Corruption in American politics and life

by Robert C. Brooks

In considering abuses which affect our journalism one should not forget certain conditions which set a limit to the corrupt manipulation of the greatest single agency of public instruction. A modern newspaper is a large capitalistic enterprise, of course, but its business is peculiar in that it must sell its product to tens of thousands of people every day at the price of a cent or two per copy. However plutocratic a paper may be at one end it always represents the extreme of democracy at the other. Our press is occasionally prostituted by large moneyed interests, but it is in much more constant danger of that directly opposite form of corruption, namely demagogy. Reform of the press depends ultimately upon the reform of its readers. Even on the latter side, however, we have to note an increasing and very gratifying readiness on the part of our papers to tell the American people the truth about themselves and about foreign peoples regardless of all our old time prejudices and antipathies.[44]

Reverting to the plutocratic influences affecting the press, however, we have seen that in the nature of things no single newspaper can become the tool of all the anti-social interests. It can defend effectively only the few which for one reason or another are approved by the managers of its policy. Usually a newspaper which is thus silent or mildly unctuous on certain abuses endeavours to rehabilitate itself by the condemnation, sometimes in a sensational and even hysterical fashion, of other abuses, thus conducting, so to speak, a vigorous department of moral foreign affairs. As a result the position taken by the press as a whole on most points is strongly favourable to the public interest. On this ground one may find a philosophic justification for the sentiment so compactly phrased by Mr. George William Curtis to the effect that “no abuse of a free press can be so great as the evil of its suppression.”[45]

Even in dealing with those subjects concerning which a given paper is not honest with its readers great care must be exercised. So far as possible it must conceal the evidences of selfish interest and present its case on grounds of public policy. Now arguments based on such grounds are always worthy at least of consideration. A very large part of political discussion, not only journalistic but of other kinds, is “inspired” in this fashion, and it not infrequently happens that what may be in accord with the self interest of individuals and groups is also in accord with public interest. If this is not the case a competing paper ought to be able to expose pretty effectively the false assertions of its wily contemporary. In dealing with national questions which are discussed by newspapers in every part of the country this function of mutual criticism is in general well performed. Cases occur, however, especially in connection with municipal issues, where practically every paper of wide local circulation is either silenced or actively engaged in the support of a crooked deal. Under such circumstances a fight in defence of public interest is almost hopeless. The more nearly the press of a given district approaches this condition of corrupt paralysis, however, the brighter are the opportunities for an opposition paper. In journalism as everywhere in the world of social phenomena the inviolable law prevails that a function cannot be abused without corresponding harm to the agency which allows itself to be perverted. If it should ever happen,—although at the present time the prospect seems remote enough,—that a thoroughgoing control embracing the daily papers of the whole country should be established in defence of consolidated interests, it is certain that some new agency of publicity would spring up in the interest of the people as a whole. In the end the daily papers themselves would be the worst sufferers from a general perversion of their activities. As a matter of fact a new and powerful journalistic organ has already developed an influence not incomparable with that of the daily press. The wonderful growth of the low priced monthly and weekly magazines during the decade just past has been explained on various grounds:—the cheapening of paper and of illustrations, the second-class mailing privilege, the effectiveness of such media for advertisement, and so on. No doubt these factors go far toward explaining the great expansion of magazine circulation, but in spite of much journalistic prejudice to the contrary circulation and influence are not necessarily correlative. And the influence, as distinct from the circulation, of the magazines has been due very largely to the boldness and effectiveness with which they assailed many public abuses with regard to which for one reason or another the daily press was silent or even favourable. Of course the detached situation of the magazines made it easy and even profitable for them to pursue policies which might have cost the newspapers dear. In any event a new way was found for the effective journalistic presentation of the public interest.

In discussing the alleged corruption of the learned professions as a whole reference was made to the powerful influence of professional codes of ethics. One must recognise the journalistic instinct and journalistic traditions as strong factors of similar character. Even where editorial and reportorial staffs have given way, for purely bread and butter reasons, to what they knew were the selfish suggestions of controlling financial interests these same interests must sometimes have wondered at the lukewarmness of their paper’s support, and also, perhaps, at the enthusiasm which it manifested for some good cause indifferent to them. Moreover professional standards are rising in this field as well as elsewhere. No one has given clearer or more forcible expression to the highest of these newer ideals of journalism than Mr. George Harvey of the North American Review, whose words, by the way, present the extreme of contrast to those quoted earlier from Mr. Swinton. After pointing out that the great editorial leaders of the past generation,—Greeley, Raymond, Dana, Bennett,—were shackled by their own political ambitions, Mr. Harvey asks:

“What, then, shall we conclude? That an editor shall bar acceptance of public position under any circumstances? Yes, absolutely, and any thought or hope of such preferment, else his avowed purpose is not his true one, his policy is one of deceit in pursuance of an unannounced end; his guidance is untrustworthy, his calling that of a teacher false to his disciples for personal advantage, his conduct a gross betrayal not only of public confidence, but also of the faith of every true journalist jealous of a profession which should be of the noblest and the farthest removed from base uses in the interests of selfish men.” ...

“He [the journalist] is, above all, a teacher who, through daily appeals to the reason and moral sense of his constituency, should become a real leader.... Above capital, above labour, above wealth, above poverty, above class, and above people, subservient to none, quick to perceive and relentless in resisting encroachments by any, the master journalist should stand as the guardian of all, the vigilant watchman on the tower ever ready to sound the alarm of danger, from whatever source, to the liberties and the laws of this great union of free individuals.”[46]

Discussion of the “tainted money” charge so far as it affects our universities and colleges can not, of course, be presented with complete objectivity by the present writer. Nothing can be promised beyond an earnest effort to attain detachment and impartiality. On the other hand, a decade spent in the active teaching of the principal debatable subjects in three institutions of widely different character may furnish a basis of experience of some value.[47]

First of all there must be no blinking of the importance of the subject. “It is manifest,” wrote the acute Hobbes, “that the Instruction of the people, dependeth wholly, on the right teaching of Youth in the Universities.” Quaint as is the language in which he defends this proposition the argument which it contains is applicable with few changes to modern conditions.

“They whom necessity, or couvetousnesse keepeth attent on their trades, and labour; and they, on the other side, whom superfluity, or sloth carrieth after their sensuall pleasures, (which two sorts of men take up the greatest part of Man-kind,) being diverted from the deep meditation, which the learning of truth, not onely in the matter of Natural Justice, but also of all other Sciences necessarily requireth, receive the Notions of their duty, chiefly from Divines in the Pulpit, and partly from such of their Neighbours, or familiar acquaintance, as having the Faculty of discoursing readily, and plausibly, seem wiser and better learned in cases of Law, and Conscience, than themselves. And the Divines, and such others as make shew of Learning, derive their knowledge from the Universities, and from the Schooles of Law, or from the Books, which by men eminent in those Schooles, and Universities have been published.”[48]

In spite of the development of other intermediate agencies of public instruction since the seventeenth century, and particularly of the press and our elementary school system, the influence of universities and colleges was never greater than it is at present, and it is an influence which is constantly increasing in strength. The number of universities and colleges is larger, their work is more efficient, their curricula are broader, the number of college bred men in the community is greater, and their leadership therein more perceptible than ever before. Professors are enlisting in industrial, scientific, and social activities outside academic walls in a way undreamed of so long as the old monastic ideals held sway. By extension lectures and still more by books and articles they are reaching larger and larger masses of the people. Newspapers formulate current public opinion, but to the writer, at least, it seems plainly apparent that the best thought of the universities and colleges to-day is the thought that in all likelihood will profoundly influence both press and public opinion in the near future. Academic observers of the sound money struggle of 1896, for example, must have smiled frequently to themselves at the arguments employed during the campaign. There was not one of them which had not been the commonplace of economic seminars for years. The newspapers and the abler political leaders on both sides simply filled their quivers with arrows drawn from academic arsenals. Extreme cleverness was shown by many journalists and campaign orators in popularising this material, in adapting it to local conditions, and in placing it broadcast before the people, but of original argumentation on their part there was scarcely a scintilla. It is significant also that the battle of the ballots was decided in favour of the contention which commanded the majority of scientific supporters. Subsequent political issues, great and small, have developed very similar phenomena, although of course it would be absurd to assert that in all cases the dominant opinion of the literati prevailed at the ballot. There are also certain academic ideals of the day with which practical politics and business are demonstrably and crassly at variance. Not until the fate of many future battles is decided can we estimate the full strength of the university influence on such pending questions. Victory would seem assured in a sufficient number of cases, however, to make it clear that just as the wholesomeness of the public opinion of to-day is conditioned by the independence of the press, so the wholesomeness of the public opinion of to-morrow will be determined largely by the independence of our colleges and universities.