A Business Man Looks at Politics
I
BEFORE I began to write this article, I had never thought very objectively about the ‘business man in politics.’ Possibly during the past three years I had been too busy to do so. It may be, too, that I just took my immediate work, with its responsibilities and possibilities, too much as a matter of course to analyze it critically.
There are, however, certain things of which my experience has made me very confident: —
That all over the world there is a quickening of interest in government and a better understanding of its problems.
That no citizen can afford to stand aloof from government or fail to shoulder his share of civic responsibility.
That, generally speaking, the standard of government is improving.
And that the improvement, in turn, is due to the ever-increasing number of men and women who are interesting themselves in, and studying and watching, public affairs.
I firmly believe that we are on the threshold of a widening interest in political life and government which will undoubtedly lead to a better structure.
Of recent years I have frequently been asked the question: ‘Should business men go into public life, and can they be as effective in government as in their own undertakings?’ My answer to this question is emphatically ‘Yes’ — provided the business man has certain very necessary qualifications apart from his purely business training and experience. These qualifications I will discuss later on in this article.
Before moving to Albany, I, like many other business men, thought that government and business were things entirely apart. I believed that the cleavage between government administration and business administration was a very sharp one, and that at times the two were almost antagonistic. I have found that point of view by no means accurate.
II
Within the last two decades there has come a very great change in the philosophy both of government and of business. Greater ease of communication, better and more sympathetic understanding between races and nationalities, the growth of governmental activities everywhere, and the ever-increasing social consciousness of people the world over have developed many problems which have brought business and professional men into close association with government administrators and executives. Responsibility of industry to labor, and the relations of government to both, have become more and more generally understood. No longer is sectional or national trade isolation possible. The prosperity of each section of a nation is dependent on the prosperity of all other sections. The prosperity of each nation is, to a large extent, dependent on world prosperity.
Economic considerations, therefore, must necessarily play a large part to-day in public relations and in diplomatic relations.
It is my experience that substantially every undertaking of government must be considered from three angles: the economic, the technical, and the social. These three points of view are closely related to each other and must be brought into perfect alignment if a permanently good government administration is to be maintained. Nearly every bureau and department in the federal and state governments, save those of a purely technical character, could well be administered by sound and broad-visioned business men. Their problems are largely those of administration and organization. Whatever technical skill and experience may be required can be obtained in the same way and in the same degree as in our large industrial organizations.
Because of the increased burdens imposed on executives and on legislative bodies alike, there has within recent years been invoked, in an increasing degree, the aid of temporary or permanent commissions in the Federal Government and in many of the state governments. This is a new development, but one that is likely to be enlarged as the complexities of government increase. In the State of New York there were created last year ten or a dozen temporary commissions, covering a wide range of activities. In substantially all of these the problems to be studied, or the activities to be undertaken, were to a very large extent economic in character, wherein the coöperation and participation of business men are valuable.
Even those undertakings which appear at first glance to be purely social in character are closely related to the economic life of the community. Institutions such as prisons, hospitals, reformatories, and the like, require trained technical social skill. But they all touch questions of business administration.
The construction of public works — buildings, roads, bridges, grade crossings — requires engineering skill and experience, but that engineer will be most effective who in addition to his technical knowledge has business experience. The administration of the Banking and Insurance Departments and kindred governmental supervisory activities again requires technical skill, but the important questions that arise must ordinarily be resolved through business judgment. The making of a budget requires a very wide knowledge of the activities covered by the particular governmental unit concerned, but it also requires business skill of a high order, because it relates not only to economical administration of departments, but to the methods and means to be employed in the raising of revenues.
The writing of a tariff schedule is no longer a cut-and-dried affair alone affecting the country which creates it. Economic and social questions of vast importance must necessarily enter into its formulation. No section of a country operates apart from the other sections. No industry is independent of other industries. No nation can afford to disregard the welfare of, or its relations to, other nations. These are neither technical nor diplomatic questions. They cover, in a marked degree, economic considerations of vast importance, frequently invol ving worldwide problems. For instance, I sincerely believe that the prosperity of the world, to a considerable extent, during the next few decades will depend on the speed and completeness with which the older manufacturing countries can secure markets in non-industrial territory of the Near East, Far East, India, and certain parts of South America. New markets can be secured only through intelligent coöperation between our business leaders and our government officials. It is safe to say that to-day the State Department in our Federal Government is as much concerned with, and engaged in, economic questions as with those which formerly were looked upon as purely diplomatic.
III
Since the war the relations between the nations of the world have become increasingly interdependent. This fact has been brought home to us forcefully in the last few months through the unquestioned importance of the developments abroad in respect of international fiscal relations and the handling of war debts and reparations. Nothing is of greater importance to the peace and prosperity of the world than the intelligent solution of these intricate and delicate problems, which I am afraid will be with us for many years to come. It is my belief that diplomats, effective as they may be, will not alone be able to achieve full success in this difficult field.
All thinking men now agree that there is such a close interrelation between business and diplomacy that, in the handling of many international questions, business training may well be joined advantageously to diplomatic skill. The fact that the solution of almost all of these very important international politico-economic questions has been in recent years entrusted to business leaders such as Owen D. Young, Charles G. Dawes, Parker Gilbert, and Albert H. Wiggin is evidence that there is already a widespread recognition of the fact that, to an outstanding degree, they can best be solved in coöperation with intelligent, sympathetic, and farsighted business leadership.
In recent years, too, many problems have arisen which were quite unknown to our fathers — among others the question of public utility regulation, the development and control of hydraulic power, the care of the dependent aged, unemployment insurance, the relation of government to labor and industry, the protection of women and minors in industry. These are only a few of the many problems of comparatively recent development which require careful economic thought and study in their formulation and operation.
All of the problems I have mentioned, and many others, are directing the attention of the successful and progressive business man and professional man to matters which twenty or even ten years ago probably would have been entirely out of the sphere of his interest. They have broadened his point of view and have brought to him the realization that both a knowledge of and an interest in governmental administration and legislation — local, state, federal, and international — are necessary for his welfare. He now realizes that he owes it to himself and to the community to participate in them.
As a result, many men in business or professional life are to-day taking an active part in helping to solve the problems of the state and nation. I regret that the number is still relatively small, but it is ever increasing and I am hopeful that before long a very much larger number of men will devote their ability and energy to matters of government. This must inevitably be the case, since business men and professional men are continually coming into closer relationship with government.
This does not mean, as some suppose, that government is interfering, or should interfere, in business. On the contrary, there is a growing sentiment that government at all times should interfere in business just as little as is practicable. On the other hand, business and professional men in many instances now feel that they cannot hold themselves wholly apart from government, critical, indifferent, and suspicious. At least some of them are growing to feel that their assistance and advice are wanted, that they actually can be of help, and through their efforts can raise the standard of government.
It is my experience that few problems of government are without their counterpart in business and industry, and that almost every problem of business and of industry is duplicated by a similar problem in government. Public relations, fiscal policies, commerce, communications, labor and social problems, are equally part of the body politic and of business. The keen, progressive business man, therefore, in interesting himself in politics will tread no unknown ground, nor will he face many unfamiliar problems. The very training he has had in business better equips him to take an active and definite part in government.
IV
At the beginning of this article I stated that I believed that business men, under certain conditions, can be as effective in government as in their own undertakings. I made the reservation, however, that they must have certain very necessary qualifications apart from a purely business training and experience. It is, of course, unprofitable to generalize about anything, even about business men. Obviously not every business man of great reputation will succeed in public life. I am acquainted with a substantial number of business men of high position and great reputation whose ability and efficiency unfortunately do not measure up to their reputation. Men who trade largely on their reputation without having actual ability to back up that reputation will not succeed in public life.
Then, too, there are those men who have become inflexible, or who have held themselves so much aloof in business that they have lost direct personal and immediate contact with their fellows and with the affairs of the day. These will also probably not succeed when thrown into a new environment. Men of this type are almost bound to become bureaucrats.
Nothing is more essential in public life than real understanding, flexibility, and adaptability. Without these qualities no one can understand the everchanging conditions in government or the social ideals and aspirations of the people who, in the end, are the real source of government. The public official, to be really effective, must understand the problems of the smallest home as well as of the greatest business corporation.
The business man also must be able rapidly to adapt himself to the requirements of public life. I have previously stated that the business man entering politics will tread no unknown ground, nor will he face many problems unfamiliar to him. That is literally true. It is equally a fact, however, that frequently the method of handling these problems is vastly different in public life than in private enterprise.
A government official rarely has the freedom of action he obtains, as a matter of course, in private business. He is, and always must be, controlled to a considerable extent by statutes, regulations, and public opinion. These limitations are frequently very irksome to the business man who enters public life.
For instance, in private enterprise a man desiring to erect an office building would ordinarily go to an architect with whose work he was familiar and in whom he had confidence, and direct the architect to draw plans. He would then give the contract to a good, experienced, trustworthy contractor at an agreed price. The work would usually be done as a whole by one contractor. Specifications would be made as flexible as desirable. Inspection would be as rigid or as elastic as the contractor, architect, and owner agreed upon. Substitutions in materials could be made after negotiations and through mutual agreement.
The situation in public work is different. Necessarily it must be so, because of conditions inherent in government. In the State of New York, and in most other governmental units, the law requires that the contract be awarded on public tender to the lowest responsible bidder. What legally constitutes responsibility, however, is unfortunately difficult to define. It sometimes happens, therefore, that the contract must be given to a bidder of little actual financial responsibility or ability, with the result that delay in completion ensues. The state is protected against financial loss through its surety bond. It cannot, however, protect itself against delay. There have been a number of unfortunate and embarrassing situations of this kind within my knowledge.
In spite of occasional disadvantage, however, the statute or regulation that requires the award of a contract for government work on public tender to the lowest bidder, save in exceptional circumstances, is essentially sound, and any substantial deviation from it would lead to gross favoritism and frequently to the exertion of great political or other pressure. The state, unlike the private owner, must adhere closely to specifications and rigid inspection. The necessity of doing so undoubtedly increases the cost of construction work and occasionally causes annoying delay.
Nevertheless, my experience has convinced me that strict adherence to specifications and rigid inspection, while not at all necessary in private enterprise, is essential in public work if we are to be free of gross fraud and corruption.
I have mentioned only a few of the many statutes and regulations controlling the progress of public work. There are others whose genesis or purpose is difficult to explain or justify. On the whole, however, I believe that most of the regulations are calculated to protect the public against exploitation, and to give an absolutely equal opportunity to all desiring to do business with the state.
The business man, faced with limitations and restrictions, will undoubtedly chafe because he realizes that sometimes they increase the cost and retard the work. If, however, he is active, aggressive, and resourceful, he can do much, in spite of restrictions, to speed up public work and to overcome many of the limitations which, if accepted in a supine spirit, are very costly in money and time. Some of the unnecessary and unreasonable statutory limitations, as well as a certain amount of usual red tape, can undoubtedly in time be removed. There can be no doubt, however, that, because of the necessity of operating in a more formal and technical manner, public construction work is more costly and less expeditious than private. I am afraid that this will continue to be the case until we can operate under government with the same freedom as in private undertakings. This seems difficult if not impossible of accomplishment in the near future.
V
The business man in public life, too, will resent the restriction imposed upon him by civil service regulations. He is used to hiring and firing and promoting and demoting at will. That cannot be done in public life. In the State of New York probably 90 per cent of the positions, exclusive of laborers, come under the provisions of the civil service.
As a business man I appreciate the fact that civil service is as yet by no means ideal. It certainly is not a panacea. Nevertheless, as a public official, I favor the operation of civil service because I realize that it provides conditions that are infinitely better than those we should have were it eliminated. If there were no civil service we should return to the old principle of ‘To the victor belong the spoils.’ With every change in administration there would undoubtedly come an almost complete change in departmental personnel. We should, obviously, have a purely political government rather than one based upon efficiency and permanent organization. It would lead to corruption. It would be unfair to a great body of loyal and hard-working public servants, and it would inevitably break down morale and efficiency. The business man in public life, as I have said, will unquestionably be restless under those restrictions, but to be effective he must adapt himself to them.
Again, it is necessary for the business man in public life to combine with his business training and experience a broad social outlook. There are few undertakings of government which are exclusively economic or administrative in character. Substantially every undertaking deals not only with problems of administration, but also with those of safeguarding, interpreting, and caring for the social needs and ideals of the people of the state. The state is unquestionably concerned as much with human relationships as with efficient business administration, and the two functions must operate simultaneously if the highest degree of success is to be obtained. They must almost invariably go hand in hand and carry, substantially, equal weight in the consideration of the problems of government.
Every project, to be permanently successful and to gain the support of intelligent public opinion, must justify itself both economically and socially. Education, the building of roads, the development of parks and recreational centres, the construction and humane administration of hospitals and prisons, old-age assistance, sound labor laws, all contain in almost equal degree economic and social problems. No public official, if he hopes to be of true service, can measure his problems or duties exclusively with a profit-and-loss yardstick, or alone by the standards of the social worker. He must strike a fine and accurate balance between the considerations of business and the requirements of social problems.
VI
Finally, the public official must realize the importance of public opinion and frequently invoke its power. I have often had occasion to say in my speeches and elsewhere that intelligent public opinion sufficiently aroused can move mountains. It is my firm belief that, regardless of opposition, no fair and sound undertaking can permanently fail if it has the support of an aroused public opinion, while no vicious proposal can succeed, except temporarily, in the face of adverse public opinion.
The average business man looks on public opinion as something intangible. He has, of course, been taught the value of the good will of his limited consuming public, but he seldom appreciates the overwhelming power and force of intelligent public opinion. Sometimes it is difficult to arouse public opinion in matters far removed from the daily lives of the people, but that it can be aroused in behalf of constructive and sound undertakings I have no doubt. Those of us who have been in public life for some years have found it not only practicable, but frequently essential, to go to the people and ask their support for measures or undertakings believed to be in the common interest.
The essentials for arousing public opinion are a fundamentally sound cause and an ability to bring the facts to the attention of people in a simple and direct way so that they can be widely understood. In my experience I have known few instances where such efforts have failed. Governor Roosevelt and his distinguished predecessor, Governor Smith, have time and time again gone directly to the people and gained their support for sound measures.
The wonderful park and playground system of the State of New York, which is one of the greatest social developments with which I am familiar, and which will give enjoyment and health to countless generations, would have failed because of political opposition had not the weight of public opinion been enlisted in its support. The water power resources of the state would long since have been diverted to private interests had public opinion not been aroused in opposition. The modernization of our hospitals and prisons, and the more humane treatment of the wards of the state, were made possible only through the enlistment of public opinion. The adoption of workmen’s compensation, laws for the protection of women in industry, adequate factory inspection, old-age assistance, and laws protecting minors are only a few of the humane and economically sound measures that at first met with st rong opposition from small, selfish, but very powerful groups, which was overcome only through the force of public opinion.
The business man entering public life must be sufficiently adaptable to appreciate the force of public opinion and be ready and able to enlist its overwhelming influence. To do otherwise means impotence.
VII
If it is true, as I believe it is, that business men can render a distinct service to government and are often well equipped to do so, the question logically arises, ‘Why are they so frequently unwilling to enter public life?’ Undoubtedly, in many instances, this reluctance is because of the unavoidable personal and financial sacrifice involved.
And it will be obvious that sacrifice is unavoidable. In few instances do public offices, even those important in character, provide the same compensation as can be obtained easily through substantially less effort in private business. The demands of public life are so great that oftentimes a previously successful business man finds it impossible to give any time or attention even to his private affairs. In addition to the financial sacrifice, which is usually a very great one, he is forced to give up much of his independence and frequently to suffer temporary separation from his family, friends, and home.
All of these things are very real hardships, the effect of which cannot be minimized. Yet I do not believe that they provide the real answer to my question.
There are, in my opinion, a large number of men who would be willing to make a substantial sacrifice affecting themselves and their families if they were confident that their efforts would be productive of public good and that they would be accorded reasonable and intelligent understanding. The average business man has, unfortunately, grown up with a distrust and prejudice against politics, which are only a reflection of a widespread existing public attitude. He holds the belief, which for generations has been shared by a large part of our population, that politics are ‘dirty,’ and that no one goes into politics without an ulterior or sinister motive. I believe that this distrust and suspicion should not too greatly influence the public-spirited business man.
That corruption exists in American political life cannot be doubted, nor is it by any means confined to any one locality or to any particular political party. The records speak for themselves and show that in many governmental units, federal, state, and local, corruption and graft have unfortunately been of not infrequent occurrence in the past. Notwithstanding this, I feel that the common belief of general and widespread corruption in public life is an exaggerated one. Some men will always prove unworthy of their trust, and these must be expelled from public life and be punished. We must not, however, overlook the fact that the number of unscrupulous or corrupt officials forms only a very small percentage of that great army of public servants who, as a matter of course, constantly carry on honestly, efficiently, and in the public interest, and who abhor corruption as militantly as do other classes in our population.
Nor do I believe that by any means all corruption that surrounds politics is due to politics itself. It frequently springs from powerful social forces which we are not able as yet to control. It comes from deeply hidden roots, and sometimes touches politics as an easy and convenient point of contact, just as it unfortunately does many of the other activities of our daily lives. I firmly believe that, in spite of present discouragement, politics are becoming cleaner, and that, with a further awakening of social conscience and a better understanding of government by the people, progress may within a reasonable time become rapid.
Certainly, whatever the situation may be, no person of good standing or character is justified in standing aloof or in refusing to accept his share in the responsibilities of government. He should at least make an honest effort to improve conditions. I have no high regard for the man who sits on the side lines and does nothing but criticize the players who are taking the hard knocks of the game. After all, nothing worth while is ever attained without substantial sacrifice. If people want good government they can have it — by working and sacrificing for it. It will not come for the mere asking, or through clamor or eloquence. Like any other business or profession, government must be conducted by men and women of character, ability, and ideals. It is only through the participation in government of increasing numbers of well-qualified men and women that improvement can be had in a substantial degree. Were the attitude of critical aloofness to continue, progress in government would indeed be slow and the outlook would be overpoweringly discouraging.
VIII
There is no doubt, too, that the business man fears that his motives and actions in public life may be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Unfortunately, one must confess that this fear is by no means groundless. I have frequently seen a sinister interpretation placed on motives which were inspired by the highest public spirit, vision, and courage. That is bewildering and discouraging to the honest public official. Dishonest, or at best disingenuous, misrepresentation is largely due to the attitude of opposing political parties, which tends at times to place temporary political advantage above constructive effort for the public good.
I cannot deny that any man in public life may occasionally be subjected to misunderstanding, to unfair attack, and to misrepresentation. These are penalties which, I am afraid, come with democracy, particularly under our party system. Anyone in public life must accept them with the best grace possible as part of a situation for which compensation may be found in other directions. If he desires to be of real service and give the best that is in him, he must not be too sensitive to criticism.
He must above all things not expect, except in rare instances, the public recognition to which he may think his efforts entitle him. I am afraid that the public official can safely expect little immediate recognition. If he does, he will be disappointed and embittered. The public memory is short and frequently fickle. The only real compensation he can hope for is the satisfaction that comes from a task well done. With the ever-growing interest in and understanding of public questions and politics on the part of the people, I feel confident that there will come a greater appreciation of the motives and accomplishments of loyal, honest, and efficient public servants.
A more intelligent estimate on the part of the public of the aims and accomplishments of its officials can be hastened through a complete nonpartisanship in the editorial policy of our press. There is no doubt that already in many definitely partisan newspapers one finds a growing tendency to give to the public, through their news columns, an absolutely honest and fair picture of what is happening in government. I think that of late years there has come a great change in this respect, particularly in the press of our large centres. In most instances there is a very real effort to lay facts honestly and fairly before the public through the news columns. The spirit which now actuates most great newspapers, of ‘printing the news’ regardless of any other considerations, is a fine development. I hope it will rapidly progress.
Newspapers are naturally and properly desirous of securing higher standards in all departments of government. In this desire and sentiment they merely represent the people of the community. Nothing, in my opinion, will raise the standard of government more or develop a greater spirit of independence on the part of public officials than a really independent press, which through both its editorial pages and its news columns will seek to develop an intelligent and reasonable public opinion removed from partisan or opportunist interests.
IX
The business man, too, fears that he will be less effective in public life than in private enterprise. He has acquired the idea that the central drive behind a man’s efforts is the profit motive: ‘ What can I get out of it?’ And that if this motive is removed, his efforts will be less effective. If I agreed with his premises, I should, of course, agree with his conclusions. I do not, however, believe that in most instances the central drive behind a man’s efforts is the profit motive.
Someone has recently said, ‘Business comes first with Americans, but not money.’ I think that is true. American business men, I am confident, are not mere money-makers, but builders. While they are in business they build with tangible materials, and their success, logically enough, is usually measured in terms of financial gain. Many of them, however, are endowed with a fine idealism, and with the ambition for accomplishment rather than acquisition. The yardstick of success is different in public life and in business, but certainly the satisfaction that comes with success in the one is no less than that which is derived from the other.
The number of business men who are taking an active part in politics is still relatively small, but I feel sure that the group is destined to increase. I am hopeful, too, that business men generally, even though they may not have the time or the opportunity or the inclination to devote themselves actively to politics, will more and more concern themselves deeply with matters of governmental policy and governmental administration. Government cannot be good government if left exclusively to the judgment of a mere handful of men, no matter how painstaking, conscientious, or honest they may be.
Government, administrative and legislative alike, requires, if it is to obtain the best results, the interest, adherence, and frequently the criticism of the widest possible constituency. After all, public opinion based upon intelligent understanding of current problems is the ground upon which sound administration and legislative action must stand.