A Critical STEP for California Pr0gresswism Steve Brady

The History Students’ Association Presents: TNE DmEcr PRIMARy: A CRITIcAL STEP FOR CALifoRNIA PR0GREssWIsM Steve Brady istory has anointed Hiram Johnson the standard bearer of California Progressivism. His two terms as Governor, lasting from 1911-1919, encompass the years generally associated with Progressivism in California.’ While Johnson was governor, the legislatures of the state passed significant Progressive legislation such as the referendum, initiative, recall, workmen’s compensation laws, implementation of a stronger railroad commission, and women’s suffrage. Even before Johnson’s election, however, a critical Progressive law had already been debated and passed. The importance of the direct primary law of 1909 in helping Hiram Johnson and other Progressives to get elected in 1910 is often overlooked. Because of the direct primary law, Californians finally ended the power of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SP) in their politics. Politics and the power of the political party were never to be the same in the Golden State. The direct primary allowed Californians to select nominees for state-wide offices. Thus, it weakened the traditional party convention and nominating system which had previously been controlled by the Southern Pacific Railroad. The direct primary debate showed the oppressive influence that the Southern Pacific Railroad’s “machine” legislators had upon the legislature in 1907, and the waning of their influence by 1909. It also showed that reform minded “anti-machine” Progressives were most effective when they were able to neatly frame issues in terms such as “the people” against “the interests.” This paper will explore whether there was a general Progressive movement in California, who supported and opposed the direct primary, and how these issues were framed. It will ask whether the overwhelming support for a direct primary was simply a show of widespread disgust at the Spencer Olin, Caflfornias Prodigal Sons (Berkeley, CA: University of Ca)ifomia Press, 196$). Page 70 San Francisco State University The History Journal: Ex Post Facto oppressive influence of the Southern Pacific upon the state government, or if it exhibited the signs of a truly dynamic movement that could hold together after the direct primary was passed. finally, it will chronologically detail the history of the direct primary, and it will attempt to convey the importance of the direct primary legislation upon the history of the state. The historiography of the Progressive period has dramatically changed in the past seventy-five years. While most historians agree that the Southern Pacific Railroad controlled the California state government in the nineteenth century, and that the response of Progressives to this domination was necessary and praiseworthy, there is a difference of opinion as to the character of the response. Some historians argue that the Progressive thrust against the SP was part of a general Progressive movement. They cite common goals and distinct characteristics which united Progressives across the state. Other scholars believe the agitation against the SP was merely a reaction to a corrupt situation. They accentuate the conflicting characteristics and goals of Progressives, and tend to discount a coherent Progressive movement. Progressive era writers and reporters who exposed illicit cooperation between business and political leaders were labeled muckrakers. With the goal of arousing public ire, they often propelled national legislation with their exposure of corruption in American politics and business. In the most famous muckraking novel, The Jungle, Upton Sinclair exposed the corrupt meat packing industry. Written in 1906, many feel this book inspired the national govermuent to regulate the meat industry. California’s most famous muckraker, frank Norris, wrote The Octopus in 1903 when the Southern Pacific Railroad completely dominated California politics. A national bestseller, it was the first book in a planned trilogy of novels. Though a work of fiction, The Octopus, set in central California, was actually an expose of SP railroad corruption. Like other works of the Progressive era, The Octopus clearly differentiated between “the people” and “the interests,” and emphasized the overwhelming and oppressive power of the railroad. In the book, the railroad was described as: Volume IV, Number 2 Page 71 The History Students’ Association Presents: [A] galloping terror of steam and steel, with its single eye, Cyclopean, red, shooting from horizon to horizon, symbol of vast power, huge and terrible; the leviathan with tentacles of steel, to oppose which meant to be ground to instant destruction beneath the clashing wheels.2 The Octopus portrayed the overwhelming power of the railroad in California, and influenced the people of the state to unite against the Southern Pacific power. In 1915, Benjamin Parke DeWitt outlined the major goals and philosophies of all Progressives in The Progressive Movement. DeWitt believed that the country could be neatly divided into “the people” and “the interests.” He cited three general elements which described a typical Progressive regardless of party or region. Progressives wanted to remove special interests from government, give the average citizens direct control of their government, and use the government to alleviate the everyday problems of ordinary Americans. DeWitt envisioned a Progressive movement where people across the country would unify and overthrow the special interests. The California Progressives, written by George Mowry in 1951, is the first critical examination and the most comprehensive work on the Progressive era in California. Mowry emphasizes the stranglehold the Southern Pacific had upon the state government, and portrays the Progressives as honest citizens who were simply trying to rid their government of corruption. He believes there was a general Progressive movement in California whose leadership was of upper middle class Protestant origins. In his famous work, The Age of Reform, Richard Hofstadter cites Mowry’s research as evidence to support the “status revolution” theory that became the basis for the consensus paradigm of the 1950s. The consensus historians went on to argue that the Progressive movement was led by the native urban middle class, who sought to recapture a past in which they were more prosperous and more influential in governmental affairs. Gabriel Kolko questions basic aspects of the consensus paradigm in his work, The Triumph of Conservatism. Kolko believes the impetus of most Progressive programs came from business interests who advocated minor changes in the hope of avoiding more radical 2 frank Norris, The Octopus (New York, NY: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1901), 119. Page 72 San Francisco State University The History Journal: Ex Post Facto programs that were espoused during the period. Because big business was in control of the levers of power, governmental regulations were thus instituted for the benefit of big business instead of being directed at big business. Kolko emphasizes the conservative nature of the Progressive era, and the relatively undramatic reforms which did not change the basic composition of American society. In his 196$ study of California Progressivism, California’s Prodigal Sons, Spencer Olin argues that Progressives’ division of “the people” and “the interests” was absurdly simplistic. Americans, in the Progressive era, he feels, were made up of diverse groups with different interests. His depiction is in sharp contrast to the way that most previous historians had portrayed Progressive Americans as a monolithic group who shared the same goals and ideas. Indeed, Olin raises questions as to whether the Progressive movement could be called a movement at all. In 1970, Peter Filene further undermined the concept of a unified and coherent Progressive movement. In his article, “Obituary for The Progressive Movement,” Filene bluntly writes, “a Progressive era may have occurred, a Progressive movement did not.”3 The author dissects the meaning of a “movement”, and argues that there were too many diverse aspects of Progressives throughout the country to successfully lump them together in a common, coherent movement. He believes Progressives lacked a unifying program, ideology, membership profile, and homogenous electorate. He argues historians should resist accepting the simple neatly defined Progressive movement as a package that encompasses so many diverse ideas and interests. The most recent historical work on the Progressive era continues to concentrate on the argument whether the Progressive movement was a movement. In his article, “In Search of Progressivism,” Daniel Rogers argues that the Progressive era was “an era of shifting, ideologically fluid, issue-focused coalitions, all competing for the reshaping of American Peter Filene, “An Obituary for The Progressive Movement,” American Quarterly, XXII, (1970), 20- 34. Volume IV, Number 2 Page 73 The History Students’ Association Presents: society.4 Multiple special interest groups replaced the weakened political parties as agents of reform during the era. According to Rogers. there was no unified movement. In a similar vein, Richard McCormick argues, in “The Discovery that Business Corrupts Politics,” that recent historians of the Progressive era have downplayed the political-business corruption that occurred during the period. Progressives emphasized this illicit union, but recent historians have looked for other explanations for Progressive reforms. Although McCormick does

Load more