53 The Newark Evening News has consistently favored the primary since before its adoption in the state. It states that while the law is not considered perfect by any means, there is a profound public sentiment against doing away with it until something better is discovered. As to effects, “so far as Essex county is concerned, the direct primaries resulted in the last three years in nominations for members of the state assembly and the board of freeholders that would not have been possible had the selection been left to the organization-controlled convention.” Two points of view, not necessarily in conflict, come from Pennsylvania: “We have found that the direct primary system has raised the standard of public servants. On the whole, Pennsylvania is satisfied with its operation and there is no indication that it will ever be repealed; more likely it will be strengthened.” (Philadelphia North American). “The machine invariably names the nominee. The political organization gets behind a candidate with power and money. Independent movements are usually broken up by bringing fake candidates into the field for the purpose of splitting up the opposition. Primaries can almost always be controlled—always save when there is a tremendous uprising—by the politicians. Nevertheless, the primary laws are apparently permanent” (Philadelphia Inquirer).
Editorial opinion from Ohio is harmonious. The Plain Dealer reports: “The primary in the present form is not accepted as final and is under attack from about every direction—mainly upon certain defects, such as the necessity of declaring one's political faith, and the manipulation of the primary by political machines.” The Cincinnati Enquirer believes the primary has “fallen into great disrepute and disregard if indeed it ever was entitled to the approbation of the public. Primaries are today in Ohio more brazenly manipulated by the politi cians than ever were conventions‥…There has been no blocking of the channels for corrupt practices and the use of money.” The Fort Wayne (Indiana) Journal Gazette asserts that the primary has not been satisfactory in operation or results, and that it is under attack from many quarters. The most noted defects are its failure to improve the general character of politics, obtain higher-grade men for office, its cost of operation, and the length and expense of primary campaigns. The last Democratic state convention frankly denounced the law; the Republican convention took similar ground in more guarded terms.
The Detroit News is favorable to the primary, believing it is here to stay although “lack of public interest prevents the best results from any system.” Mr. Milton R. Palmer, of the Michigan legislature, replies at the request of the Detroit Free Press: “The primary system has changed methods but has made little difference on results. About the same class of people are candidates for office and they manage public business in very much the same way.” “To a large extent the press has taken the place of the ‘machine’ in Michigan politics.” “The conclusion is that the bosses are more numerous and less responsible.”
The Peoría (Illinois) Journal considers the primary permanent, as no attack has been made upon it by any considerable body of citizens. The Des Moines Capitol believes it might be a satisfactory plan to nominate all the minor officers at caucuses and limit the primary to United States senator and governor, and until some such compromise can be reached would retain the present system. “The greatest objection to the primary is that it offers rewards to those who make the biggest promises on the stump.” The Des Moines Register thinks there is a great deal of criticism of the present primary—the methods rather than the principle. “The feeling is that we went altogether too far towards government by direct popular vote.” The Sioux Falls (South Dakota) Argus-Leader says: “If you understand our law, you have progressed farther than most of us here. Inasmuch as in most cases the proposal-men are elected by only a few voters, the plan is an open invitation to the building up of machine politics‥…The remainder of the law is not unpopular. I question whether the personnel of office-holders has been improved by any of the primary laws.” The Aberdeen (South Dakota) American states that the primary is attacked by the dominant Republican party, notwithstanding an impregnable machine organization can be created under it. A return to the simple direct primary, with convention nomination of state officers, is the ideal most generally sought.
The Capitol News (Boise, Idaho) forecasts the reënactment at some future date of the primary for state and congressional office. A former newspaper man holds that the state-wide primary invited the incompetent who could fool the people, that the sentiment three years ago was so strong against the primary that it was almost repealed outright, and that a fight is still waged by friends and foes. The Portland Oregonian says editorially: “When the public understands a little better that under the primary party organization is supplanted, and individual and personal politics takes its place, with no improvement over the old condition not wholly due to public sentiment, there may be invented and adopted a better method of selecting candidates for office.” “Every candidate is his own party and the goat has as good a chance as the sheep—if he makes enough noise.” “There is not a vast difference in virtue between the opportunity of choice among self-appointed candidates often wanted only by themselves, and the privilege of perfunctorily ratifying candidates who are at least wanted by somebody.” The San Francisco Chronicle thinks the primary “impairs party responsibility, the only alternative of personal government,” that its specific defects have been: the supplanting of public conventions by the private caucus; intraparty quarrels; enormous sums spent in campaigns; the substitution of orators for business men in the conduct of public business.
The Houston Chronicle admits that “primary elections during recent years have been very, very disappointing, and the candidates not of the high character seen in former years Many of our best citizens are clamoring for a return of the convention method.” Mr. Tom Finty of the Dallas Journal states: “Within the last six or eight years there has been a visible growth of expressed opposition to the new system. It is my opinion that a majority of the people are against it but most of them hesitate to speak aloud because they are obsessed by the promoted belief that the ‘people’ are hog-wild over the system‥…It has transpired that only men of wealth or who are backed by men of wealth can run with any hope of success. One candidate for governor spent $82,000 to get the nomination.”
The results of the primary elections of the present year, in Indiana, Pennsylvania and Iowa, have revived the discussion of the effects of this method of nominating candidates. The Philadelphia North American considers that the success of Pinchot “demonstrated in memorable fashion the supreme value of the open primary as an instrument of democracy.” David Lawrence, in a Washington dispatch to the New York Evening World, referring to the influence of women in these primaries, writes: “Women are believers in the direct primary system and will fight tooth and nail a return generally to the convention system.” The Chicago Daily News views the nomination of Pinchot as a striking vindication of the direct primary. At the same time there has been a revival of criticism on account of the expense of an active primary campaign. The Baltimore Sun holds that “there can be no step backward from the primary to the outworn convention system with its bossism, its deals and its thwarting of the popular will,” but notes also that: “The direct primary system has some grave defects. They must be got rid of, if possible; but how to do it is a question.” And the Washington correspondent of the Seattle Times maintains that there is a distinct trend against the direct primary, though admitting that it may have been interrupted by such popular successes as these of Pinchot, and Beveridge, (Literary Digest, May 27, June 3, June 17, 1922).Google Scholar
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.