The Progressive Movement and Its Impact on California Politics

The development of California’s distinctive constitution has been influenced by many different groups over the course of the state’s history. One group whose influence is still deeply felt in California politics is the Progressives. The Progressive movement had roots in the economic and political changes that swept the United States after the Civil War. It was foreshadowed by the Populist movement, which dominated American politics from 1870 to 1896.

Some of the political concerns and much of the moral indignation expressed by the Populists about the changes taking place in the United States were subsequently reflected in the Progressive movement. From the Civil War on, the country rapidly industrialized, and wealth became concentrated in the hands of a new breed of corporate entrepreneurs. Monopoly was the word of the day. These corporate giants dictated economic policy, with significant social and political consequences. One huge corporation, the Southern Pacific Railroad, held a monopoly on shipping in California and could charge producers and retailers exorbitant prices. Its vast wealth and power gave it undue influence not only economically but also politically; along with a web of associated interests, it ruled the state to a degree previously unparalleled in the nation. Bribing public officials was not unusual, nor was handpicking candidates for the two major political parties.¹⁰

WHO ARE CALIFORNIANS?

Who Are California’s Partisans?

Today, California is commonly thought of as a Democratic state, but this has not always been the case. In fact, for much of the twentieth century, California was considered a relatively consistent Republican-leaning state, electing Republican governors and voting for Republican presidents. In the 1990s, California began to turn to Democratic political leaders, and California has voted for Democratic presidents in every election since 1992. California’s delegation in the House of Representatives went from being dominated by Republicans in the early twentieth century, to rough parity from 1932 to the 1980s, and to increasingly Democratic today. In fact, in 2018, Democrats controlled 46 of 53 House seats from California, although Republicans were able to gain 4 seats in 2020 and now control 11 of 53.

Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 in California, but there are still significant Republican strongholds like the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, and northeastern California. Republicans used to do well on the coast—now Democrats do. Democrats used to do well in central California—now Republicans do. Political coalitions are never static, and, as they have changed in the past, they will change again in the future.

SOURCE: “November 4, 1930 General Election,” JoinCalifornia, www.joincalifornia.com/election/1930-11-04; “November 8, 1960 General Election,” JoinCalifornia, www.joincalifornia.com/election/1960-11-08; “November 6, 1990 General Election,” JoinCalifornia, www.joincalifornia.com/election/1990-11-06; “November 3, 2020 General Election,” JoinCalifornia, www.joincalifornia.com/election/2020-11-03 (accessed 3/23/22).

forcriticalanalysis

Why do you think California has shifted from a Republican state to a Democratic state?
What kinds of issues do you think Californians are likely to care about as they vote in the future?

The Progressives countered the powerful corporations, specifically the Southern Pacific Railroad, by prosecuting the corrupt politicians who served them. Eventually, this tactic led to a series of regulatory reforms that loosened the choke hold of the railroad, corrupt politicians, and interest groups on state and local politics.

Local Politics

Progressive reforms began at the local level. The battle against the Southern Pacific Railroad and corporate influence in general started in San Francisco in 1906, with the reform movement fighting to rid city government of graft and bribery. President Theodore Roosevelt stepped in to help. Working hand in hand with James D. Phelan, the former mayor of San Francisco, Roosevelt sent in federal agents led by William J. Burns to investigate bribery and corruption charges.¹¹ Public officials were put on trial for bribery, bringing to the public’s attention the extent of graft and political corruption in municipal government, and 17 supervisors and a number of corporate leaders were indicted.¹² The mayor was forced to resign, and his henchman, Abraham Reuf, who implicated officials of the Southern Pacific Railroad and several utility companies, was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in jail. Although the graft trials largely failed to convict those indicted (Reuf was an exception), they were nonetheless an important step in breaking the power of the Southern Pacific Railroad and its political allies.

In 1906 the Southern Pacific Railroad also dominated local politics in Los Angeles.¹³ During this time, a group dedicated to good government, the Non-Partisan Committee of One Hundred, was formed. They selected a reform candidate for mayor who was opposed by the two major parties, labor groups, and the Los Angeles Times. While the reform candidate lost his bid for the mayoralty, 17 of 23 reform candidates for other city positions were elected.¹⁴ The nonpartisan reformers were on their way to ridding the city of the Southern Pacific machine.

State Politics

The 1907 legislative session was one of the most corrupt on record, heavily controlled by the political operatives of the Southern Pacific Railroad. At the end of the session, the editor of the Fresno Republican, Chester Rowell, wrote, “If we are fit to govern ourselves, this is the last time we will submit to be governed by the hired bosses of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company.”¹⁵

At the same time, Rowell and Edward Dickson of the Los Angeles Express began to organize a statewide movement to attack Southern Pacific’s power. At Dickson’s invitation, a group of lawyers, newspaper publishers, and other political reformers met in Los Angeles. They founded the Lincoln Republicans, later to become the League of Lincoln-Roosevelt Republican Clubs (also known as the Lincoln-Roosevelt League), dedicated to ending the control of California politics by the Southern Pacific Railroad and linking themselves to the national Progressive movement.

The Lincoln-Roosevelt League participated in the statewide legislative elections of 1908 and managed to elect a small group of reformers to the legislature. Two years later, it fielded a full party slate, from governor down to local candidates.

This cartoon from 1882 depicts the Southern Pacific Railroad as a destructive octopus with victims of the company’s monopoly on shipping entangled in its murderous tentacles. The faces of Mark Hopkins and Leland Stanford, two of the railroad’s founders, form the creature’s eyes. At the time, images of octopi were often used to represent ugly, evil monsters. Clockwise from the top left: the tentacles of the Southern Pacific octopus are grasping U.S. government bond money, wheat exports, stagecoach lines, farmers, lumber dealers, wine and fruit growers, miners, and the telegraph industry. In the bottom left corner is a graveyard of the monster’s victims, including seven men killed in the Mussel Slough Tragedy—an incident in May 1880 when Southern Pacific sent a U.S. Marshall and hired gunmen to quell a railroad land dispute.

STATEHOUSE VICTORY In 1910, Hiram Johnson became the Lincoln-Roosevelt League candidate for governor. He campaigned up and down the state, focusing on one issue: the Southern Pacific Railroad. He claimed that the company, acting in concert with criminal elements, had corrupted the political process in California. He defined the battle as one between decent, law-abiding citizens and a few corrupt, powerful individuals who were determined to run the state in their own best interests.

Johnson won the election and met with leading national Progressives—Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, and Lincoln Steffens—to discuss a reform program for California. The new administration in Sacramento set out to eliminate every special interest from the government and to make government solely responsive to the people and Johnson. Through a series of legislative acts and constitutional amendments, they made significant progress in that direction. In 1911 the voters approved the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. These three reforms, widely known as direct democracy, placed enormous power and control over government in the hands of the voters. Now citizens could write their laws or amend the constitution through the initiative, approve or reject constitutional amendments or block laws passed by legislators through the referendum, and remove corrupt politicians from office through the recall.

In addition to these reforms, a new law set up a railroad commission that had the power to fix rates beginning in 1911. Other reforms included the direct primary, which gave ordinary citizens the power to select the candidates of the political parties for national and state offices. Women obtained the right to vote in California in 1911, nine years before the Nineteenth Amendment granted women the right to vote nationwide. Legislation was also enacted that limited women to an eight-hour workday, set up a workmen’s compensation system, put into practice a weekly pay law, and required employers to inform strikebreakers that they were being hired to replace employees on strike. These reforms were in part a reaction to what were viewed as harsh employment practices by the Southern Pacific Railroad.

The Progressives in California made significant headway in limiting the influence of corporations and political parties in politics. In its first two years in office, the Johnson administration succeeded in breaking the power of the Southern Pacific Railroad.¹⁶

LAST HURRAH The national Progressive Party (popularly known as the “Bull Moose Party”) lost its bid to capture the White House in 1912 with Theodore Roosevelt on the ticket for president and Hiram Johnson for vice president. The failure to win an important national office weakened the party by lessening the enthusiasm of its supporters. It also meant that the party had no patronage with which to reward its followers between elections. Electoral failure was just one of several major problems that plagued the Progressives. Several other factors also contributed to the decline of the party: the public grew tired of reform; there was a major falling out among the leadership in California; the Progressives generally opposed World War I, which was supported by the overwhelming majority of the American public once the country got into the war; and the party failed to support reforms that labor badly wanted.

When the Progressives learned that the Republican Party would not nominate Roosevelt in 1916, they offered him the nomination. Roosevelt declined. At a dinner in San Francisco in July 1916, the California Progressive Party disbanded, and Hiram Johnson urged his followers to join either the Republican or the Democratic Party. Later that year, Johnson, now a Republican, was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he served for 28 years.

Despite the success of the Progressive reforms mentioned earlier, one major flaw in Progressive thinking was the belief in an active, informed citizenry willing to participate in politics. Progressives believed that, given the opportunity, citizens would be happy to support the democratic process and spend whatever time and effort was needed to participate in politics. Since the late 1940s, however, a host of studies has shown that many people neither vote nor pay attention to politics. Nevertheless, the Progressives left behind the significant legacy of having gained tremendous political power for the people of California, if and when they choose to use it. As noted later in this chapter, however, many of these powers are most often used by moneyed interests rather than by members of the general public.

Another flaw was that although Progressives wanted to increase political participation, that support applied only to White citizens. Many Progressives were racists, believing Black Americans and immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe to be genetically inferior to immigrants from Western Europe. Federal immigration policies of the era, including the Immigration Act of 1917 and the National Quota Law of 1921, were designed to increase immigration from Western and Northern Europe, decrease immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, and exclude immigration from Asia.

Progressives particularly discriminated against Japanese Americans. In 1913 state legislators passed the California Alien Land Law of 1913, prohibiting “aliens ineligible from citizenship” from owning land or possessing long-term leases. The law applied to all Asian immigrants but was mainly aimed at Japanese farmers, with the further aim of reducing Japanese immigration. Japanese immigration had surged beginning in 1900, with many Japanese immigrants settling in rural areas of Southern California to work in agriculture and fishing. Anti-Japanese sentiment soon followed; the California legislature in January 1901 urged Congress to protect American labor by restricting Japanese immigration; a second resolution was approved in March 1905. In 1920 voters approved by a 75–25 percent margin a ballot proposition to close loopholes in the 1913 measure, stoked by fears that Japanese people could not assimilate and that their birth rate was so high that they would eventually replace White people. While the two laws failed to have much effect and were eventually struck down as unconstitutional, their passage reflects the era’s hostility.

The Progressives’ strategies to gain power for the people may have been appropriate for 1910, when California had a population of 2.4 million. Since then, however, California has grown so much and so quickly that its constitution has been unable to catch up. In a state of over 39 million people, reforms that allowed “the people” to propose initiatives and recall public officials cannot now be exercised on a statewide level without a great deal of money, organization, and professional help.¹⁷ The last initiative that did not use paid, professional signature gatherers was introduced in 1990, and it relied on a paid campaign coordinator. An initiative organized completely by volunteers has not been successful since 1984.