Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 85.djvu/406

402 few—less than one third of all the voters—are those in which the Hearstians are strongest. On the other hand, they are not strongest where the foreign-born voters are most numerous. Their hold is upon the native-born of foreign parentage. If we take the districts giving the Hearst candidates the largest percentage—say over eight per cent.—we find the foreign-born Germans and Irish far outnumbered by the natives of German and Irish parentage. If we take those giving the lowest percentages—say, less than four per cent.—we find the foreign born of all nationalities greatly outnumbering the native. Along with these facts we find that several of those districts among the half dozen giving the highest socialist vote are also among the half dozen giving the lowest Hearstian vote, showing that socialism and Hearstism are but weakly correlated.

The half dozen districts highest for Hearstism, and half dozen lowest, with the percentage vote given both in 1913 and 1910 (when the league ran a candidate for governor) are given below.

Hearstism we conclude is a mode of thought that is attractive chiefly to members of the transition species between the immigrant and the American of native parents.

Finally, how do our naturalized citizens stand towards that latest phase of reform represented by the Progressive party? The answer to this question is made difficult by complicating circumstances. In 1912 the personal issue played an over-shadowing part; in 1913 interest was centered at other points, the aims of the Progressive party for the time being coinciding with those of other political elements. One or two facts in the election of 1912, however, are extremely suggestive even though they do not cover the whole ground. In that election Roosevelt ran ahead of Wilson in only four districts in the city. One was the twenty-third of Manhattan, in which Taft also