according to the New York Times, laid his defeat to a plot. Commenting on the sad occurrence, he said: "While I haven't had an opportunity to study the New Hampshire election returns in detail, even a cursory examination shows that in certain sections there were defections from me that cannot be explained upon any theory other than that of concerted treachery." Mr. Moses was, perhaps, a bit disgruntled at his defeat. He had probably thought it impossible for a Democrat to be elected in New Hampshire. But it must be pointed out, as a lesson in political procedure, that he discovered and announced the plot against him at the wrong time. He should have disclosed it, with suitable indignation, before election. There is not much sense in uncovering a plot after one has been defeated. In this respect the elegant and erudite Mr. Moses might have learned some- thing from the close-to-the-soil Alfalfa Bill. On the apparent incongruity of a man of Senator Moses's type denouncing a plot at all it may be said that it is almost inevitable for every politician to discover and expose a plot against himself sooner or later. Any one who has dwelt in the fumes and fogs of Washington politics as long as did Senator Moses is certain to see the menacing and amorphous shape of a plot emerging in the sinister and livid political atmosphere. Mr. Moses is not to be blamed for discovering the plot, but his usual OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 127 skill was lacking when he announced it ineffectively at the incorrect time. The Press (with all its power) Not Immune — When It Should Be Denounced — Examples. — Strange as it may seem, the omnipotent press of the country is not free from tirades, diatribes and denunciations against it by politicians. True it is that not all of these attacks are well-advised, but many of them are. It is a strange fact that it is sometimes definitely to the advantage of a politi- cian to denounce the press or individual members of it. Usually it is safe and advantageous enough for the politician to denounce the organs of the Other Side. That comes under the general head of denouncing those who are certain to be against one anyhow. So, it is generally ex- pedient to insist that the newspapers of the Opposition are ignorant, unfair, plotting, insidious, representative of the Interests, of J. P. Morgan, of the Rockefellers, of the English, of the French, of the Russians, of the Reds, or of any other group likely to meet with majority disap- proval. But there are instances when condemnation of the press can very well be much more general. There are instances of politicians, successful ones too, for whom practically the entire press is the Other Side. When Mr. Hylan was Mayor of New York he had no real newspaper support. The daily papers of the great city were practically a unit against him. Not infrequently they went so far as to jeer at him, to make all manner of fun of him. It became plain enough that he had nothing to hope for from that outfit. What, then, was his obvious course? Why, to denounce the press, to capitalize on their opposition, to let the people know that they were aligned with the Interests and the English and to cement the friendship and loyalty of the people more firmly thereby. This was the wise and enlightened course that Mr. Hylan followed. Another politician who has generally had at least the 128 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, powerful members of the press of his state against him and who has vigorously denounced them with good results has been Huey Long, the Kingfish. Somehow, unreason- ably, the greater newspapers of Louisiana do not seem to like their Senior Senator. The country newspapers show greater discernment. Since the big newspapers don't like the Kingfish, the Kingfish doesn't spare them. And his denunciations by word of mouth are likely to be followed by something more substantial. In 1930, when he was Governor, the greater newspapers of the state, particularly those of New Orleans, continu- ally displayed their opposition to the Governor and his program in frank and violent editorials. The Governor denounced them in vitriolic terms, but he also caused to be introduced into the Legislature two bills having to do with the financial interests of his journalistic enemies. One bill provided that a judge, on petition from a citizen, could close down a newspaper if matter considered de- famatory were published in that newspaper. The other bill proposed an annual tax of 15 percent of the gross advertising revenues of daily newspapers. The dailies were the Kingfish's enemies; the country newspapers were weeklies. Naturally, a yelp that could be heard across the country rose from the Louisiana dailies. Their tender- est nerve — the pocket-book nerve — had been touched. Newspapers outside the state took up the cry. The New York Herald Tribune condemned the tax bill, describing it as "political vindictiveness" of the Governor. The New York American said it was a "threat at the liberty of the press." The New York Post called it a "threat at freedom of speech." Editor and Publisher, voice of the newspaper world, devoted much space to condemning the Kingfish and his bills. These anti-newspaper bills did not become law, but the Governor's action in the matter, coupled with his sus- tained and vigorous denunciation of the great dailies of OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 129 the state, made a very favorable impression on the common people of Louisiana, the average, some might even say, ignorant, voters. He was able to appear before the little people who have the votes as being persecuted by the rich and powerful. In 1934, the Kingfish, now a United States Senator, but in complete control of the Louisiana Legislature, returned to his attack on the newspapers — the big ones — this time only the very big ones. And, this time, his harpoon, al- though a smaller one, went home. The Legislature enacted a law levying an annual tax of 2 percent of gross adver- tising revenues on all periodicals of more than 20,000 cir- culation published in the state. There were only six, all New Orleans and Shreveport newspapers, opposing the Senator. After the law was enacted, a spokesman of the Long-controlled administration said: "The newspaper tax is an example of what will happen to the little country papers if they don't get right." Senator Long has furnished a splendid and practical example of how a politician can handle a hostile press to his advantage. A Rare Specimen — The Last Word in Safety — Political Eunuchs. — Some years ago — what the present situation is I know not — ambassadors, ministers and consuls of for- eign countries stationed in Washington, indeed, all the for- eigners connected with embassies and legations, were very unpopular with the general run of residents of the nation's capital. The Washingtonians whose doings are noted in the newspapers — Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Cabinet members, Justices of the Supreme Court, Senators, some Representatives, some heads of commissions and bureaus — these are the people who enjoy life along the Potomac. There are, too, some unofficial rich, usually those whose principal home is in New York, whose wealth gives them an entree everywhere, who also enjoy life in Washington. The foreign diplomats are generally popular with these i 3 o THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, high officials and with these rich, especially with the latter, who play up to the foreigners in a social way. But ninety- nine percent of the government employees in Washington are unimportant people whose chief concern is attempting to buy food and pay their bills on the small salaries paid by the government. They and their families and the business people who sell to them (except for the 150,000 Negroes) make up the mass of the residents of Washington. And this mass gets no fun out of the foreign diplomats. Some- times what they get is quite the contrary. These tens of thousands of the rank and file of Wash- ington, who have the privilege of standing on the curb and seeing the silk-hatted drive rapidly past, have long noted with sullen resentment the special privileges enjoyed by the diplomats. Accredited diplomats, members of their families, all those officially connected with embassies and legations, enjoy diplomatic immunity from arrest. They can do as they please without fear of punishment by Dis- trict of Columbia authorities. Embassies and legations are technically foreign territory, and the diplomats with all their entourages are theoretically punishable for offenses by the authorities and under the laws of their own coun- tries. The curbstone Washingtonians have been generally inclined to the view that this means no punishment at all for anything. Not so many years ago, an old man, carefully crossing a street intersection in a residential district of Washington, was run down and killed by an automobile driven by a person connected with a foreign legation. The offending driver had no license, was exceeding the speed limit, and was driving on the left side of the street. A plea of diplo- matic immunity was entered, and there was no prosecu- tion. The offender was transferred by his home authorities to another country. This did not make a favorable impres- sion on the unpublicized curbstone Washingtonians. This was perhaps the high point of offenses by the dip- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 131 lomats, although at about that time there were a good many other automobile accidents caused by men con- nected with the embassies and the legations. The humble government employee, homeward plodding his weary way to a dwelling shared with one or two other families, or timorously driving his second-hand Ford or Chevy along wide streets dangerously infested by the specially privi- leged, could only glare in impotent anger as huge cars labeled "Diplomatic" on front and rear roared past at breakneck speed. The diplomats were not popular. On not a few occasions one or another of our politicians has arisen to denounce the diplomats. These denunciations did the diplomats no harm, but, if powerful enough, were beneficial to the denouncers, which, of course, is what de- nunciations are for. Denouncing foreign diplomats, who have no votes, may be said to be the last word in political safety. In attacking any group or class of American citi- zens — a minority, of course — the politician expects to lose some votes in order to gain more. But the foreign dip- lomats are really the ideal minority: they have no votes at all. The diplomats were roundly denounced in connection with the automobile accidents. But the fulminations of some of our best have been loosed against them at times for other reasons. During the prohibition era one of the chief bases of attack on the diplomats was that they im- ported, possessed, served and drank intoxicating liquors, indeed, that some of the lesser diplomats even sold such liquors. Politicians from dry territory, who were not nec- essarily dry themselves, tore into the diplomats for their outraging the laws and the sensibilities of our country. Here were these arrogant fellows — foreigners — guzzling fire-water when our country forbade it. Coleman ("Coley") Blease of South Carolina when Sen- ator said, "I still drink occasionally and every one in South Carolina knows it," but he voted dry because his state, he 132 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, said, favored prohibition. Coley was one to see the iniq- uity of the diplomatic fire-water and to make good use of the situation. Twice Senator Blease, with great publicity, exposed the wickedness of the diplomats and demanded to know from officials in charge of prohibition enforce- ment why the foreigners were allowed to import and pos- sess liquor. An elaborate resolution introduced in the Senate on December 10, 1927, accompanied the Senator's second demand. The resolution was not passed, but it won its author a good deal of approval back home and in Washington. The suffering tens of thousands of Washington ap- plauded the Blease attack on the diplomats because of the liquor just as they applauded the attacks because of the motor accidents. In 1927, when the diplomats were revel- ing in choice liquor, it was very difficult for the average citizen of Washington to purchase liquor at all. There was plenty offered for sale, but the average citizen had little money with which to buy. They enjoyed and echoed the tongue-lashings so emphatically administered to the of- fending diplomats. The adults of Washington are for the most part politi- cal eunuchs. That is, they are not allowed to vote. In this respect they are like the inmates of our prisons and our insane asylums. In Constantinople during the days of the Eastern Roman Empire and in the capitals of Oriental despotisms eunuchs were plentiful. But why in a free democracy — To be sure, some of the residents of Wash- ington who manage to maintain a real or a fictitious resi- dence outside the District of Columbia do vote. But most of them are impotent. Of what use is it, then, for a poli- tician to condemn diplomats who merely offend or run down sterile Washingtonians? In the first place, some of 'em do manage to sneak in a vote. In the second place, they have their friends and relatives back home — in the politician's constituency — whom they can influence. For OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 133 nearly all the adult residents of Washington have come from somewhere else. The wise politician who has been able to lift himself to the House or Senate keeps that in mind. He does not refuse to cater to Washingtonians. The Individual Enemy and His Exploitation — Invective — Dr. Schmidt's Researches — Thriving on Hostility. — The making of enemies by classes and the productive use of them has now been explained at some length. But the most common form of enemy in the life of a politician is the individual enemy. It is frequently advantageous to the politician to create this kind and, of course, it is always to his advantage to use those that exist without his volition if he can. In creating individual enemies, he applies the same broad principles that obtain in dealing with groups. That is, the men and women he wants and forces to be against him should be those whose hostility will be a rec- ommendation to the majority of his constituency. Nat- urally, in each election the politician's opponent is an enemy. He and the other individual enemies are to be exposed and denounced publicly for the rascals that they are in a way to appeal to that majority which the politician seeks to win. That is, usually, they are to be denounced. There are instances where studious politeness is considered advisable, and there is very high authority for ignoring one's opponent altogether under certain conditions — acting as if he did not exist. The language to be used most effectively by a politician in exposing, describing, denouncing, an individual — oppo- sition candidate or another — should be adapted to the cir- cumstances, to the politician's own public character and stratum and to the class to which he makes his principal appeal. There are ways of verbally carving an enemy that are silky, smooth, polished and polite, and there are ways that are rough, thorny and vituperative. For most poli- ticians, strong and emphatic language is advised, as the 134 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, great mass of the voting population still likes something a bit picturesque. During the Presidential campaign of 1932, Dr. George P. Schmidt, Assistant Professor of History at the New Jersey College for Women, told his students that political vilification had shown a marked decline. His observations had led him to believe that Americans had become more reserved than during the early stages of the nation's po- litical life. Delving into the distant past, Dr. Schmidt declared that Thomas Jefferson was denounced as a "rev- olutionary who would feel an infernal pleasure in the destruction of his opponents" and as a "cowardly wretch." The followers of Jefferson were described by their oppo- nents as "demons," "men of lost character," and "rapa- cious profligates and desperadoes." The Jeffersonians were described by Noah Webster, the lexicographer, as "the ref- use, the sweepings of the most depraved part of mankind." According to Dr. Schmidt, a Philadelphia editor declared that "if ever a nation was debauched by a man, the Amer- ican nation was by Washington." Coming down to more recent years, Dr. Schmidt cited the splendid invective hurled by the Republicans at the late William Jennings Bryan. Mr. Bryan was described as a "mouthing, slobber- ing demagogue," and as a "wretched addle-pated boy lead- ing a league of Hell." Dr. Schmidt, through his careful and exhaustive re- search, did fish out some good ones from the dark back- ward and abysm of time. But the learned doctor may have done the present a slight injustice. Perhaps he did not look in the right places for pungent, acid contempo- rary invective. He had doubtless been reading the 1932 campaign speeches of the Honorable Herbert Hoover, the Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Honorable Alfred E. Smith, the Honorable Ogden L. Mills, the Honorable John Nance Garner, the Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr., and others. He did not find in those addresses any refer- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 135 ence to "cowardly wretches," "demons," "men of lost character," "rapacious profligates and desperadoes," "slob- bering demagogues," or "leagues of Hell." Such language would have been inappropriate. But if he had looked else- where — In its separate and honored place mention will be made of skillful and effective denunciation of individuals — ex- emplary invective — uttered by William Hale Thompson, Big Bill the Builder, he who, we hope, as has been sug- gested, may be but waiting for Chicago's call, like King Arthur in Avalon. But some other quotations may be made here. The Honorable Gifford Pinchot, in his successful cam- paign for Governor of Pennsylvania in 1930, displayed considerable richness and facility in describing and char- acterizing his enemies. He referred to the quiet-spoken Andrew W. Mellon, then Secretary of the Treasury and Mr. Pinchot's arch-enemy, as a "bootlegger." He described Samuel Vauclain, president of the great Baldwin Locomo- tive Company, and the heads of some of Philadelphia's large financial institutions as "a band of bartenders." The followers of William S. Vare, Republican leader of Phila- delphia, were described as "welchers," "traitors," and as "a crooked gang of political cut-throats." That was not so bad. It warmed things up in the dig- nified State of Pennsylvania. The voters liked it. At any rate, they elected Mr. Pinchot. It is to be noted that Mr. Pinchot did not make new enemies by his lively character- izations. He went after those who were already, and were sure to remain, his bitter enemies. He lost nothing by lashing at them. His vigor and power of attack directed against men of enormous wealth — the Super-Haves — made a very favorable impression on the inarticulate little people — the Have-Nots. The Honorable Smith W. Brookhart, when Senator from Iowa, was not so poor in his mordant and detailed 13* THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, characterizations of his enemies. It happened that Andrew W. Mellon was one of his enemies, too. But there were others. In the year 1930 one Robert H. Lucas was of the real inner circle of the national management of the Repub- lican Party. He held the position of Executive Director of the Republican National Committee. Mr. Lucas took it upon himself to attempt to defeat Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska for renomination in the Republican primary. Senator Norris is nominally a Republican. He does his running for office on the Republican ticket. But "Uncle George," as he is affectionately called, is of the Progressive wing of the Republican Party and is never troubled by party regularity. He supported Alfred E. Smith for President in 1928 and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. For many years he was hostile to Herbert Hoover. He had been a thorn in the side, or a tack in the seat, of the Republican Party for a long time. Mr. Lucas thought he would be doing the party a service if he put an end to "Uncle George's" political career. Mr. Lucas sent money into Nebraska to help defeat Senator Norris. Also, he persuaded one George W. Norris, a grocer, of Broken Bow, to enter the Republican primary for Senator, the idea being to confuse the voters and to bring about the nomination of the third candidate, really backed by Mr. Lucas and the Republican overlords. Mr. Lucas's activities were discovered. The grocer of Broken Bow somehow didn't get on the ballot. "Uncle George" was renominated and reelected. Friends of the Senator took occasion to denounce the heinous and nefa- rious doings of Mr. Lucas. Among these was Senator Brookhart. But Senator Brookhart saw Mr. Lucas as only a pawn or a cat's-paw or an errand boy of greater shadowy figures lurking in the background, particularly of Andrew W. Mellon. Mr. Mellon, said the Iowan, was the great and secret offender, under whose "great toe-nail Mr. Lucas is OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 137 merely a malignant little wart." That's not such a bad one for Dr. Schmidt's collection. Senator Long of Louisiana, whose skill and success have already been mentioned much and will be mentioned again, has shown peculiar powers in making and exploit- ing enemies, not only by groups but as individuals. In general, he has chosen individuals who could be of most value to him, whose opposition would be an asset. His supporters have been convinced of the Senator's rightness because these men were against him and they have rejoiced in the vivid descriptions of them that he has spoken and written. In his war with the Louisiana newspapers in 1930, the Kingfish called them "lying thieves," and described report- ers covering his speeches as "skunks" and "liars." In Sep- tember, 1933, he published a circular describing his opponents as "lice" and "rats." On November 10, 1933, the Senator delivered an address from the square in front of the City Hall at Alexandria, Louisiana, which was heard by a crowd composed of both partisans and enemies. When the Senator was introduced, he was greeted by enthusiastic applause and by a fusillade of eggs. Later an odoriferous bomb was hurled from a high building across the street. In the middle of the meeting came the flinging of an indi- vidual egg. The Senator halted his speech and said: "Who- ever done it, you got to hide, you lowdown polecat scoundrel." "Skunks," "liars," "polecats," and other more emphatic words that Huey is said to employ on occasion in pillory- ing his enemies are suitable and effective for him. They would not be appropriate nor effective for such elegant politicians as John W. Davis, Ogden L. Mills or Hamilton Fish. Each to his own. Alfred E. Smith's homely and virile vocabulary has delighted millions of listeners. A favorite word of his in delineating opponents whose views he thinks unsound is "crackpot." That's a good word for 138 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Al; it seems to fit. But Huey Long's "lice," "rats," and "polecats" would not. Exalted by His Enemies — Something Happened at Sands Point — Men in Buckram — A Commemorative Medal. — The Louisiana politician probably illustrates better than any other American politician functioning actively to-day the possibilities of being exalted by enemies and thriving on hostility. He proves most completely the point I have been making, that enemies — the right ones — are valuable to a politician and that it is imperative for him to make enemies. During the past four years or so, according to articles appearing in some of the greater newspapers of the coun- try, the Honorable Huey Long has been on the down- grade, on the way out, and in these articles the roll of the Kingfish's powerful enemies has been listed as indicating his impending doom. The New York Times, with a world reputation for accuracy, has had the following headlines over articles concerning Huey's sad situation: "Louisiana's Check on Governor Long — Vote Against the Convention Regarded as Expressing a Want of Confidence." (July 20, 1930.) "Huey Long Facing Test of His Power — He Is Still Louisi- ana's Dictator, But His Enemies are Gathering Strength." (September 10, 1933.) "Louisiana Revolt Harries Huey Long — Former Supporters Join Foes in Fighting Him." (October 4, 1933.) "Huey Long Booed in His Home State." (October 17, I933-) "Senator Long Faces Revolt in Louisiana." (November 5, I933-) "Huey Long's Star is Seen as Setting." (February 4, 1934.) Yet all this time the redoubtable Kingfish, judging by results alone, seems to have been growing stronger and stronger. He has won every important political battle in which he has engaged during all the time in which his star OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 139 was setting. Included in these was the contest over the seating of Senator Overton, his protege, which occupied the attention of a committee of the United States Senate for a year and a quarter. Included also was the great Bat- tle of New Orleans, which occurred in the summer of 1934, in which the armed state militia headed by the Sen- ator were ranged against the armed New Orleans police headed by Mayor T. Semmes Walmsley. In the Battle of New Orleans won by General Andrew Jackson in 181 5 men were killed but nothing was gained by it, as the war with England had been ended by treaty some time before. In the Battle of New Orleans won by Huey Long in 1934, no one was hurt but much was gained, as Huey pulverized and desiccated his enemies, and rose to a greater height of power than he had ever reached before. Perhaps the New York Times' 's view that the Senator's star was setting was due to what psychologists call wishful thinking. Perhaps the steady old Times was deceived by the ex- traordinary activities of Huey's enemies. How active they were is evidenced by a few episodes. In 1929, when Huey was Governor, an abortive attempt was made in the Leg- islature to impeach him. In September, 1930, a reporter for a New Orleans newspaper punched the Governor in the face. That was at the time when all the chief news- papers of the state were clamoring for Huey's blood. In October, 193 1, Huey had to call out the National Guard to protect himself in the Executive Mansion when Dr. Paul Cyr, Lieutenant-Governor, tried to usurp the Gov- ernorship on the grounds that Huey's election to the United States Senate automatically pushed him out of the Governorship and pushed Dr. Cyr in. Huey won that fight, too. In January, 1932, as has been related, his brothers turned against him. In April and May, 1932, he had his big battle in the Senate with Senator Robinson, the Democratic leader. On March 1, 1933, Brigadier-General 140 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Samuel T. Ansell, who had been counsel for the Senate Committee investigating the election of Senator Overton, sued Senator Long for $500,000, alleging slander. A com- pliment — that amount — one might say. On May 30, 1933, Mrs. Anne E. Pleasant of New Orleans sued Senator Long for $250,000, alleging defamation of character. An- other compliment. The Senator said that suits filed against him at that time asked a total of $1,250,000. On March 11, 1933, Senator Glass of Virginia made an angry but ineffectual jump at Senator Long. Troubles, troubles! On April 13, 1933, former Governor John M. Parker of Lou- isiana and other citizens of the state filed a petition in the United States Senate asking the removal of Senator Long on the grounds of personal dishonesty, corruption, im- morality, creating and maintaining a system of political corruption and debauchery, operating a system of racke- teering, and more. Enemies, enemies! Coming thick and fast! On a Saturday night in August, 1933, Senator Long was a guest at a dinner at the Sands Point Bath Club (Sands Point, Long Island, New York). When he entered the washroom of the club an unidentified stranger was stand- ing there. Something happened, concerning the exact nature of which accounts differ. The Chicago Tribune account said that Senator Long began the trouble by sub- jecting the stranger to an indignity and that the stranger hit Huey a good punch that blackened the Senator's left eye. Senator Long's version, according to the New York Times, was: "Some one struck me from behind and, upon my turning, three men covered me. I saw one strike at my head with a knife, or something sharp and I ducked just so that it grazed my forehead. One man was blocking the door but I stumbled through him and managed to wriggle clear." If this account sounds a little like Falstaff 's story of the Drawn by G. Z., courtesy Chicago Tribune DESIGN OF MEDAL FOR SOCKER OF HUEY LONG OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 141 men in buckram, one must not be too hasty in drawing conclusions. They were after him — his enemies — and, in such circumstances, even a washroom at a fashionable club may be dangerous. The end of the Senator's version, with its mention of blocking and of his wriggling clear, might seem to indi- cate that a touchdown followed. Huey is tremendously interested in football. But what really followed this ad- venture was a medal. One Owen P. White, novelist and editor, went to the expense of engaging George De Fayas, artist, to create a work of art to commemorate the wash- room assault on the Kingfish. One copy of the medal, about the size of a small dinner plate, hangs in the wash- room of the club, where the strange incident occurred. Another reposes in a case in the Museum of the American Numismatic Society at Broadway and 1 5 6th Street, New York City, with the following label: "Medal to the Un- known Hero Who Hit Huey Long. Deposited in the Museum of the American Numismatic Society by the American Public." The medal displays a fish with a cari- cature of the Senator's face as its head, the left eye black- ened, the chin receiving the blow of a fist. A small crown has been knocked from the head. The background is a wash-basin with both faucets running. At the edge is the inscription: ef Publico Consilio Pro Re in Camera Gesta" On the reverse is the translation: "By public acclaim for a deed accomplished in private." To such a length did his enemies proceed. But there were more instances of hostility, of beneficial hostility. Mention has been made of three attempts to burn the Senator's home in New Orleans, the last in Sep- tember, 1933, an d °f tne e &S s an d the odoriferous bomb at Alexandria. In October, 1933, Francis Williams, an anti-Long candidate for Mayor of New Orleans, was daily condemning the Senator as "the worst traitor since Bene- dict Arnold." The perennially useful Benedict furbished i 4 2 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, up once more! On December 4, 1933, a gallows was erected at Hammond, Louisiana, and the Senator was hanged in effigy. In January, 1934, Ulic Burke, ward leader of New Orleans, challenged the Senator to a duel. On January 25, 1934, the Women's Committee of Lou- isiana announced that it had retained lawyers in its formal contest before the Senate for the unseating of Senators Long and Overton. In June the Women's Committee held a "sacrifice week." Women contributed heirlooms, some 200 years old, which were sold to provide funds with which to fight the Senator. In February, 1934, the Harvard Liberal Club launched a nation-wide student movement to oust Senator Long. It sent letters to the undergraduate political organizations of more than a hun- dred colleges and universities urging a uniform student appeal for the ousting of Huey. The Harvard letter in- cluded the statement that "in the State of Louisiana there has ruled for several years a ruthless political demon." There's a good one for Professor Schmidt of the New Jersey College for Women. Men and women, gentle folk and roughnecks, organi- zations, courts, plotters, bombers, continued to condemn, beset and assail him. On April 4, 1934, before the Finance Committee of the United States Senate, Colonel John P. Sullivan, an anti-Long leader in New Orleans, threatened the Senator with a worse beating than he had received at Sands Point and accompanied the threat with muttered curses. In November, 1934, the august Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Honorable Senator must defend the $500,000 libel suit brought by General Samuel T. Ansell for statements that the Senator had claimed were privileged. On January 19, 1935, the civil- ian army of the Square Deal Association of Louisiana, an organization formed to fight the Senator, began military training. On January 25, 1935, two hundred armed men, revolting against the Long-controlled state administra- Drawn by Marcus, courtesy N. Y. Times THE COUNTER-ATTACK . OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 143 tion's attempts to command the East Baton Rouge Parish government, seized the East Baton Rouge courthouse and held it for three hours. On January 26, a hundred citizens of Baton Rouge armed themselves with shotguns, pistols and sporting rifles at the call of the Square Deal Associa- tion, but were forced to surrender by five hundred Na- tional Guardsmen. On the same day, at a court hearing, a spy for Senator Long testified concerning a plot of the Kingfish's enemies to waylay and kill the Senator. On February 2, Fred Parker, a former deputy sheriff, testified that he had been one of those plotting to do the murder. On February 18, 1935, a bomb that failed to explode arrived at Senator Long's office in Washington. On March 4, 1935, General Hugh S. Johnson delivered his tremen- dous blast against Senator Long and Father Coughlin. The next day, on the floor of the Senate, the Democratic leader, Senator Robinson of Arkansas, denounced the Kingfish; and on the 6th, Senator McKellar of Tennessee joined in the attack. On March 23, at Columbia, students of the University of South Carolina heckled the Senator and dis- played a big banner with the legend, "Too Much Hooey." On April 7, Representative Gassaway, Oklahoma's cow- boy member of Congress, denounced the Honorable Huey as a "political tomtit." Enemies — enemies — threats — threats — attacks — attacks — suits — suits — and the Kingfish sits on the top of the world! He is incontrovertible proof that well-selected enemies are a political asset, are, in fact, indispensable. CHAPTER VIII Concerning Some of the Methods Employed by Politicians, With Hints for Beginners in the Pro- fession and for Advanced Practitioners The Poet, the Hair-grower, the Lawyer — The Pragmatic Test — Jobs — The Use of Money — Favors — The Use of Promises — Mr. Mills and the Teachers — Harsh Words — The Cold and Un- sympathetic Times — Abolishing the Decalogue — The Politician is Never Wrong — Explanations, but No Confessions — The Hy- pothetical Case of Senator Borah — Strange Admissions of the Late Senator Caraway — And of Colonel Roosevelt — A Notable Historic Instance — Parrying Thrusts — Diverting Attention — Bold and Daring Actions that Compel Admiration — The Battle of the Three Governors — The Value of Libel Suits — Mr. Hylan and the World — Good Fortune of the Politically Secure — The Technique of Ignoring One's Enemies — Notable Examples. The Poet, the Hair-grower, the Lawyer — The Pragmatic Test. — In some occupations the practitioner does his work with a dubious hope, being never sure whether or no the result of his labor will be accounted a success. This is par- ticularly true in the great field of art in its wide sense. The poet, for example, transmuting his ecstasy or his agony into words carefully chosen and rigidly arranged, never knows what the final judgment is to be on his flowers of flame or columns of ice. He hopes for the plaudits of posterity, for the acclaim of generations yet unborn. In a different domain, the scientific discoverer — a Faraday, for example — or a medical scientist never knows to what vast or to what little results his experiments may lead. Often he cannot be sure of the wisdom of his methods. There is frequently no immediate and authoritative pronounce- ment on the value of his result. It may be many years 144 THE POLITICIAN 145 after the announcement of a discovery that it is found of inestimable use to mankind. On the other hand, there are businesses in which definite results indicate the rightness or wrongness of methods em- ployed. If hair grows on a patron's bald head, the barber or scalper knows that the concoction he applied and the way he applied it are correct. If the jury brings in a ver- dict of not guilty, the lawyer defending a criminal knows that his method of presenting or suppressing evidence and of pleading for the acquittal of his client was correct. Results are the test, and in these businesses results are definite. The politician happily falls in the class with the hair- grower and the lawyer. He, too, has a perfectly definite way of knowing whether or not his methods are correct. For him, the verdict is prompt and decisive. For the poli- tician, the periodic counting of the votes is the pragmatic test. He's in or he's out. The methods that get him in are the right methods, the ones to be followed. The ones that leave him out in the cold again are the ones to be avoided. In other walks of life, propriety, ethics, tradi- tion, may enter into the conduct and practice of the walker. The politician is bothered by no such debate or doubt. Does such a method of behavior lead to a majority of the votes? That's the sole question. Previous chapters have set forth some of the great fun- damental methods of politicians, with examples. In this chapter I shall endeavor to present some of the details, the minutiae, of a successful politician's course. Some — to try to present them all would be like trying to enumerate the sands of the sea. Jobs — The Use of Money — Favors. — It may be said at once that one of the oldest and surest standard methods of the politician is the distribution of substantial favors to his supporters or to those he expects to support him. These favors take the form of jobs — perhaps the most satisfac- 146 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, tory of all — and of money, actual hard cash. The success- ful politician holds many of his supporters, their relatives, their friends, by distributing jobs, places on the public payroll, sometimes on his own payroll. Temporary work, with hard cash pay, he finds for many, before and on elec- tion day, as campaign workers, pests of the polling places, and so on. In many instances, of course, these people do no work. They are paid for the votes of themselves and those whom they control. After-election pay-off days in Pennsylvania have sometimes seen Republican "workers" lined up for blocks waiting to get to the money-bags. But this sort of thing is too well known to justify much dis- cussion of it. Here mention may be made of the occasional effort of politicians to win over enemies by doing favors for them, principally by giving jobs. Whether this course is wise or not depends upon the importance of the enemy in ques- tion and the character and number of the jobs available. It is, of course, beneficial at times to secure the support of former enemies. But very seldom does a politician have available more jobs than needed for his friends. Generally it is considered the better political technique to take care of established friends than to try to convert enemies by favors. "He takes care of his friends' 5 is a tribute that politicians like to hear. Politicians, to be sure, are sometimes in a position to do for their friends favors other than money and jobs. Most politicians, it must be said, have friends who occasionally get into trouble, trouble with the law, trouble with the police. It is possible often for the politician to extricate a friend from the toils of the law or the thorny clutches of the police. And that sort of favor is appreciated and sometimes not forgotten. Extrication of voters from the toils of the law some- times goes much further than simply tipping the police to lay off or getting a traffic violation charge dismissed. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 147 The politician sometimes can do for his friends, or those he seeks for friends, what might be called the opposite of getting them jobs. Instead of getting places for them, he can get them out of places. Thus, Coley Blease, when he was Governor of South Carolina, pardoned 1,708 convicts. He nearly depopulated the penitentiaries. Some of the boys he pardoned were a bit rough, one being a moun- taineer who had decapitated a man, but they all could vote and work for their benefactor. Governor Jim Ferguson of Texas was another notable pardoner. It's a political practice that makes votes for a politician whose appeal is to a certain class, if he is in a position to employ it. An instance of making political supporters by distribu- tion of an odd sort of favor or benefit came to light in Chicago in 1930 when Judge Joseph Sabath was proposed for Mayor. His friends pointed out that, in his nine years in the divorce court, he had granted 35,000 decrees of divorce and effected 2,100 reconciliations. The Judge's backers argued that the divorces had made 70,000 votes for him of the litigants alone, not counting too strongly on the 4,200 who had been reconciled. At least 350,000 more votes from the acquaintances of the satisfied litigants were claimed. However, up to date, the Judge has not been nominated for Mayor. The Use of Promises — Mr. Mills and the Teachers — Harsh Words — The Cold and Unsympathetic "Times" — Preelection promises are, of course, a tried and traditional political method. If a politician expects to do something pleasant for an individual or for a group in case he is elected, he is stupid indeed if he does not indicate his ex- pectation before election, so that the prospective bene- ficiary or beneficiaries may do the right thing in the voting booths. A politician gathers votes by promises, and he holds them — many of them — for the next election by fulfilling those promises. To amount to anything a politician must hold office. 148 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, To hold office, usually, a politician must get elected. To get elected he must gather the votes. Often, to gather the votes he must make many promises. And sometimes — sorrowful to say — he can't fulfill all his promises after election. Indeed, there are occasions when the politician knows when he makes the promises that they can't be fulfilled. But it is better to make promises impossible of fulfill- ment than to be defeated. The politician does what it is necessary and expedient to do in order to be elected. So, he makes promises, if the situation, upon expert appraisal, seems to call for them. He makes whatever promises are needed. If he sees that he is being pushed into the position of making promises that are impossible to fulfill, he does well, if he has a choice, to do his impossible promising to groups or classes of voters, not to individuals. The individual who has been promised a job and doesn't get it is alienated. But a group, promised some sort of special impossible treatment, can probably be syruped into friendliness. Many of them really don't expect the special treatment, anyhow. In the fall of 1926 the battle for the Governorship of New York State was between the Honorable Alfred E. Smith, Democrat, then Governor, and the Honorable Ogden L. Mills, Republican, then a Representative in Congress. (Mr. Mills's interest in Rosie the Cow will be set forth later.) It was plain to every informed observer that the rich and resourceful Mr. Mills was up against a very diffi- cult task. He was an informed observer himself, and he was well aware that he needed every vote that he could possibly get, probably more. Clearly, it was a time for making promises, even if they could not be fulfilled. The thing to do was, if possible, to get elected first and to straighten out the promises afterward. Late in October a delegation of school-teachers, repre- sentatives of the Teachers' Welfare League, went to Mr. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 149 Mills and asked him what he meant to do about the Ricca Bill increasing their salaries, if he were elected Governor and it were presented to him for signature. This bill had been twice vetoed by Governor Smith, who had given what he considered good reasons against it. The teachers said to Mr. Mills: "We must appeal to Albany next year, and we want a Governor there who will sign the bill." Mr. Mills replied: "I have said that I will sign the Ricca Bill when I am elected Governor, and I now repeat that promise." The teachers went away satisfied. Republican mana- gers gleefully asserted that the entire vote of the teachers of New York City, 25,000 of them, would be cast for Mr. Mills. They need not have stopped there. Teachers have relatives, and they have friends, even among their former pupils. Why claim fewer friends for them than for Judge Sabath's divorces and divorcees mentioned above, who were supposed to have five apiece? Teachers and friends who would vote right might have been claimed at 100,000. Wasn't that worth making a promise for? — a little promise of twenty-one words? — a promise that might have meant election to the Governorship of the greatest state in the nation? — and, after that, who knows, perhaps to the White House? Mr. Mills is thought to have had dreams — he has been mentioned. . . . That promise to the teachers to raise their pay if he could must be set down as an example of correct political procedure. To be sure, Mr. Mills was not elected, but he did his best. In competing with Al Smith at that time, he was attempting what proved to be the impossible. His defeat did not prove that his procedure with the teachers was incorrect. Having handled the teachers in the proper political manner, Mr. Mills must have been somewhat amazed to read an editorial in the New York Times of October 25, 1926, entitled, "Mr. Mills Promises," which insisted that 150 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, the candidate had disqualified himself for the office he sought. After recounting the promise, the Times said: "As a profound student of government, Mr. Mills must be ac- quainted with the Constitution of the State of New York. In Article XIII it lays down the oath which an elected officer must take before he can qualify. He must 'solemnly swear' among other things which he has not done, 'as a consideration or reward for the giving or withholding a vote at the election,' that 'I have not made any promise to influence the giving or withholding any such vote.' This is an oath which Mr. Mills, after what he has said to the school-teachers on Saturday, must know that as an honorable man he cannot take. . . . "If he had been a demagogue and done this thing, people would only have smiled at his unblushing hunt for votes no matter how obtained. But what shall they think of the high- toned man, the authority on public finance, the candidate ap- pealing to the thoughtful citizens, when he thus forgets himself and stoops to a course which may be illegal and certainly is indecent?" Unkind words — harsh words! But, after all, only words. Mr. Mills was, wisely, interested in votes. His method was resultful, productive — that was the acid test. And does any one suppose for a moment that, if he had received a majority of the votes, he would really have been disqualified by that promise given to the teachers? Pre- posterous! After all, as the old saying goes, what's the Constitution between friends? The editors of the dear old New York Times do not make a practice of running for office and they seem coldly unsympathetic with the problems and difficulties of the vote-seeking politician. They are comfortably seated in the stadium — one might say in the heated, glass-enclosed press box — watching the play, while the politician is down there in the muddy, blood-stained arena trying, by any practicable means, to put over a touchdown for his side, OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 151 that is, for himself. They're 'way up there; he's 'way down here. Quite a difference! Abolishing the Decalogue. — The consistently unsympa- thetic iciness of the Times toward campaign promises and their makers was made plain in an editorial in that rigidly upright publication on October 31, 1933, during the campaign before the city election that resulted in the victory of Mayor La Guardia. The Times declared: "Never have so many pledges been made by those seeking office. The list of promises is so long and bewildering that no one can possibly remember them all." Then said the editorial: "Lavish promises in order to win an election are an old polit- ical weakness of democracy. They have been as common in Great Britain as in this country. At a Parliament election in 1861, in the Falkirk Burgh, the following took place. . . . "Questioner: 'Will Mr. Merry vote for an alteration of the Decalogue?' "Merry (aside to treacherous friend) : 'What the — ; — is that?' "Friend: 'Flogging in the Army.' "Merry: 'I beg to say that if elected I will vote, and indeed I will move for its total and immediate abolition!' " For the benefit of the younger generation, and others, it may be explained that the Decalogue is another way of saying the Ten Commandments. The Ten Command- ments? The Ten Commandments are — well, perhaps the Decalogue has been abolished. The Times published this story to illustrate how wrong is the course of politicians who are willing to promise anything for votes. But it might be cited for just the opposite reason, to prove how right they are. The test is — do the promises make votes? In the particular instance above the practical matter is — was Mr. Merry elected? It is to be noted that the Times does not say. Probably he was. i 5 2 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, The Politician is Never Wrong — Explanations, but No Confessions — the Hypothetical Case of Senator Borah. — Any politician who has engaged in several campaigns and has held office for a time or two has necessarily made many statements concerning his plans, his program, his "prin- ciples," his opinions, and has also done or refused to do many acts and probably cast his vote on a good many measures. To err is human, and one finds men and women in practically all other occupations than that of politics usually quite willing to admit that they have made mis- takes. Most people are ready to confess to a good many mistakes. Of course, doctors are a little loath to announce their more serious errors, but they do not claim to be in- fallible and will tell at times of their own blunders, usually a long time after they occurred. Architects and engi- neers don't megaphone their mistakes from the housetops, but they don't deny them when attention is called to them. I recall an instance of an architect who was commissioned to design and build a church. As soon as the sacred edifice was completed, it fell down, and the architect admitted his blunder by leaving town. But the rule in politics is never to admit having made a mistake, never confess the truth of anything detrimental. If necessary, the politician explains and interprets state- ments and acts that seem to have been untrue or unwise, but he never agrees that they really were so. If acts for which he was responsible prove injurious to the public, he points out how this result came about not because of him but because of unforeseen circumstances or the actions of others. He was right, but fate, or the Other Side, was wrong. This rule of never admitting a real error is so well estab- lished, so nearly universal, that one must accept it as the orthodox and authenticated political procedure. It has the endorsement and sanction, by conduct, of course, not by statement, of Presidents, Senators, Cabinet members, OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 153 Governors, Mayors — all our great and successful politi- cians. All these men, judged by their Utterances, are in- fallible. They have never made a mistake, never a false step. No retraction, no word of regret for past acts, has ever fallen from their lips. Just aj what is correct Eng- lish is established by the usage of great writers, so what is correct in politics is established by the actual practice of great politicians. This being so, never to admit an error must be the true political course. And yet — And yet, one wonders if, at times, the public, the voting public, would not be pleased, so pleased as to respond with votes, if a politician would come out frankly and say he had been wrong, wrong about some important matter. Doesn't it seem that such a declaration would be so novel, so great a relief from the sustained, monotcnous claim of infallibility, that the startled voters would respond with enthusiasm? Suppose, in the midst of a campaign for re- election, the Governor of some state should say: "It's a fact, as my opponent charges, that I made a mistake, a serious mistake, when I pushed through and signed the bill providing something or other. That legislation proved injurious to the state and its people. I'm sorry about that. I'm learning by experience, the same as men and women in other businesses do. Give me another chance." What would be the voters' reaction to a candid statement of that kind? To be more specific, suppose Senator Borah, the popular and powerful Idaho politician, should announce a change of view on the League of Nations. The Senator, as every one knows, was one of those responsible for America's remaining out of the League at the time President Wilson sought our adherence to the Covenant, and in the years since Mr. Borah has vigorously and consistently opposed America's joining the League. Suppose, over a nation- wide radio hook-up, he should say with complete earnest- ness and sincerity in his rich voice: "My friends, I have 154 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, been entirely wrong about this country's joining the League of Nations. Humbly, I want to admit my error. I think we should have joined when the League was formed. If we had done so, if we had cooperated com- pletely with the League in the settlement of the problems arising from the World War and other problems, I am sure much bloodshed, much starvation and many other injuries to mankind would have been avoided. The peace, progress and prosperity of the whole world, including the United States of America, would have been aided. I am sorry and repentant for the part I have played in blocking the wel- fare of the world. I was sincere in my wrong thinking. Please forgive me. As I have grown older, I have grad- ually become more enlightened in international matters, in human relations. I have been learning. I have been getting educated. My education has cost this country and the world very dear, but from now on I shall try to make atonement. Give me a chance to serve according to my new lights!" Suppose Senator Borah, violating the rule that a poli- tician admits no mistake, should say that, would the people of Idaho turn against him? Strange Admissions of the Late Senator Caraway — And of Colonel Roosevelt. — There have been some instances, some very exceptional instances, of public acknowledg- ment of mistakes by politicians. Those that have come to my notice have been very few and perhaps not very important. The late Senator Thaddeus H. Caraway of Arkansas specialized for a time in exposing the lobbies and lobbyists representing many interests that operated in Washington. He was the head and moving spirit of a Senate committee that investigated the lobbies. The com- mittee examined many witnesses, most of whom were made very uncomfortable by Senator Caraway's questions and comments. On one occasion, however, after having made some positive comment on a certain witness's activi- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 155 ties, the Senator said: "It was an unfortunate thing that I saw fit to comment without having the facts before me. I am sorry to have embarrassed Senators Walsh and Blaine." Later, Senator Caraway's attention was called to the inconsistency of his attitude at Little Rock when he severely questioned Henry H. Curran, then actively con- nected with an organization working against the Prohibi- tion Amendment. Concerning this the Senator said: "The Committee has done a lot of fool things. I think I con- tributed most." An unprecedented admission! But Senator Caraway was unique. Perhaps the Senator's faults in connection with this committee's work were not of so serious a nature as to make his admission of them very vital. But one gets the impression that he would have admitted more serious errors, if he had made them. There was a Socratic flavor about him, in his wit, in his way of sometimes pretending to be dense and lacking in understanding. He was a very exceptional figure in our political life. He might have been one important figure to test the rule against admit- ting mistakes, if he had lived and if he had made any im- portant mistakes to admit. The present Colonel Theodore Roosevelt is another poli- tician who is on record as confessing a mistake. In 192 1, when he was Acting Secretary of the Navy, he signed a 999-year lease of the Fort San Geronimo (Puerto Rico) property to Lieutenant Commander Virgil Baker, U. S. Navy, retired. The property, covering about fourteen acres and valued at $500,000, was used by Commander Baker as a residence. In 1929, when he was Governor of Puerto Rico, Colonel Roosevelt, discussing the lease he had signed, said: "Since I have been here I have investigated the matter thor- oughly, discussing it with various persons who have made it their study. Regardless of what may be the legal aspect, my 156 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, judgment is that a mistake was made in granting the lease. If the Legislature sees fit to provide for the institution of con- demnation proceedings, I will approve them." The New York Herald Tribune, the chief Republican newspaper of the country, recognized an astonishing event in a politician's admission of error. Over the article con- cerning the strange event in the issue of December 5, 1929, the Herald Tribune put headlines that seemed to display a state of puzzled shock: "Col. Roosevelt Condemns Own Leasing of Fort — Porto Rican Governor Admits Grant of San Geronimo Property Was Wrong." Of course, Colonel Roosevelt was not then running for anything nor did he expect to run for anything for some years at least, as he seemed secure in the Governorship of Puerto Rico until 1933. And the error he admitted was a relatively minor one. It was not as if he had admitted a serious blunder in leasing naval oil reserves. Neverthe- less, any confession of error by a politician must be set down as a startling event. A Notable Historic Instance. — There is an historic in- stance of a politician, in the midst of a campaign for im- portant office, who admitted the truth of a charge that seemed extremely detrimental to his candidacy. John Stuart Mill, the great English economist and philosopher, during one of his campaigns for a seat in Parliament was scheduled to deliver a speech at a big meeting of working people. As he rose to begin his address, a huge sign secretly constructed by his enemies was raised to the platform. On it was printed: "'Workmen are Generally Liars' — John Stuart Mill." Mr. Mill was then publicly asked if he had made that statement. Without any hesitation or equivo- cation, he affirmed that he had. To the amazement of his opponents, the workmen in the audience broke into ap- plause. And Mill was elected. Well, well, perhaps things are different in Britain. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 157 Much as we might wish it otherwise, it is certain that the correct procedure for an American politician is never to acknowledge a mistake. The few and puny instances of contrary conduct that can be cited but emphasize the validity of the rule. Parrying Thrusts — Diverting Attention — Bold and Daring Actions that Compel Admiration — The Battle of the Three Governors. — The politician, denouncing and charging himself, is, of course, the object of similar denun- ciations and charges leveled at him. If he has been in politics for any length of time, many of the charges un- doubtedly are true. As has been stated, his acts, omissions and utterances of the past are brought forward in an at- tempt to plague and discomfit him. He never admits any mistake, never acknowledges the truth or correctness of anything detrimental or unwise that he may have said or done. But sometimes, when the drumfire of accusa- tions is very severe, the politician is rather hard put to it. Often denial is not enough. There are certain tried, technical methods of handling a situation of that kind. The trained politician when sorely beset is likely to have recourse to activities that divert the attention of the electorate from the attacks made upon him to matters quite different. Perhaps he puts into practice the precept that a good offense is the best defense and does his attacking with greater power and publicity than does his opponent. Perhaps he is clever enough to bring forcibly to public notice something very much in his favor that has nothing to do with the issues and questions raised by the opposition but which catches the fancy or interest of the voters and wins their approval. Senator Huey Long of Louisiana, who furnishes us with so many examples of the correct conduct of a politician, has been notable in his ability, when under fire, to divert the attention of the public to something favorable to him. In May, 1929, when the Louisiana Senate was considering i 5 8 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, impeachment charges against him (he was then Gover- nor) , he went about the state delivering speeches and arranging for the forwarding to the Senate of petitions in his behalf. In his speeches the Governor did touch on matters before the Senate, but more particularly and emphatically he discussed the special want of each locality and promised to do what he could to grant it. So, Thibo- daux Parish was promised paving, Lafourche Parish was promised radium treatments in its hospitals, and other parishes were promised other good things. The people were interested in getting these definite benefits. They did not feel so much concerned about the impeachment charges — that the Governor had attempted to blackmail an editor, and so on — as they did about what they wanted themselves. The Senators heard from the parishes. The impeachment fizzled. Governor Long, with consummate skill, had created a successful diversion. His triumph not only illustrates the value of a diversion, but also the value of promises, espe- cially promises carried out, as the Kingfish's usually are. There have been other occasions when he has used the diversion method of escaping difficult charges or ques- tions. In his fight against Senator Ransdell for the Demo- cratic nomination for Senator in 1930, Huey's opponents kept asking, "Where was Huey during the big flood?" The meaning was that, when the raging Mississippi River swept over Louisiana, the Kingfish did nothing to aid the suffering. Instead of combating this charge, the Gov- ernor painted a roseate picture of the economic blessings that would accrue to the humblest citizen under his share- the-wealth program. He won the nomination and was elected. Mayor Thompson of Chicago was an adept at creating successful diversions when he was under fire of his enemies. But I am reserving him for special treatment and consid- eration — soon. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 159 A favorite course of the astute politician, especially if he be one subject to unusual criticism, is to keep the voting public interested and excited by bold and daring actions. Thus, Senator Long (in some respects our paragon and exemplar) was, while Governor, and has been since with a Governor under his control, much addicted to calling out the National Guard. He has done this on various occasions — to protect himself, to protect elections — and always with good results. The attendant turmoil and excitement kept his supporters militant — and, inciden- tally, he rather controlled the election machinery. That was helpful. He called out the National Guard during the great Battle of New Orleans in 1934, and he called it out during the Battle of the Three Governors in 193 1. The Battle of the Three Governors was notable in sev- eral respects and particularly for a very unusual and pene- trating statement concerning the nature of a political office. In October, 193 1, the Honorable Huey was Governor and Senator-elect. Dr. Paul Cyr, Lieutenant-Governor, had been elected as a supporter of Governor Long but had broken with his superior in 1929 and had been giving a good deal of trouble thereafter. On October 13, 193 1, Dr. Cyr (who took a long time to think out his claim) went before a deputy court clerk at Shreveport and took the oath of office as Governor, his contention being that when Governor Long was elected Senator in November 1930 he automatically ceased to be Governor, the office reverting to the Lieutenant-Governor. Learning of Dr. Cyr's move, Governor Long ordered out the Baton Rouge unit of the National Guard to protect the Executive Man- sion, the Capitol and the executive offices from a possible attempt by Dr. Cyr to seize them. Then Huey hurried to Baton Rouge to take command of the armed forces. Dr. Cyr telegraphed from Shreveport to the Adjutant General ordering him to disband the troops. Governor 160 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Long, the eventual winner, issued a statement saying: ''Taking the oath as Governor ends Dr. Cyr. He is no longer Lieutenant-Governor, and he is now nothing. He isn't Governor by a long shot. By his action he puts him- self out. That rids the state of Paul Cyr." Dr. Cyr didn't think he was out. He said he wanted Huey Long "out of office as soon as possible, so I can go in and straighten up this state and put an end to this de- bauchery. He has run wild long enough." The fight was hot for a time. But the real sensation was the emergence of the Third Governor, one Walter L. Aldrich of Shreveport, who had no title other than that of private citizen and who was at the time unem- ployed. Mr. Aldrich took the oath as Governor before a notary in his home town, claiming that Governor Long was Senator and not Governor and that Dr. Cyr had continued to act as Lieutenant-Governor after Long's certificate of election had been sent to Washington, thus disqualifying himself as Governor. Mr. Aldrich said he based his claim on the assumption that the Governor's office was vacant and that "all good lawyers know that any one may take possession of and retain abandoned property." Later, a couple of other jobless men took the oath as Lieutenant-Governor. The remarkable feature of Governor Aldrich's state- ment, of course, was the blunt declaration that a public office was property. In a country with a capitalistic sys- tem such as ours that view seems perfectly consistent. It is, certainly, the true belief of every sound politician, but just as certainly no sound politician ever gives public utter- ance to this belief. The Value of Libel Suits — Mr. Hylan and the "World " — Sometimes when a politician is under heavy fire and cannot divert or satisfy the voting public in any other way, he does well to bring libel suits against those who are badgering him. This course has occasionally been found OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 161 efficacious in the very heat of a campaign. It is not neces- sary that the suits be brought to trial; they can be dropped after the election is over. The advantage is in the bringing of them, which usually convinces a good many voters that the politician has been basely and untruly accused. Usually — alas, not always — the expense to the politician of bringing the suits is a trifle. A notable instance of libel suits brought by a politician in the midst of a campaign occurred in October, 19 17. At that time the Honorable John F. Hylan was seeking his first election as Mayor of New York City. The now deeply lamented New York World, then at the height of its power, published a series of articles concerning Mr. Hylan's career as a practising lawyer which, the World claimed, "revealed him, to put it mildly, as culpably care- less of the character of his business associates. " Mr. Hylan, on the basis of these articles, brought against the World two suits for damages in the sum of $525,000. Com- menting on these suits years afterward (September 13, 1925) the World said editorially: "The history of American politics furnishes many examples of libel suits brought during the heat of campaigns to affect the result, but it is not often that such suits are resorted to in the case of an office so conspicuous and important as that of Mayor of New York City. There is little doubt that the mere bringing of the suits did contribute in considerable degree to Mr. Hylan's sweeping success at the polls. Expectation must have been general among his supporters that the cases would be pressed in court." The editorial continued, stating that the suits were not pressed. Instead, Mayor Hylan asked leave of the court to withdraw the suits. The World was represented in court prepared to defend. Justice Cropsey, who heard the case, ruled that Mr. Hylan must pay the World $2,000 and other incidental sums — $2,346 in all — for costs, and would thereupon be permitted to withdraw the suits. i6i THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, The money was paid and the suits withdrawn. The World editorially rather gleefully pointed out that the sum was more than one-fifth of the Mayor's first year's pay — then $10,000 a year, later raised to $25,000. In the last para- graph the editorial asked whether Mr. Hylan ever intended to press the suits, the conclusion being: "Might he not have filed his complaints as a gesture simply to affect the result of the campaign then pending — a course for which minor precedents were plenty? We did not and do not profess to be able to read his mind. Like the presiding Justice we can only conclude, 'Had he ever intended to try the cases it is not apparent why he should elect to discontinue!' That mystery — if it is one — remains." The editorial declares, in the paragraph first quoted, that the mere bringing of the suits did contribute to Mr. Hylan's success at the polls. If it did, the $2,346 paid — which seemed so big to the World — was not so much, in view of the fact that Mr. Hylan went on to a triumphant reelection and was Mayor for eight years. Good Fortune of the Politically Secure — The Technique of Ignoring One's Enemies — Notable Examples. — Not always is it necessary or advisable for a politician when attacked or denounced in the midst of a campaign to counter-attack or to create a diversion or to make promises or to bring libel suits. There are occasions when a politi- cian is so fortunately situated that the best strategy is to ignore charges and attacks, especially by his opponent. The rule is that a candidate who starts a campaign with a very big lead over his opponent does well to behave as if his opponent were really too small, too trivial, too unim- portant, to be noticed, perhaps even to be named at all. This course, skillfully followed, makes the leading, or ignoring, candidate appear large, lofty, above the wran- gling, snapping and bickering of the noisy little fellow who is storming against him. The plan is for the big, ignoring OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 163 candidate to go his way, dignified, statesmanlike, deliver- ing a few carefully prepared speeches on subjects of his own choosing, what he pleases to term the issues of the campaign, in which the desperately striving opponent is not named, his charges are not mentioned, his "issues" are treated as if they did not exist. Frequently, the more the underdog, attacking candidate is ignored the more violently he returns to the attack. He does not know what else to do with an opponent who acts as if there were no candidate against him. And, usually, the more violently he behaves the more the people turn to the calm, dignified, exalted, silent opponent, who seems superior to all the questions and charges of his active competitor. Even if the matters discussed by the active opponent are the real issues of the campaign, matters vital to the welfare of the public, most voters are more favorably im- pressed by the high dignity of the leading candidate's at- titude than by the vigor of the lesser candidate's behavior. They are, if the leading candidate starts in a sufficiently favorable position and handles his ignoring campaign cleverly. "Our man is too big for all that," say the voters. "He's a statesman; the other fellow is just a politician. That little fellow seems like a small dog barking at a mountain." A particularly clever move, which has sometimes pro- duced excellent results, is for the leading, ignoring can- didate and his managers to cause the lesser, attacking candidate to become involved in a debate with some subor- dinate in the leading candidate's entourage — perhaps a minor official, or a candidate for a lesser office, or a cam- paign manager. The effect of this often-practised political move is to make the lesser candidate seem in the eyes of the voters on a distinctly lower level than the leading candi- date, the big fellow, the statesman. The henchmen of the ignorer deliver addresses in which they put questions to 164 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, the lesser candidate and demand answers. If the lesser candidate responds and enters into debate and controversy with them, immediately he seems on their level and far below the mountain height occupied by his fortunate opponent. Illustrations of the practice and advantage of ignoring one's opponent and also of involving him in controversies with subordinates are found in recent Presidential cam- paigns. The campaign of 1920 started with the Republi- cans in a commanding position. Largely through skillful appeals to racial prejudice in connection with the League of Nations and the Peace Treaty, they had succeeded in discrediting President Wilson. The Democratic candidate would, of course, have to endorse President Wilson's record and proposals. The Republican nomination, barring un- foreseen troubles, seemed equivalent to election. The Democratic nominee would have, at best, only an outside chance. The leading contenders for the Republican nomi- nation were General Leonard Wood and Governor Frank O. Lowden of Illinois. But, when the colossal sums of money spent by and in behalf of these two men came to light, the Republican convention did not dare to nominate either of them. The little group of practical men dicta- ting the nomination turned to Senator Warren G. Harding of Ohio. Mr. Harding, as the world knows now but did not know then, was a weak, sinful man, although more unselfishly patriotic than some stronger, cleaner characters. Unfitted as he was for high office, he was a shrewd, experienced, practical politician, and he had advisers of like capacity. Confident of election, if he made no false moves, he as- sumed an attitude of lofty superiority toward his Demo- cratic opponent, the Honorable James M. Cox of Ohio. Mr. Cox, in a very vigorous campaign, attacked, ques- tioned, demanded. Mr. Harding, ignoring attacks, ques- tions and demands, made a few addresses on such safe OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 165 subjects as he chose and maintained an air of vast, states- manlike dignity. Mr. Cox was in every way the abler and better man, infinitely more fit and worthy to be President, but Mr. Harding was elected by an immense majority. He conducted a very skillful campaign and took perfect advantage of his very favorable situation. In 1924, President Coolidge coasted into an easy victory, ignoring his principal opponent, the Honorable John W. Davis, Democratic nominee. Mr. Coolidge very cleverly pretended that Senator LaFollette of Wisconsin, Progres- sive nominee, was, with his government ownership pro- posals, a real threat to the country's economic system. It was a shrewd move to build up the weaker opponent, the more radical one, so that all conservatives and many mod- erates rushed to the Coolidge standard. Poor Mr. Davis found no one with whom to fight. In 1928, the Honorable Herbert Hoover, Republican Presidential nominee, went through his entire campaign without mentioning the name of his Democratic opponent, the Honorable Alfred E. Smith, or even referring to Mr. Smith, directly or indirectly. Mr. Smith was ignored completely. He must have wondered sometimes if he were really in battle with a genuine living opponent. Mr. Smith delivered many addresses, displaying his customary wit, vigor and penetrating common-sense in all of them. He discussed what he thought were the issues. He chal- lenged his opponent to discuss the issues with him. Mr. Hoover, with great political shrewdness, went his way, apparently unaware of Mr. Smith's existence. Mr. Hoover delivered a few carefully prepared and carefully read speeches in which no reference was made to Mr. Smith's challenges or questions. But — but — lesser figures in the Republican ranks, such as the Honorable Ogden L. Mills (whose interest in Rosie the Cow will be mentioned soon) , were delegated to do battle with Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, 166 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, unable to pry a word out of Mr. Hoover, did enter into debate with the lesser Republicans. There he made a mis- take — not that it mattered, as, being a Catholic, he was doomed to defeat. It was a mistake, but Al was getting desperate. He couldn't quite understand a political cam- paign in which his opponent would not come to grips. He was a bit bewildered. He thought he was thrusting at a substantial, flesh-and-blood opponent, and no opponent responded. But his arguing with the underlings made him appear, as was the Republican intention, on a lower level than the Republican candidate. In the 1932 Presidential campaign the situation was to a large degree reversed. Mr. Hoover's candidacy was almost certainly doomed from the start. When Mr. Roosevelt received the Democratic nomination, his elec- tion was as nearly a certainty as any future political event can be. He knew that. He knew that he was easily the leading candidate, that his proper course was to travel on a high plane, to discuss in a calm and dignified way what he pleased to discuss, to let his underdog opponent do the exhorting, the explaining, the justifying, the attacking. So, Mr. Roosevelt to a great extent ignored Mr. Hoover and went his own triumphant way. Attempts were made to involve Mr. Roosevelt in disputes and debates with Republicans other than the Presidential candidate, as Mr. Smith had been involved, but these attempts were such failures as to be ludicrous. The confident Democrats even went so far as to try to lure Mr. Hoover into wrangles with some of their lesser figures. The tables were turned in 1932. It was Mr. Roosevelt who succeeded in giving the impression that he was on a higher plane than his opponent. These illustrations of the purpose and method of ignor- ing one's opponent furnished by some of our great politicians indicate the technique to be employed by candi- dates for offices lower in the scale when the situation war- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 167 rants. It must be remembered that ignoring one's opponent — his charges, his questions, his issues — is advised only in an unusually favorable situation. It is not normal political procedure. It is for the especially fortunate. CHAPTER IX Concerning More Methods Employed by the Poli- tician, with More Information for Harassed Practitioners The Roman Toboggan — Bread and Games — Something for Their Money — Mr. Mills and Rosie the Cow — The Value of Milk — Alfalfa Bill's Colorful Circus— Prayer by Chief Millett Hoy Koy Bitty — Use of Modern Devices — Interest in Vice Sad but True — The Use of Patriotism — Political Value of the Flag — The National Anthem — For Those Who Have Been Discredited — Vindication and the Comeback — The Power of Sympathy — To Err Is Very Human — The "Blond Boss's" Return to Honor — Do Goats Vote in Bleeding Kansas? — Vicarious Vindication — Wives to the Rescue. The Roman Toboggan — Bread and Games — Something for Their Money — Mr. Mills and Rosie the Cow — The Value of Milk. — Prophets of gloom are forever announc- ing that our great nation is going or is about to go the way of the Roman Empire. We are stricken with the in- curable disease that is bringing about the Decline of the West. Since Gibbon wrote his famous history, Rome has been noted chiefly for its decline, and the pessimistic tell us that we are tarred with the same brush. They see symptoms of it everywhere. In fact, there are so many symptoms of it that symptoms of decline are all they can see. Some of us obtuse fellows who just don't understand mistakenly believe that America is only at the beginning of a long upward course, but we don't count. One of the symptoms that indicates infallibly that America has started on the Roman toboggan is the vastly increased interest in and demand for entertainment by the 168 THE POLITICIAN 169 people — by the American people in all parts of the coun- try, not just here and there, and by the American people of all ages, not just the young and foolish. We are not like our stern, solemn, suffering, sacrificial, purposeful, God- fearing ancestors, who conquered the wilderness, who laid the foundations of the republic, whose only entertainment was giving thanks in church once a year for providential preservation from Indian tomahawks. There was iron in their souls. They were not interested in frivolities, in dis- tractions, in amusements of every description — motion pictures, theatrical performances, the radio, baseball, foot- ball, prize fights, spectacles of all sorts. Our books, our magazines, our newspapers, must amuse rather than in- struct. Even activities not primarily intended by their participants as entertainment are so viewed by the people. The actions of our social leaders — their love nests and divorces — are looked upon in that light. More especially, crime is regarded by most Americans as a form of amuse- ment — not participating in crime but reading about it. And murder, of course, is one of our chief forms of enter- tainment. Rome had its gladiatorial shows, in which men were slaughtered in the arena, butchered to make a Roman holi- day. America has its 13,000 murders a year — shootings, stabbings, poisonings, lynchings — bodies sewed in sacks, buried in ash heaps, hidden in jars, transported in trunks, suitcases. ... In numbers of the dead and variety of methods of execution, America is certainly superior to Rome. In the early days of the Roman Republic the people were stern, virtuous, purposeful, like our ancestors, and they took their politics seriously, as our ancestors did. But in the Republic's later days and in the time of the Empire the people lost their serious interest in politics, lost their sense of political responsibility. Perhaps Rome had grown so vast that the individual thought he could 170 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, have little or no weight or influence. What the Romans demanded, and received, from their political leaders then was panis et circenses — bread and games. They were fed and amused. So, to-day, Americans want to be fed and to be amused. Some expect the politicians to do both for them, and most expect the politicians to do at least the latter. Many think, as did the Romans, that the country is so vast, the population so great, the political organization so huge and complex, that the individual can have little or no weight or influence in politics. But, at any rate, he can still get some fun out of it. And he can favor by his vote the politician who gives him his fun. It is not the concern of the American politician to know whether or not America is threatened with a decline such as Rome experienced, nor is it his concern to seek to arrest the decline if he thinks it is taking place. His concern, as has been said, is with his own advantage and advance- ment, that is, with getting himself elected. The mad de- sire of the American people for amusement may be an indication, a symptom, of social and political degeneracy or it may not. The politician does not worry about that, any more than the Roman politician did. If the voters want entertainment — circuses, shows, diversions, novelties — and cast their ballots for the candidate who gives them what they want, the American politician must furnish entertainment, just as the Roman politician did. This brings us to the promised incident of the Honor- able Ogden L. Mills and Rosie the Cow. Not that Mr. Mills was, or is, an exceptionally skillful showman in poli- tics. There are many better. The Honorable William Hale Thompson, whom I have compared to King Arthur waiting the summons in Avalon, is a much more enter- taining showman than Mr. Mills. So is Huey the King- fish. So is Alfalfa Bill. Their exploits will be mentioned. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 171 But we have been looking forward to Mr. Mills and Rosie, and, somehow, the picture is very appealing. It was in that same year — 1926 — when Mr. Mills, as Republican candidate for Governor of New York, made the promise to the teachers that so distressed the New York Times. Mr. Mills was under no illusions. He was well aware that in Governor Smith he had an opponent almost unbeatable. Mr. Mills, as shown by the promise to the teachers, was neglecting nothing. He was trying to think of activities that would make votes. He was casting about for issues that could be exploited. He thought of milk. It was really an inspiration to think of milk. Milk is a vital necessity for babies and young children and a valu- able article of diet for all. Practically all parents are of voting age. There are few parents who are not more moved by the welfare of their children than by any other earthly thing. Milk, the source of life and growth for the children! But suppose the milk were adulterated? And suppose some politician running for office could have pre- vented that adulteration? How would voting parents feel about that? Mr. Mills declared that the milk supply of New York City was adulterated and that it had been the duty and within the power of Governor Smith to prevent such a dangerous situation. The then virile and active but now deeply lamented New YorA World, supporting Governor Smith, declared that the samples of milk upon which Mr. Mills relied for his charges, when tested in a laboratory, showed the milk supply of the city to be of as high if not higher quality than that of any other large city in the United States. An editorial in the World, October 27, 1926, concluded: "Mr. Mills has frightened parents, he had reduced milk con- sumption 10 to 15 percent, he has by implication accused the dairymen, the milk dealers, the storekeepers and the Governor i 7 2 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, of the State of a conspiracy to adulterate the food and rob the poor of New York City. It is a gross and scandalous per- formance. It is an irresponsible and demagogic performance. It is a performance which stamps Ogden Mills as unfit for the office to which he so frantically aspires." The World's editorial was really a compliment, a trib- ute. It declared that Mr. Mills had done just what he wanted to do, namely, frighten parents. He wanted those frightened parents to vote for him. It was good political tactics. But Rosie the Cow — Mr. Mills, quite properly, was not deterred in exploiting the milk issue by the World's desire that he lay off. He thought that he had something good and he was going to use it. On November i, the day before election, he in- vaded Long Island and made sixteen speeches there. He took with him on this last day, Rosie, a prize Guernsey cow. Rosie was used as a symbol of the adulterated milk issue. She was decorated with political posters and ex- hibited at each meeting. Alas, for all his efforts, and in spite of Rosie, Mr. Mills didn't make it. He neglected nothing, but his task was impossible. To some it may have seemed a little undigni- fied for the elegant Mr. Mills to be leading a cow around, but it was politically expedient. Mr. Mills may have read of Mayor Thompson and the rats. But no cow could moo Mr. Mills into the Governor's Mansion at Albany that year. He would not have won if, instead of a cow, he had dis- played a unicorn or a hippogriff , for Al Smith was then at the crest of his vote-getting powers. Nevertheless, Mr. Mills put on a good livestock show that entertained the crowd. Alfalfa Bill's Colorful Circus — Prayer by Chief Millett Hoy Koy Bitty. — When Alfalfa Bill Murray took the oath as Governor of Oklahoma on January 12, 193 1, he gave a gathering of 12,000 whites, Indians and Negroes a gay and colorful circus. That was to be expected from so pic- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 173 turesque a character, a man who in his boyhood was adopted by an Indian tribe and who, after the World War, had attempted to establish a colony of Oklahomans on land set aside by Bolivia. That failed, but when Alfalfa Bill returned to Oklahoma in 1930 and entered the politi- cal ring there was no failure, and there has been none since. After his return from the Bolivian adventure, Oklahomans took to their hearts the man with the gaunt figure, the bristling mustaches and the booming voice. They elected him Governor by a majority of nearly 100,000, his vote being the largest ever given a candidate for a major office in the state. Alfalfa Bill was not unmindful of the favors of his people when he presented the spectacle of his inauguration. The ceremony took place on a small platform, simply decorated with a few flags, at the steps of the Capitol. The oath of office was administered by Colonel Murray, 91 years old, a former minister and father of the incoming Governor. After Colonel Murray had administered the oath, a noble Indian Chief, Millett Hoy Koy Bitty, leading a delegation of Comanches and Kiowas, stepped forward and uttered in his native tongue a prayer that was after- ward translated by an interpreter as follows: "God bless our Great Chief and help him always to be just between all races and all classes of men. Amen." Chief Millett Hoy Koy Bitty, when he delivered his prayer, had his face painted in old-time Indian style and was wear- ing his bright ceremonial costume. Governor Murray de- livered a vigorous and characteristic extemporaneous address. The 12,000 whites, Negroes and Indians in a roped area roared a tumult of applause. It was an inter- esting show and made a good impression on the voters. Use of Modem Devices — Interest in Vice Sad but True. — As a showman, a provider of circuses for his people, the Honorable Huey Long, whose excellences have already i 74 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, been mentioned so often, must be placed far ahead of the Honorable Ogden L. Mills, well ahead of the Honorable William H. Murray and second only to the Honorable William Hale Thompson, whose achievements and capaci- ties will soon be treated at some length. The Kingfish's methods of amusing and diverting the voters are worthy of the most careful study. Senator Long believes in modern devices for entertain- ment. In his campaign for Governor and also for Senator he employed a bandwagon, which was a combination of a radio loud speaker and a steam calliope. This was a great magnet for the crowds. The Senator has also used the bandwagon in behalf of his allies, particularly in his cam- paigns to elect his friend, the Honorable John H. Overton, now Senator. The Kingfish is a great believer in using the radio to entertain his constituents. In August, 1934, during the great Battle of New Orleans, previously men- tioned, Senator Long dictated the passage through a special session of the Louisiana Legislature of twenty-seven bills. These gave dictatorial powers to the Governor — the Gov- ernor being a supporter of Senator Long — stripped the city government of New Orleans of much of its autonomy — Mayor Walmsley of New Orleans being an opponent of Senator Long — and provided for an investigating commit- tee to inquire into the New Orleans city government. Vice, gambling and graft under Mayor Walmsley's admin- istration were the principal subjects of the committee's inquiry. Senator Long was appointed counsel to the committee. Technically, that is, he was appointed; really, of course, he appointed himself, as the whole project was his. Like all other great men, he did not seize an opportunity; he created one. He planned a good show for the people of his state, one that would be an asset to himself, an injury to his enemy, pleasing and entertaining to the voters. Huey knew as well as any one else that, while few approve vice, OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING *7S nearly every one is interested in it. It is sad, sad, but too true that most people like to hear or read about vice, yes, it must be said, about sexual vice. New Orleans, so they say, has always had so much vice — white, black and brown. And, like most other large cities, it has been the scene of other misdemeanors and misbehaviors, under the adminis- tration of Mayor Walmsley — and before. The Kingfish barred public and press from the hearings of his investigating committee, which were made more spectacular by the presence of fifty National Guardsmen. Why let in the press — mostly hostile — and only a handful of the public? The Senator planned to present his show to tens of thousands, not a few dozen. He had a radio microphone installed in the hearing room. The witnesses and the Senator himself, who did most of the talking, spoke their pieces into the microphone, and the eager listeners throughout Louisiana had a free and a spicy ac- count of the sins and iniquities of the state's great city. One witness told the radio audience that the New Orleans "lottery ring" paid to Mayor Walmsley about $1,000 a week and to Superintendent of Police Reyer about $700. He described a "war" among the larger lot- tery operators caused by the willingness of one group to pay $2,000 a week "political protection" in order to have the night drawings. According to the witness, some of the lottery companies had such picturesque names as the Clover, Old Reliable, the O. K., Reliance, the Original Reliance, the Circle C and the Hi Li. Another witness said that his business was operating a gambling-house and told of payment of graft to the police by himself and others. A third witness told of his operating a saloon equipped with slot machines and of the money he paid to the police so that the machines would not be disturbed. A woman, giving the name of Marie Menendez, said she was the keeper of a house of prostitution and was com- pelled to pay the police a dollar a day for each girl she kept i7* THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, in her establishment. Other interesting items of a similar nature followed. At the beginning of one hearing the radio announcer told the invisible audience that mechani- cal difficulties were delaying the broadcasting, but he as- sured them that, if they were patient, they would be rewarded by some first-rate scandal. It's safe to say that most of them were patient. It was a good show, appreciated by voters of the whole state, including those of New Orleans, who at the Septem- ber 12 primary chose the Senator's candidates and defeated the Mayor Walmsley faction. Huey made clever use of the radio on another occasion. That was on January 22, 1934, when he made his debut as a crooner in his final appeal in support of his New Orleans municipal ticket. Twice during his speech he burst into song. He sang the old favorite, "The Whole Dam Family," in connection with a charge that one of his opponents was maintaining a horde of relatives in public jobs. His second effort, a sort of grand finale, was a parody of the refrain, 'Get along, little dogie, get along." The Senator sang: "Anti-Long, little bogy, Anti-Long, little bogy, Anti-L-o-o-n-g." The Senator quite literally furnished the traditional "bread and games" to many of his constituents when, in October, 1934, he handed out seven dollars apiece to six hundred or more students of Louisiana State University so that they could make the trip to the Louisiana-Vander- bilt football game at Nashville. Six dollars was for rail- way fare and one dollar was for meals. The Honorable Huey made a real circus out of that trip. There were six special trains with the coaches painted white, red, blue, yellow and orange; there were two great motor trucks decorated with Long banners, filled with Long pamphlets and equipped with amplifiers to magnify the Senator's voice; there was a student band of 125 pieces; there was the Senator's usual bodyguard of armed men, admitted OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 177 into Tennessee as "deputy game wardens" to guard what- ever "wild life" the Senator might see fit to import into Tennessee; there were 5,000 cheering students; there was a great parade in Nashville, led by the Senator; there was a brief amplified address by the Senator in the Vanderbilt Stadium before the game. To make the expedition a complete success, Louisiana State won, 29 to o. It was a good show, one of the best the Senator has ever staged. It made an impression so favorable that other politicians would do well to study it with attention. Of course, it cost some money, perhaps $4,000 or $5,000. Some people seemed not to know where the money was coming from. When the Senator was asked about that, he said it came from "contributions." Anyway, it was real money. Some of it was repaid. It seems perfectly absurd that any one should be sur- prised at Senator Long's ability to hand out the paltry sum of $4,000 or $5,000. The Senator is a maker of big money. He must be the leading lawyer of Louisiana, as far as income from his legal services is concerned. An Associated Press dispatch from Baton Rouge, May 14, 1935, stated that, since December, 1934, Senator Long had served as attorney for the Louisiana Public Service Com- mission in four cases involving the lowering of utility rates. In these, his fees, paid by the utilities whose rates were lowered, came to $65,000. The same dispatch said that the Senator had been retained as attorney by the Louisiana Tax Commission, his task being to collect back taxes owed the state. A United Press dispatch of May 1 6 said the Senator would receive as fees one-third of all the taxes collected through his activities. A special dispatch to the New York Times of the same date said that Senator Long and his two assistants in the tax-collecting business had made demands on three lumber companies for back taxes which, if collected, would mean $215,000 for the Senator and his helpers. The Times article said that the i 7 8 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Honorable Senator stood to make hundreds of thousands of dollars "as special legal representative of state boards which he controls." It is really an insult to the Senator to question his ability to provide a few thousand dollars to send several hun- dred boys to a football game! His lucrative activities would seem to forecast more agreeable entertainment not only for students but for all the lucky people of Louisiana. That Senator Long's methods are appreciated and ap- proved by wise politicians was indicated by a statement made by Senator Bilbo of Mississippi after his primary victory in September, 1934, when he said that he would "make as much noise for the common people as Huey P. Long." Senator Bilbo himself— "Bilbo the Builder," the "Bull of the Bayou," as the New York Times calls him, whose favorite character is Napoleon — has capabilities, achieve- ments and methods of his own that compare very favor- ably with the Kingfish's. The nation may expect to hear more of Mr. Bilbo. The Use of Patriotism — Political Value of the Flag — The National Anthem. — The great Dr. Johnson once said that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." That is, when a man's reputation is so bad that he can make no other effective appeal, he can still arouse sympathy and gain support by fervently declaiming how much he loves his country and by vigorously waving his country's flag. If patriotism and the flag can do this for a scoundrel, how much more they can do — and actually do— for our politi- cians. For, in studying and discussing our politicians, we are dealing not with scoundrels but with heroes, with public benefactors. The politician does well to campaign so that more and more he becomes associated in the public mind with patriotism and the American flag. At all his meetings he sees to it that the hall is profusely decked with flags. On OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 179 the wall or the curtain behind him as he delivers his address is an enormous American flag. Perhaps a huge photograph of his face is placed in the middle of the great flag. He and the flag are so intimate, so alike, that they seem of the same blood and bone. In speech after speech he drops almost unconsciously into impassioned tributes to the flag, tributes to the greatness of America, glowing references to the nation's mighty past, the unbroken record of vic- tories over its enemies, the heroism of its famous sons. His addresses are preceded and followed by the playing of patriotic airs — "America," "The Battle Hymn of the Re- public," "The Star-Spangled Banner," or "Dixie," if he be in the South. He makes vigorous and continual use of patriotic slogans or quotations, such as, "America First," "My Country, may she ever be in the right, but right or wrong, my country," and others that can be selected from books of quotations. In this sort of thing, the politician's goal, of course, is to create the impression in the minds of the voters that opposition to him is equivalent to opposition to America, in other words, practically treason. He is our beloved country, the Other Fellow is the enemy. The necessity of a politician's associating himself with patriotism is so fundamental, so elementary, that much discussion of it is not justified. Every knowing and ex- perienced politician aims at this. In this phase of politics perhaps the most successful practitioner in recent years was Mayor Thompson of Chicago. He was an illustrious specialist in America and the flag. More detailed reference to his methods and his exploits will not be much longer delayed. For Those Who Have Been Discredited — Vindication and the Comeback — The Power of Sympathy — To Err Is Very Human — The "Blond Boss's" Return to Honor. — Unfortunate it is, but true, that sometimes for one reason or another, for reasons in some way discreditable, a poli- 180 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, tician is ousted from office or refused a renomination, or defeated in a campaign for reelection. The enemies of the unfortunate politician — the Other Side or perhaps the Other Faction in his own party — rejoice at the politician's discomfiture. They are happy because they believe that he is through, and one rival has been removed forever. Now, this book of ours is a practical book, dealing with realities, with real people, intended to be helpful to flesh- and-blood politicians dwelling and seeking office in the world as it is. Are we, then, to agree with the Other Side or the Other Faction that our politician who has erred, who has slipped a little, or a good deal, from the straight path of rectitude and good behavior, is necessarily through and done for forever? All politicians, of course, are con- tinually being accused of having erred, but we are considering those who have really done so or have been ad- judged to have done so by some sort of an official tribunal. It is probably to the advantage of the politician to be clean and ethical and honest, that is, financially honest, not, of course, intellectually honest. That is rather out of the question. Is further political life closed for one who has in some way been discredited, for the one who has been caught? Sometimes, it must be said, the politician is best ad- vised, when he has been released or when the indictment has been quashed or the charges dropped, to take up some other line of work. There are instances when he is really through. But there are many other instances when, in spite of his unfortunate acts, he can still, with excellent prospects of success, run for public office. In such instances, the technical political term is "run- ning to be vindicated." To those who have not observed the ways of politicians or who have not thought deeply about the matter, the unfortunate or discredited man seeking office on the ground that he wants to be vindicated seems a pitiful and hopeless figure. To them, he is the OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 181 utterly down-and-out engaged in an effort certainly doomed in advance. But, often enough, any such pity is needlessly wasted. There is a very strong appeal to a large section of the voters in the campaign of "vindication." The man seeking, needing, rehabilitation arouses a good deal of sympathy, which can sometimes be translated into votes enough to win. People are inclined to feel warmly toward such a man. They feel sorry for him. And in their attitude toward him there is nothing of the jealousy and covetousness that are likely to be in them, in greater or less degree, when they think of the successful, vic- torious, unindicted politician. Jealousy is one of the most prevalent and most powerful of human sentiments. It is directed toward the rich, the great, the successful, in all fields, and perhaps more frequently and more bitterly in politics than in any other field of human endeavor. But the oppressed or the erring man seeking vindication arouses no jealousy. Voters may think him unworthy or unfit, but they are not jealous of him. Indeed, to many of them the vindication candidate is extraordinarily appealing because he seems of themselves, of their essence. He represents frail and erring humanity, and they are very much of the same race. The more that he is condemned and abused by the pure and unfaltering, the more he appeals to them. It must not be thought that the man running to be vindicated is always successful, but he sometimes is. A vindication campaign is often promising enough to justify making the attempt before accepting the adverse ruling of fate. A conspicuous example of vindication by means of the ballot box was that of George W. Joseph, attorney, of Portland, Oregon. A board of referees appointed by the Supreme Court of the state in 1930 recommended that Mr. Joseph be disbarred permanently because he had charged that political and financial interests had influ- 182 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, enced the court's decision in cases that he named. Mr. Joseph entered the Republican primary for Governor in order to be vindicated. His chief opponent was the then Governor, A. W. Norblat. Mr. Joseph won. After the primary the Supreme Court accepted the recommenda- tion of the referees and ordered the permanent disbarment of Mr. Joseph. He would undoubtedly have been elected Governor had he not died suddenly on June 16, 1930. Before his death the New York Times, commenting on his primary victory, said: "American good-nature ... is seldom so conspicuous as in the case of a public man appealing to the ballot-box for a vindication. Quite irrespective of the merits of his case, the popular heart immediately begins to beat for him and con- tinues to do so until the polls close. If a politician has got into trouble with the law to the extent of serving a jail sentence, it seems to be the least one can do to elect him Mayor of his home city by a thumping majority. If he has been impeached and removed from the office of Governor of the state, one owes him the vindication of electing his wife as Governor!" William Lorimer of Chicago, the "Blond Boss," Repub- lican ruler of his city and of Illinois when in his prime, reached a dazzling pinnacle of power when he was elected to the United States Senate about twenty-five years ago. The battle in the Senate to oust him on the ground that he had gained his seat by bribery was one of the most sen- sational ever held in that body. Out he went, and his fall was great — from riches and high place he dropped to poverty and obscurity. Then he worked his way upward to considerable wealth and political power. There was talk of his running for office again. He did not do that, but he did climb so far upward that in 1928, in company with Bill Thompson and Len Small, he was a luncheon guest of President Coolidge at the White House. He had not submitted himself to the suffrage of the people, but his comeback certainly received notable recognition. To OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 183 be the honored guest of a President was a clear recognition of the revival of his political strength. It was a vindica- tion of a sort. Mr. Lorimer was perhaps well-advised not to seek vin- dication by votes. He might have won one election and no more. For it must be admitted that, while a politician can often win one election as a vindication, he is not so likely to continue steadily successful as if he had never needed vindication at all. Bossy Gillis, the filling-station Mayor of Newburyport, Massachusetts, reached the peak of his political strength when he was clapped into jail for illegally operating his gasoline station. As has been mentioned, when he was released, 45,000 persons jammed the streets of his little town to see the thanksgiving procession led by Bossy and a band and to listen to a powerful address delivered by the manumitted Mayor. And Bossy was thoroughly vin- dicated when, only three days later — December 4, 1928 — his candidates for the City Council were avalanched into office. Do Goats Vote in Bleeding Kansas? — A very interest- ing instance of attempted but not quite successful vindi- cation at the polls occurred in Kansas in 1930. The Sunflower State has often been described as "Bleeding Kansas," and on this occasion the blood was not entirely figurative, as surgical operations on goats and on men were involved. I put the goats first, not because they were necessarily more intelligent than the men but because they were operated on first. John R. Brinkley, of Milford, Kansas, for thirteen years, without molestation, performed rejuvenation opera- tions by transferring glands from goats to men. The report was that he charged $750 for each operation, certainly a very small amount for changing an old man into a young one. Dr. Brinkley also operated the most power- ful radio station in the state, and his programs sometimes i8 4 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, included mention of his gland operations. In 1929 he also began to use his broadcasting facilities for prescrip- tion purposes. His radio listeners would write to him and describe their simpler ailments and he would advise them by radio to go to their local drugstores and buy cer- tain prescriptions designated by numbers. An association of druggists, over 500 of them, known as the Brinkley Pharmaceutical Association, was created. It extended all through Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska and into other states. It was said that a great many ailing persons deserted their local doctors because of the free radio advice from Dr. Brinkley. The State Medical Board began an investi- gation of the goat-gland broadcaster. The American Medical Journal and the Kansas City Star entered the battle against the Milford benefactor. Some dissatisfied patients rushed into print. The State Medical Board in- duced the Attorney-General to file charges before it in an effort to revoke Dr. Brinkley's medical license. He was charged with being a quack, his goat-gland operation was said to be a fake, and he himself was accused of gross im- morality. There was a hearing before the Medical Board. It kept up for a month. The state produced a dozen dissatisfied patients. It put many surgeons on the stand who testified that Brinkley's claims for his gland operation were im- possible. Brinkley, aided by a battery of lawyers, offered expert testimony in reply. He produced satisfied patients from half a dozen states. In fact, he produced so many of them, some prominent men, that the Medical Board finally ruled arbitrarily that no more satisfied patients would be permitted to testify. It seemed that the doctor's methods gave too much satisfaction. Then Brinkley intro- duced affidavits from 500 additional satisfied customers. Brinkley offered to show the jeering doctors the great goat-gland transplantation, which was the center of the OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 185 battle. He invited the members of the Medical Board to his hospital to see the operations — goats first, then men. They went to see. They stood around the operating table while Brinkley transferred glands from goats to two men. The members of the Board did not wait to learn whether the operations killed or cured the men. They went back to their office and revoked Brinkley 's medical license. Brinkley's followers, and some others, thought that the doctor did not have a fair trial. It seemed to them that the Medical Board had been both prosecutor and judge. Brinkley, of course, was sure that he had been unjustly treated. The Federal Radio Commission was asked to stop Brink- ley's broadcasting, and did order him to stop broadcasting medical advice. Obviously, there was only one thing for him to do. Just as Bossy Gillis was forced to run for Mayor when denied a permit for his filling station, so Dr. Brinkley was compelled to run for Governor. He wanted his medical license and he wanted vindication. It was too late to get his name on the printed ballots. He was forced to run as an independent, with his supporters compelled to use stickers in order to vote for him. Here was a case that appealed to the sympathies — a case of oppression, oppression of the under-dog, or the under- goat, by the powerful, the established. At first, the seasoned politicians laughed at the good doctor and his campaign. But Brinkley took to his radio. He told of his oppressors and he made some appealing promises. The Republican and Democratic managers be- came alarmed, and with good reason. It began to look as if they and theirs might be overturned — chucked out. For Republicans to be licked by Democrats or Democrats to be licked by Republicans is unpleasant for the defeated. But it's no real disgrace. It's staying within the conven- tions, the proprieties. But for both of 'em to be licked i86 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, by a rank outsider, a goat man using the radio waves as if they were the pipes of goat-footed Pan, would be in- decent, perhaps blasphemous. Not only the old party managers, but William Allen White, the virtuous and volatile, the personification of Kansas, became alarmed. Things looked bad, bad for the unmodified, unexpurgated men. The doctor made a wonderful race, perhaps the most amazing ever made by a candidate for Governor whose name was not on the ballot. No less than 183,000 voters pasted Brinkley stickers on their ballots. It was not quite enough. The doctor didn't make it. He tried again in 1932, drew enormous crowds to his meetings, made a great showing, but again didn't make it. In 1934 he sought the Republican nomination for Governor, but was beaten by Governor Landon in the primary. He didn't seem to have the dash and fire he possessed in 1930 and 1932. From the Brinkley attempt at vindication at the polls several lessons can be learned by the politician, especially by the politician who has been cruelly used and who con- siders seeking vindication. First, an independent, write- the-name-in or sticker candidacy is politically hopeless. If Dr. Brinkley had acquired his grievance in time for him to enter the Republican primary in 1930 and if he had done so, he would have been the Republican nominee and would have been elected Governor. The quester for vin- dication should use one of the great parties. He should get his name on the ballot properly. Second, the Brinkley efforts of 1930, 1932 and 1934, diminishing in power, confirm the statement previously made that the public's interest in vindicating the discredited or the cruelly used does not hold up very long. The good doctor's big chance was when he made his first attempt. The people of Kansas — the "morons," as William Allen White called them — wanted to help in the vindication in 1930. They OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 187 had lost interest by 1934. So it is in any attempt at vin- dication. Vicarious Vindication — Wives to the Rescue. — Quoted above in connection with the George W. Joseph victory in the Oregon primary was the following from the New York Times: "If he has been impeached and removed from the office of Governor of the state, one owes him the vindication of electing his wife as Governor." The allusion was to the Fergusons of Texas — Jim and "Ma." Jim got into a little trouble when he was Governor and was barred from running again for that exalted office. He was too resourceful to be stopped in that way. The usual path of vindication being blocked, he very cleverly chose another route. For him was the vicarious vindica- tion. That is, Ma Ferguson became the candidate, and the plains and oil-fields of Texas resounded with the shout of "Me for Ma!" Ma was triumphantly elected, and the vindicated Jim sat in the State House with her. That was an instance of a splendid vindication brought about by a method that must be approved as the very best in the circumstances. Americans seem positively eager to elect wives to the offices formerly held by their husbands, if the husbands are somehow barred, for ex- ample, by death or by the law. Barred by the law, the politician, if married — and he should be married — should do as Jim Ferguson did — have the wife make the race. Barred by death, the politician loses interest. But, as this book is for female politicians as well as male, it may be said in passing that, when an office-holder dies, the indi- cated procedure is for the widow to jump right in, an- nounce that, not for herself but to carry on her husband's program and policies, she is willing to serve the people in his former capacity — and grab off the prize. In the summer of 1934 Governor William Langer, Re- publican, of North Dakota, was charged with misusing federal relief funds. He was tried and convicted. Obvi- 188 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, ously, In such circumstances, a campaign of vindication was the only course open to him. He entered the Repub- lican primary for Governor, and the Republicans of his state eagerly leaped to his support. Against bitter opposi- tion, he was vindicated by a crashing majority. Two days after the primary victory, the Governor was sentenced by Judge Andrew Miller of the Federal Court to eighteen months in prison and fined $10,000. The Governor seemed not disturbed at the sentence. On July 17, the Supreme Court of North Dakota issued an order ousting Mr. Langer as Governor on account of his conviction. Upon announcement of the decision, the square in front of the new Capitol in Bismarck filled with people who shouted, "We want Langer! We want Langer!" The Governor had become the oppressed, the cruelly used, ripe and ready for complete vindication. But he was faced by the annoyance and inconvenience from which Jim Ferguson had suffered in being legally barred from running for office. That was bad. He did not take it lying down. He did not accept the decision of the Supreme Court. Instead, he called out the National Guard and put the city of Bismarck under mar- tial law. He did not want to be ousted. But second thought was different. Observers said that the situation in North Dakota was extremely critical. But that was nothing alarming. The situation in North Dakota is always extremely critical. It became apparent that Langer's right to make the race would be challenged. There still remained the single wing back, or single wife back, formation, with the play directed at the weak side of the line; in other words, the vicarious vindication. At Bismarck, on July 20, Mr. Langer delivered an open-air address to an enthusiastic crowd. When he finished, Mrs. Langer climbed to the platform. She was introduced with the words: "The OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 189 next Governor of North Dakota if Bill is detained else- where." The crowd greeted this with thunderous cheers. Mrs. Langer said: "I am glad if I can do anything to help Bill. I took part in the primary campaign, when they had Bill tied down so he could not make the campaign himself. I am glad to be here to-night and I hope to meet many of you that I have not met before." On August 1, William Langer formally resigned the Republican nomination for Governor. A few minutes after his action the Republican State Central Committee, by a vote of 36 to 9, designated Mrs. Langer as the candi- date. This parallel to the Jim-Ma Ferguson move was according to the most approved form of political vindi- cation. I write this before the 1934 November election, but it seems very likely that Mrs. Langer will be elected. This may be wishful thinking on my part, due to my anxiety for another perfect instance of vindication. After the election, we'll have an addendum or a note on what happened to Mrs. Langer. We can put the addendum in now. Mrs. Langer didn't make it. But she was defeated in the great Democratic landslide, or "groundslide," as old John Glab of Dubuque, Iowa, used to call it. She wasn't able to go against that mighty tide. But the attempt was correct political prac- tice, just the same. I don't know why "groundslide" isn't as good as "land- slide," or as bad, according to the point of view. We can now put in even another addendum. On May 7, 1935, the United States Court of Appeals, at St. Paul, handed down a decision reversing the conviction of Gov- i^o THE POLITICIAN ernor Langer and four others convicted of conspiracy to administer corruptly federal statutes relating to the dis- tribution of emergency relief funds and granting the accused a new trial. In its decision, the court mentioned that the charges grew out of alleged solicitation of politi- cal contributions from workers paid with federal relief funds, and went on to say: "Whatever we may think of the ethics or propriety of the practice employed by appellants to secure funds for political purposes, it is not a matter of concern to the federal government unless some lawful governmental function was thereby ob- structed. "In other words, a conspiracy or plan to assess state employes was not an act violative of any federal statute, and hence so far as the federal government is concerned not criminal. We have searched diligently for direct evidence of any plan beyond this, and counsel for the government have called our attention to no such testimony." Naturally, Bill Langer hailed the ruling of the court with delight and issued a hot statement, which included: "When as Governor I was arrested, I announced that I was innocent and that big business wanted me out of the Governor's office. . . . Big business in all its terrific hideousness showed its power and it had the willing assistance of Harry Hopkins, Senator Gerald P. Nye, Big Jim Farley and others of their ilk. ... In conclusion, I am really glad the United States government spent $125,000 to prove I am an honest Governor." So, Bill Langer, having been deprived of the Governor- ship by oppressors, appears more than ever the cruelly used, the unjustly victimized — more than ever ripe and ready for vindication. CHAPTER X Concerning More of the Methods of the Politi- cian, Particularly the Process of Converting a Politician into a Human Being or into a Humaner Human Being The Interests of the People — Art and Learning — Al Smith and Italian Primitives — Suffering Through Baseball Games — Fishing with Rod and Camera — The Suffering Children Get a Break — Donating a Baseball — Reviewing the Fleet — Humanizing Mr. Hoover — Neutralizing the Process — Peanuts and the Masses — No School To-day — Becoming a Brother — The Great American Pastime — Day-by-day Intercourse — "Honest Vic," the Com- pletely Humanized. The Interests of the People — Art and Learning — Al Smith and Italian Primitives — Suffering Through Baseball Games — Fishing with Rod and Camera. — It is quite evi- dent to all who have observed politicians at close range that most of them are human enough, perhaps too human, in the sense of having the interests and the frailties of aver- age, or sub-average, men and women. For many politi- cians it is desirable to exercise some restraint over their natural human qualities. Others must acquire, or must pretend to acquire, the interests of the masses of the voters, of the common, or commoner, people. And they must see to it that the people know of those interests. The politician who is learned or erudite or artistic, es- pecially the last, does well to hide his accomplishments from the public. An interest in any form of art — poetry or painting or music or architecture — is very bad. It should be suppressed, if possible, and certainly must be completely concealed. In 1928, the virtuous and volatile 191 i 9 2 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, William Allen White, Kansas politician and sage, thought Al Smith unfit to be President because Al did not know about Italian primitives. Maybe Al didn't. Maybe he did. There are more Italian primitives in New York City than in Kansas. But, if Al knew, he had the political sense to conceal his knowledge. Could it be that William Allen White brought the matter up in order to prove that he himself knew that Italian primitives were not some sort of aborigines? For politicians in high places to have a reputation for learning is not necessarily a liability, but to display much of that learning is bad. It is best for such politicians to behave so that the voters will say, "See, I told you; Sena- tor Blaha knows everything, but he's really just as plain as an old shoe, just as common as the rest of us." An in- terest in cultural matters must be minimized, but an interest in the common appetites, diversions and pastimes must be cultivated, displayed and thoroughly published to the world. The late Secretary of the Treasury Woodin's ability as a composer of music made him an object of suspicion to a great many voters. It is possible that Charley Dawes might have been elected President if he had done more cursing and less composing of music. If a politician is not naturally "human" enough, he must be "humanized." If he can't do this for himself, his managers, secretaries or publicity men must do it for him. Mention has already been made of the proper mode of life of the politician — his food, his drink, his clothing, his house, his office. All this is really of the humanizing process, part of the program intended to convince the people that he is one of them, as common as they are, perhaps commoner. But there are other items that must not be neglected and other methods to be employed. A politician must show an interest in popular games OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 193 and sports, the games and sports of the common people, not those of the wealthy. Polo is one of the most thrilling of all games, but, so far as I know, no American poli- tician has ever been stupid enough to express an interest in polo or to be caught in attendance at a polo match. Can one imagine a President of the United States throw- ing out a polo ball to start a contest between the Hurri- canes and the Old Aikens? Polo is a game for millionaires, not for the people, not for politicians. Politicians do not play polo nor do they — for publication — watch polo matches. A politician is better off if he thinks, or pre- tends to think, that a "chukker" is a cheap cut of beef rather than a period in a polo match. Neither do politicians — for publication — engage in yachting or yacht races, or attend yacht races as specta- tors. Yachts are tainted with wealth. It is true that President Roosevelt was an interested and publicized spectator of the races in 1934 for the America's Cup be- tween the British Endeavour and the American Rainbow. With his habitual political acumen, he made no mistake here, for this was a very exceptional occasion. It was an international contest with a representative of America as a participant. A yacht race that is described over the radio day after day for over a week is a very unusual affair. In general, politicians should avoid contact with yachts. Playing or taking an interest in golf or tennis does a politician no harm, but seems to be of no great value to him. This may seem odd, at least in the case of golf, for there are more American adults actually playing golf than any other game requiring muscular effort. But, somehow, there is still a little smell of wealth and luxury associated with golf. A politician does well to show en- thusiasm for the football team of the college or high school of which he is an alumnus, but a big interest in football in general is of no particular value. The two sports 194 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, seemingly guaranteed to bring political results are base- ball and fishing. It is not necessary for the politician to enjoy, or pre- tend to enjoy, playing baseball. He may play, if he wishes, and it does him no political harm. But it is practically required by the American people that their political leaders enjoy, or pretend to enjoy, watching professional teams play baseball. The President is expected to attend the opening game of the professional season in Washing- ton. He shakes hands with managers, captains and promi- nent players of the contending teams and starts the game by throwing a ball from his box to the field. The Mayor of New York City does a similar service in the metropolis, and other Mayors all over the country do likewise. It has become a sort of political ritual. After the ball is thrown, the President, or Mayor, as the case may be, must remain throughout the game and must display an interest in it. All this, of course, is done to the accompaniment of many clicking and turning cameras. It is expected, practically demanded, of the office-holding politician that he sit through — clear through — a reasonable number of additional games during the baseball season. To get up and leave in the middle of a game, especially the opening game, would mean the political end of a President unless he had word of a declaration of war against us, or of a Mayor unless Communists were actually bombing the City Hall. In the case of the Mayor, that excuse might not be enough. In most communities the people would not seri- ously object to the bombing of the City Hall. Probably the politician is expected to watch baseball rather than play because the people want him to do as they do. Although more American adults go in for some sort of sports than was true years ago, the fact remains that most Americans are watchers of muscular adven- tures, not players. By millions, they sit in the stands and OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 195 watch a few experts do the playing. And they require their politicians to sit as they do. President Coolidge suffered through quite a few base- ball games. He didn't like it, but he was a good politi- cian. President Hoover seemed to have no interest in baseball, but he had to go through it too. He understood the requirements. These two Presidents also acceded to the dictates of the American voters and became fishermen. Mr. Coolidge seemed very unhappy about it at first. Photographed with one or two small fish that he had caught, he appeared a pitiful figure. Later, however, more and more photo- graphed, he almost gave the impression that he enjoyed it. At any rate, he went through with the fishing program, as he went through with the hay-pitching in patent- leather shoes and the cowboying in sombrero and gigantic chaps. Mr. Hoover, it is said, was more interested in catching fish while he was at it than in fishing. He wanted results. He may not have realized clearly that the politician makes his favorable impression by fishing, not by catching fish. Here again, the best results — politi- cal, not piscatorial — are obtained by doing as the people do, and most voters who go fishing catch very few fish. The politician makes more of a hit if he has little success in his fishing. He is shrewd if he throws back some in case of a big catch or perhaps reports poorer luck than he really had. He must remember that he is actually a fisher of men, not of fish. In the summer of 1934, President Roosevelt, who well understands the political appeal that there is in fishing, made a more favorable impression on the country when it was reported that his fishing luck was poor than he would have made if they had been biting. Of course, it is elementary that the politician or his managers must attend to having all the baseball and fish- ing expeditions thoroughly photographed and publicized. i 9 6 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Once in a long while one hears a protest on this matter of politicians, especially Presidents, identifying their in- terest in sports with that of the populace. For example, Franklin P. Adams, in his "Conning Tower," in the (deeply lamented) New York World of October 14, 1930, had the following: "Another reason for sending Broun [Heywood Broun, then a Socialist candidate] to Congress ... is that you would finally have an officeholder who would do as he liked, and not do what he thought would make him appear as a Good Fellow. Now, President Hoover, it has often been said, is not interested in sport. He goes to a World Series game, which, it is conceivable, bores him. He has tentatively accepted an invitation to attend the Princeton-Navy football game. . . . What fun it would be to have a President who wouldn't indulge in any so-called recreations except those which he enjoyed! ... Of course, that might narrow a politician's activities down to listening to elec- tion returns." It was quite all right for F.P.A., a sophisticated member of the intelligentsia, to prescribe for hard-pressed, vote- hungry politicians. F.P.A., as far as I know, never ran for anything. If he did run, he would — perhaps he would — march to baseball games with a corps of camera-clicking photographers beside him and would leap at an offer to throw out the first ball, or even a later ball. It may be significant that Mr. Broun, who does as he likes and not as the people demand, was defeated in that 1930 election, in spite of his charm and his abilities and the strenuous support of his many friends. Of course, it is possible that he may have been on the wrong ticket. The wise politician takes no chances on such important matters as popular games and sports. He is conspicuous in the baseball grandstand and he is passionately fond of fishing, with rod and camera. The Suffering Children Get a "Break — Donating a Base- ball — Reviewing the Fleet. — The little children, the polit- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 197 ically invaluable little children, whose suffering from Day-fever or Eulogyitis has been mentioned, whose wel- fare so stirred the heart of the elegant Ogden L. Mills when he exhibited Rosie the Cow — the little children have a big part in humanizing the politician. But in this humanizing process the children sometimes really get a break, really get what they consider genuine benefits. Heaven knows, it's fair that they should, when one con- siders all they go through in the celebration of Columbus Day, Kosciusko Day, Pulaski Day, Von Steuben Day, Washington's Birthday, Lincoln's Birthday, and the pros- pect they have ahead of them of celebrating Haym Salo- mon Day, Leif Ericson Day, Crispus Attucks Day and the Irish Missionaries Day, to say nothing of a score of others that may be hatched later. The trouble is that, while practically all the children suffer in being used as politi- cal material in celebrating the Days, usually only a selected few or a conspicuous one gathers the benefits in the human- izing process. The sagacious politician, as has been said, knows the universal appeal of the children. He must display, he does display, a tenderness for children. One frequently reads of politicians' kissing the babies of the voters of their districts. As a matter of fact, few babies are so kissed, but they are admired and shown delicate attentions. The politician continually thinks of ways in which he may be kind to children — not secret ways. He has, of course, children of his own, the more the better, and, if, for some reason, nature is against him and his wife, he adopts chil- dren. There are two advantages in adopting children; first, the action shows the politician's passionate and not- to-be-denied love of the little ones. Regular children might be accidents, due to some urge other than the desire for the children. Adopted children must be wanted. Second, in adopting children, those that photograph well 198 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, may be chosen. For the sapient politician is always being photographed with his flock of kiddies. But it is not his own children that furnish the only, or the chief, humanizing material for the politician. His ap- peal to the voters is more powerful when he does some- thing to bring unexpected happiness — rays of sunshine — into the lives of children not his own. This generally costs money, as most rays of sunshine do, but probably less per vote influenced than other ways of political pro- cedure. It must be said that the children are often very helpful about this; that is, they ask for things. A good example of how ask-and-ye-shall-receive chil- dren can help in humanizing occurred in New York City in July, 1934. The Pontiacs, a baseball team made up of twelve-year-old boys of the Borough of the Bronx, were in the midst of a battle with the Tigers on an enclosure in the Bronx when a policeman came along, drove the boys from the field and confiscated their League ball. The Pontiacs cogitated about this oppression, and their cap- tain decided to write to the Mayor. What are Mayors for? Mr. La Guardia received the following letter: "My dear Mayor: What would you do if you were a boy like us and a cop took a ball away in the park? The ball is an American League ball. We will greatly appreciate it if you would take this matter in your hands. Please answer our letter. Your loving admirers — The Pontiacs, Saul Norflus, Captain" In this appeal were combined two great elements to which all American politicians must give heed — baseball and childhood. And in this appeal the child element was heightened because it was childhood oppressed, aggrieved. A keen member of the Mayor's secretariat read the letter and turned it over to Mr. La Guardia. The Mayor dic- tated the following to Captain Norflus: OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 199 te I have your letter and thank you for writing me. I am sure that when the police officer asked you not to play ball, you obeyed. You must always obey a police officer. I am very sorry that he took your ball away from you. I know how badly I would feel if any one would have taken a ball away from me when I was a boy. "So what do you think I have done for you? Well, I have asked Col. Ruppert of the American League if he would give me an American League baseball and he was good enough to do so. Come down to see me at City Hall Monday, July 16, and I will give you this brand-new American League ball and then we can talk over your troubles." That was well done by the Mayor. Note, first, that he seized the opportunity offered; second, that he handled the matter himself; third, that he did not send a ball but invited the boys to come to see him. Nearly all of the Pontiacs came at the appointed time. They were greeted by the flashlights of newspaper pho- tographers and listened to by reporters. The Mayor put his arm around Captain Norflus. Then he autographed the new ball and presented it to the captain, insisting (per- haps vainly) that the boys play with the ball and not pre- serve it as a souvenir. Altogether, the situation was handled admirably, as long articles in the newspapers indicated. President Roosevelt has had extraordinary success in his use of child material. He is fortunate in that an un- limited amount of this seems to be offered to him, and thus his sincere love of children has natural occasions for its display. Many instances could be cited, but two typi- cal ones will suffice. Here is an item in the New York Times of December 3, 1934, a dispatch from Warm Springs, Georgia: "President Roosevelt to-day acknowledged and corrected a mistake made in his last radio 'Fireside Chat' when he said, 'There is no Napoleon alive to-day.' 2oo THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, "He met and shook hands with the bearer of that name, not a Corsican but a small Negro boy from Atlanta. "The boy heard the radio address and was said to have been hurt so much by the remark that word of his feelings got to Eliza McDuffy, wife of the President's valet. She arranged to have Napoleon meet the President to-day." Something of a different sort occurred in the spring of 1934. At that time, James Roosevelt, son of the Presi- dent, delivered several talks over the radio in Boston. In one of these he spoke of the navy and mentioned the great review of the fleet soon to take place near New York City. In his mail a little after this talk he received a "fan" letter written in a boyish scrawl. It was from Franklin H. Nichols, Jr., of Brookline, Massachusetts, nine years old. Franklin had enjoyed the speech about the navy, as the navy and the Coast Guard were his "main interest in life." He said that he could not imagine "anything more wonderful than seeing the fleet steam up the bay." James Roosevelt obtained highly favorable reports of little Franklin and forwarded the boy's letter, together with a note of his own, to the President in Washington. On May 30, Franklin H. Nichols, Jr., stood close to the President on the forward-deck gun platform of the l/.S.S. Indianapolis as the President reviewed the inspiring spec- tacle of the mighty fleet steaming past, while the great guns boomed in salute. And, prior to that time, little Franklin had been the overnight guest at the St. Regis Hotel of James Roosevelt, had been received by the Presi- dent at his New York City home, and had been driven to the pier in one of the Presidential automobiles. The little fellow had a tremendous experience. There were, of course, long articles in the newspapers about the President's gracious attention to the enthusiastic boy, and there were the inevitable photographs. It was thrilling for the child, and it was no injury to the Presi- dent, whose sincere affection for children is very helpful OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 201 on occasions of this kind. The little episode indicated that James Roosevelt had grown in understanding of technical political procedure since the early days of the 1932 Presi- dential campaign when he was guilty of the indiscretion of criticizing the non-cooperative attitude of Governor Smith. Humanizing Mr. Hoover — Neutralizing the Process — Peanuts and the Masses. — While President Roosevelt im- presses the public as a cordial, friendly, very human per- son, President Hoover, except for the peanuts, seemed to most people almost of the contrary nature. He appeared to be concerned with his own plans and projects, with business, with statistics, with conferences, with commis- sions. He seemed machine-like, aloof from the warm life of the ordinary people, somewhat unaware of their inter- ests, their hopes, their problems, their affections. The New York Post, a Republican newspaper during the Hoover Administration, in an editorial of March 30, 193 1, called "The Somber Mr. Hoover," told of the impression the public had of the then Chief Executive. The editorial included : "The country used to think of Calvin Coolidge as the 'silent man'; Herbert Hoover is much more silent. . . . Mr. Hoover returned yesterday from a battleship trip to Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. For ten days he has been out of his routine settings and put upon a peak for all the people to see. Yet he returns as aloof, as unhuman, as unknown and as 'silent' as when he went away. "No correspondent has related of him one single little human incident. He has said no spontaneous word of kindness, wisdom or anything else, so far as we know. He has displayed no humor. . . . "It is too bad that Mr. Hoover institutionalizes himself in this fashion. He never speaks to his fellow Americans save in care- fully prepared speeches or in formal statements. He thus makes it impossible for them to know him and to love him. He moves 202 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, amongst them as a somber, solemn automaton instead of as a man. Obviously, it was highly desirable, from a political angle, that something be done to correct this unfortunate impression. The fishing expeditions and the baseball games were not enough. Mr. Hoover's publicity men, his secretariat, were greatly concerned about the situation. They were convinced that Mr. Hoover must be "human- ized," and they set out to humanize him. Mr. Hoover was apparently persuaded to permit the humanizing process at times, but he seemed always very uncomfortable under it. He did not like it. One of the Hoover humanizing projects having to do with the use of child material occurred in the spring of 193 1, very shortly after the editorial in the New York Post quoted above. A thirteen-year-old Colorado boy, Bryan Untiedt, had been a hero in a motor-bus tragedy in a great blizzard earlier in the year. Five of the boy's schoolmates lost their lives in the disaster and more might have died had it not been for him. On April 4 it was an- nounced at the White House that Bryan had been invited to come to Washington and be the President's guest for a night. The boy hero came and had a great time. He watched the President and some friends throwing a medicine ball in the White House grounds early in the morning. He accompanied the players into the breakfast-room and had a glass of milk while they drank their coffee. He had breakfast with the Hoovers. He walked with the Presi- dent to the executive offices. He entertained the Presi- dent's grandchildren with an harmonica. With a guide furnished by the White House, he saw the sights of Wash- ington. He visited the new Presidential yacht Sequoia. It was announced on May 1 that Mr. Hoover liked Bryan so well that he had asked the boy to stay a few days longer. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 203 All the details of the young hero's visit were duly and fully covered in many newspaper articles and pictures. The whole affair seemed to be well-conceived and well- executed. Mr. Hoover, before entering politics, had con- ducted vast programs of relief for European children. It seemed natural that he should be interested in the Colo- rado boy. The trouble with the episode was that it was quite thoroughly advertised by newspapers unfavorable to Mr. Hoover as a deliberately conceived part of a program of humanizing the President. The Baltimore Sjmi, for ex- ample, put the following big headlines over an article telling of the invitation extended to young Mr. Untiedt: "Boy's White House Invitation Helps In 'Humanizing Hoover' — President's Publicity Counselors Making Up For Lost Time Since Return From Caribbean Cruise In Popularizing Chief Executive." The Sun's article told not only of the invitation to Bryan Untiedt, but of other human interest items that had recently been released for publication by the White House entourage. Of course, a humanizing campaign is ineffective if it is advertised as such, especially if it is advertised in advance. The humanizers of Mr. Hoover did not give up imme- diately, in spite of the fact that their efforts were widely advertised. On May 5, 193 1, a radio reporter for the National Broadcasting Company described over the NBC system how a puppy jumped into Mr. Hoover's lap while the President was at breakfast and snatched a fried egg from the President's plate. The incident was also duly sent out in a Washington dispatch by the Associated Press. But this innocent human interest item was not left with- out adverse comment. Senator Robinson, Democrat, Arkansas, in a statement issued on May 22 criticizing the Hoover record, included mention of the puppy and the egg: 2o 4 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, "Perhaps it is because of a realization that there can be no adequate explanation of the Administration's failure that his newspaper organs have suddenly blossomed forth with a crop of childish stories having for their purpose what the paragraph- ers have dubbed 'humanizing Hoover.' We get such interesting tales as that of the puppy that climbed on the President's knee at breakfast and snatched a fried egg from his plate, for ex- ample. These stories could hardly be circulated without the President's cognizance. In effect, they constitute an appeal to the country tantamount to saying 'I may not be a wise exec- utive, but see what a kindly, humane and homely sort of chap I am.' " Now, of course, it is very difficult to accomplish any humanizing when the processes are being pointed out to the public. The humanizing items must seem quite spon- taneous and natural, and, to be sure, it is best if they can really be so. Items that occasionally found their way into print con- cerning Mr. Hoover's stopping at a street-corner to buy peanuts carried conviction and were of value. Perhaps they convinced because they were perfectly true. Mr. Hoover really liked peanuts. He really bought them and cracked them and ate them, and here was a genuine link he had with the masses. The eating of roasted peanuts, at baseball games or on the streets, with the shells tossed anywhere, is a weakness of the American millions. It was an agreeable surprise to many that Mr. Hoover was one of the millions in that respect. There was one Hoover human interest story that rang the bell. No School To-day. — Bossy Gillis, the filling-station Mayor of Newburyport, made an heroic and well-con- ceived effort on one occasion to use child material accord- ing to the best political technique. When the circus came to town, Bossy inserted in the newspapers a notice that the public schools would be closed so that the children could go to the circus. But the Board of Education and OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 205 the Superintendent of Schools were no friends of Bossy's. They announced school as usual. Of about 2,400 pupils only 200 accepted Bossy's invitation, and the Truant Offi- cer went to the circus grounds and gathered them up. Such are the difficulties that the earnest politician some- times encounters. Bossy had a good idea, but conditions were not favorable. Becoming a Brother — The Great American Pastime. — In the list of humanizing actions that the politician may and should take is the joining of fraternal orders and par- ticipation in their regular and special meetings, their pic- nics, dances, parades, religious services and funerals. The Catholic politician should without fail join the Knights of Columbus. He should also join one or more or all of the following: the Elks, the Eagles, the Owls, the Moose, the Modern Woodmen, the Woodmen of the World, the Yeomen, the Red Men. And there are others. Catholics do not join certain secret orders, such as the Masons and the Knights of Pythias. The Protestant politician joins these, as well as a selection of or all of the others men- tioned above except the Knights of Columbus. He is not eligible there — barred out. The Protestant politician looks with vain yearning toward the warm, influential radiance of the Knights of Columbus, as the Catholic politician looks longingly toward the Masons. Of course, neither may speak of his yearning or longing. The Jew in politics is a joining brother also. Like the Protestant, he is not eligible for the Knights of Columbus, but he is eligible for all branches of the Masonic order except the Knights Templar. In a previous chapter mention was made of the abortive movement in favor of Judge Joseph Sabath for Mayor of Chicago and of the great support his friends expected him to receive from the 70,000 people to whom he had granted decrees of divorce. At the same time it was pointed out 206 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, that the Judge was a member of twenty-two organiza- tions. That was a good showing, but not a record by any means. Practically all politicians, from Presidents — most of whom have been Masons — on down the list, have been indefatigable joiners. Being a brother is an almost uni- versal activity of the American male — it's the great Amer- ican pastime — and the American politician is foolish indeed if he is not a brother — a multiple brother. The accomplished politician is a brother to as many voters as he can be. If he cannot afford to join all the fraternal orders for which he is eligible, he joins as many as he can, choosing those that are the strongest in his terri- tory. He is always careful to speak well of those that he has not joined. Of course, the politician joins many organizations other than fraternal orders. He joins the Rotary Club, if he is asked, or the Kiwanis Club, or the Lions. He joins the Chamber of Commerce, he joins political clubs, civic clubs, church clubs. He joins — anything — everything. Not to be a joiner is not to have that human touch so necessary in a politician. The non-joiner is looked upon as snobbish, distant. He needs humanizing. Day-by-day Intercourse — tf Honest Vic," the Com- pletely Humanized, — But the human touch, the warm man-to-man sympathy, that a good politician should have is manifested not only in his watching baseball, pursuing fish, coddling the children and joining fraternal orders, but also in his day-by-day intercourse with men and women. He is, or appears to be, not only interested in their interests, he is interested in them, in their jobs or lack of jobs, in their family affairs, in their loves and their preju- dices and their jealousies, in the kinds of beer they like and don't like, in the brands of tobacco they smoke or chaw, in the names they have given newly arrived babies or are considering for babies that are on the way. Senator Donahey of Ohio, he who defeated the scholarly OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 207 Simeon Fess in the 1934 election, is frequently held up as an example of the perfect politician in this matter of get- ting right down on the common level with the common people, being one of them, one with them. He makes them feel as if the blood in their veins and in his came from a common source, one friendly heart beating for them and for him. He meets the individual on an intimate equality, knows thousands by their first names and uses that knowl- edge, exchanges good stories or chaws of tobacco in a sim- ple friendly way with the troubled farmer or the equally troubled city dweller. He is "Honest Vic," "Old Honest Vic," the dependable, to tens of thousands. — A splendid and successful living example of the completely human- ized politician, three times Governor of his state and now Senator. Let lesser men observe and emulate. I do not know that Senator Donahey has any system of keeping a record of his almost innumerable friends and acquaintances — all friends to him, of course. Probably he has the natural gift of remembering faces and names — first names — by the thousands. Some politicians are not so fortunate, and the wise ones in this situation do not hesitate to make use of notebooks or card catalogues. Glancing over the records for each locality before going there during a campaign is sometimes very helpful. A thousand first names or nicknames correctly used may mean victory. To call a man "Deacon" when his nick- name is really "Doc" is likely to cost the votes of a large family, while calling a man "Herman" when his name is "Herman" may produce delighted wonder and swing a precinct in the right direction. CHAPTER XI Concerning That Compound of Many Virtues, Big Bill the Builder, the Possible King Arthur in Avalon Free Entertainment — Worth $200,000,000 a Year — Selfishness of Chicago — Exemplification of Many Virtues — The Use of Patriotism — Denouncing the Ancient Enemy — King George's Snoot — Patriotism and the Children — Books for the Germicidal Fire — The Value of Martyrdom — Perfidious Albion! — Shameful Americans — Illustrating the Value of Enemies — Professors and Clergymen — "America First" — One Specialist to Another — The Patriotic Garbage Cans — Protest of the United States Flag As- sociation — View of the New York Herald -Tribune — The Use of Race Material and Racial Prejudice — The Sixth German City — Freedom for Ireland — 85,000 Negro Voters — The Interests of the People — Their Simple Pleasures — Their Appetites — Shows and Circuses — "Fred" and "Doc" — The Rats' Strange Progeny — Ringmaster of the Shifting Scene — Bill the Nucleus — Correct Play and Unhappy Result — Stirrings in Avalon — Metal Men on Horseback — A Place Beside Joan of Arc. Free Entertainment — Worth $200,000,000 a Year — Selfishness of Chicago. — Whether fully deserved or not, there is no doubt that Chicago has a bad reputation. And one is inclined to think the general judgment not incorrect when one considers what the people of Chicago did to the Honorable William Hale Thompson. He was a man for whom the world gave thanks — not America alone, but the world. In the time of Mr. Thompson's heroic activity scarcely a day passed without his doing something or say- ing something that brightened the lives of many millions of people in this country and abroad. The average citizen, man or woman, has none too much fun in the rough rou- 208 THE POLITICIAN 209 tine of life. Big Bill the Builder gave free entertainment to countless multitudes who could afford very little, if any, money for amusement and recreation. Morning and evening, gray days and gold days, the daily newspaper was scanned with avidity in twenty million American homes to see what Big Bill had been up to. And seldom did he disappoint. On one day he was tell- ing King George the whole duty of a king. On another day he was haranguing rats. On another day he was deal- ing in garbage cans. He was light and gayety, music and laughter — all without expense — in at least twenty million American homes. What was Bill Thompson worth to the people of Amer- ica? Certainly not less than ten dollars a year to each family that enjoyed his infinite variety that age could not wither nor custom stale. That is, he was worth at least $200,000,000 a year to the American people in entertain- ment alone. — And many millions more as an example — of what sort each may decide, according to his own opinions or prejudices. In almost every great ethical system, certainly in Chris- tian ethics, unselfishness has a high place. Most of the people of Chicago claim to be Christians. Yet, knowing the gladness and joy of incalculable value that Big Bill gave to the rest of America and to the world, they selfishly, callously, coldly, indicated their wish that he retire from public office. Their only justification for this — and with this Big Bill and many others did not agree — was that it was best for Chicago that he be dropped into private life. Pure selfishness! No thought of the happiness of others there! So little joy we have, and the selfish Chicagoans plucked at our tiny store! May we express the hope that this regrettable retire- ment of Big Bill's is but temporary! Let us think that, as King Arthur withdrew "to the island-valley of Avilion, where falls not hail, or rain, or any snow," to heal him no THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, of his grievous wound, so Big Bill the Builder has with- drawn also only for repairs. Exemplification of Many Virtues, — The Honorable William Hale Thompson exemplified in one man to a re- markable degree many of those qualities and accomplish- ments of the ideal politician that I have already described and shall describe in the following chapters. Here was a man with a faultless, uncanny sense in discerning the avail- able materials of politics, miraculous power in creating political materials, unerring skill in the use and application of them. Here was a man of such originality, such imag- ination, such invention, that he resurrected a king, King George III, dead a hundred and twenty-five years, dressed him in his royal robes, put offensive words in his mouth, and then reproached him for his despotic acts, for his tyranny, challenged him, defied him! What other Ameri- can politician has had such daring brilliance as to utilize a dead enemy? The Use of Patriotism — Denouncing the Ancient Enemy — King George's Snoot. — But it was not a dead king who performed the greatest service for Big Bill. It was a living king, none other than that gentle and gentle- manly monarch George V, who was called from his throne to minister to the patriot of Chicago. Probably of all American politicians Big Bill showed the greatest mastery in the use of patriotism. In his denunciations of the an- cient enemy, the British, living and dead, he far surpassed all other American politicians, even the Honorable John Faithful Hylan. Big Bill, knowing well the racial com- position of Chicago, set out to purge his city of the virus of Anglophilism, that vicious germ that seems to thrive on wealth and luxury. The richer a community, the more pro-British it becomes, the more it forgets the simple faith and the simple hatreds of the Fathers. It was the high purpose of the mighty Chicagoan to recall the he-manism OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 211 of the early days, the unquestioning condemnation o£ all things British! Big Bill gave more publicity to King George V than the gentle king ever had before in America. Bill's activities were intended to be beneficial, but not to the King. Bill made the royal crown and scepter and ermine of some real use in American democracy. In denouncing King George, what picturesque and fascinating language he used! Said Bill on one occasion: "I take my Republicanism from George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and, if the King don't like it, he can go to Hell!" On another and greater occasion he declared: "I want to make the King of England keep his blasted snoot out of America. That's what I want and all I want. I don't want the League of Nations and I don't want the World Court. America first and last and always. That's Big Bill the Builder." There was a patriotic pronouncement of high, historic character, worthy to rank with "Give me liberty or give me death!" "Don't give up the ship!" and "I have not yet begun to fight!" King George may have wondered a little about his anatomy, but what emotional excitement, of one sort or another, the Great Patriot gave to millions of Americans ! Said the famous Chicagoan again: "The only thing they got against Big Bill is that he won't get up in the morning and sing f God Save the King' before breakfast. Not an- other damned thing." How unreasonable it was in some people to hold against a man that he would not sing the anthem of a foreign country and how, in those happy Billious days, the voters of Chicago flocked to their Hero's support! Bill's patriotism got results that others are still envying. Big Bill described the movement to get the United States to join the World Court as a plot of King George's, and of each man supporting that movement he said: "Boys, the King's got him!" The boys knew enough to 2i2 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, vote down any such venomous character. Bill said in one speech that one opponent of his wanted to shove America into the League of Nations and that this would mean American boys fighting in China. Coupled with this, he said: "If King George had his way, there 'd be a million boys in China to-day to fight the battle for the dirty Englishmen and help the King make a billion dollars in the opium trade." No one in Chicago dared to defend the King. That would have branded the defender as anti- American. For a time Big Bill achieved the goal of the politician — identification of himself with love of country. Any one who was against Bill was against America. 'Patriotism and the Children — Books for the Germicidal Fire — The Value of Martyrdom — Perfidious Albion! — A splendidly conceived combination of the use of patriotic material and of child material was when Big Bill pro- claimed that the minds of the school children of Chicago were being poisoned through the use of history books favorable to a foreign king and derogatory of George Washington and of the Founding Fathers. All the tender solicitude that even the lowest parents feel for their prog- eny was aroused. Advantageous anger blazed in hundreds of thousands of hearts. When Bill the Great American pledged himself to purge the schools, he struck a tender chord. Through the children he won the parents. In this, as in so many departments of political activity, Big Bill set a mark at which others may shoot. Having discovered, with real or well-simulated anger and horror, that the innocent little children were being inoculated with mental poison, the Vigorous Defender of Pure Americanism naturally began an inquiry to learn if adult Chicagoans were being so poisoned also. If the schools were fetid with a mass of British propaganda, what might be the condition of the Public Library? Of all places in every city, the library for all the people should Drawn by McCutcheon, courtesy Chicago Tribune BIG BILL'S MASTERPIECE OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 213 be an impregnable citadel of Americanism. Big Bill, plunging with quickened scent into the Chicago Public Library, found a succulent meal of treason to devour — many volumes reeking with British propaganda. In patri- otic horror, he announced his determination to cleanse the library for the protection of the citizens, or, better, the electorate. Logically, there followed the proposal, con- ceived by one of the Great Patriot's lieutenants, one "Sport" Hermann, called by unpatriotic critics "Profes- sor" Hermann, that the diseased and guilty books be for- cibly ravished from the library shelves and be burned in a germicidal fire at a public ceremony before thousands of admiring voters. The proposal seemed a masterpiece of militant patriotism calculated to make politicians over the country green with envy. For some mysterious rea- son, it seems not to have been carried out. Upon the head of the Purifier of the Library and the Protector of Little Children there descended an avalanche of abuse. But it was abuse that blessed. Benign and beneficent Big Bill became a martyr, a martyr to Ameri- canism, and martyrdom is often very helpful. It is part of the art of politics to know when and how to be a mar- tyr. Big Bill was burned in effigy in London on Guy Fawkes Day, and it was well. For the flames of hostility in London begat brighter flames of admiration and sup- port in Chicago. Some Canadians asked the League of Nations to appoint a universal Day of Prayer on which the whole world would pray for the redemption of Chi- cago. From Greenland's icy mountains to India's coral strands supplications were to rise in many tongues. They never did, but it was an asset to Big Bill to have the League of Nations apparently ranged against him. Other Canadians tried to start a boycott of goods made in Chi- cago. The more the Britishers opposed, the more Chicago- ans flocked to the support of the Heroic Martyr. Perfidious Albion! When British opposition could not 2i 4 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, down him, an attempt was made to corrupt, to seduce, the Great Patriot, to wheedle him, to sap his strength with blandishments, to kill him with kindness. One great Brit- ish Lord asked Bill to be his guest in England and promised that the Chicagoan would be given every opportunity to study England's warlike preparations against America and especially against Chicago. Bill did not fall into the trap. He may not have been thinking of Lady Clara Vere de Vere — as that poem was written by an English poet! — but he saw the snare and he retired. A Lord Bishop of Scotland tried to flatter Bill by calling him "a surprising fellow" with "some intelligence," but Bill was not sus- ceptible to such compliments and cajolery. He kept his head, and upon it continued to rest his great sombrero, not a coronet. Shameful Americans — Illustrating the Value of Enemies — Professors and Clergymen. — Truth to tell, it was not the British themselves who leveled the greatest abuse against Patriot Bill. It was a group of renegade Ameri- cans — soft Anglophiles — editors, professors, clergymen. But Bill rejoiced in these attacks. At least, we must sup- pose he did, for his political acumen must have informed him that they inured to his benefit. As has been shown in a previous chapter, properly selected enemies are an asset to a politician, and Bill's were of that sort. Bill knew that a successful politician must not only denounce but must be denounced. The more he was attacked, the more he appeared the Supreme American, showing the fortitude of the patriots of Lexington and Concord, of Washington at Valley Forge, of Andy Jackson at New Orleans. The deeply lamented New York World called Bill "a demagogue rising to power by appealing to the very low- est prejudices of the people," with "greed and ambition masquerading as patriotism." (Unintentional compliments to political sagacity.) The Washington Star, commenting on Bill's patriotic campaign against the venomous books, AMUSING LITTLE CHAP Drawn by A. G. Racey, courtesy Montreal Daily Star GIVING THEM A GOOD LAUGH OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 215 said he had "become the laughing-stock of the country." The Independent, Boston, referred to Bill's well-directed shafts against King George as "imbecilities." The Balti- more Sun said Bill had become a comic figure, and the Chicago Journal said the country would never again take him seriously. Even radical publications took a slash at Bill. The Socialist New Leader, New York City, called him "a man with the brains of a parish beadle, a demagog of the lowest type, half clown and a perfect fool," and the Communist Daily Worker, New York City, described Bill's attacks on King George and the history books as "buffoonery" and "clownish antics." We have seen in a preceding section of this book that abuse of a politician by a hostile press can sometimes be used to advantage. It was so with Big Bill the Builder. He gave the impression of fighting the battle of real Amer- icans against the contaminated supporters of the subtle Britishers. Like Bossy Gillis and Huey Long, Bill had a publication of his own to support his policies, and the Hearst newspapers backed up his Americanism. Bill's political assets also included denunciations by indi- vidual enemies, not only in his home town but in cities throughout the country. Professor Whittlesey of Prince- ton said: "It is doubtful if a more * ever attained so high an office in American politics." The Reverend Dr. Henry Darlington, rector of the Church of the Heavenly Rest, New York City, said that Bill seemed "to be pouring out hate in condemnation of a great people for what he considers political advantage" and "the sur- prising part of it is that he can find a bunch of apparent numbskulls to trail along with him." The Reverend Dr. Christian F. Reisner of New York City said: "In its shal- low hunt for a laugh, a great city glorifies a clown." The Reverend Dr. Minot Simons, of All-Souls Unitarian • Professor Whittlesey did not use profanity here, but it seems best to omit his powerful language. 2i6 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Church, New York City, called the Salient Patriot of America "a flaming demagogue who achieves election on issues which have nothing to do with the real business of his office." (A statement that any wise politician would consider a compliment.) And the Reverend Franklin J. Kennedy, of the First Methodist Church, New Haven, Connecticut, said that Bill's campaign to rid Chicago schools of the pro-British histories was "a smoke-screen to take attention away from the corruption and misgovern- ment" of Chicago. That last was a high compliment, too, as indicating Bill's supreme ability in a department of politics I have men- tioned before, namely, the direction of public attention into favorable channels when damaging attacks occur. The fact is that, in general, the open opposition of min- isters is usually an asset to a politician. It is inconceivable that Bill Thompson was troubled by the ministers. ff America First" — One Specialist to Another. — While the iron was hot, while Bill was patriotically denouncing the enemy and was being denounced by those under Brit- ish influence, he wisely founded the "America First Foun- dation," open to all who were ready to establish their hundred percent Americanism by sending in the dues of ten dollars. This move was a new advertisement, a new political asset, cleverly designed to put Patriot Bill at the head of the nationalists of America. One of the first to send in the required ten-dollar membership fee was a man who had been second only to Big Bill himself in denounc- ing the British, none other than John Faithful Hylan, former Mayor of New York City. It was a happy and appropriate tribute from one specialist to another. Even for founding the great patriotic organization Big Bill was denounced, but all the denunciation was grist to his mill. When highbrows denounced him, Bill smiled, wisely, wrinkling pleasantly all his multiplicity of chins. The Charleston (South Carolina) Mail said that Bill ck- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 217 sired "to form an association of morons that by mere dead weight will hold the nation down to the level of their grade." Of course, Bill had no such intention. But, as we have associations of every other possible classification of people, why not an association of morons? The non- moronic, the intellectual New York Times said that Bill depended "on ignorance, on racial and class prejudice and on advocacy of the open town," and demanded that Bill be beaten "for the honor of American civilization." A writer in the Forum said that Bill was backed by propri- etors of dives and was anti-Catholic to Protestants and anti-King George to the Irish. Every knock was a boost. Big Bill said so, and every budding politician, as well as every withering one, could profit by Bill's wisdom. The Patriotic Garbage Cans — Protest of the United States Flag Association — View of the New York rr Herald Tribune/' — Experts are still debating pro and con over the wisdom of the famous episode of the patriotic garbage cans. This was, of course, but a part of Big Bill's sleeplessly sustained campaign to identify himself with the American Flag. Mention has been made above of the great value a politician derives from this sort of thing, and in this Bill was peerless. It did seem that the American Flag and Bill were almost synonymous — inseparable buddies. No other politician has ever displayed such consummate skill in the use of the Flag. He employed it as a campaign emblem for his party ticket; on the ballots it was Bill and the Flag. He had the Flag painted on the sides of automobiles that he and his cohorts used in elections. The Dear Old Flag was draped above his mighty bulk when he sat in the Mayor's chair. When he made his campaign speeches, he held a small American Flag in his hand and waved it in a proprietary way at his audiences. The Old Flag was good enough for him. In his scheme of things, it was the center of every celebration. And, because Bill and the Dear Old Flag were so inti- 218 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, mately familiar, it seemed natural and proper to him and the Flag that they be associated in the little things and the lower things as well as in the greater and higher. So it was that Big Bill proposed to use the Flag for the decoration of garbage cans and garbage wagons in a parade to cele- brate the completion of a great incinerator plant. Bill was politically right about this, of course. What a lesson in practical patriotism, for all the people, is the creation of a beneficent, sanitary incinerator! There's likely to be a lot of Flag-waving when a new City Hall is completed, but is such an ornamental structure really as important in the life of the people as an incinerator plant? Big Bill, with penetrating wisdom, said: "The prompt disposal of garbage and the elimination of pestilence might well be celebrated through the use of the American Flag." Right! Yet Bill was jeered and abused for this, by those who did not realize that patriotism should be a growth from the soil below, by those who did not understand political values. The United States Flag Association, speaking ex cathedra from Washington, telegraphed to Big Bill: "Dis- patches announce that, in celebration of completion of an incinerator plant, you are planning a parade of 2,000 loaded garbage cans decorated with American Flags. If this is correct, the United States Flag Association wishes to protest most emphatically against such desecration of our national emblem." Who were the people of the United States Flag Associa- tion? By what authority could they speak of patriotism to the most noted Patriot of the nation? Why should they protest if the Flag were connected with the homely and useful activities of life? Why should they be more em- phatic if the garbage cans were loaded? Garbage cans on the way to an incinerator ought to be loaded. There was no empty fraud and deception about Big Bill. The New York Herald Tribune, chief organ of Bill's own Republican Party, had a truer view of the Flag- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 219 draped garbage cans than had the intrusive United States Flag Association. Said the sententious Trib: "After all, there is something honest and sincere and emi- nently useful about a garbage can. It makes no pretense about its contents, but frankly destines them for the dump, or the incinerator, where they belong. This is more than can be said for many of our politicians whose right to wave the Flag is never questioned. The discrimination seems unjust." In that tribute a subtle slight may have been hidden. There seems a hint that certain politicians ought to go the way of the garbage. But we cannot take the time to analyze the Herald Tribune's subtleties. As I recall it, Bill did not go through with the Flag and Can Parade. In that, he may have made one of his few mistakes. Aside from the patriotic fragrance that would have hung over the procession as a sort of aura, it would have been a good show. Big Bill was always the Great Showman. The Use of Race Material and Racial Prejudice — The Sixth German City — Freedom for Ireland — 85,000 Negro Voters. — During the World War, Big Bill's warm feeling for the Germans and his slighting of visiting French dig- nitaries won for him the firm and enduring affection of all the Teutonic hearts of Chicago. And there are many such Teutonic hearts in the Windy City. And very few French. Bill knew that, of course. If there had been hundreds of thousands of Chicagoans of French descent and few Germans . . . But there weren't. During the World War period Bill declared that Chicago was "the sixth German city" in the world, and the Germans of Chi- cago showed their gratitude with their votes. Bill's unre- mitting attacks on King George and the plotting Britishers endeared him to the Irish voters, and it was widely held that "Freedom for Ireland" was the slogan that swept him into office for his second term. 220 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Bill the Emancipator was a master in developing the political material offered him in the Negro. Negroes don't vote in New Orleans or Atlanta, but they do in Chicago. With penetrating vision, Bill saw the durable advantage of a solid lump of 85,000 Negro votes. He became so good a friend to the Negro that, when he ran for Mayor for a third term, the three Negro wards of Chicago gave him the majority that won for him, and, as a result, Negroes from four great states of the South prepared to flock to Chicago. Enemies said during the campaign that victory for Bill in that election would mean turning the city over to the Negroes, and this, of course, brought the Negroes into Bill's camp more completely than before. Bill Thompson's flawless political technique in handling racial material has scarcely been approached by other con- temporary American politicians. The Interests of the People — Their Simple Pleasures — Their Appetites. — In the last chapter I touched on the necessity of politicians' showing themselves at one with the people in the people's homely interests. Mention was made of the suffering endured by some of our great in photo- graphic fishing and at baseball games. Big Bill the Sports- man understood all this. How much more skillfully than the unwilling Presidents he showed that the appetites and pleasures of the people were his appetites and pleasures! No one ever caught Bill at a polo match, although he an- nounced that in his earlier days he had been familiar with bucking bronchos. Bucking bronchos are for common men — he-men. No polo! — but there is another game con- nected with horses that is a game of the people. It was Bill who made horseshoe-pitching a brilliant pageant, presenting to thousands of spectators in a magnificent ball- room champion contestants, attired like Venetian gondo- liers in blue and scarlet and white, who threw fifty-four "ringers" in one contest. After the great spectacle, Bill announced: "Without decrying the advantages of golf, I OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 221 consider the pitching of horseshoes the poor man's ideal athletic game." Since nearly every one is poor, there are many more voters to be gained among the poor than among the rich. Such understanding as Bill showed in this horseshoe af- fair, such attention to detail, arouse the respect, almost the awe, of observers of political activities. Fishing? — Bill was the organizer and the most promi- nent member of the Fish Fans' Club of Chicago, and his fishing expeditions were always splendidly publicized. Prize-fighting? That's another watching sport for mil- lions of American voters. Bill entertained Gene Tunney, then heavyweight champion, at luncheon. The simple pleasures of the real people were Bill's pleasures, too. No politician ever understood them better. He well understood the people's appetites. Bill's time of glory — there may be another one ahead! — was in the prohibition era. He had to contend with the problems of the noble experiment. The situation was a liability for many, but an asset for Bill. He promised the people that, in his regime, the police would not "frisk mattresses for pints," and this assurance satisfied the voters that he sym- pathized with their appetites. It is said that in Bill's day the liquor trade was quite extensive in Chicago. Big Bill knew the human stomach. He knew that the human mind, the elector's suffrage, is only an adjunct to it! Shows and Circuses — "Fred" and "Doc" — The Rats 9 Strange Vrogeny, — Bill the Maestro's brilliant conception of a great parade of flag-draped garbage cans not only would have been a splendid proof of patriotism but would have been a public show of a high order. Bill knew so well the public appetite for shows, especially free shows, and he was always the Supreme Showman. Each of his cam- paigns was a circus in itself, and this circus quality was one of the great factors in the success of his campaigning. He made very effective use of bands and parades. His 222 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, meetings were enlivened by the singing of a quartet of policemen who performed through megaphones. Patri- otic, American songs they sang. Bill understood better than any other American politician that the average inef- fective, inarticulate and unhoping voter looks upon an election and its preceding campaign as a great pastime, not as a matter connected with the serious business of govern- ment. One of Bill's best-conceived and most entertaining shows was that featuring "Fred" and "Doc." This was no great and elaborate pageant like some of Bill's vast and splendid conceptions. Instead, it was characterized by that simplicity of genius that astounds and delights. In one of his great campaigns Showman Bill appeared at his clamorous meetings accompanied by two live rats in a cage. A section of his speech at each meeting was addressed to the rats, which, or who, were designated as "Fred" and "Doc." They were addressed in picturesque and forcible language which disclosed all the iniquities of the humans represented by the rodents. For "Fred" stood for Fred Lundin, "the Poor Swede," as he called himself, once Bill's chief political supporter and afterwards an enemy, and "Doc" represented Dr. John Dill Robertson, sometimes called by Bill "Dill Pickle," also once an ally and later on the outside. To take the common things of life — in this instance, lower animals — two rats — and use them in valuable les- sons for one's fellow men is genius. So Socrates, twenty- three hundred years ago, used in his penetrating question- ings simple illustrations of calves and asses, and made clear to those to whom he spoke the errors of themselves and of others. It has always seemed to me that Bill Thompson's pair of rats bore strange and unnatural progeny. That is, I think their offspring was Ogden Mills's Rosie the Cow. If so, Bill was the Creative Genius, but the adaptive Mr. Mills OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 223 deserves credit for being not too proud to imitate a good thing. Ringmaster of the Shifting Scene — Bill the Nucleus. — Reference to "Fred" and "Doc" recalls another phase of Big Bill's political greatness, another phase worthy of emu- lation by every studious politician. The veriest tyro in political research knows that those allied in politics at one time may be snarling enemies a little later, and that snarl- ing enemies in one campaign may be buddies a couple of years afterwards. "Politics makes strange bedfellows" is an old saying. Every politician knows that new issues make new alignments — and new necessities make new alliances. All this was perfectly illustrated in the gay Billious days in Chicago when Bill the Builder rose over the waters of Lake Michigan like a beneficent sun and for a golden time illumined the heavens smiling upon the great City of the Plain. In those days the Republican politicians of Chicago, with bewildering, kaleidoscopic shifting and juggling, united and divided and reunited in new alliances and re- divided into fresh rivalries. In this — most inappropriately, of course — they resembled those little creatures of the sea that are the lowest form of animal life. For conjugation and fission are the course of that slimy, primitive form of life — the single, unified creature dividing into two, and two such creatures uniting into one, and life going on all the time — just as conjugation and fission were the course of the political leaders of Chicago. Yet, how marvelously, in all the shifting and dividing and uniting, Big Bill always remained the leader, as it were, the nucleus of the organ- ism. That dance of the amcebas — if the figure can be con- tinued — included Len and Blond Bill and Frank and Bob and Ed and Fred and Doc — in addition to Nucleus Bill. Round and round they swirled, and Big Bill attached to himself first one and then another, using the strength of each while it was beneficial to him and ridding himself of 224 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, each when no longer useful. When they dropped away from Nucleus Bill, each became poor and powerless. In his hey and halcyon days, Big Bill displayed with a con- vincing clarity shown by no other American politician the method and the advantage of making and breaking alliances on the basis of profit and expediency. Correct Play and Unhappy Result — Stirrings in Avalon — Metal Men on Horseback — A Place Beside Joan of Arc. — If Big Bill the Builder possessed so complete a political equipment as has been herein described, how could he ever be retired to private life, how could he ever be persuaded to refrain from seeking office for quiet years on years? Apparently he did everything correctly. But every bridge player knows that, occasionally, there comes a deal in which one may bid, lead and play according to the best practice and still be badly beaten, due to an abnormal dis- tribution of the cards. Something of that sort may have happened to Bill. There are those who say that the people of Chicago turned against Bill because the municipal gov- ernment in his regime was corrupt and inefficient. Even if such charges had been true, it seems hardly possible that Chicagoans could have let matters of that kind weigh down the balance against Bill's unique virtues. Life was rich in Chicago in Bill's great days, but the benighted den- izens of the Illinois city did not know richness of living when they had it. But again there is hope that Chicago will return to its old appreciations. There are stirrings in Avalon; the mighty bulk of Big Bill shows signs of awakening from its long sleep. The day after the great Democratic "ground- slide" in 1934 the New York Times Chicago correspond- ent wrote of political prospects there. In his article he said: "One of the consequences of the election that interests Chi- cagoans is the setting of the stage for the return of 'Big Bill' OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 225 Thompson as Republican candidate for Mayor in April 1935. The local Republican ticket, that was hopelessly buried last Tuesday, represented an anti-Thompson effort to reorganize and reform the party. Its failure to justify itself by victory at the polls in a single instance, or even to make a display of fighting strength, is the cue for 'Big Bill's' dramatic entrance from the wings, where he has been observing sardonically the reformers' attempt to get somewhere." That dispatch gave us hope for the return of light and laughter, music and gayety, into twenty million American homes. Big Bill did not run for Mayor of Chicago in the spring of 1935. Perhaps he was wise. Mayor Kelly's tremendous majority probably indicated that Bill's time was not yet ripe, and he was shrewd enough to see that in advance. As Arthur waits the time of Britain's need, Bill awaits — the psychological moment. Some of us of a naturally optimistic disposition are hopeful that Big Bill may perform for his party an even greater service than running for Mayor of Chicago. The shattered Republican forces of the nation are looking for a new leader, some one characteristic of their ideals, upon whom they may unite. Perhaps Big Bill Thompson is the man. We all have to guard against wishful thinking. But it does seem to me that there ought to be room in Washing- ton for a statue of Big Bill. Washington is full of statues, most of them of metal men on horseback. Many of the statues are erected to the wrong men, to undeserving men. There ought to be a place, a high, a prominent place, for a man like Big Bill, for a big statue of Big Bill. I would suggest Meridian Park, that commanding site on the crest of Embassy Hill. I'd move Joan of Arc over a little and put the big bronze statue of Big Bill beside her. She led her people victoriously against the English. So did Bill. I think I would hire Jacob Epstein to do the statue of Bill, 226 THE POLITICIAN for Epstein would be able to express the vast and earthy spirit of the man. But I would specify that the sculpture must include a great sombrero on the head, a little Amer- ican Flag in the right hand and a cage containing two rats in the left. CHAPTER XII Concerning Certain Special Equipment of a Poli- tician, His Nickname, His Slogan, His Menace Worth Being Honest For— "Silent Cal," "Battling Bob," "Uncle Andy," et al.— The Failure of "Big Bill" Ganneld— And "Wet" He Was— Alliteration— Old "Honest Og"— "Red Mike"— "The Sons of the Wild Jackass"— "A Seat for Every Child"— "Cool- idge or Chaos"— "He Kept Us Out of War"— "Me for Ma!"— The Real Menaces — How They Differ from the Announced Ones — Colors in Menaces — Popular Menaces of To-day — Of the Right and the Left — Skillful Use by Republicans — The Menace of Greed — Its Many Forms — Convincing Restraint — God and Hydro-electric Power — The Most Valuable Menace To-day — The Real Function of the Reds — Imagine a Redless Fish — In- sidious and Sinister — Learning as a Menace — Many Educated Republicans — How the Politician Chooses His Menace. Worth Being Honest For— "Silent Cal; 9 "Battling Bob," "Uncle Andy/' et ah— The Failure of "Big Bill" Gan field. — "Honest Vic" Donahey was elected United States Sen- ator from Ohio in the Democratic groundslide of 1934, defeating the saintly Senator Fess, of whom, as we saw, the Chicago Tribune said that he "could jump from daisy to daisy across a meadow and leave each stem unbowed." To defeat such an agile and astute politician was a notable feat, and "Honest Vic" did it partly because he was "Hon- est Vic." I mean that the nickname was really a potent help. "You know me, old 'Honest Vic,' " he used to say in his brief, homely talks during the campaign. And the voters showed with a cracking majority that they did know him. Nicknames, especially if they contain some simple, popular adjective, such as "Honest" or "Big," or some 227 228 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, stirring adjective, such as "Battling" or "Fighting," are a real asset to a politician. It is almost worth being honest to get such a satisfying nickname as "Honest John" or "Honest Vic." If the apprentice in politics recalls the successful poli- ticians of the recent past and looks about him in the pres- ent, he observes that nicknames have played and do play a big part in the political advance of the ambitious indi- vidual. While Calvin Coolidge was President, a writer in one of the liberal magazines went to the trouble of calcu- lating how many words had been uttered by the President in speeches and public statements. He concluded that Mr. Coolidge had been more loquacious than Mr. Harding, Mr. Wilson or Mr. Taft. But all the time he was "Silent Cal," and that nickname was a great asset to him. "Battling Bob" was very helpful to Senator La Follette the Elder, and "Young Bob" has been a benefit to the pres- ent Senator La Follette, who now seems deserving of his father's nickname. Theodore Roosevelt derived immense advantage from "Teddy." "The Commoner" was useful to William Jennings Bryan in consolidating his position, and "Uncle Joe" was surely a big benefit to Mr. Cannon. "Uncle" is a very good nickname for a man of somewhat advanced years. "Uncle Andy" almost made Andrew W. Mellon popular. Nothing could really do that, but the nickname made a good many people believe that Mr. Mel- lon belonged to the human race. "Prince Nick" did the late Representative Longworth no harm, nor, many years before, was President Van Buren injured by having his son called "Prince John." The American people are very fond of royalty and very eager to support it. "Al," used by millions of affectionate admirers, has long been valuable to Alfred Emanuel Smith. "Alfalfa Bill," applied to the great Oklahoman, "Puddler Jim," to Sena- tor Davis of Pennsylvania, and the "Kingfish," insepa- rably attached to Senator Long, are labels that the posses- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 229 sors would not part with for much gold. Friends of the newly elected Senator from Mississippi are seeking to stick "Bilbo the Builder" to him. Probably they realize how useful "Big Bill the Builder" was to Mayor Thompson. "Jimmie" is a nickname that makes a good impression on the multitude. Diminutives have always been terms of endearment, and "Jimmie" seems peculiarly warm and intimate. "Jimmie" was worth tens of thousands of votes to the — politically — late James J. Walker of New York City. Try to imagine him as "James Walker!" "Jimmie" has also been a lifting force for Mr. Curley, former Mayor of Boston and now Governor of Massachusetts. It's not a name that would have helped his Puritan predecessors, but it's good in Massachusetts to-day. On the whole, of course, a politician does well to have a common name, such as John, James, Joseph, William, Charles, Robert, Frank, George, Philip, Daniel, Adam, Frederick, Thomas, Richard, Andrew, Matthew — some- thing of the sort — and his nickname should be built around the nucleus of that common name of his. Fore- sighted parents will keep this in mind. Names like Reginald, Percy, Herbert, Harold, Hyacinthe, Alphonse, Ignatius, Aloysius, Antonio, Stanislaus, Simon, Ogden, Augustus, Rollo, are not recommended. Something simple, close-to-the-soil, is the best. A name that is not very pop- ular but is not high-toned, such as Hiram or Reuben, is perfectly good. Think of Hiram Johnson of California. "Hell-roarin' Hiram," sometimes applied to this politician, so successful that he was the nominee of Democrats, Re- publicans, Progressives, et al., has been quite an aid. It has a cyclonic flavor that sweeps up the votes. "Bill" is about as good a nickname as any for a politi- cian, and "Big Bill," if the physique warrants it, is splendid. The glories of "Big Bill" Thompson have been recounted. That name was worth much. William H. Edwards, once a Princeton football player, afterwards a New York City 2 3 o THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, politician, rejoiced in "Big Bill." He deserved it too, as he weighed three or four hundred pounds. Appreciation of the nickname "Big Bill" was shown on one occasion when it was used without much effect. That was in 1922, in Wisconsin, when conservative Republicans desperately tried to defeat Senator La Follette the Elder for renomi- nation. A William Ganfield, president of some small col- lege in Wisconsin, was dragged forth to make the run against "Battling Bob." "President Ganfield" doubtless would have aroused little warmth in the breasts of Wis- consin voters, and the Old Guard managers were wise enough to know that. So, as President Ganfield was a large man, his sponsors tried to label him "Big Bill." But the label didn't stick very well. And, besides, it is prac- tically against the law in Wisconsin for a voter not to put a cross in front of the name "La Follette" if it is on the ballot. "Big Bill" didn't help much in that instance, but the forcible use of it showed how politicians value it. "Honest John" is at least as good a nickname for a poli- tician as "Big Bill." The Honorable John Faithful Hylan of New York, while he lasted, found it a help, and it has been equally effective for others. Thus far, no politician has utilized the nickname "Black Beauty" or "Beautiful Joe," but that may be in store for us, especially the former, as the Negroes become politically more articulate. And "Wet" He Was— Alliteration— Old "Honest Og" —"Red Mike"— "The Sons of the Wild Jackass."— An instance of accurate realization of the value of a significant nickname occurred in Texas in the spring of 1932. Walter J. W. Reid, of Dallas, long a fervid participant in local politics and long opposed to prohibition, decided to seek the Democratic nomination for Representative in Con- gress. He filed as "Walter J. Wet Reid." The Secretary of the Democratic County Committee, who seems to have some power down in Texas, ruled that, as Mr. Reid had not OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 231 been named "Wet" by his parents, he could not use that name on the ballot. This cruel, legalistic ruling did not balk Mr. Reid. He went into the District Court and became by law Walter Jackson Wet Reid, and on the ballot he appeared as "Walter J. Wet Reid." Mr. Reid knew his onions — or his beer kegs. Alliteration, an effective literary device since the days of Piers Plovstnan, should be employed by the politician in choosing his nickname, if possible. The "B-B-B" is an im- portant part of "Big Bill the Builder." There's a punch in that "B-B-B." "Battling Bob" and "Hell-roarin' Hiram" are other good examples of alliteration. "Hand- some Ham" might not be bad for Representative Hamil- ton Fish, Jr. Ogden Mills might do better — get closer to the people — if he were generally known as "Honest Og." If, when he was leading Rosie the Cow around, he had imi- tated Senator Donahey and had started his addresses with "You know me, old ^Honest Og, 3 " he might have come closer to the Governorship of New York. Seeing the wide practice of seasoned and successful poli- ticians in this matter of acquiring and using nicknames, the young and hopeful politician will surely take steps to follow suit. He will arrange with some close friend or with some friendly newspaper to start calling him "Honest John" Blaha or "Big Bill" Blaha or "Uncle Tim" Blaha or "Alfalfa Pete" Blaha or "Battling Billy" Blaha or some- thing of the sort. Nor will he scorn making use of a nick- name first started in derision by his enemies, if it seems to have possibilities. It was not friends of John Faithful Hylan who first started calling him "Red Mike," but "Honest John" was shrewd enough to see that "Red Mike" smacked of the common people. He did not reject it; he welcomed it. And the Hearst newspapers used it in telling the glories of their then favorite. Collective use of a nickname, if it could be called such, given to a group of men by an enemy, occurred in 1930. 2 3 i THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Senator (now — so sadly — an Ex) Moses of New Hamp- shire described some of the Progressive Republican Sena- tors of the West as "The Sons of the Wild Jackass." At first, the butts of the gay Senator's ridicule did not like it. Later, they saw that, out on the horse-swept prairies, the opposition of the gilded Easterner was a godsend to them. They proudly called themselves "The Sons of the Wild Jackass," and clubs supporting them were organized under the name, "The Sons [or the Daughters] of the Wild Jackass." ff A Seat for Every Child"— "Coolidge or Chaos"— "He Kept Us Out of War"— "Me for Ma!"— "The Sons of the Wild Jackass" was perhaps nearer to a slogan than it was to a nickname. Slogans, of course, are not to be neglected. Nothing is to be neglected. As the principal object of a politician is getting himself elected to public office, he nat- urally makes use of every possible means, no matter how small, of achieving this desired end. No effective item is too puny for a politician to utilize in his questing for his quarry, that is, for votes. "A seat for every child" was once a favorite slogan of John Faithful Hylan's. Mr. Hylan, in his long eight years as Mayor of New York City, never provided in the schools of the metropolis a seat for every school child, but that was not the object of the slogan. The object of the slogan was, if Mr. Hylan were following usual political practice, not seats for children but votes for Hylan. If so, it was a very successful slogan. "Coolidge or Chaos!" was a very effec- tive slogan employed by the Republicans in 1924. Of course, Mr. Coolidge needed no slogan in that election. The Democratic cat-fight in the New York convention and the candidacy of Senator La Follette assured the elec- tion of Mr. Coolidge. But the slogan probably helped to swell the great Coolidge majority. Colonel George Har- vey, who created the slogan, thought it elected Mr. Cool- idge, but Colonel Harvey suffered under the hallucination OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 233 that all Presidents had been elected by his actions. No sane person believed that the election of John W. Davis would have meant chaos. But it was an effective slogan. "Let us have done with wiggle and wobble!" was the Republican slogan in 1920 when Mr. Harding was elected President. Again, in that year, the Republicans really needed no slogan. They could probably have won the elec- tion with no nominees for President and Vice-President at all, nominating only the Republican candidates for the Electoral College and choosing the President and Vice- President after the election. Yet the slogan doubtless made some votes, convincing wavering ones that a strong, stead- fast, consistent course, under the Republicans, was what the country needed. Far more potent and effective, however, than the Hard- ing slogan, more decisive, was the Democratic slogan of 19 1 6: "He kept us out of war!" Without "He kept us out of war!" Mr. Wilson would not have been reelected. The fact that slogans are not indicators of action but are merely means of getting votes is proved by Mr. Wilson's not keeping us out of war after being reelected and by Mr. Harding's doing, when President, more wiggling and wobbling than any other President ever in office. "Me for Ma!" elected Mrs. Ferguson Governor of Texas. Under the hypnotic influence of this catchy slogan, what did the voters of Texas care for memories of the impeach- ment of Jim Ferguson, husband of Ma and former Gov- ernor? The wise politician — male or female — knows that the American people do not always vote with their heads but with some other part of their anatomy. The politician acts on this basis. He usually chooses a slogan not to induce thought but to deaden it. The Real Menaces — How They Differ from the An- nounced Ones — Colors in Menaces, — A well-equipped pol- itician needs more than a good nickname and a catchy slogan. He also needs a convincing Menace. The anxious 234 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, politician, seeking to get a start in the difficult field of his choice, must not fail to provide himself with an effective Menace. Of course, the real Menaces are the Republican and Democratic Parties, or, rather, the candidates of those parties. That is, speaking realistically, the Menace to a Republican candidate is the Democratic candidate, and the Menace to a Democratic candidate is the Republican can- didate. Except in Minnesota and Wisconsin, candidates of other parties are no genuine Menace at all. But politicians never speak of Democratic and Repub- lican candidates as Menaces. The Menaces that they dis- cover and make use of are a different sort. They are or- ganizations, races, tendencies, systems of thought, princi- ples, that they consider — or affect to consider — threaten- ing to the well-being, or even to the existence, of the nation. Each politician of any quality or prospects must cast about and get himself one of these. Since the beginning of our Republic, yes, before, our American politicians have been unearthing and employing Menaces. Most of the great political careers of our na- tional past have been closely connected with Menaces, and in the future, it is safe to say, there will be no change in this respect. We seem to have run somewhat to colors in our Menaces. Once it was the Red Menace of the Indians. For a time there was, in some sections at least, a Black Menace, the menace of Negro domination. Then there was the Yellow Menace, more frequently referred to as the Yellow Peril. It is still usable on the Pacific Coast. And now we have the Red Menace again — this time, the grisly, blood-dripping monster of Russian Communism, as well as a lot of its relatives and friends. That is the most popular Menace to-day. Popular Menaces of To-day — Of the Right and the Left — Skillftd Use by Republicans. — The principal Menaces in active use at present by our politicians, some of which have already been touched upon, are the following: the rich in OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 235 general, the international bankers, the bankers, Wall Street, the interests, the public utilities, the militarists — all the preceding being what might be called Menaces of the Right — and the pacifists, the bonus-seeking veterans, the unemployed and recipients of relief, the advocates of regimentation and of public ownership, the Socialists, the Communists — the Reds in general. These are the Menaces of the Left. With the problems of Socialist and Communist politi- cians we have little concern to-day, although the future may tell a different story. We are concerned chiefly with Democratic and Republican politicians. In general, Dem- ocratic politicians make use of Menaces of the Right and Republican politicians specialize in Menaces of the Left. There are, to be sure, certain special and sectional Menaces that are to be employed when conditions are favorable. The Southern Pacific Railway was a very satisfactory Menace for Hiram Johnson and other California politi- cians years ago. The Orientals — the Heathen Chinee and the indefatigable Jap — are still splendid Menaces on the whole Pacific Coast, particularly in California. The Cath- olics are sometimes employed as a Menace. We have seen how effectively the Republicans made use of them in 1928. The Republicans have really done splendidly with Men- aces. In 1920 they utilized the League of Nations, and succeeded admirably in frightening millions of Americans so that their hands trembled as they voted the straight Republican ticket. In 1924 the Republicans were still using the League but they were also employing Chaos. It was "Coolidge or Chaos!" Since then they have been dressing up the World Court as an horrendous monster. It has done pretty well. But they have had other Menaces, especially the Reds. Menaces that are used by politicians do not, of course, need to have any real existence at all, and seldom do they have an existence comparable to the pictures of them 27,6 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, painted by the shrewd politician. It is necessary that the voters should believe in the existence of the Menaces, and it is the task and problem of the politician to see that they do. Successful use of the British as a Menace by Mayor Thompson and by Mayor Hylan shows what can be done along this line. The Menace of Greed — Its Many Forms — Convincing Restraint — God and Hydro-electric Power. — Decade after decade, wealth, often described as predatory wealth or grasping greed, has been a very dependable Menace. It is as good to-day as it was in the time of Theodore Roose- velt, who specialized in it. Predatory wealth fortunately takes so many forms — a regular Proteus or Old Man of the Sea — that the politician need never bore the electorate. He can forever display some new iniquity. Of recent years, one of the most popular forms of this perennial Menace has been the Power Trust, particularly in its horrid aspect of seeking to seize the streams of the nation for creating hydro-electric power. A good example of how this Menace may be presented occurred in a speech delivered by the Honorable Hiram Johnson at San Diego, California, on Labor Day, 1927. Here is just an excerpt: "In Illinois a gentleman named Insull has become the domi- nating factor in the economic life of that state by virtue of his acquisition of its hydro-electric activities. In his control is the electric power of that great commonwealth. . . . He possesses a stranglehold upon the economic life of Illinois. . . . The de- velopment of electric energy in its various forms . . . will make him who controls this modern giant dictator of our economic life, and easy is the descent then, with the enormous profits accruing, to the purchase of our political life as well. "I realize that in this sordid epoch the man who would save God's natural gifts for all the people is, in the view of the sub- servient press and public officials who play the lackey to power and wealth, an arrant and irresponsible demagogue. . . . The OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 237 one remaining natural resource is our water, from which may be derived that impalpable, intangible power that now moves the world. The last stand for the preservation for all God's creatures of what yet remains of this boon is now being made. On the one side are those, not many now, who believe the Creator smiles upon all alike, and who would with our natural resources do equal justice to all. On the other side are the wealth and power of greed and avarice and the vast horde who wallow in the profits of special private predatory interests, and who insolently demand that what belongs to all shall be given to a few. . . ." There are some points worthy of scrutiny and study in this passage. First, is the alarming picture the great Cali- fornian paints of Greed reaching out insidiously to seize the last resource of an exploited people. He shows a true Menace. Next, is the admirable restraint of language employed. Much more violent speeches by other politi- cians exposing Menaces could be quoted. Listeners to, readers of, Senator Johnson's speech must have been con- vinced of the existence of the Senator's Menace by the careful restraint of his language. Third, is the fact that the author of this speech very effectively conveyed the impression that God was on his side. Nearly all trained politicians bring out that point not infrequently. God is on their side of economic questions. In this instance, God was apparently against the private development of hydro- electric power. At correctly chosen times, the politician does well to emphasize the fact that God is with him in opposing his particular Menace. As will be seen later, he derives great strength from having Lincoln on his side, and the Creator is helpful to him, too. The Most Valuable Menace To-day — The Real Func- tion of the Reds — Imagine a Redless Fish! — Iniquitous Wealth, the great Menace of the Right, is, no doubt, the long-range champion. Even to-day, it is still the chief 238 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, Menace made use of by Democratic candidates. But, dur- ing recent years, and right now, there has been and is a more terrifying and spectacular Menace, a Menace of the Left, which has done good service for the Republicans, which is still serving them, and which they believe can yet be used to lift them out of their Dismal Swamp. It is the Red Menace. The Red Menace is the most valuable, the most constantly worked, Menace to-day. Sympathy, I know, is perfectly irrelevant, in this prac- tical textbook of ours. Yet one can't help feeling just a little sorry for the poor old Reds. There are only a hand- ful of real, radical Reds, genuine Communists, in this country. Perhaps there may be 50,000 of them, in a country of 125,000,000 people. They are mostly sincere and embittered men and women, who admire Lenin and Stalin, who want common ownership of everything except the bite one is just putting in the mouth, who think their chief function in life is campaigning for the great New Order of Things. The fact, of course, is that their chief function is some- thing quite different. They do not realize it, but their principal use to-day is to further the ambitions and assist the political progress of those who denounce them. A good many of our most powerful contemporary American politicians would be in a bad way indeed if there were no Reds to threaten the overthrow of our government. I am sure that the Republican National Committee does not contribute to the expenses of the Communist Party, but it would be well-advised to do so if the Communist Party were threatened with extinction. That little band of heroic Reds, with its violent talk and its inflammatory writings, is one of the best assets of the Republican Party and its candidates. Imagine Representative Hamilton Fish, Jr., without the Reds! Although Mr. Fish, as one of the greatest Harvard foot- ball captains, must often have trembled with joy at the OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 239 sight of a great red flag fluttering over the stadium at Cambridge, to-day he trembles — or so it seems — at the sight of a Red Flag. He trembles in a way that affects favorably his upstate New York constituency.* Insidious and Sinister — Learning as a Menace — Many Educated Republicans, — The real violent . and vehement Communists are, of course, the spearhead of the Red Menace that the Republican candidates have used so skill- fully in the past and are still using as effectively as they can. But the peaceable, law-abiding, Constitutional Reds, such as the Socialists and the so-called Parlor Pinks, are very useful too. They are a valuable part of the great Red Menace. A skillful politician can do more with them than with the bomby Communists, for the Socialists are vastly more numerous. There are perhaps a million of them. And most of them are brainy, educated people. They can be represented, and are continually represented, by Republican politicians as an insidious force tending to corrupt the minds of the young people of our rugged, in- dividualistic nation. They are a subtle Menace that can be coped with only by electing the Republican candidates. In the Coolidge and Hoover regimes the Republicans made splendid use of the Red Menace. Now they are seeking to convince the American people that the Red Menace is hidden insidiously — insidiously — sinisterly — in the Roosevelt Administration. Insidious and sinister! — those are the words. Thus far, this use of the Red Menace as applied to Mr. Roosevelt has not been very resultful for the Republicans, but the correctness of their tactics is beyond dispute. It is sagacious of the Republicans not to depict Mr. Roosevelt himself as a Red Menace. Instead, very adroitly, they are deploring the fact that he is surrounded by subtle men and women — whited sepulchres — or Red Sepulchres — who on the outside are smooth and fair to see — plausible * See Appendix, Note 4. 2 4 o THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, enough — but within are filled with crimson Socialism. These scheming creatures, who are using Mr. Roosevelt for their own nefarious ends, are the so-called Brain Trust. The Republicans in the past have had extraordinary suc- cess in utilizing the hostility of the people not only toward Red Learning but toward learning of any sort. They have been able to build up learning into a Menace. They were able to discredit President Wilson because he was learned, because he was a college professor. So thor- ough was their work that college professors in politics are still under the strong suspicion of the people. So, their present attacks on the Brain Trust have a good deal of hope and promise in them. Continual emphasis is laid on the fact that these people are professors. The Chicago Tribune, stalwart Republican newspaper, in its cartoons shows them again and again in academic caps and gowns. That is worse for them politically than if they were in prison stripes. It is not that the Republicans are really opposed to edu- cation. There are many educated Republicans. Plenty of Republicans actually entrust their own sons and daugh- ters to college professors, and do not genuinely despise and distrust all professors. The Republicans, in publicly op- posing education and professors in politics, are merely fol- lowing sound political practice. For their own advantage, they are partly creating and partly exploiting the popular hostility toward learning. As was stated at the beginning of this textbook, the aim of a politician is his own advance- ment and advantage, and in this matter the Republicans are properly pursuing that aim. How the Politician Chooses His Menace. — The politi- cian chooses his Menace as he does his party, his principles, his food, his clothing, his manner of living. That is, he chooses a Menace that will be approved by his constitu- ents. In North Dakota his Menace is likely to be the Power of Concentrated Wealth, or Wall Street, or the In- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 241 ternational Bankers, and it will be the same in Wisconsin. In Republican upstate New York there is nothing better than the Red Menace. This is true also in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. In West Virginia, in the State of Washington, the Power Trust is a very good Menace. The same Menace will not do for New York City's poor Lower East Side and for Westchester County, the rich sub- urban area of New York. The Reds, the unemployed, the bonus-seeking veterans are good Menaces in the latter but very poor in the former. The politician carefully surveys his district and chooses his Menace accordingly. There have always been plenty of Menaces in the past political history of America. Politicians to-day find no lack of them, and there seems to be no prospect of a short- age in the future. CHAPTER XIII Concerning the Value of Lincoln to a Politician Washington Is Nothing, Lincoln Is All (in the North) — Mr. Hylan and Lincoln — Al Smith and Lincoln — Hiram Johnson and Lincoln — Theodore Roosevelt and Lincoln — Calvin Cool- idge and Lincoln — Herbert Hoover and Lincoln — Lincoln on All Sides at Once — An Occasional Protest — Rabbi Wise — The New York Telegram — But the Use of Lincoln Continues. Washington Is Nothing, Lincoln Is All (in the North) . — To the proficient American politician, at least in the North, George Washington, the Father of His Country, is little or nothing, but Abraham Lincoln is everything. Washington may have been "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen," but Lincoln is first in the mouths of politicians. No politician declares, or hints, that he is like Washington, but many, many poli- ticians find in themselves, or encourage others to find in them, striking resemblances to Lincoln. Washington was an aristocrat, the richest man of his generation in America. When he was President, he ruled over an almost-regal court. He did not rise from nothing to the highest place in the land. He is of little value to politicians. They do not go out of their way to lay wreaths on his tomb. But Lincoln! Lincoln, the man of the people, the close-to-the- soil, who rose from nothing to be the supreme American, Lincoln is the ready resource of all American politicians — of the North — be they radical or reactionary. A few examples of how experts have made easy and effective use of Lincoln will be of assistance to politicians who are getting a start or are on their way upward. Mr. Hylan and Lincoln — Al Smith and Lincoln — Hiram 242 THE POLITICIAN 243 Johnson and Lincoln — Theodore Roosevelt and Lincoln — Calvin Coolidge and Lincoln — Herbert Hoover and Lin- coln. — Some may be shocked to learn that the Honorable John F. Hylan, sometimes known, as we have seen, as "Red Mike" or "Honest John," has been likened to Lin- coln. Some will be amazed that any sane mind could see a resemblance here. I do not feel that way about it, and they need not be so shocked, as similarities have been seen in other politicians much further from the Great Emanci- pator. It was a newspaper owned by his friend William Randolph Hearst that saw Mr. Hylan as so like Honest Abe. On June 23, 1925, Mr. Hearst's New York Ameri- can had a huge and very prominent editorial purporting to show how like Mr. Hylan was to Lincoln. And on Sep- tember 6, 1925, Mr. Hearst addressed a long letter to the deeply lamented New York World, this being published in many newspapers of September 8, setting forth the glories of Mr. Hylan, with special emphasis on Honest John's resemblance to Lincoln. "Mr. Hylan began life as a poor boy on a farm, and he educated himself, very much in the manner that Lincoln did," said Mr. Hearst, all this being in big, black type. Then followed the ques- tion: "What do the low-brows of Tammany know of the merits of a man who, like Lincoln, learned while he labored?" Well, the low-brows of Tammany had a Lincoln of their own. At the 1924 Democratic National Convention followers of Al Smith wore badges that read: "Give Us Another Lincoln — Vote for Alfred E. Smith for Presi- dent." Apparently it takes a Lincoln to catch a Lincoln! Mr. Hylan, the Hearst Lincoln, had to accept a gloomy interment in the Democratic primary for Mayor of New York City in 1925 when the Tammany Lincoln got after him. Some may have suspected that the Tammany Lin- coln was nearer to the real article than the Hearst Lincoln. Smith supporters made use of Lincoln again in 1928. 244 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, As we all know, Al didn't make it, but that was not be- cause there was anything incorrect about the employment of Lincoln in the campaign. A great many people found a resemblance between the Rail-splitter and the Happy Warrior. I may even have seen it myself, but there is nothing of mine on the subject to be quoted. Instead, just as examples, we have a couple of excerpts from speeches delivered on July 9, 1928, at a dinner of the Smith for President Club of the Borough of Queens, New York City. Said Thomas J. Spellacy, Democratic National Committeeman from Connecticut, on that occasion: "Governor Smith, like "Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, has been raised to lead this country in a crisis. Just as Washington was raised to lead the Revolutionary Army, Jefferson to shape the Constitution, Lincoln to save the country as a Union, and Wilson to lead it in the World War, so Governor Smith has been raised just at the time when some one was needed to arouse the American people from their indif- ference." Mr. Spellacy, who proved not a very good prophet in- asmuch as Governor Smith was not raised quite high enough, was quite exceptional in bringing Washington upon the stage. However, he did not say that Al was like Washington. Al's crisis was like Washington's crisis. The fact is that Mr. Spellacy would have been on surer ground if he had stuck to Lincoln. The other speaker at the din- ner, a Mr. Alexander Rorke, seems to have followed this wiser course. He drew a parallel between the careers of Lincoln and Smith, saying: "Alfred Smith is essentially a man of the common people. The son of an immigrant, he raises the hopes and shows the possibility of every man, if he possesses the qualification, to gain the greatest honor this country has to offer." Of course, the Republicans feel somewhat incensed when Democrats discover that they are like Lincoln or OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 245 have friends and supporters make the discovery. The Re- publicans feel that Lincoln is their peculiar property; they want the Democrats to stick to Jefferson. Senator Hiram Johnson, who has been a sort of Republican for a long time, appeared to be making intelligent use of Lincoln some years ago. According to a Washington dispatch in the New York Herald, August 31, 1923, the Senator had taken Abraham Lincoln as his philosopher and guide, and had placed over his desk the following passage said to be from Lincoln: "I am not bound to win, But I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, But I am bound to live Up to what light I have. I must stand with anybody That stands right; stand With him while he is Right and part with him When he goes wrong." An ardent admirer of Lincoln searched the speeches and writings of the Emancipator in vain for this passage (and certainly Lincoln never chopped up his prose to make it look like verse) . But that was irrelevant. The passage was credited to Lincoln, showed the Senator's admiration for Lincoln, and helped his followers to find in him resem- blances to Lincoln. The late Theodore Roosevelt knew very well the value of Lincoln. "Lincoln and I have been in similar positions," he once said, perhaps hinting that he was the "second Lin- coln" that all politicians (in the North) want their con- stituents to think they are. This remark caused a great newspaper that did not care much for T. R. to publish a cartoon showing a giant Lincoln seated at a table with a book in his hand and a pigmy Roosevelt in exactly the same position at a tiny table with a tiny book. And this, 246 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, or a similar remark of T. R.'s, caused Robert T. Lincoln to state that he saw no resemblance between his father and Theodore Roosevelt. But the late T. R. knew as much of the political art as any man, modern or ancient, and it may be assumed that his use of Lincoln was to good effect. Calvin Coolidge is another Republican in whom his admirers found and proclaimed a resemblance to Lincoln. When the late Judge William S. Kenyon was offered the Secretaryship of the Navy by Mr. Coolidge, the Judge left the White House declaring that the President had some of the qualities of Abraham Lincoln. In an address at Denver on October 27, 1925, Henry J. Allen of Kansas said: "President Coolidge fits the economic period peculiarly — as Lincoln fitted the war — and the people of the United States will reelect him to carry on the reconstruction program." Many other perspicacious Republican politicians and many Republican newspapers proclaimed the resemblance of the Vermont Calvin to the immortal Lincoln. Among the cartoons bearing on this was one in the Los Angeles Times of February 12, 1925. This showed Mr. Coolidge seated at his desk in the White House with a great figure of Lincoln standing beside him. The caption was, "His Spirit Lives." Altogether, there was a very great amount of material intended to link Mr. Coolidge with Lincoln, and it undoubtedly produced an effect very beneficial to Mr. Coolidge. Mr. Hoover was also found by some of his adherents to resemble Lincoln. On October 19, 1932, Henry Ford, on a coast-to-coast radio hook-up, appealed for the reelection of Mr. Hoover. In the course of his speech, Mr. Ford said: "Mr. Hoover is carrying a greater burden than Abraham Lincoln carried. He is carrying it in a way that places him beside Lincoln in sacrificial service." OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 247 In that same 1932 campaign, Mr. Hoover himself seemed to feel that Mr. Ford might have been right. At any rate, in a speech in St. Louis on November 4, he drew a parallel between the dark days of the Civil War and the dark days of 1932, and said: "The same alternatives are before the country to-day that lay before it in that momentous campaign of nearly three-quarters of a century ago. The choice that the American people made in 1864 was made on November 8. The choice they are called to make in 1932 will be made on November 8. My fellow citi- zens, can we doubt what the choice will be?" It is quite true that many people had no doubt at that time. Mr. Hoover's comparison was good tactics, but, on that occasion, the people could not be persuaded that he gave them an opportunity to vote for Lincoln. Lincoln on All Sides at Once. — As our politicians are of infinite variety, differing in party affiliation and in many other respects, and as all the skillful ones (in the North) claim that they resemble Lincoln or have Lincoln's support for their views, we find that Lincoln is on a good many sides at once. For example: on February 12, 1925, Governor Pinchot of Pennsylvania declared that Lincoln was as great an enemy of liquor as was Pinchot. On the same day, Police Commissioner Enright of New York made a speech in which he said that Lincoln would have liked a bigger army than the United States had then. Senator Smoot of Utah also made a speech. He declared that Lincoln was an unyielding nationalist and would have been against the League of Nations. And, throughout the country on that day, there were dozens, hundreds, per- haps thousands, of orators discussing Lincoln, all of them finding that he would have been on their side of every conceivable question if he were alive. The invisible, apotheosized Lincoln is hailed and claimed as the supporter of every cause. 248 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, An Occasional Protest — Rabbi Wise — The New York "Telegram" — But the Use of Lincoln Continues. — Occa- sionally an individual or a newspaper rises to protest the political use of Lincoln, to deny the right of politicians to fill Lincoln's mouth with their own words. For example, on February 12, 1928, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, in his Free Synagogue sermon, asked: "Who will dare to say to-day what Lincoln would have said or thought in our time?" Of course, there were a thousand politicians daring to do so at the very time of the sermon. And the New York Telegram (now the New York World-Telegram) , on February 13, 193 1, grew almost violent on the compari- son-with-Lincoln question. In an editorial entitled, "Hoover's Lincoln," the Telegram, which had supported Mr. Hoover in 1928, said: "Listening to the President's radio address last night we gathered that Lincoln was an early edition of Hoover. We learned that there was a close similarity between Hoover's policies and what the policies of Lincoln would be were he living to-day. "Lincoln would be pleased with the status of the Negro to-day, we were told. We had supposed that Lincoln would be grieved by the nullification of the Negro's political, legal and economic rights. "Lincoln was a great party man, we were told. We had sup- posed that his indifference to party regularity drove him to form a new party. As to the Republican Party, we were rather sur- prised to hear Hoover say that Lincoln's 'tradition has dominated it to this day.' "It had never occurred to us to link the name of the Liberator to the methods of Hoover's party managers, Huston and Lucas. " 'You will find,' said Hoover, 'Lincoln addressing the coun- try in strong and urgent support of the protective tariff.' We are still trying to figure out any connection between Lincoln's desire to protect the infant industries of i860 and Hoover's recent tariff subsidies to the giant no-longer-infant industries which dominate the nation. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 249 "To the 7,000,000 unemployed and equal number of part- time employed, Hoover gave the solace that his government has avoided f the opiates of government charity and the stifling of our national spirit of mutual self-help.' He added that this was 'Lincoln's way.' "We had supposed that Lincoln's way would be to feed the hungry. "But, after all, what we think or what Hoover thinks Lincoln might have done in 193 1 is a rather futile guessing game best left to Republican politicians accustomed to using a great name for their own purposes." The editorial above is cited to show that the politician does run some little risk in making use of Lincoln. But so seldom does any protest or complaint occur that the wise politician goes ahead, knowing the chances are greatly in his favor. There's no sure thing in any department of life. That protests such as Rabbi Wise's and the New York Telegram's have very little effect is indicated by the fact that resemblances to Lincoln are being proclaimed now at as lively a rate as ever. To-day, the Democrats find President Roosevelt almost a replica of Lincoln, while the Republicans find him very close to Lenin, Trotzky and Stalin. February 12 is, of course, the great day for an- nouncing these resemblances. In 1934, on that date, Sena- tor Robinson of Arkansas, in an address in the Senate, likened critics of President Roosevelt to the old critics of Lincoln. The Senator recalled that Lincoln was assailed by those who called themselves his supporters and declared that President Roosevelt was also "harassed by snipers firing from under cover." "Another President sits in the White House, charged with the greatest responsibilities that have faced any President since Lincoln," Senator Robinson said. I venture to say that a similar statement has been made concerning every President since Lincoln. On the same day, February 12, 1934, at Norwich, Con- 2 5 o THE POLITICIAN necticut, Professor Henry W. Lawrence addressed alumnae of Connecticut College, his remarks including: "These two defenders of democracy, Lincoln and Roosevelt, were urged strongly toward more radical measures than they had at first approved. Just how far Lincoln yielded to his radi- cal advisers is a matter of history, which it may be profitable to compare with Roosevelt's record up to date. "Both were insistently advised to abolish outright a system that might fairly be called ioo per cent American; a system that had antedated the nation and grown up with it, contribut- ing largely to its prosperity. "In Lincoln's case this system was the well-established prac- tice of human slavery; in Roosevelt's it is the equally well- established practice of 'rugged individualism.' " On this February 12, when Senator Robinson and Pro- fessor Lawrence were finding Lincoln and Roosevelt so similar, Everett Sanders, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, spoke of Lincoln's reluctance, even in the Civil War, to assume powers not vested in him by the Constitution, and said that "only the Constitution stands between the rights and freedom of the people and the tyranny of the few — or even of only one." The impli- cation was that Mr. Roosevelt was very unlike Lincoln. It is a relative matter. Senator Robinson, as a Demo- crat, was right in claiming Mr. Roosevelt to be another Lincoln. Mr. Sanders, as a Republican, was equally right in denying any such quality to a politician of the opposite party. Both these experienced politicians understood fully the value of Lincoln. Politics in the United States of America is an art. When the most artful, the most meticulous, the most scholarly, the most successful, understand and use Lincoln in their own campaigns and in the campaigns waged for their leaders, it surely behooves the beginner, the earnest student of politics, to heed, to cogitate, and to learn. There is a lot of value in Lincoln yet. CHAPTER XIV Concerning the Necessity of Publicity to a Politi- cian, with Examples of What to Avoid As the Hart Panteth — Faces in the Gutter — No Closed Season for Publicity — A Forest of the Unknown — Gunnar Knute John- son — Publicity to be Avoided — Bribery and Corruption — Sexual Immorality — Religious Heterodoxy, Agnosticism, Atheism — The Danger of Easy Money — Concealing Lottery Prizes — Sena- tor Copeland and Pluto Water — Other Senators Endorse — Charles Curtis of Kansas — James E. Watson — James W. Wads- worth, Jr. — Walter E. Edge — Handling Women, or the Politicians' Use of Wives — High Society as a Plague — Accepting Office — Princess Alice's Mistake — How Wives Can Help — The Gentle Quilting Bee — Perfect Wifely Publicity. As the Hart Panteth — Faces in the Gutter — No Closed Season for Publicity. — The instructed politician knows well the truth of the old saying, "Better be damned than mentioned not at all!" I have said above that, if votes are the life-blood of a politician, publicity is the red cor- puscles of that blood-stream. A politician has no more chance of climbing to public office without publicity than a garbage truck has of climbing the ramp of an incinera- tor without a motor. So, as the hart panteth for the water brooks, the politician panteth for publicity. He not only panteth for it, he worketh for it, he schemeth for it, he arrangeth for it. He maketh use of newspapers, magazines, billboards, handbills, the radio, the motion pictures, and of ordinary, or still, photographs. He sees to it that photographs of him engaged in a great variety of activities are published as frequently as possible in every available medium. During a campaign he plasters his photographs everywhere — on walls, fences, billboards, 2*1 252 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, telephone poles and all other places where they can be tacked or pasted. Of course, the vicious minions of the Other Side tear down and trample under foot a good many of Our photographs. The politician expects and allows for that. He replaces the harvested photographs with a new crop. He does not grieve or curse if he sees his own face looking up at him pathetically from the mud of a gutter or from the mud of a hundred gutters. To see his own face, perhaps mutilated or smeared or revised with a strange beard or mustaches, staring from a gutter has been the experience of nearly every politician. Each politician hopes that there is nothing prophetic about the likeness of himself lying pitifully in that unworthy spot. During a campaign a politician will probably shower his constituency with letters and circulars setting forth argu- ments in favor of his being permitted to serve the public. But every politician knows that publicity is not merely a campaign matter. It is just as essential for him to keep his name before the public, to keep "building himself up," between campaigns as during them. He must, continually and forever, keep the people aware of his existence and his importance. For the politician there is no closed season as far as publicity is concerned. In and out of office, day and night, winter and summer, in the beginning of his career, in the midst of it, at its peak, at its end, he is push- ing out publicity, about his opinions, his plans, his likes, dislikes, food, clothing, habits, foibles, about his children, his wife, his mother — generally not much about his father. Fathers don't have much publicity value. There may be somewhere in the United States a politi- cian who is not hungry for publicity, although such a creature has not yet been found. But, if such a politician exist, he must behave just as if he were publicity-hungry, if he be intelligent. For the intelligent politician without OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 253 publicity-hunger would understand the necessity of pub- licity just the same. A Forest of the Unknown — Gunnar Knute Johnson. — At most of our elections the voter is confronted with a ballot or voting machine containing a great list of names. Many of these are totally unknown to each voter. Of course, the groping voter knows that in this strange forest "every silent tree possessed a spirit prisoned in its breast," but they are mostly unfamiliar spirits. The rows and rows of names, for the most part, mean nothing. As the voter runs his gaze along that list occasionally his eye brightens. "Gunnar Knute Johnson," he says to himself (that would probably be in Minnesota) , "I've heard of him. I don't remember what it was, but he gets my vote!" Perhaps he has read of Gunnar Knute as having been in- vestigated on a charge of using the mails to defraud. Or perhaps Gunnar Knute, now a candidate for Attorney- General of the state, has delivered a powerful address on October 12 denying the claim of Christopher Columbus to be the discoverer of America and demanding national recognition of Leif Ericson as the true discoverer. Or per- haps Gunnar Knute has somehow contrived to throw out the first ball at the opening game of the baseball season. Or perhaps, with the help of Mrs. Johnson, he has become the father of photographed quadruplets or quintuplets. A hundred to one, Gunnar Knute's publicized activities have nothing to do with his qualifications for the office he seeks, but that doesn't matter. If his name sticks, he gets the vote. 'Publicity to be Avoided — Bribery and Corruption — Sexual Immorality — Religious Heterodoxy, Agnosticism, Atheism. — It is not necessary to go into detail concerning all the activities of a politician for which he or his man- agers should arrange publicity. Whatever activities have been advised for the politician in preceding chapters should be thoroughly publicized. And the chapter im- 254 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, mediately after this tells of other material that must be pushed into print. For detail, the student should conduct research into the work of our great masters of political publicity, such as Presidents Coolidge, Hoover and Roose- velt, Mayor Thompson and Representative Hamilton Fish, Jr. Of this last, more later. It seems better to tell now of publicity to be avoided, for there is some of that sort. As we have seen, the politician welcomes denunciation of himself by the right people, so, naturally, he is pleased to have those denunciations published. He does not mind in the least being called in speeches or in print a liar, a drunkard, a Bolshevist, a Fascist, a rogue, a scamp, a crook, a thief. All that may be to his advantage. But it is not to his advantage to have it truthfully disclosed that he has accepted bribes or has otherwise been guilty of corruption in office. It is really safer for the politician to be finan- cially honest, but, if he is not, he does well to keep his dishonesty covered. He doesn't want publicity about that. Likewise, truthful publicity concerning sexual im- morality or irregularity is not good for an American poli- tician. It is safer for the politician not to be guilty of such, but, if he is guilty, he should keep the matter secret. No publicity is wanted. If Mr. Harding's relations with Nan Britten had been disclosed before the 1920 Republi- can Convention, the Republicans would have chosen a different nominee. Mr. Harding's success in keeping that matter secret made it possible for him to become President of the United States. In some European countries poli- ticians seem not restricted in their sexual activities, and are not injured politically if their adventures are known. But such is not true in the United States. Our people are old-fashioned; they want immorality hidden from view. Another class of publicity to be avoided is that of re- ligious heterodoxy — or worse. Theoretically, in our coun- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 255 try a man or woman is free to be religious or irreligious as he pleases. It is true that one may worship in any way not offending the accepted code of morality or not worship at all, and one does not run afoul of the law. That is a matter of some satisfaction to the non-office-seeking citizen. But the politician knows that religious freedom does not extend to him. We have seen that, practically, the Catholic is not permitted to run for President, or, at any rate, to be elected President. The Jew's political range is limited. But the agnostic or the atheist fares even worse. If he discloses his views, he is really not permitted to hold office at all. One of the factors that seriously injured Upton Sinclair in his 1934 campaign for the Governor- ship of California was the circulation of a report that he was an atheist. This seems to have been untrue, but the Republicans were shrewd in making use of it, as it cost the "EPIC" candidate tens of thousands of votes. The man or woman who is an agnostic or an atheist and who is politically ambitious must avoid and suppress all publicity on this matter. If such views are held, they must be held secretly. If religious doubts and denials surge in the breast and torment the soul of the politician, he should say not a word about them to any one. He should forget them. Instead of disclosing them, he should put on his silk hat and go prominently and photograph- ically to church every Sunday. Even if for years before entering politics he had not attended church, he should go. Even if sneers are cast at his sincerity, he should go. In politics, a suspicion of hypocrisy is not so bad; it is more or less expected. But a suspicion of agnosticism or atheism is fatal. The Danger of Easy Money — Concealing Lottery Prizes. — There is another sort of publicity that politicians should avoid, and in this field some of our most adroit prac- titioners have slipped occasionally. Probably their errors were caused by cupidity, which is a trait characteristic of 2 5 6 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, most humans, even politicians. This branch of publicity to be avoided is the disclosure of money or property ac- quired by the politician with little or no effort. Citizens do not enjoy seeing the men for whom they are asked to vote enjoying good fortune denied to themselves. It is quite all right for a politician to make a modest living by arduous labor, and publicity concerning his strenuous fight to feed, clothe and educate a family of eight or ten chil- dren is good publicity. But should a politician win $150,000 in the Irish Sweepstakes lottery, publicity con- cerning that would be very bad indeed. Voters would be inclined to say: "The dirty grafter! Some people have all the luck!" Politicians, when they buy lottery tickets, are advised to give fictitious names. There is always a faint possibility of winning something. And, if a politician wins a lottery prize, he wants no publicity on the subject. I think the voters' resentment at acquisition of easy money by a politician is at the bottom of the disadvantage referred to above in disclosures of bribery, corruption and graft. It cannot be that voters object to dishonesty as such. They do not vote against a candidate because of known intellectual dishonesty, even on very important matters. That is expected. It is continually practiced by our most prominent politicians, and they do not suffer for it. So, in the matter of financial dishonesty, it seems un- likely that it is the moral obliquity that offends the voters. It must be that it is the easy acquisition of money that offends. Senator Copeland and Pluto Water — Other Senators Endorse — Charles Curtis of Kansas — James E. Watson — James W. Wadsworth, Jr. — Walter E. Edge. — This brings us to Senator Royal S. Copeland and Pluto Water. For it seems to me that the same principle is involved here. Cer- tainly the voters could not object to the Senator's ap- proving laxative mineral waters in general or Pluto Water OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 257 in particular, if that approval did not involve easy money. No one would resent it if the Senator agreed with the slogan, "When Nature won't, Pluto will." I do not think any one would have felt it improper if the New York statesman had freely given out the following statement to an Associated Press reporter: "Mineral waters of the right sort are preferable to many of the cathartic compounds on the market. Their power to overcome the immediate effects of constipation is unquestioned. In their effect upon the bowel and its lining membranes, I am confident they are far less irritating. Indeed, many mineral waters possess qualities which make them soothing and healing to the tissues. . . . They are unattractive to the blood-stream and therefore pass through the system, doing nothing else but to flush and cleanse the intestinal tract." Such an utterance, unpaid for, appearing in the news columns of a newspaper, or many newspapers, would have done the Senator no harm. New York voters might have disagreed with him. Some might have preferred Ex-Lax or Nujol or Cascara or Milk of Magnesia or Feenamint or some other explosive — each to his taste — but they would gladly have accorded the Senator a right to his own choice. The genial and gentlemanly Senator from New York, however, permitted the use of the above statement (and some more) in advertisements for Pluto Water accom- panied by handsome photographs of his face, and the result was not favorable. A reader or the public might have unreasonably suspected that he was paid by the makers of Pluto Water. If he were so paid, it was easy money, money much easier than the average voter could collect, and the average voter does not like that. Of course, the endorsement quoted did not do any serious political injury to the Senator. He has had no difficulty in being elected Senator twice since the deluge of Pluto Water. But I think he realized that the endorse- 258 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, ment was a mistake. Those laxative advertisements ap- peared in 1927 and 1928. Since then I have seen no advertisements displaying the pleasing countenance of the Senior Senator from New York or containing endorse- ments by him. To be sure, Senator Copeland was not lonely in giving endorsements at the time his statement appeared in the Pluto Water advertisement. Other men, then in the Senate, kept him company, although their admiration was directed toward other products than the gentle, harmless laxative. Senator Charles Curtis of Kansas, later Vice-President of the United States, in May, 1927, was waxing eloquent on the virtues of Lucky Strike cigarettes in large newspaper advertisements decorated with his face. Said Mr. Curtis, over a reproduction of his signature: "Lucky Strikes do not affect the voice. I notice that most of my colleagues in the Senate now use them. They do so, not only because they know that they are kind to the throat, but also because they give the greatest enjoyment." That this sort of publicity is not fatal to a politician is indicated by the fact that Mr. Curtis became Vice- President after his eulogy of Lucky Strikes. But that it is not advised is shown by the fact that Mr. Curtis, like Senator Copeland, desisted from endorsements. In that same May, 1927, Senator James E. Watson, Republican, of Indiana, "noted for his fine voice," the ad- vertisements said, was endorsing Lucky Strikes in bigger space and with a bigger photograph than Mr. Curtis. Over his signature, Mr. Watson said: "Smoking is a great pleasure and diversion to me. I get much enjoyment from Lucky Strikes because I know that I can smoke them at will with no fears of any ill effects upon my voice." Senator Watson, too, seemed to decide that endorsements were not advisable, and he did not continue allowing his OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 259 face to appear in this sort of advertisement. He was beaten in the great Republican debacle of 1932, but his defeat can hardly be traced to the cigarettes that did not injure his fine voice. The Honorable James W. Wadsworth, Jr., once Sena- tor, now Representative, from New York, prominently mentioned as Republican candidate for President in 1936, is another politician whose voice received a good deal of favorable publicity in 1927 and whose picture adorned the Lucky Strike advertisements. "Wadsworth's power- ful, inspiring voice — clear, expressive, it has the quality which creates confidence," the advertisements announced, and added: "New York's Senior Senator, noted for a speaking voice of rare impressiveness, safeguards his throat constantly, so as to be ever ready for a debate or a speech. His favorite cigarettes are Lucky Strikes, both for greater pleasure and throat protection." But Lucky Strikes were no more enthusiastic about the Senator's voice than he was about the cigarettes. Over his signature, in the advertisements he said: "I have often smoked Lucky Strike cigarettes and, frankly, I like them. Their flavor is good and they don't irritate the throat or vocal cords." Giving endorsements of this sort might cost our politi- cians their amateur standing — a well-known horseman lost his recently for something similar — except for the fact that they are all professionals anyway. Perhaps that was a golden spring for some, that spring of 1927. While Senator Copeland was expressing his preference in a moving way and Messrs. Curtis and Watson and Wadsworth were protecting a different part of the anatomy, Walter E. Edge of New Jersey, then Senator, before that Governor, after that Ambassador, was allow- ing his very pleasing visage to illumine the advertisements 2£o THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, of the Robert Burns cigar. Mr. Edge didn't give a message or sign anything, but he was described in the advertisement as "one of the representative men who find complete satisfaction in cigar smoking." Here again, some suspicious people wondered why Mr. Edge permitted his likeness to appear above the likeness of a Perfecto Grande (full-wrapped) , 2 for 25^. I do not think it was good political publicity. Lucky Mr. Edge, who could find "complete satisfac- tion in cigar smoking"! How many of us less fortunate beings are able to find complete satisfaction in anything? Ah me! And, ah me! I wonder what has become of Mr. Edge now. But what has become of so many tower- ing Republicans? Mais oil sont les neiges d' ant an, which, linguists tell me, means, "But where are the snows of yester-year?" Handling Women, or the 'Politicians 9 Use of Wives — High Society as a Plague — Accepting Office — Princess Alice 9 s Mistake. — In connection with this matter of en- dorsements perhaps for pay, we come to a rather delicate subject, that is, the politician's handling of publicity con- cerning his wife. The wise politician (I mean the male politician, and, thus far, most of our politicians are male) marries a substantial woman and has a good showing of children, at least three, and preferably more. The politi- cian watches carefully the conduct of his wife and chil- dren, and seeks to regulate their lives in a way that will be most advantageous to his political career. Publicity concerning their activities is highly desirable, so long as those activities are of a sort approved by the voters. The politician's wife should avoid "high society" as she would a plague. Publicity telling of her attendance as a guest at a function of the elite would be very bad, very bad. The only occasions on which she may mingle socially with the high-toned are when she is getting money out of them for charity — for the poor — and then the publicity OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 261 must be very carefully handled. The impression must be conveyed that she is not enjoying these swell social func- tions; she is merely using them for the benefit of the poor or of the general public. With her, her home and family come first, as she is always wise enough to state when inter- viewed. She does not seek any office, and on no account would she enter into a contest for one, thus arousing enmities. If an office in some social service organization is tendered her in circumstances that make it certain no woman's jealousy or ill-will will be aroused by her accept- ance, she may accept. Of course, the organization must be one favored by the people and receiving the approval of the press. The wife of a politician should never appear in a light that would be injurious or embarrassing to her husband. She should not give endorsements for pay to laxatives or stomach pills or cigarettes or chewing-gum or cosmetics or anything else, nor should she permit her picture to be used in such a connection. Examples of what may have been errors in this respect occurred some years ago when photographs of Mrs. William E. Borah and Mrs. Nicholas Longworth appeared with testimonials from them in page advertisements of Pond's facial creams. It was stated by some at that time that large sums were paid to the women whose pictures and testimonials appeared in the Pond ad- vertisements, but, from a political standpoint, scarcely any sum could be enough. Public notice of the workless gaining of such easy money by a politician's wife is bad, very bad. Princess Alice, with her immense political ex- perience, should have known better. How Wives Can Help — The Gentle Quilting Bee — Perfect Wifely Publicity. — Wives can help with publicity instead of injuring. Most of the publicity gained by Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt is beneficial to her husband, for it is practically all in connection with social service of one sort or another, and that is good. The publicity Mrs. Hoover 262 THE POLITICIAN received concerning her Girl Scouts activities was bene- ficial. Both of these ladies have been wise enough to avoid the taint of high society and the consequent damaging publicity. How much better than the Borah-Longworth cosmetic advertisements was the sweet publicity accorded Mrs. Murray, wife of Alfalfa Bill, Governor of Oklahoma, in the spring of 193 1! How appealing to the innate tender- ness of even the roughest hearts was her plan to hold a quilting bee for women over seventy. How gentle, how winning! Said Mrs. Murray regarding this project: "My guests are to be over seventy, and one will come from each county in the state. They are to be chosen by a Senator from each section, then I will send them the quilt blocks on which they are to embroider their names and the name of the county they represent. "On the day of the quilting bee I want each woman to be present for an all-day party. We will finish up the quilts, and each one may take them back to their respective counties." The captious purist might find a little fault with some of the phrasing of Mrs. Murray's statement, but the expert in political publicity could see none. It was perfect. CHAPTER XV Concerning the Profitable Use of Greetings and Salutations by a Politician Kinship of Constable and President — Agreement of Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt — The Hoover Greetings — The Famous Message to the Lutherans — Protested by Adherents to "Older Conceptions of Religion" — Disclosure of a Message to Catholics — Editorial Comment — More Greetings — More and More — A Recipient's Modesty Rectified — Telegrams, Letters, Telephone Calls — A Big Greeting Day — Thrown into the Ap- pendix for the Advanced Student — Post-Election Greetings — The End of the Administration — Greetings to be Published as Well as Received — No Greetings to Unapproved Religious Bodies — Above All, None to Atheists — President Roosevelt's Activities — Valuable Specimens — A Metal Wreath for Benjamin Franklin's Grave? — Dangerous Dabbling with the British — Mys- tification of "Grandma" Logan — An Exemplary Message to Lutherans — And One to American Jewry — Greetings to a Cabi- net Member — Tribute to an Irish Hero — The Famous Case of Hugo N. Frye — Tribute of "Puddler Jim" to the "Sturdy Pa- triot" — For the Politician's Desk. Kinship of Constable and President. — In the section of our book that tells of the making of friends by a politician there was necessarily some discussion of this subject of greetings and salutations. Mention was made of the laudable custom of our greater politicians of sending greetings to gatherings of Germans, Jews, Poles, Italians, Negroes, praising Baron von Steuben, Count Pulaski, Christopher Columbus and Crispus Attucks. That splendid custom is no useless or wanton activity, but a very necessary, proper and valuable practice for a politi- 263 264 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, cian. It is so important that it deserves the special treat- ment to be given it in this chapter. Even the lowliest politician, the candidate for Constable, say, or Township Trustee, if he is wise, watches for the meetings of groups of his constituents and, if possible, appears in person on those occasions. If he cannot appear, he does well to send some sort of a greeting, perhaps by a friend. The greetings sent by a Constable differ in form from those sent by a President of the United States, but the principle is the same. The idea, of course, is to keep the name of the politician in the minds of his constituents in a favorable way and to impress them with the fact that he is with them, that he admires their heroes, understands their problems, sympathizes with their grievances and with their aspirations. The real purpose, of course, is to make votes. In this, the greatest politician in Washington and the least in Durango, Iowa, are akin. Agreement of Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roose- velt. — It seems to me that there is no better way of illus- trating how greetings and salutations are written and upon what occasions they are sent than referring to the practice of two of our greatest politicians in this matter. Emula- tion of the great is commendable for the small or the lesser. And, while the small may not have the same occa- sions for greeting and saluting as the great, if they study the great ones' ways, they can learn the why, the when and the how, and apply the knowledge to their own situations. The two great men whose practice in sending messages I have chosen for study are the Honorable Herbert Hoover and the Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt. Certainly there could be no greater American authority on political practice than the conduct of these two men. On public policies, they disagree violently. On greetings and saluta- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 265 tions, they are in perfect agreement, and that ought to convince any one. Because he preceded Mr. Roosevelt in the Presidency, we shall give consideration to Mr. Hoover first. I would not for a moment want to do an injustice to either Mr. Hoover or Mr. Roosevelt, so I must explain that the messages of greeting sent by them that I shall cite are not the total of their output. I do not pretend to omniscience. I am listing only those that I happened to notice. What fraction of the total they are I do not know, but they do seem to me to be typical and to illus- trate the proper manner in which a politician should send greetings and also the proper occasions. Some are very splendid specimens indeed. I could not think of printing these greetings in full, as that would be a book in itself, nor is there room for extended quotations. I shall give the nature of the message, the date, and, in some instances, a little comment. The Hoover Greetings. — Mr. Hoover first. Let us see what occasions he thought appropriate for greetings, what messages he sent. Here we are: May 5, 1929 — A message (delivered by Representative New- ton) to the National Federation of Men's Bible Classes, in con- vention at Baltimore, saying that we are indebted to the Bible for our national ideals and institutions. August 29, 1929 — A message of sympathy to 20,000 Jews meeting at Madison Square Garden, New York City, in protest against the killing of Palestine Jews by Arabs. October 10, 1929 — A message to the Italian Benevolent So- ciety, New York City, praising Christopher Columbus. October 10, 1929 — A cablegram to President Ignaz Mosciski of Poland eulogizing Count Casimir Pulaski, the occasion being the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Count's heroic death. October 16, 1929 — Personal greetings in Washington to the University of California football team, the "Golden Bears," en 266 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, route to Philadelphia to play the University of Pennsylvania. March 9, 1930 — A letter of commendation and support to 800 Jews assembled in Washington to begin a campaign for a $6,000,000 relief fund for reconstruction work in Eastern Eu- rope and for the upbuilding of Palestine. July 16, 1930 — A cablegram to President von Hindenburg of Germany praising the service of Baron von Steuben to the cause of American independence, and also mentioning the con- tribution to American life by men of German blood, the occa- sion being a dinner in memory of Von Steuben given in Berlin. September 20, 1930 — A Rosh Hashanah greeting to the Jews of America extolling the contribution of the Jews to the progress of humanity. October 19, 1930 — A Message to Lutheran celebrants of Ref- ormation Sunday (October 31) sent to The American Lu- theran, magazine of the Lutheran Church, and also published in daily newspapers. The Famous Message to the Lutherans — Protested by Adherents to "Older Conceptions of Religion" — Disclo- sure of a Message to Catholics — Editorial Comment. — We must break into our chronological tabulation here to give a little more detailed information concerning this message to the Lutherans, as it illustrates the troubles even the most skillful politician is likely to get into quite innocently. The message referred to read: "I send cordial greetings to the Americans of Lutheran faith who are celebrating on October 31 the anniversary of the Protestant Reformation and the 400th anniversary of the read- ing of the Augsburg Confession, from which date so many of the changes in point of view from older conceptions both of religion and government. "The effects of these historical events are reflected in our national life and institutions, in religion through the predomi- nant numbers of adherents to Protestant faiths and in govern- ment through the principle of separation of Church and State. It is fitting that we should commemorate the persons and events from which these mighty forces have sprung." OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 267 No doubt the member of the Hoover secretariat who prepared this message thought it harmless enough, may, indeed, have considered it something of a masterpiece of historical erudition. But it happens that there are in America a good many members of that older religious organization from which the Lutherans branched away. One of them, the Reverend John J. Burke, General Secre- tary of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, did not like the Hoover salute to the Lutherans. On the evening of October 13 Father Burke issued the following state- ment: "It is altogether in order for President Hoover to send a mes- sage of congratulation on the civic work done by Americans of the Lutheran faith. But in the actual message which Presi- dent Hoover sent to them, for the celebration of Reformation Sunday, the President clearly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of his oath of office as President of the United States. "It may matter little that the message is an insult to many millions of American citizens. It may matter little that the statement is historically inaccurate. Luther was not a champion of the separation of Church and State, but a most arbitrary defender of State absolutism. "It does matter very much to the whole constitutional struc- ture of our country and its institutions that the President of all the people, who is called by virtue of his office to respect the religious rights of all, congratulates one particular religious body on the changes it introduced from older conceptions of religion and government and declares that we, as a nation, should com- memorate the Protestant persons and the events from which 'these mighty forces shaping our country have sprung.' " This vigorous statement of Father Burke's seems to have created something of a stir in the White House. George Akerson, one of the members of the Hoover secretariat, on the same evening as the Burke utterance, issued the fol- lowing: 268 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, "Any such suggestion or implication as that made by Father Burke is an injustice to the President's own sentiments and the complete religious tolerance he has always felt and has always advocated both publicly and privately." On October 14 the Hoover secretariat proceeded further in the important matter of nipping a Catholic grievance before it grew too great. A message to Catholics was pro- duced from the files in order to show that Mr. Hoover did not greet Lutherans alone. This had been sent on Sep- tember 24, 1930, to Cardinal Mundelein of Chicago to be read at the National Eucharistic Congress at Omaha, and was as follows: "I will be obliged if you will express my cordial greetings to the meeting this evening of the National Eucharistic Congress, at which I am informed you will preside, and my appreciation of the value of spiritual ideals and religious observance in the life of the nation which are indispensable foundations of the social order and of enduring political institutions." That was a very good message, being benevolently gen- eral in its terms. In that respect it was better than the message to the Lutherans, which seems to have been en- tirely too specific. That was its fault. A politician ought to be able to salute Catholics, all sects of Protestants, Jews — as he could salute Mohammedans, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, and all other religious ists, if they were numer- ous enough to count at the ballot box. But the greetings must be sweetly general in nature. One can't very well be specifically for and against transubstantiation at the same time. The New York Post, then Republican, in an editorial of October 15, called Father Burke's statement "a justified protest." Of Mr. Hoover's Lutheran message the Post said: "It might well not have been said in the name of a President of the United States, who has to hold an even balance, absolute OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 269 neutrality, between all trie churches that flourish amongst our people. Especially should it not have been said in behalf of a President who was elected amid a storm of religious controversy. . . . We think the Catholic protest justified." The deeply lamented New York World said: "Father Burke's protest is well justified, but it is to be hoped that in a spirit of charity he will not press it any further." This incident of the Lutheran greeting is given merely to indicate with what meticulous care the politician should prepare these greetings. Even the most assiduous politi- cian can err, and there may be dynamite in an error. Of course, a Republican politician who, in 1930, pleased the Lutherans and offended the Catholics could console him- self to a degree by saying that most Catholics were Demo- crats, anyway, and most Lutherans were Republicans. They were then. More Greetings — More and More. — But we have given enough space to that little episode, and must now proceed with the tabulation: October 15, 1930 — A message to the City of New Brunswick, New Jersey, complimenting it on the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the grant of a royal charter, and declaring that "few communities in our country have so rich a heritage of varied historical associations." November 18, 1930 — A message lauding the Roman poet Vergil sent to a celebration in New York City of the 2000th anniversary of the birth of the poet. December 6, 1930 — A cable to President Lauri Relander of Finland upon the anniversary of the independence of Finland. December 17, 1930 — A message read at a meeting in Wash- ington in honor of the centenary of the death of Simon Bolivar, the South American liberator. December 20, 1930 — A Christmas greeting to all disabled veterans throughout the country, delivered to all veterans' organizations and hospitals. February 24, 193 1 — A message read at the meeting of the 270 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, first national conference of the Haym Salomon Monument Com- mittee held at the Hotel Delmonico, New York City, eulogizing the Jewish financier of the American Revolution. March 3,193 1 — A letter to the Broadway Association of New York City expressing the highest admiration for the late Nathan Straus and approving the movement to erect a memorial to his memory. March 21, 193 1 — An approving message to a national con- ference of Jewish leaders called in Washington by the Joint Dis- tribution Committee to open a campaign for $2,500,000 for European welfare work. March 29, 193 1 — A message to the Military Training Camps Association declaring that the "camps have through ten years proved themselves important agencies of physical and moral health in the individual and of civic welfare in the nation." April 1, 193 1 — A telegram to Mrs. Knute Rockne saying that the accidental death of Mr. Rockne, the great football coach, was a national loss. April 7, 193 1 — A message to the Salvation Army of Phila- delphia in connection with its campaign for funds, praising the relief work in the Quaker City. April 12, 193 1 — A message praising the Slovak people sent to a dinner and dance held in the Commodore Hotel, New York City, in honor of the forty-second anniversary of the founding of the Slovak Amerike, a daily newspaper. April 30, 193 1 — A letter to William C. Creamer, employe of the Arnold, Constable department store in New York City, of- fering congratulations upon Mr. Creamer's having completed seventy years' service with the store. May 11, 193 1 — A cablegram to President Mosciski of Poland congratulating Poland on the celebration of "Constitution Day" there. May 11, 193 1 — A cablegram to King Carol II of Rumania extending felicitations on the anniversary of Rumanian inde- pendence. May 14, 193 1 — A letter to General Douglas Mac Arthur prais- ing the army engineers who made a survey for an interoceanic canal route across Nicaragua. May 15, 193 1 — A message to Radio Station f OR, Newark, OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 271 which was broadcast over the station, eulogizing David Belasco, theatrical producer, who had died the day before. June 20, 193 1 — A message to the annual convention of the Advertising Federation of America declaring that advertising had played an important part in raising the standard of living, stimulating invention and maintaining competition. June 20, 193 1 — Greetings and congratulations to a meeting of Quakers at Burlington, New Jersey, in commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the Philadelphia yearly meeting of Friends. July 2, 193 1 — A telegram to Harold Gatty and Wiley Post congratulating them upon their successful airplane flight around the world. July 4, 193 1 — A message read by John N. Willys, American Ambassador to Poland, at the unveiling of a monument to Presi- dent Wilson at Poznan, Poland. July 14, 193 1 — A message to President Doumer of France ex- pressing congratulations upon Bastille Day. September 8, 193 1 — Greetings to American Jews on the occa- sion of their New Year 5692. October 3, 193 1 — A message to King Boris III of Bulgaria offering felicitations upon the anniversary of his accession to the throne. October 5, 193 1 — A telegram thanking the Central New York Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church for its tele- gram commending him on law-enforcement and urging that the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment be not repealed. October 7, 193 1 — A telephone call to the home of Thomas A. Edison requesting that he be kept informed of the condition of the inventor, who was growing steadily weaker. October 8, 193 1 — A telegram to Mrs. Daniel Chester French, widow of the sculptor, who died on October 7, expressing con- dolence. October 21, 193 1 — An apology to Mayor Walter E. Quen- stedt of Annapolis, Maryland, for the embarrassment caused the Mayor and a group of associates for failure to recognize them as a reception committee when the Presidential party passed through Annapolis a few days before. October 21, 193 1 — A letter to the American Dental Associa- 2/2 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, tion meeting at Memphis commending the dentists for their ef- forts to improve the public health. October 23, 193 1 — A letter to First Sergeant Curtis Harrison, of Columbus, Ohio, commending him for heroism in the World War. A Recipient's Modesty Rectified — Telegrams, Letters, Telephone Calls. — This letter to Sergeant Harrison, it appears, was written on May 19, 1930, but was not dis- closed by the recipient. On October 23, 193 1, the War Department in Washington gave to the press the item about the soldier's heroism. To continue the tabula- tion: October 27, 193 1 — A telegram of condolence to Louis Comiskey upon the death of his father, Charles A. Comiskey, President of the Chicago American League Baseball Club. November 8, 193 1 — A letter, released to the press through the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, offering felicitations to Louis D. Brandeis, Justice of the Supreme Court, upon his seventy- fifth birthday. November 8, 193 1 — A message of congratulation to the President of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Republican news- paper, upon the occasion of its moving into a new building. November 17, 193 1 — A letter to Mrs. Harry Payne Whitney commending the establishment of the Whitney Museum of Art in New York City, which was opened on November 18. November 21, 193 1 — A letter to the Newspaper Post, Vet- erans of Foreign Wars, New York City, declaring that there "is no more sacred obligation among citizens of the United States than to awaken to the duties of citizenship." December 5, 193 1 — A telegram to the Yale Barn Party at Montclair, New Jersey, expressing gratification that the Yale Club of Montclair would award the Yale Bowl of the year to Eugene Meyer. February 22, 1932 — A message to 200 Jewish leaders in charge of the Jewish National Fund of America commending the pro- posal to plant 500,000 pine and eucalyptus trees on the Plain of Esdraelon in Palestine as a memorial to George Washington. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 273 February 25, 1932 — A greeting to a dinner in New York City of alumni of Colgate University in honor of James C. Colgate's fifty years' association with the University. February 27, 1932 — A letter to Brigadier-General John R. Delafield endorsing observance of Army Day on April 6. February 28, 1932 — Greetings to the Brooklyn and Queens Y.M.C.A.s of New York City upon their opening a drive for $150,000. February 28, 1932 — A letter to Mrs. William Ziegler of New York City paying tribute to her work in aiding the blind. March 7, 1932 — Condolences to President Doumer of France upon the death of Aristide Briand. March 8, 1932 — A telephone call to the home of Colonel Charles Lindbergh to express interest in the search for the kid- napped baby. March 13, 1932 — A letter read at the memorial service in the Salem Methodist Episcopal Church, Harlem, New York City, for Colonel Charles Young, who was the highest ranking Negro officer in the army. March 15, 1932 — An expression of regret at the death of George Eastman. March 21, 1932 — A proclamation asking the nation to honor the memory of Dr. Robert Koch, German scientist, who dis- covered the tuberculosis germ. March 25, 1932 — A cablegram to President Zaimis of Greece offering congratulations upon the eighth anniversary of the Hellenic Republic. March 26, 1932 — A cablegram to King Fuad of Egypt con- gratulating the King upon his birthday. A Big Greeting Day — Thrown into the Appendix for the Advanced Student. — April 8, 1932, was a big greeting day. On that day the following went forth from the White House: a birthday message of congratulation to Albert, King of the Belgians; a message for Parents' Day lauding family ties, made public by "Uncle Robert" in New York City; a greeting to the Park Avenue Syna- gogue, New York City, upon its fiftieth anniversary; and 2/4 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, a message endorsing religious tolerance to the Calvert Asso- ciates, a Catholic organization, meeting in New York City in commemoration of the 298th anniversary of the found- ing of Maryland. But more of the tabulation: April 10, 1932 — A letter to the Bergen County, New Jersey, Chamber of Commerce, commending the work of its anti-hoard- ing committee. April 17, 1932 — A congratulatory message to the officials of Columbus Hospital of New York City, a Catholic institution, upon the first anniversary of its new building. April 18, 1932 — "Cordial greetings" to the Goethe Society of America read at a dinner in commemoration of the centennial of the poet's death. April 20, 1932 — A letter to the Union Square (New York City) Centennial Committee expressing interest in the cele- bration being arranged by the Committee. April 21, 1932 — A letter to Edwin Markham, the poet* con- gratulating him upon his eightieth birthday. The year 1932 — the year of the Roosevelt-Hoover Presi- dential election — was a very active one for Mr. Hoover in this matter of greetings and salutations. Because they were so numerous, they furnish something of a problem for us. The average student, having read this chapter thus far, probably has nearly enough of the Hoover specimens. But the advanced student or specialist in this sort of thing will doubtless be interested in all the material available on this important subject. To suit all preferences, there- fore, it seems best, on the whole, to throw into our Ap- pendix the rest of the Hoover greetings that I have gathered (my collection, doubtless, being only a fraction of the total) up to the election of November 8.* There are some very good ones in this group. Post -Election Greetings — The End of the Administra- tion. — There seems to have been something of an hiatus in * See Appendix, Note 5. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 275 the stream of greetings for a few days after election. Then it was resumed, but with a feebler flow: November 16, 1932 — A letter to Police Commissioner Mul- rooney of New York City thanking the New York police for their attention during the President's recent visit to the city. November 22, 1932 — A tribute to Dr. John H. Finley upon the occasion of his being awarded the American Hebrew Medal for the one doing the most to promote better understanding between Christian and Jew in the United States in 1932. November 27, 1932 — A message praising the work of the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care. December 2, 1932 — A letter emphasizing the character-form- ing value of summer camps, sent to the meeting of the Camp Directors' Association in New York City. December 5, 1932 — A message to A. S. Alexander, New York City, grandson of Mrs. H. Otto Wittpenn, philanthropist, ex- pressing condolence at Mrs. Wittpenn's death. December 17, 1932 — An endorsement of the National Quality Movement granted to the National Retail Dry Goods Asso- ciation. January 2, 1933 — A telegram of congratulation to Negroes meeting in New York City in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. January 17, 1933 — The sending of a wreath to be laid on the grave of Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia, on the 227th an- niversary of Franklin's birth. February 17, 1933 — A letter read at the annual dinner of the Federal Bar Association praising the services of the Association during the Hoover Administration. February 19, 1933 — A message to James B. Borland, managing editor of the News-Herald, Franklin, Pennsylvania, congratu- lating Mr. Borland upon 55 years of active service as a news- paper publisher. For the last few days of the Hoover tenure of the White House I find no greetings and salutations. But perhaps it is well to end with the Borland message. The Franklin News-Herald is a Republican newspaper of about 7,000 i 7 6 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, circulation, and this tribute to its editor shows how watch- ful, how searching, how comprehensive, a politician and his helpers should be in this matter of greetings. Greetings to be Published as Well as Received — No Greetings to Unapproved Religious Bodies — Above All, None to Atheists, — It must be borne in mind by the stu- dent of politics and by the active politician that greetings and salutations are intended not only to be received and appreciated by those to whom they are sent, but are in- tended to be published to the world in general. The poli- tician takes no chances on this publication. He does not leave it to the recipient; he or his staff sees to the publica- tion. Of course, a greeting should make a favorable im- pression on the one or the group to whom it is sent, but, generally, it is intended to win approval from a much larger number. Hence the insistence upon publication. The informed politician knows that greetings are likely to be published whether he wishes it or not. It is a wise rule never to send a greeting unless it will be advantageous to have it published. The student will not fail to notice that a good many of the greetings of great politicians are sent to meetings of religious bodies, and he will by this time realize that those greetings must be very carefully worded. But he must also observe that it is only the established, ma)or religious bodies that receive greetings — bodies with large member- ships — Protestant denominations, Catholics, Jews. No greetings are to be sent to the followers of small minority religions that are not established and not generally ap- proved. Mohammedans, Buddhists, Yogi-ists, Bahai-ists fall in this class and are to be ignored. Above all, no greetings are to be sent to atheists. As far as I know, no politician, great or small, has ever sent a message to the American Society for the Advancement of Atheism. No politician in his right mind will send the atheists a message — unless they become much more numer- OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 277 ous. If this Society ever reaches a membership of millions, it will receive greetings too. 'President Roosevelt's Activities — Valuable Specimens — A Metal Wreath for Benjamin Franklin's Grave? — Now, let us turn our attention to the salutatorian activities of Mr. Roosevelt since he has been President, as we may ex- pect to find in those specimens and examples as valuable as the ones furnished by Mr. Hoover. Mr. Roosevelt was not neglectful of this sort of thing while he was Governor of New York. Some of his messages concerning racial heroes have already been mentioned. But we shall find enough for our purposes without going back of his Presi- dential term, or, indeed, back of the year 1934. Here are some of F.D.R.'s greetings and salutations: January 1, 1934 — A greeting to the Camp Fire Girls of America wishing a year of increased happiness to them and to all citizens of the country. January 9, 1934 — A message to leaders of the automobile in- dustry congratulating them on their contribution to national recovery and wishing the industry still greater progress in 1934. January 14, 1934 — A message read at services in the Cathe- dral of Sts. Peter and Paul, Philadelphia, in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the ratification by Congress of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War. January 17, 1934 — A letter to the President of the Poor Richard Club, Philadelphia, paying tribute to Benjamin Frank- lin upon the 228th anniversary of Franklin's birth, and the sending of a wreath to be placed on Franklin's grave. We have seen that Mr. Hoover sent a wreath just a year before, and it would seem that, if a copper or wrought- iron wreath were used, it could be salvaged and relaid reverentially each year. Republican and Democratic Ad- ministrations have no divergence of policy here. It seems to me that there would be no need of changing the wreath with a change in the national Administration. Dangerous Dabbling with the British — Mystification of 278 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, "Grandma" Logan. — Continuing tabulation of the Roose- velt greetings: January 20, 1934 — A letter paying tribute to Benjamin Franklin sent to the annual meeting of the International Ben- jamin Franklin Society in New York City. (It is clear that our Presidents attach much importance to Benjamin Franklin.) January 20, 1934 — A box of four dozen roses to William H. Egan, station master at the Pennsylvania Terminal, New York City, who was recovering from a critical illness. February 5, 1934 — A letter of greeting to the Society of the Genesee read at the 35 th annual reunion of the Society. February 14, 1934 — A message to representatives of Gov- ernors of forty-four states meeting in Washington to formulate a program of labor legislation. February 21, 1934 — A letter to Viscountess Bryce read in London at the inaugural meeting of the James Bryce Fellowship, established for "the furtherance of Anglo-American under- standing." This dabbling in greetings to the British seems of doubt- ful wisdom in view of the success with which, as we have seen, American politicians have made use of the old re- liable anti-British sentiment. No one ever read of Big Bill Thompson's sending a greeting to a Britisher, female or male. However, no harm seems to have come to Mr. Roosevelt thus far. February 23, 1934 — Cordial greetings to Leopold III, King of the Belgians, upon his accession to the throne. February 24, 1934 — A letter, with the promise of a photo- graph, to a 1 5 -year-old Philadelphia boy recovering from in- fantile paralysis. March 1, 1934 — A message to Rabbi Goldstein, New York City, read over the radio in an observance of the festival of Purim. March 9, 1934 — A message to the National Conference on the Education and Rehabilitation of Handicapped Children, praising the educational benefits of the Conference. OUTCRIES AND PROTECTIVE COLORING 279 March 18, 1934 — A message read over the radio in observance of the 97th anniversary of the birth of Grover Cleveland, eulo- gizing Cleveland's high-mindedness and high ability. April 5, 1934 — A message of greeting to the Cambridge (England) University rugby football team, read at a dinner given the team by the Sportsmanship Brotherhood of New York City. The student should note the warning given a little above about dabbling in greetings to the British. April 16, 1934 — A message read to a meeting of the D.A.R. in Washington, paying tribute to the patriots of the Revolution. April 28, 1934 — A letter to "Uncle Robert," sponsor of the annual Parents' Day in New York City, commending "Uncle Robert's" effort. April 29, 1934 — A message, broadcast over the radio in a program for Brotherhood Day, sponsored by the National Con- ference of Jews and Christians, urging elimination of suspicions and prejudices. May 10, 1934 — A message to the American Law Institute meeting in Washington urging that the Institute undertake the clarification and simplification of the substantive criminal law. May 11, 1934 — A letter to the National Editorial Association meeting at Columbia, Missouri, expressing appreciation of sup- port of the national recovery program and denying any inter- ference with the freedom of the press on the part of the gov- ernment. June 4, 1934 — A cablegram congratulating King George V on his birthday. June 5, 1934 — A message to the American Newspaper Guild meeting in St. Paul declaring that newspaper men are rendering real and valued service to the nation. June 18, 1934 — A message to the Advertising Federation of America meeting in New York City expressing appreciation of the Association's service in interpreting the purposes of the re- covery program. June 24, 1934 — A letter to "Grandma" Mary Logan of Brooklyn congratulating her on her reaching the age of 100 years. 280 THE POLITICIAN: HIS HABITS, "Grandma" Logan and her family were mystified as to how the President learned she was a centenarian, but the old lady was immensely pleased with the letter. New York newspapers gave considerable space to this event. This was a first-rate greeting, and the President's secre- tariat deserves credit. August 2, 1934 — A cablegram of condolence on the death of President von Hindenburg of Germany to Herr Adolf Hitler, Chancellor and new President. August 3, 1934 — A message of condolence to Leopold, King of the Belgians, upon the death of Ambassador May. An Exemplary Message to Lutherans — And One to American Jewry — Greetings to a Cabinet Member — Trib- ute to an Irish Hero. — Comparisons are odious, according to the old saying. But, in a serious work of this sort, we must stop at nothing; I mean at nothing beneficial to the student. So, at this time, it is necessary to contrast with President Hoover's celebrated message to the Lutherans a message sent by President Roosevelt on August 18, 1934, to 8,000 Lutherans meeting at Playland, Westchester County, New York, in commemoration of the 400th anni- versary of the publication of Martin Luther's translation of the Bible. To have 8,000 Lutherans meeting at Play- land seems a little incongruous, but let that pass. The President's message read: