TheContext:Transformations andPragmatism
2.1Introduction
Thethreedecadesofmyprofessionaljourneytodatehavecoincided withanunprecedentedaccelerationofglobalizationthathas transformedtheworldintotoday’sGlobalEra.Iamprobablynot aloneinfindingtheworldtodayafascinating,fastchanging,and diverse,yethighlycomplex,confusing,andvolatileplace,atleastas comparedtothetimewhenIwasgrowingup.Wehaveinformationat ourfingertips,onlineandinrealtime,abouteveryexcessfrom exuberantwealthandgrowthdynamicstoextrememiseryandpoverty.Whilethesediscrepanciesalwaysexisted,forthefirsttimein humanhistorythisbroadlyavailableinformationallowsustoeasily comparethelifestyleofahedgefundmanagerbillionairein CaliforniawiththatofaconstructionworkerinIndiamakingseventy centsaday.OrwecancomparethelifestyleofasheikinAbuDhabi withthatofdaylaborersinBurkinaFasowhoarediggingforgoldin thedesertundermiserableconditionsandarefightingforthemere survivaloftheirfamilies.
Whilethespreadbetweentheseextremesseemstobegettingwider andwider,thetimespanswithinwhichradicalchangecanhappen seemtobegettingshorterandshorter.Forexample,in2007/2008we witnessedtheworstfinancialandeconomiccrisissincetheGreat Depressioninthe1930s,andtherewasawidespreadsensethatthe worldmightgrindtoahalt—atleasteconomically.Severalyearslater complacencyseemstobecreepinginagain,andthoseprivileged enoughtobeabletoparticipateintheworld’srealassetmarketsare
reapingdoubledigitreturnsontheirinvestmentsasaresultofthe onceagainexuberantmarketdynamicsfueledbyloosemonetary policy.
Indeed,seenfromtoday’sperspective,theworldsome40yearsago lookedquiteorderly.Therewasa“FirstWorld”thattraditionally referredtocapitalist,industrializedcountriesliketheUnitedStates, WesternEuropeancountries,aswellasotherindustrializedcountries likeJapan,Australia,andNewZealand.The“FirstWorld”covered approximately15%oftheworld’spopulationandaccountedforover 60%ofglobalGDP.The“SecondWorld”wastheinfluencesphereof theformerSovietUnionandwasclosedtoallothers,hiddenbehind theIronCurtain.Andthe“ThirdWorld”—theonlyoneofthese threetermsthatisstilloccasionallyusedtoday,despiteitsobvious obsolescence—includedeverythingelseandwascharacterizedby poverty,famine,war,andnaturaldisaster.LargepartsofAsiaand LatinAmerica,inparticular,werelookedatashopelessinlightof overpopulationanddifficultclimaticconditions,whereastherewas moreoptimismaboutAfrica,basedonitswealthofnatural resources. 1 Theworldalsoseemedcomparativelysimpleratthat time,becausetherewerefewchallengesacknowledgedasbeing trulyglobal,apartfromglobalsecurityconcernsinthecontextof theColdWarandtheinternationaltradeandfinancearchitecture establishedaftertheSecondWorldWar.Therefore,onlylimited internationalgovernancemechanismsexistedtointerferewiththe actionsofsovereignstates.Thestatewasthepredominantpointof referenceforpoliticalandeconomicthoughtandactionatthetime, anditalonewassupposedtoensureeffectiveandfairlaws, regulations,andpoliciesviademocraticprocesses.
Theseareobservationsfromtoday’sperspective,buttherealityat thetimewasnotsosimplegiventheexistenceofpowerblocksthat hadhugecross-borderinfluence,suchastheWesternAllianceandthe
1 Therewasevenanalternative“ThreeWorld”conceptdevelopedbyMao,as formerU.S.SecretaryofStateHenryKissingerreferredtoinhiscomprehensive book OnChina whenhequotedChairmanDengXiaopingassaying,“The UnitedStatesandtheSovietUnionbelongedtothefirstworld.Countriessuch asJapanandEuropewerepartofthesecondworld.Alltheunderdeveloped countriesconstitutedtheThirdWorld,towhichChinabelongedaswell.” (Kissinger, 2011,p.303) 102TheContext:TransformationsandPragmatism
SovietUnion.Bycomparison,manyThirdWorldcountrieswereonly nominalstatesthatstillreflectedtheirpreviousimperialandcolonial histories.Nevertheless,suchsimplifiedobservationsmaybeusefulto highlightthecontrastwiththeradicallydifferentviewoftoday’s world.TheG20organizationthatgainedincreasedinfluenceduring andaftertheglobalfinancialcrisisof2007/2008,andwhosemembers constituteover90%ofworldGDP,isjustonevisiblesymbolofthe obsolescenceofthethree-tieredworldstructurethatdominatedthe worldviewupuntilthelate1980s.Growthandpoliticalinfluence havebeensteadilyshiftingtomajornewlyemergedeconomies, whereastraditionaleconomicpowerhouses,particularlysomein WesternEurope,arestuckinuncompetitivestructures.Theyseem incapableofreformdespitesubstantialpressurefromdramaticfiscal imbalances,immigration,andunfavorabledemographictrends.
Theforcesthathavebeendrivingthisacceleratedglobalization overthelast40yearsarewell-knownandbroadlypublicized.The mostpowerfulhasbeentheintegrationofaseriesofmajorcountries intoglobaleconomic,andincreasinglypolitical,structures.Some examplesincludeChina(whichstartedtoopenuptotheworldin 1979),Russia(sincethefalloftheBerlinWallin1989),aswellas IndiaandBrazil(giventheiracceleratedeconomicgrowth,particularlyoverthelastdecade).Severalcountriesofsub-SaharanAfrica, aswellasselectedLatinAmericancountries,havealsoexperienced anunprecedentedrecouplingwiththeworldeconomy.Theintegrationofallofthesecountrieshasfosteredtheglobalizationprocesses forgoods,financialservices,andlabormarkets.Withregardto financialmarketsspecifically,theirglobalizationhasbeenamajor contributingfactortotherestructuringofalargepartofthecorporate world.2 Onlyaboutaquarterofthe“Fortune500”globalcompanies
2 In1987,IwaspartofaninternationalprojectteamatMcKinseythatwas mandatedtoconductthefirstsubstantial,internalresearchontheglobalization offinancialmarkets.Weanalyzedglobalizationtrendsanddebatedhypotheses aboutexplanationsandconsequences,andwealsoderiveddifferentstrategy modelsforfinancialfirmstoconsiderandbenefitfromtheseglobalization trends.Aninterestinginsightatamorepersonallevelrelatestothehighlevel ofdiversityoftheteammembers,whichwascharacteristicofourglobalizing worldatthattime.Theparticipants’deepmentalmodelsreflectedtheircultural biases,irrespectiveofthelevelofeducationandthefactthatwewereall
from1970werestillmoreorlessactiveundersimilarbrandsandwith similarbusinesses35yearslater,manytraditionalcorporationshave disappeared,andothershaveemerged.
Atthesametime,therevolutionaryprogressininformationand communicationtechnologieshasallowedforlocaleventstobe transportedimmediatelyontoglobalcommunicationplatforms.Asa result,moreandmoreglobalchallengeshaveemergedthatneedtobe addressedbyglobalgovernancemechanisms.Oneofthemorerecent examplesofsuchmechanismsistheUnitedNationsMillennium DeclarationthatarticulatesglobalMillenniumDevelopmentGoals toaddresspovertyandencouragedevelopmentintheworld’spoorest countries.Otherexamplesincludethevarioussummitsheldto addressclimatechangeandtheestablishmentofanewFinancial StabilityBoard(FSB),aninternationalbodymandatedtodealwith theglobalfinancialcrisis.
Weareclearlylivingintimesofradicaltransformation.Butwe shouldbecarefulnottotakethesechangesforgranted,forglobalizationmaybeareversibletrend—asbecomesevidentwhenlookinginto thepast.AsMarkTwainoncesaid,“Historydoesnotrepeatitself,but itdoesrhyme.”Forexample,manyattemptstobuildglobalempires— fromAlexandertheGreattoGenghisKhanandfromtheOttoman EmpiretotheSpanishEmpire,tomentionjustafew—weresuccessful duetogreatstridesthathadbeenmadeatthattimeintermsof improvementsintechnologyandcommunicationaswellasincreased accessibility.Thoseempireseventuallyfell,butglobalizationreturned againinmoderntimesbeforeWorldWarI.Atthattime,atleastpartof theworldwasglobalized,almosttotheextentthatweareexperiencing today.However,unliketoday,globalizationopportunitiesatthat timewereonlyaccessibletoaverysmallnumberofpeoplefrom workinginaglobalorganizationwithaconsistentvaluesystem.TheEuropeans believedthatwhatwentupforanextendedperiodoftimemusteventuallycome down.TheAmericansexploredanewparadigmtoarguethatwhatwentupfor anextendedperiodoftimewouldgoevenhigher.InOctober,theequitycrash provedtheEuropeansright—forthattime.Anotherinsightthatcouldbe discernedbylookingatthisexperiencefromtoday’spointofviewwasthe factthatglobalizationthenwasstillverymuchlookedatfroma“FirstWorld” perspective.TherewasnoroomforatrulyAsian,African,orLatin Americanview.
theupperclasses.Thisiswellillustratedbyaremarkable,often quotedtextfromtheBritisheconomistJohnMaynardKeynes, whichwaspublishedin1920whenhewasaskedtoanalyzethe consequencesoftheVersaillespeacetreaties.Hisanalysisbegan withadescriptionofthewayoflifeofLondoncitizensattheoutset ofWorldWarI:
TheinhabitantofLondoncouldorderbytelephone,sippinghismorning teainbed,thevariousproductsofthewholeearth,insuchquantityashe mightseefit,andreasonablyexpecttheirearlydeliveryuponhisdoorstep; hecouldatthesamemomentandbythesamemeansadventurehiswealth inthenaturalresourcesandnewenterprisesofanyquarteroftheworld, andshare,withoutexertionoreventrouble,intheirprospectivefruitsand advantages; ... Hecouldsecureforthwith,ifhewishedit,cheapand comfortablemeansoftransittoanycountryorclimatewithoutpassportor otherformality, .But,mostimportantofall,heregardedthisstateof affairsasnormal,certain,andpermanent,exceptinthedirectionoffurther improvement.(Keynes, 1920,p.5)
Ittookover50years,twoWorldWars,andoneColdWartoget backtothelevelsofeconomicintegrationthathadprevailed,atleast withintheBritishEmpire,beforeWorldWarI.HistoriansTonyJudt andTimothySnyderdescribethisjourneyintheirbookcalled ThinkingtheTwentiethCentury asfollows:
Thetwodecadesfollowingtheendofthelate-nineteenthcenturyeconomicdepressionwerethefirstgreatageofglobalization;theworld economywastrulybecomingintegratedinjustthewaysKeynes suggested.Forpreciselythisreason,thescaleofthecollapseduringand aftertheFirstWorldWarandtherateatwhicheconomiescontracted betweenthewarsisdifficultforustoappreciateevennow ... ittookuntil themid-1970sforeventhecoreeconomiesofprosperousWesternEurope togetbacktowheretheyhadbeenin1914,aftermanydecadesof contractionandprotection.Inshort,theindustrialeconomiesofthe West(withtheexceptionoftheUnitedStates)experiencedasixty-year decline,markedbytwoworldwarsandanunprecedentedeconomic depression.(Judt&Snyder, 2012,p.26f.)
Thesetwoquotesillustratethattransformationsfromaccelerated globalizationarenotlinear.Theyhavethepotentialtocreatehuge opportunitiesforinnovationandprogress,butalsotospell
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
previously passed a prohibitory constitutional amendment, in itself defective, and as no legislation had been enacted to enforce it, those who wished began to sell as though the right were natural, and in this way became strong enough to resist taxation or license. The Legislature of 1882, the majority controlled by the Republicans, attempted to pass the Pond liquor tax act, and its issue was joined. The liquor interests organized, secured control of the Democratic State Convention, nominated a ticket pledged to their interests, made a platform which pointed to unrestricted sale, and by active work and the free use of funds, carried the election and reversed the usual majority. Governor Foster, the boldest of the Republican leaders, accepted the issue as presented, and stumped in favor of license and the sanctity of the Sabbath; but the counsels of the Republican leaders were divided, Ex-Secretary Sherman and others enacting the role of “confession and avoidance.” The result carried with it a train of Republican disasters. Congressional candidates whom the issue could not legitimately touch, fell before it, probably on the principle that “that which strikes the head injures the entire body.” The Democratic State and Legislative tickets succeeded, and the German element, which of all others is most favorable to freedom in the observance of the Sabbath, transferred its vote almost as an entirety from the Republican to the Democratic party.
Ohio emboldened the liquor interests, and in their Conventions and Societies in other States they agreed as a rule to check and, if possible, defeat the advance of the prohibitory amendment idea. This started in Kansas in 1880, under the lead of Gov. St. John, an eloquent temperance advocate. It was passed by an immense majority, and it was hardly in force before conflicting accounts were scattered throughout the country as to its effect. Some of the friends of temperance contended that it improved the public condition; its enemies all asserted that in the larger towns and cities it produced free and irresponsible instead of licensed sale. The latter seem to have had the best of the argument, if the election result is a truthful witness. Gov. St. John was again the nominee of the Republicans, but while all of the remainder of the State ticket was elected, he fell under a majority which must have been produced by a change of forty thousand votes. Iowa next took up the prohibitory amendment idea, secured its adoption, but the result was injurious to the
Republicans in the Fall elections, where the discontent struck at Congressmen, as well as State and Legislative officers.
The same amendment had been proposed in Pennsylvania, a Republican House in 1881 having passed it by almost a solid vote (Democrats freely joining in its support), but a Republican Senate defeated, after it had been loaded down with amendments. New York was coquetting with the same measure, and as a result the liquor interests—well organized and with an abundance of money, as a rule struck at the Republican party in both New York and Pennsylvania, and thus largely aided the groundswell. The same interests aided the election of Genl. B. F. Butler of Massachusetts, but from a different reason. He had, in one of his earlier canvasses, freely advocated the right of the poor to sell equally with those who could pay heavy license fees, and had thus won the major sympathy of the interest. Singularly enough, Massachusetts alone of all the Republican States meeting with defeat in 1882, fails to show in her result reasons which harmonize with those enumerated as making up the elements of discontent. Her people most do favor high tariffs, taxes on liquors and luxuries, civil service reforms, and were supposed to be more free from legal and political abuses than any other. Massachusetts had, theretofore, been considered to be the most advanced of all the States—in notions, in habit, and in law—yet Butler’s victory was relatively more pronounced than that of any Democratic candidate, not excepting that of Cleveland over Folger in New York, the Democratic majority here approaching two hundred thousand. How are we to explain the Massachusetts’ result? Gov. Bishop was a hightoned and able gentleman, the type of every reform contended for. There is but one explanation. Massachusetts had had too much of reform; it had come in larger and faster doses than even her progressive people could stand—and an inconsistent discontent took new shape there—that of very plain reaction. This view is confirmed by the subsequent attempt of Gov. Butler to defeat the re-election of Geo. F. Hoar to the U. S. Senate, by a combination of Democrats with dissatisfied Republicans. The movement failed, but it came very near to success, and for days the result was in doubt. Hoar had been a Senator of advanced views, of broad and comprehensive statesmanship, but that communistic sentiment which occasionally crops out in our politics and strikes at all leaders, merely from the pleasure of asserting the right to tear down, assailed him with a vigor
almost equal to that which struck Windom of Minnesota, a statesman of twenty-four years’ honorable, able and sometimes brilliant service. To prejudice the people of his State against him, a photograph of his Washington residence had been scattered broadcast. The print in the photograph intended to prejudice being a coach with a liveried lackey. It might have been the coach and lackey of a visitor, but the effect was the same where discontent had run into a fever.
Political discontent gave unmistakable manifestations of its existence in Ohio, Massachusetts, New York (where Ex-Governor Cornell’s nomination had been defeated by a forged telegram), Michigan, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Connecticut, California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. The Republican position was well maintained in New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin. It was greatly improved in Virginia, where Mahone’s Republican Readjuster ticket carried the State by nearly ten thousand, and where a United States’ Senator and Congressman at large were gained, as well as some of the District Congressmen. The Republicans also improved the situation in North Carolina and Tennessee, though they failed to carry either. They also gained Congressmen in Mississippi and Louisiana, but the Congressional result throughout the country was a sweeping Democratic victory, the 48th Congress, beginning March 4, 1883, showing a Democratic majority of 71 in a total membership of 325.
In Pennsylvania alone of all the Northern States, were the Republican elements of discontent organized, and here they were as well organized as possible under the circumstances. Charles S. Wolfe had the year previous proclaimed what he called his “independence of the Bosses,” by declaring himself a candidate for State Treasurer, “nominated in a convention of one.” He secured 49,984 votes, and this force was used as the nucleus for the better organized Independent Republican movement of 1882. Through this a State Convention was called which placed a full ticket in the field, and which in many districts nominated separate legislative candidates.
The complaints of the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania were very much like those of dissatisfied Republicans in other Northern States where no adverse organizations were set up, and these can best be understood by giving the official papers and
correspondence connected with the revolt, and the attempts to conciliate and suppress it by the regular organization. The writer feels a delicacy in appending this data, inasmuch as he was one of the principals in the negotiations, but formulated complaints, methods and principles peculiar to the time can be better understood as presented by organized and official bodies, than where mere opinions of cotemporaneous writers and speakers must otherwise be given. A very careful summary has been made by Col. A. K. McClure, in the Philadelphia Times Almanac, and from this we quote the data connected with the—
The Independent Republican Revolt In Pennsylvania.
The following call was issued by Chairman McKee, of the committee which conducted the Wolfe campaign in 1881:
H S C , C ’ R A , G H ,
P , December 16, 1881.
To the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania:
You are earnestly requested to send representatives from each county to a State conference, to be held at Philadelphia, Thursday, January 12th, 1882, at 10 o ’clock A M , to take into consideration the wisdom of placing in nomination proper persons for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of Internal Affairs and Supreme Court Judge, and such other matters as may come before the conference, looking to the overthrow of “boss rule,” and the elimination of the pernicious “spoils system,” and its kindred evils, from the administration of public affairs It is of the utmost importance that those fifty thousand unshackled voters who supported the independent candidacy of Hon Charles S Wolfe for the office of State Treasurer as a solemn protest against ring domination, together with the scores of thousands of liberty-loving citizens who are ready to join in the next revolt against “bossism,” shall be worthily represented at this conference
I D M K , Chairman
F W L , Secretary.
Pursuant to the above call, two hundred and thirteen delegates, representing thirty-three of the sixtysix counties, met at the Assembly Building, January 12th, 1882, and organized by the election of John J. Pinkerton as chairman, together with a suitable list of vice-presidents and secretaries. After a general interchange of views, a resolution was adopted directing the holding of a State Convention for the nomination of a State ticket, May 24th. An executive committee, with power to arrange for the election of delegates from each Senatorial district, was also appointed, consisting of Messrs. I. D. McKee, of Philadelphia; Wharton Barker, of Montgomery; John J. Pinkerton, of Chester; F. M. Nichols, of Luzerne; H. S. McNair, of York, and C. W. Miller, of Crawford. Mr. Nichols afterwards declining to act, George E. Mapes, of Venango, was substituted in his place. Before the time arrived for the meeting of the convention of May 24th, several futile efforts were made to heal the breach between the two wings of the Republican party. At a conference of leading Independents held in Philadelphia, April 23d, at which Senator Mitchell was present, a committee was appointed for the purpose of conferring with a similar committee from the regular organization, upon the subject of the party differences. The members of the Peace Conference, on the part of the Independents, were Charles S. Wolfe, I. D. McKee, Francis B. Reeves, J. W. Lee, and Wharton Barker. The committee on the part of the Stalwarts were M. S. Quay, John F. Hartranft, C. L. Magee, Howard J. Reeder, and Thomas Cochran. A preliminary meeting was held at the Continental Hotel, on the evening of April 29th, which adjourned to meet at the same place ontheevening of May 1st; at which meeting the following peacepropositionswere agreed upon:
Resolved, That we recommend the adoption of the following principles and methods by the Republican State Convention of May10th.
First. That we unequivocally condemn the use of patronage to promote personal political ends, and require that all offices bestowed within the party shall beupon the sole basis of fitness.
Second. That competent and faithfulofficers should not beremoved except forcause.
Third. That the non-elective minor offices should be filled in accordance with rules established bylaw.
Fourth. That the ascertained popular will shall be faithfully carried out in State and National Conventions, and by those holding office by the favor of the party.
Fifth. That we condemn compulsory assessments for political purposes, and proscription for failure to respond either to such assessments or to requests for voluntary contributions, and that any policy of political proscription is unjust, and calculated to disturb party harmony.
Sixth. That public office constitutes a high trust to be administered solely for the people, whose interests must be paramount to those of persons or parties, and that it should be invariably conducted with the same efficiency, economy, and integrity as areexpected in theexecutionof privatetrusts.
Seventh. That the State ticket should be such as by the impartiality of its constitution and the high character and acknowledged fitness of the nominees will justly commend itself to the support of the united Republican party.
Resolved, That we also recommend the adoption of the following permanent rules for the holding of State Conventions, and theconductof the party:
First. That delegates to State Conventions shall be chosen in the manner in which candidates for the General Assembly are nominated, except in Senatorial districts composed of more than one county, in which conferees for the selection of Senatorial delegates shall be chosen in the manner aforesaid, and the representation of each county shall be based upon its Republican vote cast at the Presidential electionnext preceding the convention.
Second. Hereafter the State Convention of the Republican party shall be held on the second Wednesday of July, except in the year of the Presidential election, when it shall be held not more than thirty days previous to the day fixed for the National Convention, and at least sixty days’ notice shall be given ofthe date of the State Convention.
Third. That every person who voted the Republican electoral ticket at the last Presidential election nextpreceding any State Convention shall be permitted to participate in the election of delegates to State and National Conventions, and we recommend to the county organizations that in their rules they allow the largest freedom in the general participation in the primaries consistent with the preservation of the party organization.
M. S. Q , J.F. H , T C , H J.R , C.L. M ,
On thepart of the Republican State Committee, appointed by Chairman Cooper.
C S.W , I.D. M K , F B.R , W B , J.W.L ,
On thepart of Senator Mitchell’s Independent Republican Committee.
Thefollowing resolution was adopted by the joint conference:
Resolved, That we disclaim any authority to speak or act for other persons than ourselves, and simply make these suggestions asinouropinion are essential to the promotionof harmony and unity.
In order, however, that there might be no laying down of arms on the part of the Independents, in the false belief that the peace propositions had ended the contest, without regard to whether they were accepted in good faith, and put in practice by the regular convention, the following call was issued by the Independent Executive Committee:
E C , C ’ R A P , G H .
P , May 3d, 1882.
To the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania:
At a conference of Independent Republicans held in Philadelphia, on January 12th, 1882, the following resolution was adopted, to wit:
Resolved, That a convention be held on the 24th day of May, 1882, for the purpose of placing in nomination a full Independent Republican ticket for the offices to be filled at the general election next November.
In pursuance and by the authority of the above resolution the undersigned, the State Executive Committee appointed at the said conference, request the Independent Republicans of each county of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to send delegates to the Independent Convention of May 24th, the basis of representation to be the same as that fixed for Senators and Representatives of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania
Should the convention of May 10th fail to nominate as its candidates men who in their character, antecedents and affiliations are embodiments of the principles of true Republicanism free from the iniquities of bossism, and of an honest administration of public affairs free from the evils of the spoils system, such nominations, or any such nomination, should be emphatically repudiated by the Independent Convention of May 24th, and by the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania in November next
The simple adoption by the Harrisburg Convention of May 10th of resolutions of plausible platitudes, while confessing the existence of the evils which we have strenuously opposed, and admitting the justice of our position in opposing them, will not satisfy the Independent Republicans of this Commonwealth. We are not battling, for the construction of platforms, but for the overthrow of bossism, and the evils of the spoils system, which animated a despicable assassin to deprive our loved President Garfield of his life, and our country of its friend and peacemaker.
The nomination of slated candidates by machine methods, thereby tending to the perpetuation of boss dominion in our Commonwealth, should never be ratified by the Independent Republicans in convention assembled or at the polls Upon this very vital point there should be no mistake in the mind of any citizen of this State The path of duty in this emergency leads
forward, and not backward, and forward we should go until bossism and machinism and stalwartism aye, and Cameronism are made to give way to pure Republicanism The people will not submit to temporizing or compromising
We appeal to the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania to take immediate steps toward perfecting their organization in each county, and completing the selection of delegates to the Independent State Convention Use every exertion to secure the choice as delegates of representative, courageous men, who will not falter when the time arrives to act who will not desert into the ranks of the enemy when the final time of testing comes Especially see to it that there shall not be chosen as delegates any Pharisaical Independents, who preach reform, yet blindly follow boss leadership at the crack of the master’s whip Act quickly and act discreetly
A State Campaign Committee of fifty, comprising one member from each Senatorial district, has been formed, and any one desiring to co-operate with us in this movement against the enemies of the integrity of our State, who shall communicate with us, will be immediately referred to the committeeman representing the district in which he lives We urgently invite a correspondence from the friends of political independence from all sections of the State
Again we say to the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania in the interest of justice and the Commonwealth’s honor, leave no stone unturned to vindicate the rights of the people
I D M K , Chairman
W B
J J P
G E M
H S M N
C W M
F W L , Secretary
In pursuance of the above call, the Independent Convention met, May 24th, in Philadelphia, and deciding that the action of the regular Republican Convention, held at Harrisburg on May 10th, did not give the guarantee of reform demanded by the Independents, proceeded to nominate a ticket and adopt a platformsetting forth their views.
Although the break between the two wings of the party was thus made final to all appearances, yet all efforts for a reconciliation were not entirely abandoned. Thos. M. Marshall having declined the nomination for Congressman at Large on the Republican ticket, the convention was reconvened June 21st, for the purpose of filling the vacancy, and while in session, instructed the State Central Committee to use all honorable means to secure harmony between the two sections of the party. Accordingly, the Republican State Committee was called to meet in Philadelphia, July, 13th. At this meeting the following propositions were submittedto the Independents:
Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Harrisburg Convention of June 21st, and authorizing the Republican State Committee to use all honorable means to promote harmony in the party, the said committee, acting in conjunction with the Republican candidates on the State ticket, respectfully submit to theState Committee and candidates of the Independents the following propositions:
First. The tickets headed by James A. Beaver and John Stewart, respectively, be submitted to a vote of theRepublican electors ofthe State, at primaries, as hereinafterprovidedfor.
Second. The selection of candidates to be voted for by the Republican party in November to be submitted as aforesaid, every Republican elector, constitutionally and legally qualified, to be eligible to nomination.
Third. A State Convention to be held, to be constituted as recommended by the Continental Hotel Conference, whereof Wharton Barker was chairman and Francis B. Reeves secretary, to select candidates to be voted for by the Republican party in November, its choice to be limited to the candidatesnow in nomination, or unlimited, as the Independent State Committeemay prefer.
The primaries or convention referred to in the foregoing propositions to be held on or before the fourth Wednesday of August next, under regulations or apportionment to be made by Daniel Agnew, Hampton L. Carson, and Francis B. Reeves, not in conflict, however, with the acts of Assembly regulating primary elections, and the candidates receiving the highest popular vote, or the votes of a majority of the members of the convention, to receive theunited support of the party.
Resolved, That in the opinion of the Republican State Committee the above propositions fully carry out, in letter and spirit, the resolution passed by the Harrisburg Convention, June 21st, and that we hereby pledge the State Committee to carry out in good faith any one of the foregoing propositions whichmay be accepted.
Resolved, That the chairman of the Republican State Committee be directed to forward an official copy of the proceedings of this meeting, together with the foregoing propositions, to the Independent State Committee and candidates.
Whereupon, General Reeder, of Northampton, moved to amend by adding a further proposition, as follows.
Fourth. A State Convention, to be constituted as provided for by the new rules adopted by the late Republican State Convention, to select candidates to be voted for by the Republican party in November, provided, if such convention be agreed to, said convention shall be held not later than the fourth Wednesday in August. Which amendment was agreed to, and the preamble and resolutions as amended were agreedto.
This communication was addressed to the chairman of the Independent State Committee, I. D. McKee, who called the Independent Committee to meet July 27th, to consider the propositions. In the meantime the Independent candidates held a conference on the night of July 13th, and four of them addressedthe following propositions to the candidates of the Stalwart wing of the party:
P , July 13th, 1882
To General James A. Beaver, Hon. William T. Davies, Hon. John M. Greer, William Henry Rawle, Esq., and Marriott Brosius, Esq.
Gentlemen: By a communication received from the Hon Thomas V Cooper, addressed to us as candidates of the Independent Republicans, we are advised of the proceedings of the State Committee, which assembled in this city yesterday
Without awaiting the action of the Independent State Committee, to which we have referred the communication, and attempting no discussion of the existing differences, or the several methods proposed by which to secure party unity, we beg to say that we do not believe that any of the propositions, if accepted, would produce harmony in the party, but on the contrary, would lead to wider divisions. We therefore suggest that the desired result can be secured by the hearty cooperation of the respective candidates. We have no authority to speak for the great body of voters now giving their support to the Independent Republican ticket, nor can we include them by any action we may take. We are perfectly free, however, to act in our individual capacity, and desire to assure you that we are not only willing, but anxious to co-operate with you in the endeavor to restore peace and harmony to our party. That this can be accomplished beyond all doubt we feel entirely assured, if you, gentlemen, are prepared to yield, with us, all personal considerations, and agree to the following propositions:
First. The withdrawal of both tickets.
Second The several candidates of these tickets to pledge themselves not to accept any subsequent nomination by the proposed convention
Under these conditions we will unite with you in urging upon our respective constituencies the adoption of the third proposition submitted by your committee, and conclude the whole controversy by our final withdrawal as candidates Such withdrawal of both tickets would remove from the canvass all personal as well as political antagonisms, and leave the party united and unembarrassed
We trust, gentlemen, that your judgment will approve the method we have suggested, and that, appreciating the importance of concluding the matter with as little delay as possible, you will give us your reply within a week from this date
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
J S
L B D G W M G J
William McMichael, Independent candidate for Congressman at Large, dissented from the proposition of his colleagues, and addressed the following communication to Chairman Cooper:
P , July 13th, 1882
Hon. Thomas V. Cooper, Chairman, etc.
Dear Sir: Your letter of July 12th is received, addressed to the chairman of the State Committee of the Independent Republicans and their candidates, containing certain propositions of your committee. I decline those propositions, because they involve an abandonment of the cause of the Independent Republicans.
If a new convention, representing all Republicans, had nominated an entirely new ticket, worthy of popular support, and not containing the name of any candidate on either of the present tickets, and sincerely supporting the principles of the Independent Republicans, the necessity for a separate Independent Republican movement would not exist Your proposition, however, practically proposes to re-nominate General Beaver, and reaffirm the abuse which we oppose
The convention of Independent Republicans which met in Philadelphia on May 24th, announced principles in which I believe. It nominated me for Congressman at Large, and I accepted that nomination. It declared boldly against bossism, the spoils system, and all the evils which impair Republican usefulness, and in favor of popular rule, equal rights of all, national unity, maintenance of public credit, protection to labor, and all the great principles of true Republicanism. No other ticket now in the field presents those issues. The people of Pennsylvania can say at the polls, in November, whether they approve of those principles, and will support the cause which represents them. I will not withdraw or retire unless events hereafter shall give assurance that necessary reform in the civil service shall be adopted; assessments made upon office-holders returned, and not hereafter exacted; boss, machine, and spoils methods forever abandoned; and all our public offices, from United
States Senator to the most unimportant officials, shall be filled only by honest and capable men, who will represent the people, and not attempt to dictate to or control them
I shall go on with the fight, asking the support of all my fellow-citizens who believe in the principles of the Independent Republican Convention of May 24th
Yours truly,
W M M
Tothese propositions General Beaver and his colleagues replied in the following communication: P , July 15th, 1882
Hon Thomas V Cooper, Chairman Republican State Committee, Philadelphia, Pa
Sir: We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt through you of a communication addressed to us by the Hon John Stewart, Colonel Levi Bird Duff, Major G W Merrick, and George Junkin, Esq ; in response to certain propositions submitted by the Republican State Committee, representing the Republican party of Pennsylvania, looking to an amicable and honorable adjustment of whatever differences there may be among the various elements of the party Without accepting any of the propositions submitted by your committee, this communication asks us, as a condition precedent to any recommendation on the part of the writers thereof, to declare that in the event of the calling of a new convention, we will severally forbid the Republicans of Pennsylvania to call upon us for our services as candidates for the various positions to be filled by the people at the coming election To say that in the effort to determine whether or not our nomination was the free and unbiased choice of the Republican party we must not be candidates, is simply to try the question at issue We have no desire to discuss the question in any of its numerous bearings We have placed ourselves unreservedly in the hands of the Republicans of Pennsylvania We have pledged ourselves to act concurrently with your committee, and are bound by its action We therefore respectfully suggest that we have no power or authority to act independently of the committee, or make any declaration at variance with the propositions submitted in accordance with its action There ought to be and can be no such thing as personal antagonism in this contest We socially and emphatically disclaim even the remotest approach to a feeling of this kind toward any person We fraternize with and are ready to support any citizen who loves the cause of pure Republicanism, and with this declaration we submit the whole subject to your deliberate judgment and wise consideration
J A B
W H R M B
W T D J M G
At the meeting of the Independent State Committee, July 27th, the propositions of the Regular Committee were unanimously rejected, and a committee appointed to draft a reply, which was done in thefollowingterms:
Thomas V. Cooper, Esq., Chairman Republican State Committee.
Dear Sir: I am instructed to advise you that the Independent Republican State Committee have considered the four suggestions contained in the minutes of the proceedings of your committee, forwarded to me by you on the 12th instant
I am directed to say that this committee find that none of the four are methods fitted to obtain a harmonious and honorable unity of the Republican voters of Pennsylvania. All of them are inadequate to that end, for the reason that they afford no guarantee that, being accepted, the principles upon which the Independent Republicans have taken their stand would be treated with respect or put into action. All of them contain the probability that an attempt to unite the Republicans of the State by their means would either result in reviving and strengthening the political dictatorship which we condemn or would permanently distract the Republican body, and insure the future and continued triumph of our common opponent, the Democratic party.
Of the four suggestions, the first, second and fourth are so inadequate as to need no separate discussion: the third, which alone may demand attention, has the fatal defect of not including the withdrawal of that “slated” ticket which was made up many months ago, and long in advance of the Harrisburg Convention, to represent and to maintain the very evils of control and abuses of method to which we stand opposed. This proposition, like the others, supposing it to have been sincerely put forward, clearly shows that you misconceive the cause of the Independent Republican movement, as well as its aims and purposes. You assume that we desire to measure the respective numbers of those who support the Harrisburg ticket and those who find their principles expressed by the Philadelphia Convention. This is a complete and fatal misapprehension. We are organized to promote certain reforms, and not to abandon them in pursuit of votes. Our object is the overthrow of the “boss system” and of the “spoils system.”
In behalf of this we are willing and anxious to join hands with you whenever it is assured that the union will be honestly and earnestly for that purpose But we cannot make alliances or agree to compromises that in their face threaten the very object of the movement in which we have engaged Whether your ticket has the support of many or few, of a majority or a minority of the Republican voters, does not affect in the smallest degree the duty of every citizen to record himself against the abuses which it represents Had the gentlemen who compose it been willing to withdraw themselves from the field, as they were invited to join in doing, for the common good, by the Independent Republican candidates, this act would have encouraged the hope that a new convention, freely chosen by the people, and unembarrassed by claims of existing candidates, might have brought forth the needed guarantee of party emancipation and public reform
This service, however, they have declined to render their party; they not only claim and receive your repeated assurances of support, but they permit themselves to be put forward to secure the use of the Independent Republican votes at the same time that they represent the “bossism,” the “spoils” methods, and the “machine” management which we are determined no longer to tolerate The manner in which their candidacy was decreed, the means employed to give it convention formality, the obligations which they incur by it, the political methods with which it identifies them, and the political and personal plans for which their official influence would be required, all join to make it the most imperative public duty not to give them support at this election under any circumstances
In closing this note, this committee must express its regret, that, having considered it desirable to make overtures to the Independent Republicans, you should have so far misapprehended the facts of the situation It is our desire to unite the Republican party on the sure ground of principle, in the confidence that we are thus serving it with the highest fidelity, and preserving for the future service of the Commonwealth that vitality of Republicanism which has made the party useful in the past, and which alone confers upon it now the right of continued existence The only method which promises this result in the approaching election is that proposed by the Independent Republican candidates in their letter of July 13th, 1882, which was positively rejected by your committee
On behalf of the Independent Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania,
I. D. M K , Chairman.
Withthiscommunication ended all efforts at conciliation.
The election followed, and the Democratic ticket, headed by Robert E. Pattison of Philadelphia, received an average plurality of 40,000, and the Independent Republican ticket received an average vote of about 43,000–showing that while Independence organized did not do as well in a gubernatorial as it had in a previous off-year, it yet had force enough to defeat the Republican State ticket headed by Gen. James A. Beaver. All of the three several State tickets were composed of able men, and the force of both of the Republican tickets on the hustings excited great interest and excitement; yet the Republican vote, owing to the division, was not out by nearly one hundred thousand, and fifty thousand more Republicans than Democrats remained at home, many of them purposely. In New York, where dissatisfaction had no rallying point, about two hundred thousand Republicans remained at home, some because of anger at the defeat of Gov. Cornell in the State nominating convention—some in protest against the National Administrations, which was accused of the desire for direct endorsement where it presented the name of Hon. Chas. J. Folger, its Secretary of the Treasury, as the home gubernatorial candidate,—others because of some of the many reasons set forth in the bill of complaints which enumerates the causes of the dissatisfaction within theparty.
At this writing the work of Republican repair is going on. Both the Senate and House at Washington are giving active work to the passage of a tariff bill, the repeal of the revenue taxes, and the passage of a two-cent letter postage bill—measures anxiously hastened by the Republicans in order to anticipate friendly and defeat unfriendly attempts on the part of the Democratic House, which comes in with the first session of the 48th Congress.
In Pennsylvania, as we close this review of the struggle of 1882, the Regular and Independent Republican State Committees—at least the heads thereof—are devising a plan to jointly call a Republican State Convention to nominate the State ticket to be voted for in November, 1883. The groundswell was so great that it had no sooner passed, than Republicans of all shades of opinion, felt the need of harmonious action, and the leaders everywhere set themselves to the work ofrepair.
The Republicans in the South differed from those of the North in the fact that their complaints were all directed against a natural political enemy—the Bourbons—and wherever there was opportunity they favored and entered into movements with Independent and Readjuster Democrats, with the sole object of revolutionizing political affairs in the South. Their success in these combinations was only great in Virginia,but it proved to be promising in North Carolina, Mississippi, andLouisiana, and may take more definite andgeneralshape in the great campaign of 1884.
The Democratic party was evidently surprised at its great victory in 1882, and has not yet formally resolved what it will do with it. The Congress beginning with December, 1883, will doubtless give some indication of the drift of Democratic events.
The most notable law passed in the closing session of the 47th Congress, was the Civil Service Reform Bill, introduced by Senator Geo. H. Pendleton of Ohio, but prepared under the direction of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Republicans, feeling that there was some public demand for the passage of a measure of the kind, eagerly rushed to itssupport, at atime when it was apparent that thespoils of office might slip from their hands. From opposite motives the Democrats, who had previously encouraged, now ran away from it, but it passed both Houses with almost a solid Republican vote, a few Democratsin
each House voting with them. President Arthur signed the bill, but at this writing the Commission which it creates has not been appointed, and of course none of the rules and constructions under the act have been formulated. Its basic principles are fixed tenure in minor places, competitive examinations, and non-partisan selections.
