Americans by Choice

by John Palmer Gavit

SOME RESULTS FROM CLEVELAND

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

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

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

TABLE XLIII

Distribution of Nationality in Twenty-nine Precincts in Cleveland

Native born	10
Czech	3
Magyar	3
Polish	3
Jugo-Slav	3
Italian	4
Jewish	3
Total	29

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now the results of the election in the wards dominated by those nationalities might rationally be held to show a pronounced effect of that propaganda, but it was no secret, the old “aristocratic” wards were presumably as keen about pro-Germanism as those inhabited by voters of alien origin, and there, if anywhere, would be the seat of the prejudice against Witt on the ground of alleged radicalism. Why, then, did the native-born conservatives waive their prejudices against Witt, the supposed radical, and overlook the charges of pro-Germanism? And why did the foreign born, who are conventionally expected to be radical, suddenly turn and vote against the only candidate who was accused of being radical? Why did Mr. Witt gain nothing in the heavily German wards (as in fact he did gain nothing) from his German name, his remote German ancestry, and the accusation of pro-Germanism? It was further noted at the time that among the Russian Jews the attack upon Witt turned many normally Democratic votes to the Davis Republican candidate. Why?

The following tables show what happened in the precincts studied:

TABLE XLIV

Distribution of Democratic and Republican Votes in Cleveland in 1913 and 1915 Among Certain Racial Groups

Precincts	Number of Votes		Number of Votes
	1913		1915
	Baker	Davis	Witt	Davis
Native born	945	1,091	1,039	925
Czech	343	223	275	373
Magyar	207	204	302	204
Polish	263	208	205	473
Jugo-Slav	283	135	279	137
Italian	239	282	136	394
Jewish	260	256	273	212

The three elections following—the presidential in 1916, the mayoralty election in 1917, and the governorship election in 1918—exhibit no tendencies attributable either to the war or to any special causes from which one may generalize anything with regard to the political activities and attitudes of the foreign-born voters which would distinguish them from the native-born. In 1912 Wilson carried Polish, Magyar, and Czech precincts. In 1916 he repeated—this presumably not because of any aspect of the war, but because those precincts are normally Democratic.

The Cleveland nonpartisan ballot provides for three choices. One of the objections urged against the nonpartisan ballot has been that the second and third choices would be used only by the more intelligent voter; that the less intelligent would vote for but one. In the elections studied in which this three-choice system was used, 20 per cent of the native born expressed second choices; the foreign born followed in this order:

TABLE XLV

Per Cent of Certain Races Exercising Second and Third Choices

Race	Second Choice Per Cent	Third Choice Per Cent
Native born	20	7
Jugo-Slav	18	7
Jews	14	5
Italians	12	7
Magyars and Bohemians	10	7
Polish	7	3

A smaller per cent exercises third choice, but three foreign-born groups equaled the native born with 7 per cent. The Jews with 5 per cent, Magyars with 4 per cent, Polish with 3 per cent, were the lowest.

While there is little in these figures to justify generalization, it may be said that, on the whole, the voters presumably more intelligent are in practice rather afraid of the second- and third-choice business because they recognize some danger that in expressing a second choice they may, in the final count, negative their first choice; therefore there is a marked tendency among the politically sophisticated to vote only a first choice. At all events, no substantial distinction can be drawn from any available statistics between native and foreign born, as such, with regard to their intelligence or their tendencies in the use of such a device.

When one comes to consider what might be called the human aspects of politics, these elections in Cleveland show, what elections everywhere show, interesting but in no way surprising facts. One is that the voters of any race tend to support a candidate of that race, or a man well known as friendly to its members. Mr. Davis was exceedingly well known and popular among the Bohemians, who are both numerically strong and racially influential in Cleveland. In the first election studied, that of 1911, Mr. Baker, a Democrat, carried the three Bohemian (Czech) precincts by substantial pluralities as against Mr. Hogen. His total vote in these precincts aggregated 445 to Hogen’s 183. But in 1913 Mr. Davis carried one of the precincts. And over against this fact is the consideration that in 1913 Baker was generally much weaker as a candidate than in 1911—for reasons having no appreciable racial bearing. In 1915, as shown in the table above, there was a heavy swing in the three Bohemian districts in favor of Davis, the Republican candidate.

Under the head of human tendencies one may consider the question of the immigrants’ attitude toward prohibition. The reaction is just what would be expected from voters of foreign extraction. The Magyars (Hungarians), normally Democratic, swung greatly enhanced Democratic pluralities when that party was recognized as opposed to prohibition. And the old-country attitudes about the position of woman showed clearly in the vote on woman suffrage, as they all voted against the “dry” proposals and candidates.

In the earlier days in Cleveland the Italians were led by a very influential Italian who was a Republican, and until recent years the Italian vote was preponderantly Republican. Now, however, the Cleveland politicians will tell you that this preponderance has passed; the Italians are said to be fairly evenly divided. But in any particular election the Italian vote may sway this way or that, under the influence of temporary factors that swing elections everywhere. In one Italian precinct, in four municipal elections, the Republican candidate was preferred in every case. Hughes had a small plurality over Wilson. But in two state elections the Democrats won—admittedly because the Republican candidate was regarded as “dry.”

Again the human factor—take the Jews. One of the Cleveland precincts studied is made up of an overwhelming majority of the more prosperous class of Jewish people. The other two are located in the Ghetto of the city. There is no similarity in the political trends of the two parts of the city. The wealthier Jews vote as a rule for Democrat or Republican. In 1917 the Socialist candidate for mayor carried both of the poorer districts. But do the Jews move away from the Socialist districts because they are opposed to Socialism, or do they turn from Socialism when they become more prosperous?

Persistent in most of the studies of this subject is the fallacy of assuming or attempting to find some constant factor attaching either to this or that particular race, or to the state of being foreign born or of foreign antecedents. The Jugo-Slavs in Cleveland are said, and appear to be shown in the statistics above, to be preponderantly Democratic. In 1916 Wilson received in the three Jugo-Slav precincts more than 70 per cent of the total vote. But, aside from the fact that Socialism is or has been at times politically strong among the Jugo-Slavs, we have no data to show how Jugo-Slavs voted in districts where they are in the minority; we do not know why they voted for Wilson in 1916, or how many of them did so vote. The 70 per cent above referred to included large numbers of voters in those precincts who were of other racial complexion, and the individual ballot in no instance discloses the inner mind of the voter.