AUG 16 1960
LIBRAFR
ACQUAINTANCES AND CONTACTS OF FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT
The First 86 Days of 1934
by
HOWARD L. ROSENTHAL
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June, 1960
SaeSignature
redacted
Signature of Author...w.. ... ...
Department of Econotics and Social Science, May 17, 1960
Certified by.
Accepted by. . .
Signature redacted
Signature redacted
Thesis Supervisor
MITLibraries
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139 http://libraries.mit.edu/ask
DISCLAIMER NOTICE
Due to the condition of the original material, there are unavoidable
flaws in this reproduction. We have made every effort possible to
provide you with the best copy available.
Thank you.
ABSTRXCT
The acquaintances of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the first 86 days of 1934 are examined in relation to the structure of American government. Concentrations of presidential contact with individuals in certain secio.-logically defined categories are cited and discussed relative to their social and political implications. The distribution of presidential eon..
tact forces the questioning of mathematical models of power distribution in legislative bodies.
In addition, the total number of individuals Roosevelt met and the total number of contacts he had with them are compared to the totals for people in comon occupations.
Refinements of current models of acquaintanceship and contact are considered.
PREFACE
This thesis attempts to add to the understanding of acquaintances and contacts as a part of social behavior. Whatever progress has been mde could not have occurred without the suggestions and advice of Pro. fessor Ithiel de Sola Pool, iy advisor for this project.
In addition, M.chael (urevitch and Barton Sensenig, both presently graduate students at M.I.T., should be mentioned for their efforts in programming and analysing the data.
I should like to extend a special note of thanks to Mr. Herman
KAhn
and his staff at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library for their assis-.tance in procurring the raw data.
H. L. R. Boston, 1960
CONTE~NT3
ABSTRACT . . . * *
j
PREFACE. . . . * . . ii.
INTRODUCTION. . . . * . e . . * * 1
THE 86 DAYS: DEPRESSION NORMALCY. . . . . . *
4
a THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ACQUAINTANCES. . . . . ..7
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTACTS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT. . . . . 19
SOCIOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE ACQUAINTANCE POPULATION. . . . 22
THE EXECUTIV-E. . . - - . . .
35
CONGRESS. . . . .. . . . . . .* * . .. 41
EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT. . . . *
52
CONCLUSIONS. * - . . - * .- - - * - * * * . . 54
APPENDIX I; NATURE OF THE CONTACT DATA . . .
.56
APPENDIX II: CRITERIA IN THE . SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY. . - . .. . . . -. .57
I
INTRODUCTION
In 1934, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had personal contact with at least an average of 27 people daily. At least 22 people per day came from outside the White House. Qay a fraction came as strictly person.. al friends. A larger number came to advise. Others came to influence or be influenced. Another segment came to assert power or to be reward-. ed for past assertions. The three words adv ,influence, power are
0.
really inseprable, and all three are to some extent inherent in tbi vast majority of a President s personal contacts. Contacts and influence ex-ist as vehicle and goal and vice-versa. (btaining the distribution of contacts among acquaintances reveals a significant portion of the func-m tional structure of government comwwnicating through its Presidential pivot point.
This study examines the acquaintanoes of Franklin Roosevelt in the first 86 days of 1934. from a measurement of the number of days each acquaintance made contact with Roosevelt and of relevant sociological
data, the study leads to inferences concerning the governmental process in the United States. In particular the thesis holds that frequency of contact is a reasonable approximation to influence, Therefore, inferences may be made as to the relative influence or power of persons grouped in various governmental and non-governmental occupations, political parties, geographic locales, etc. Power concentrations in the rxecutive of IM
AA 4 A
t11eliekk
New York and in Congress of the South will beemphasized. The existence of these concentrations results in a question-ing of their desirability and the desirablity of the structure in which they exist.
While the inferences made may be directly applicable only to 1934, at the very least they should suggest appropriate areas for study in a project that hopefully will someday follow this work, That project would be an analysis of contacts in the entire period of modern govern-ment from Roosevelt to Eisenhower. In a section to follow, the feasability
and desirability of such a study will be considered.
Beyond 1934, F.D.R., and government, this study fits into a model
dealing with the general area of human communication. Proposed by Ithiel Pool and Yanfred Kochen in their presently unpublished Contacts and In-fluencethe model offers a description of the network of acquaintances that exist in large societies. Pool and Kochen, for reasons of conceptual and mathematical simplification, have proposed a model with all-or-none definitions of "knowing" (acquaintance and contact). Any network is thus easily represented in a matrix form that may be operated on to obtain the "knowing" relations that exist between individuals connected by other in-dividuals. From these operations in-group to out-group acquaintance ratios may be established, and a new opportunity arises to inquire into the concepts of clique ;nd class. Such an inquiry is now being made under Pool's direction
by Michael Garevitch at M.I.T. Utrevitch will try to learn in what =mnner a
core group's set of acquaintances know each other. The Roosevelt study did not proceed to this secondary level of acquaintanceship although there will be a report of interesting areas in which this can be studied. The Roose-velt study was, however, able to compare the distribution of RooseRoose-velt's acquaintanoes with those in the Gurevitch core group. As one would expect, Roosevelt had an unusually high level of acquaintance activity.
Despite statistical similarity to the "live" study undertaken by Gurevitch, the Roosevelt study is a documentary one and contains its own set of methodological problems. Although both studies VSe all-or-none definitions, the "live" study defines contact as interaction by speech while the Roosevelt study's criteria were appearance in either the
Presi-dent's appointment book, his telephone record, or his portion of the White
House social calendar. -,These records
present nearly all small group contacts with people not on the White House J.
staff but exclude a majority of staff contacts. The reader is reminded, therefore, that there is not strict comparability between the two studies. On the contrary, the study shows the need for a modified model for similar historical studies.
Despite its limitations, the contact model has provided a useful frame of reference for an examination of governmental structure *Before beginning that examination, the period studied must be placed in its
his-torical perspective. Then the study can proceed first into the general realm of Roosevelt's acquaintances and later into specific sections on the Ececutive and Congress. In the Congressional section, the study data is placed in conflict with the power distributions yielded by voting permu-tation models. Finally, as this study's primary intent was to be explora-tory, there will be a treatment of possibilities for better models and
data-gathering processes for the area of government.
THE 86 DAYS: DEPRESSION NORMALCY
The-'period of the study, the first 86 days of 1934, can be termed one of "depression normalcy." The only national issues were depression-related issues or issues generated by corruption in business and finance. The basic issue concerned the pursual of inflationary monetary policies
by the national government. Within the Administration there was opposi-tion to inflaopposi-tion fromifetered in "liberal" Wall Streeters such as Dean
SeKIC 1ty-favOV-4101Cto 4%101.4 A
Acheson. As the Administration, however, waqunder even heavier pressure from pro-inflation groups centered in agricultural interests, the decision
was for inflation.1
January can be characterized as the "gold" month. The basic deci-sion, after a month of debate, was reached on February 1 with the stabili-zation of the dollar at
59.06
per cent of its last gold value and the setting of the price of gold at$35
per ounce. At the same time, Westernsilver interests were pressing for bimetallism. Another depression prob-lem, the severe economic distress of the farmer was complicated by drought in the plains. Within the administration, the major change of the entire period took place on January 1, 1934 with the appointment of enry Morgenthau,
1. This brief historical survey was drawn from the following sources:
Blum, John, From the Morgenthau Diaries, Houghton Iifflin, Boston: 1959. Ickes, Harold L., The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes, Simon and Schuster,
New York: 1953.
Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur m,., The Coming of the New Deal, Houghton Nifflin, Boston: 1959.
Jr. as Secretary of the Treasury.
February was the month of the Dollfuss riots in Vienna and the Deladier riots in Paris. Yet matters of foreign policy seemed of lit-tle importance in comparison to the great economic dilemma. The Times
would feature several pictures of "last week's riots in ... ", but the
tone convinced one no one was playing for keeps.
WIM,
the rise of Naziism, consequent movements against the Jews were treated in a sym-pathetic, but not terribly excited manner. The crowning of the puppet emperor in Manchuria became an Asiatic suffragette movement with a sweet description of the public appearance of the empress. And even the nation-al issues had to compete with the struggle between Governor Lehman and Mayor la Guardia. Times were bad, but they had been bad for two years. The corner on better times hadedisappeared. A sense of unhappy normalcy prevailed.In March, labor strife in the railroads and in the automobile in-dustry occupied the center of attention. The President finally used his own offices to avert strikes.
Throughout the period came other economic issuess the St. Lawrence Seaway, social security, the air mail contract scandal. And throughott the period there was normalcy for Franklin Roosevelt. He stayed in Washing-ton the whole time and came through the period with nothing worse than a
cold which confined him to bed for two days. For most of the period, he
was very active on the major issues of monetary policy and national recov-ery. From one side, Wall Street arrived to comment on both issues, but Wall Street had a succession of crisis occasions throughout the thirties. On another side, Southern Congressmen appeared to negotiate the necessary leg-islation in a Congress overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrats.1
The first 86 days of 1934 thus belong exclusively to the image of the New Deal. The results of the study should be quite indicative as to the structure of government throughout the entire middle thirties.
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ACQUAINTANCES
In the middle of Franklin Roosevelt's administration, Harold Laski reflected on the pivotal position played by the President in America:
No one can examine the character of the American presidency
without being impressed by its many-sided-ness. The range of the president's functions is enormous. He is ceremonial head of the state. He is a vital source of all executive decisions. He is the authoritative exponent of the nation's foreign policy. To combine all these with the continuous need to be at once the res-presentative man of the natioh and the leader of his political party is clearly a call upon the energies of a single man un-surpasied by the exigencies of any other political office in the world.
Our acquaintances and contact data puts the above remark in a newly alarming perspective. In the first 86 days of 1934, before both the enorm-ous growth of the Federal government and its continuenorm-ous involvement in foreign crisis, Franklin Roosevelt sustained a contact volume that severly questions the physical adequacy of the Executive structure. The data, re-presenting only his social and governmental small group behavior, shows Roosevelt meeting 810 people 2482 times in 86 days. Here one verbal meet-ing is taken as contact on a given day. With members of his family and staff
and close advisers particularly Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Roosevelt often had several contacts a day that are not represented in the study.
If Roosevelt is credited with an additional 10 contacts per day with family and workers within the White House, this perhaps rather conservative estimate would add 860 contacts and perhaps 15 additional acquaintances.
1. Laski, Harold, The American Presidency, Meridan editionNew York: 1956, p.81. First published 1940.
2. See Appendix I.
3. The study data shows only 162 contacts with 4h known relatives. Only 19 contacts are listed for Mrs. Roosevelt.
In addition, Roosevelt saw 77 groups or delegations in the period for which there is no record on membership in the study. Between February
13 and 23, for example, Roosevelt met with a group led by Amory
Hutchin-son, a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation group, 30 newspaper editors, an Austrian Trade Delegation, a group representing beet sugar interestg and the Grand Masters of Masons. If we assume, again conservatively, that Roosevelt had personal contact with 5 men per group, 385 contacts and an
equal number of acquaintances &re added. Finally, there are the large din-ners and Musicalesf-erviich there is no record of the President's personal
contacts. Although no estimate will be suggested for these large affairs, they help insure that the estimated figures are beneath the actual contact volume.
In comparison with the people studied in the M.I.T. Acquaintanceship, Ne1twork Program, the President's totals give him a remarkable high Acquain-tance and contact volume. The results are indicated in Table 1. On the basis of the study data alone, Roosevelt stands as high man in acquaintances and low man in the ratio of contacts to acquaintances. The additions from the estimates give him over double the acquaintences of any other man and total contacts on the order of the Department Manager's total.
In Figure 1, Roosevelt's total of acquaintances in the period is plotted against the number of days elapsed since January 1. The smoother curve was ar-rived at by averaging the number of new acquaintances in random permutations of 10 days in the study. Similar curves for a professor and a technician are
shown ih Figure 2. In all curves the acquaintances are proportional (empiri-cally) to the square root of the number of days. -
-Although computing operations giving
approximate equations for the curves in figures
1 and 2 were not available at the time of
writing of this study, the graphical illustration indicates the relatively rapid expansion of
univers.j-The best comparison is with the university professors. Both they and Roose-velt ought to devote relatively large amounts of time to study and reflection, in one case for research purposes and in the other for clarification and de-cision on national values and policies. Yet Roosevelt's activity was approxi-mately double that of the professors'. The data thus poses an old question in a new light. Is the contact volume sufficiently large to diminish Presidential effectiveness in the making of broad policy and the establishing of national goals to an extent that would warrant a change in structure? Recent observa-tions by W, W. Rostow show that this question has only increased in importances
... For whatever reasons-diffidence, uncertainty, or inner convictions -Eisenhower did not impose his own insights, his own sense of direction on the nation's policy. He remained loyal not to his views of substance but to his principles of administration. He decided, in effect, only when
his immediate subordinates could not. He maintained, with respect to Humphrey, Wilson, and Dulles, the kind of relationship he had built during the war with Alexander, Montgomery, and Bradley - a relationship in which, within the agreed strategy, the field operator was given maximum scope and
the leader confined himself to making the residual decisions that were brought to him in terms of alternatives posed by a staff process he did not dominate or control.1
While Eisenhower's failure to direct policy can be blamed on the man who held the job, we must also ask to what extent this failure was directed by the
job itself.
There is reason to believe that even the "well-informed" are not adequately prepared to appreciate this structural issue. They have an image of the Presi-dent as a busy man, perhaps the busiest man alive, but do they actu-ally realize the extent of the President's activity.
To answer the last question, the New York Times was scanned for the same 2
86 day period,thesRoosevelnstdy.cdvered-_The-Presidentiiwasdisci-ssVd largely
in terms of his policy declarations and official letters with only a fraction of
1. W.W.Rostow, The United States in the World Arena, Harper, New York: 1960, pp.396-397.
2. Actually one day later than the actual day was recorded to account for re-porting and publishing dela1ys.
the contacts being mentioned. In the 86 day period, news reporting listed 126 contacts with 83 individuals. These individuals included high ranking Executive officials; Congressmen; family; Wite House staff;figures related to New York state politics; and lhbvrzoahd man-agement officials in the auto industry. Lower level executive officials and the many overnight visitors at the White House were virtually absent.
53 days contain no mention of contacts. The newspaper reader thus learns
only the surface of even official Presidential life.2
Further distortion of the public image results from the news-paper's inability to record private contacts and to evidence adequately the distribution of all contacts. For example, the month of March in the Times showed Hugh Johnson as- the most prominent government official as a result of his connection with the newsmaking potential auto strike. The contact data, however, shows Henry Morgenthau, Jr. as consistently the most frequent visitor from outside the White House.3 Furthermore, Mr. Morgenthau's 67 contacts does not reflect that he typically phoned the President several times a day even if he had seen him personally. Frequent phone calls were a privilege restricted solely to Mr. Morgenthau.
There is no other personality who even challenges his contact importance in this period.
Thus, not only do the newspapers fail to present the total range of acquaintances, but also they do not evidence the distribution of contacts
1. In addition the society page contained four invitation lists for White House dinners. The 126 contacts were approximately evenly distributed between the front page and other pages.
2* Since 1934, however, coverage of the President has undoubtedly expand-ed, but this expansion must be measured against the likely occurrence in an expansion in contacts withip the office. In addition, the Times atypical coverage of theitationap cene must be considered in discussing the image held by the general population.
among the most communicative group. To show the correct picture, the distribution of contacts among the 39 people with 10 or more contacts is presented in Table 2. This group only 4.8% of the 810 acquaintances, accounted for 1201 contacts, 48.6% of the total 2482.
The results indicate a considerable degree of flexibility within the Cabinet structure. The range is from Morgenthauts 67 to Mr. HUll's l7, Independent agency heads generally rank lower than Cabinet officers, but the variation was sufficient to permit Jesse Jones of the Reconstruc-tion Finance CorporaReconstruc-tion to outrank 6 of the 10 Cabinet officers. Thb: Times accounts of course do not evidence such diversity. Neither do they indicate the relatively low frequencies of contacts for Congressmen.
While only two Congressmen, SenatorsrRobinson and Byrnes, appear in Table 2, the Times gave congressional contacts prime coverage. Again the public received a distorted image.
The contact data leave a better defined image of Roosevelt's Execu-tive. There is a hard core of 30 to 40 who I 's the "first team" of
government. This "first team" accounts for nearly one-half the total contacts. These are people whose basic function is to aid the President
in policy formation. Beyond this there were nearly 800 people constituting
1. The date reflect perfectly laski's observations on the Cabinet: "The choice'of Mr. Hull' and Mr. Swanson by President Franklin Roosevelt was obviously dictated by political considerations; on the other hand,
that of Mr. Woodin, for the Treasury, of Mr. Ickes for the Interior, of Miss Perkins for labor, were obviously definitely personal appoint-ments. So at a later stage, was the appointment of Mr. Morgenthau to succeed Mr. Woodin on the latter's death," (laski, op.cit.p.81) The nature of relationship therefore appears as the prime determinant of the contact frequency. A mant s structural position can yield him only a certain minimum level of contact with the President.
2. Although Mr. Hull was in South America for one-third of the period, his total remains unimpressive for the third ranking member of the Executive.
those who interacted with the President on a less than once per week
basis. The diverse objectives and callings of this remaining group
bear further analysis.
_ _ ~
J'77717< .
1.7
1.7
J
I ~tixz--t
-- - - _ _ _ I .I 60. LO - - -- ---00- -- f.- - --A OW -t WC*e:----A---Z
iOjjjiiii
--- -- - --To - /0 S 10 2 o 35 yo is @ r o 5 7 r I. S o r o 54 3% 2 21 24 S' /0 IS 20 2S 3o 35 *0 VtV 90 tt' 40 SS 7o It' To TS- qo Ir /00So
'no or --- --- 1 1 4 0 0II-r
- -- -- -- -- - - - -*1- - --.0--or i z S-i /CPO IfA I o ~ ~ I s-r i o I 30 S-t *0 *6 Ard SS'60 6S 70 2s '75 -td- r G e IS-/0TABLE 1
C2WPARATIVE ACQUAINTANCES AND CONTACTS1
Person
Isolated Divorcee Blue Collar, Housewife
Economics Prof., U. of Chicago Dept. Manager .. Filene's Dept.
Store, Boston
Political Science Prof., M.I.T. Roosevelt - Study Data OCly3
Roosevelt -Stdy Data Plus Estimates Acquaintances 72 257 571
666
9391404
ContactsA
v&cf
471 6.5 11124.4
2243
4.2
42002 7.02 2131 27704340
3.2 3.1 3.11. The data has been normalized to 100 days by multiplying by 100 days/actual
days. Roosevelt's figures were multiplied by 100/86. 2. Approximate.
I
TABLE 2
ACQUAINTANCES WITH 10 OR MORE CONTACTS
Name and Position Contacts
1. ?5Intire, Ross 86
President's Physici an
2. JtIntyre, Marvin 71
Secretary to the President
3. Morgenthau, Jr., Henry (1,2,4)
04
"67
Secretary of the Treasury
4. leHand, Marguerite 65
White House Staff
5.
Tully, Paula 64Wite House Staff
6. Tully, Grace
64
White House Staff
7. Early, Stephen 63
Secretary to the President
8. Eben, Mary
58
White House Staff
9. Ickes, Harold (1,2,3) 42
Secretary of the Interior
10. Farley, James (1,2,4)
40
Postmaster General
11. Howe, Louis (2,4)
40
Secretary to the President
12. Wallace, Henry (1,2,3) 38
Secretary of Agriculture
13. Jones, Jesse (2,4)
34
Chairman, Reconstruction Finance Corp.
14. OCmings, Homer (1,2,3) 33
Attorney-General
15. Hopkins, Harry (2,3) 29
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
Nam and Position Contacts
16. Roper, Daniel (1,2,3) 29
Secretary of Comerce
17. Douglas, Lewis (2,4) 28
Director of Bureau of Budget
18. Johnson, iagh (2,3) 26
Administrator, National Recovery Administration
19. Perkins, Francis (1,2,3) 26
Secretary of Labor
20. Dern, George (1,2,4) 26
Secretary of War
21. Swanson, Claude (1,2,4) 19
Secretary of the Navy
22. 1ers, William (2,3) 19
Governor, Farm Credit Administration
23. Fahey, John (2,3) 19
Chairman, Federal Home Loan Bank Board
24. Robinson, Joseph 18
U.S.Senator, Chairman of the Majority Conference
25. Hi, Cordell (4,6) 17
Secretary of State
26. Fechner, Robert (2,4) 16
Director, Emergency Conservation Work
27. Walker, frank
(4,5)
15Executive Secretary, The Executive Council
28. Davis, Chester (2,3) 15
Administrator, Agricultural Adjustment Administration
29. Roosevelt, Eleanor
1
Wife of the President
30. Bullit, William 14
Ambassador to the U.S.S.R.
31. Phillips, William 13
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
Name and Position
32. Robert, Jr., Lawrence (2,)
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
33. Morgan, Arthur (2,4)
Chairman of the Board, Tennessee Valley Authority
34.
Eastman, Joseph (2,)Federal Coordinator of Transportation
35. Black, Eugene
Governor of the Federal Reserve Board
36. Welles, Swaner
Assistant Secretary of State 37. Moley, Raymond
Special Advisor
38. Roosevelt, James
Son of the President
39. Byrnes, Jams
U.S.Senator Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, Chairman
Credited with attendance Credited with attendance Credited with attendance Credted with attendance Credited with attendance Credited with attendance Executive Council. at at at at at at 6 Cabinet Meetings.
10 of theNational Exetings Eecutive Council.
5 *etin-s YofAhe 'National Emergency Council.
3 Meetings of the National Ehergency Council.
2 Meetings of the National Eergency Council. 4 Cabinet Meetings and 6 Meetings of the National
Contacts 13 13 13 12 12 10 10 10 1. 2. 3.
4.
5. 6.DISTRIBUTION OF CONTACTS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT
Table 3 shows the distribution of acquaintances and contacts with-in the governmental structure. 58.5% of the contacts are within the Executive, 12.4% are with Congress, 21.6% with people outside the Feder-al structure, 7.5% of the contacts were tnidentified; these appear to
consist totally of civil service rank officials (adding to the Executive total) and acquaintances outside the Federal structure.1
The group denoted by "Other" consists of Executive personnel ex-cept for 4 acquaintances and 5 contacts. In this whole period, outside of an evening judicial reception where personal contacts were not re-corded, Roosevelt saw only one Supreme Court justice, Cardozo. The absence of justices is, however, clearly explained by Roosevelt's
well-known feelings toward the "Nine Old Men".
Represented in the "not-in-government" classification were
news-papermen, clergy, entertainers, university people, and New York financiers and businessmen. (The last two groups came largely in connection with the gold crisis.)
The following groupings appear to form on the basis of the ratios of contacts to acquaintances: The primary co-workers consist of the
ultra-high ratio Cabinet and White House groups. Independent agency heads have a somewhat lower ratio than the first two groups and are secondary co-workers. Senate Committee Chairmen and Assistant Cabinet secretaries have nearly identical ratios;both are obviously policy advisers, but the Senate group also functions as legislative policy leaders. Between the
atios of 2.7 and 2.2 are independent agency board directors, commissioners, etc.; Senators not committee chairmen; House committee chairmen; diplomats;
and other Executive personnel. As a large number of these groups' contacts are social, they are only occasional polic advisors. The remaining groups, with ratios less than 2, are seen primarily as social connectives or external political connectives.1
The various sub-groups of acquaintances will be further dealt with in later sections. In the section immediately following, however, the distribution of the entire population along certain sociological
dimensions is examined.
1. Note the virtual absence of foreign diplomats in this period. In addition, Roosevelt saw no foreign heads-of-state or heads-of-government in the period.
TABLE 3
CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES BY
GWvRINY-OU FAM
r-Acquaintances Occation Number - of Total
Cabinet 10 1.2
Under and Asst. Sec. 16 2.0 Head of Ind. Agency 25 3.1
Deputy Officer, or Com.. 21 2.6
missioner of Ind. Agency
White House 19 2.4 Senator-i Senator-21 Representative-i Representative-2 Military Diplomat Diplomat of Foreign Nation 25 37 19
50
24 12 14, Other 55 E.ovt. Officials 13 State and Local Official2 Not in Govt. 281 Don't Know 162 Total 8104.6
2.4 4.o 3.0 1.5 1.76.8
1.6
3.3 35.6 20.1 100.0 ContactsNumber
.of
345 70260
5o
542 11384
43
66 33 32 22 122 20 32462
186 2482 100.01. Head of standing committee or majority leader. 2. Not head of standing comittee or majority leader.
Total 13.9 2.8
10.5
2.0 21.84.6
3.4
1.72.7
1.3 1.3 0.94.9
0.8 1.318.6
7.5 Contacts Aoquaintances 34.54.4
10.14 2.4 28.54.5
2.3 2.3 1.3 1.4 2.7 1.6 2.2 1.5 1.2 1.8 1.1 3.1SOCIOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE ACQUAINTANCE POPULATION
While for most of the dimensions considered sociological informa-tion was not found for a large percentage of the acquaintance certain trends are nevertheless disclosed by the data.1
Sex
Despite whatever power the female may have had as a voter, she certainly did not posess political power in 1934. Roosevelt had 640 male acquaintances to 170 female. Politics was substantially more of a man's game than the figures above indicate, however, for 126 of the females were wives present primarily at social functions. In addition the female contact total was boosted considerably by Mr. Rooseveltts personal secretaries.
Table 4 and 5 show that the President had only a small fraction of his acquaintance with people below the age of 40 and relatively even less contacts. The next ten years, 41 to 50, are the ones of greatest activi-ty in terms of contact with a contact to acquaintance ratio of 5 that is
over 25% greater than that of any other period. Such activity is notably not evidenced by the acquaintance data alone. The rate for those over 60 is greater than that for those 51 to 60 as the result of seniority rewards in Congress.
The sharp upswing after 40 may be the result of a new administration arriving after 12 years of Republican rule. Certainly the average age of the primary co-workers can be expected to increase with time as the
"regulars" (Morgenthau, Ickes, Perkins, etc.) remained in Washington.
1. See Appendix II.
It
Of those for whom party information is available the contact data
show, without -surprise, almost exclusively Democratic acquaintances. Republicans that were seen were not seen often. A large portion of
the "don't know" entries in Table 7 consist of business people and career government officials who did not list a party in their Who's Who biography.
Religion2
The country was governed by its Protestant (largely Episcopalian) majority in strong proportions as evidenced by the 22:4 ratio of ac-quaintances, between Protestants and Catholics. The Catholics' high ratio of contacts to acquaintances reflects their representation on Rooseveltts staff and in high appointive positions and their lack of representation in lower level executive positions and in Congress. Over 75% of the Jewish contacts came from the Morgenthau family who were among Roosevelt's closest friends.3
Education
The educational data in Table 9 feature a decline in contact to acquaintance ratio with increased education except for the high M.D. ratio from the pres/ence of the President's personal physician. Two components the results may possibly reflect are a transition in Amer-ican education with the old, senior class being relatively uneducated and a dissatisfaction among the politically active class with the noftal
channels of development. 1/ ,
1. See Table 7,
2. See Table 6.
Occupation
Table Vshows the lawyers leading the occupations chosen by Roose-velt's acquaintances followed by the banking and business group. Of
great interest is the virtual absence of labot in what was supposedly
the common man' s administration. Labor' s sole appearance as labor was
to settle potential automobile strikes and railway strikes. Not once were labor officials called upon tb discuss governmental policy, and
not once were they entertained in the small social functions. Nationality1
Roosevelt's acquaintances were overwhelmingly American by birth.
Foreign born elements in the population were underrepresented as the majority of the small foreign born set of acquaintances were foreign diplomats.
Residence
Over 70% of the contacts were made by people who had their office in Whashington as indicated in Table 10. The only other area with a sizeable office representation is the Metropolitan New York area with 6.2%, ikhle the New York representation, heavily out of proportion with the rest of the nation on a population basis, may have resulted from
the battle between Wall Street and the farmers over inflation, the fre-quent occurrence of major financial issues in the New Deal and the extent of the disproportions both lead to the conclusion that even in the New
Deal Wall Street elements retained the heaviest interest in the govern-ment of any non-governgovern-mental group.
The residence data in Table 11 was chosen to feflect the permanent
domicile of government people. Here New York City again dominates the scene, nearly approaching Walshington as a source of government personnel.
It is clos rlyrvaled in numbers (although there is no rival when
propor-tionf is considered) by the South which asserted its influence through
I
control of Congressional committees. To say that in 1934 the United States was ruled by a working coalition between the Roosevelt group
of New York and the Southern politicians is not a terribly gross gener-alization.
Summary
A sociological survmyj of American government in 1934 reveals con-centrations as to sex, party, occupation, and locale. While concentra-tions in the first two categories appear quite legitimate, those in the last two suggest that our social and political structure in American may be operating in a highly inefficient and undemocratic manner. The ex-clusion in practice of the employed, non-professional groups from parti-oipation in political life cannot be viewed without concern.
Franklin Roosevelt was well aware of the undemocratic nature of American government. He often became frustrated with the narrow class outlook, the lack of compassion for the common man, of certain of his
1
associates. Although he and his Administration were proponents of social equality,the distribution of power was apparently unrepresenta-tive in 1934. Despite the inner elite of social reformers (Hopkins, Ickes, Wallace, Perkins), the following highly charged descriptionc was apparently applicable to a great many of the associates of Franklin Roosevelt in 1934, and ever within limitations, to the President himself:
So the distinguished law student, after prep school and Harvard, is 'clerk' to a Supreme Court judge, then a corporation lawyer, then in the diplomatic service, then in the law firm again. In each of these spheres, he meets and knows men of his own kind, and as a kind of continuum there are the old family frignds and the schoolboy chums, the dinners at the club, and each year of his life the summer resorts, In each of these circles in which he moves, he acquires and exercises a confidence in his own ability to judge, to decide, and in this con-fidence he is supported by his ready access to the experience and
I
sensibility of those who are his social peers and who act with decision in each of the important institutions and areas of public life. One does not turn one's back on a man whose presence is accepted in such circles, even under most trying circumstances.
All over the top of the nation, he is tin', his appearance, a certificate of social position; his voice and manner, a badge of proper training; his associates, proof at once of their accept-ance and of his stereotyped discernment. 1
The present author does not take the type characterized by Mills as typical of any one individual but as descriptive of an influencial group in American government in either Democratic or Republican ad-ministrations. While this "type" may represent the zenith of capability presently available in this country, there is no;, guarantee ofceapability in running a government for the people or in dealing with a non-stereo-typed public world. Although no normative remark is in order here, what
is clear is that the study confirms Mills' opinion that this group is strong in the "power elite". As the group has and will fill the highest offices in the land, one ought to ask with great seriousness whether it is desirable for a democratic nation in the long-run. In addition, the whole structure of a political process that permits such pyramiding of power must be called into question.
1. C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, Galaxy Edition, Boston: 1959, p.70.
First published 1956. Mills' report (p4 234) on the Eisenhower Admin-istration suggests that acquaintance statistics taken today would be even more heavily weighted in favor of the quoted character type.
TIM
4
TABLE B I
CONTACTS ADACQUAINTANCES B AGE IN 1934
0-20 21-30 31-140 51-60 Over 60 Don't Know Total Acquaintances Number - of Total
4
0.5
6
.39
106 137 112 4014810
0.7 4.8 13.1 16.9 13.849.9
100.0 Contacts Number -% of Total 17 97 527 492 437905
2842 0.2 0.7 Contacts Acquaintances 1.2 2.8 3.9 21.2 19.8 17.6 36.7 3.63.9
2.2 100.0 3.1 TABLE5
CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCESMALES ONTY Acquaintances Number -
%
of Total BY AGE IN 1934 Contacts Contacts Aquaintances Number -%
of Total 0-20 21-30 31-40 26
3851-60
Over 60 Do n't Know 100 130 111 252 0.3 0.9 6.015.6
20.2 17*339.14
3 17 .1 .91.5
2.84.9
503
457
436
429 25.923.5
22.4 22.13.5
3.9 1.7 Total6140
100.0 19142 100.03.1
Total 640 100.0 1942 100.0TABE 6
CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES BY RELIGION
Acquaintances
Religion Number.% of Total
Protestant Catholic Jew Otbievre 176 30 22 2 21.5 3.7 2.7 0.2 Contacts Contacts Acquaintances Number.% of Total 691 251
4
27.7 10.1 3.8 0.2 3.9 8.44.3
2.0 Dont Know 580 71.6 1443 58.1 2.5 Total 810 100.0 2482 100.0 3.1 TAME 7CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES BY POLITICAL PARTY
Contacts Acquaintances PrMz Number-.%of Total Number.% of Total
Demecrat 244 30.2 1526 61.7 6.2 Republican 58 7.2 93 3.7 1.6 Farmr-Labor 8 1.0 23 0.9 2.9 Progressive 9 1.1 13 0.5 1.4 Not Amrican 28 3.2 43 1.7 1.5 itizen Don't Know 463 57.3 784 314 1.7 Total 810 100.0 2482 100.0 3.1
TABLE 8
CONTACTS AN ACQUAINTANCES BY NATION OF BIRTH
Contacts Acquaintances Contacts
Acquaintanceg Nation U.S. Number4% of Total
485
59.6
Number- of Total 2024 Canada9
U.K. Germany Other Europe iAtitv Amrica Other Donn't Know 10 8 17 8 2 276 1.2 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.2 34.0 13 13 24 114
81.4 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.2384
lbtaL 810 100.0 2482 100.0 3.1 2.2 1.31.6
1.4 1.4 2.01.4
Tbtal 810 100.0 2482 100.0 3.1TABLE 9
CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES BY EDUCATION
AcquOi-tances Number. of Total Contacts Contacts Acquaintances Number--% of Total 3 0.1 High School College incom-plete Bachelor Master Doctorate M.D. Art orMjsi6 Schools Don't Know 78
47
193 21 39 13 6 hig9.6
5.8
23.8 2.6 4.8 1.6 .750.6
436
222733
17.6 8.9 29.5 80 3.2 116 107 4.74.3
8 0.3 772 31.1 100.0 2482 100.0 ILevel None3
.
4
1.0 3.8 3.8 3.0 8.2 1.3 1.9 Total 810 3.1TABLE 10
CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES BY OFFICE LOCATION
Place D.C. 1.MAtropoli-tan N.Y.C. 2.New Eng. 3.Middle At-lantic
4.
South5.East
North Central 6.West 7.Db-It Know Other Acquaintances Number-% of Total 302 37.3 90 11.1 14 1.7 15 1.8 24, Contacts Contacts Acquaintances Number-.% of Total 1745 154 18 21 3.0 22 2.7 11 1.3 31939.4
13 ,1.6 32 26 24 6.2 0.7 0.8 1.9 1.0 1.0 16.7 1.7 1.3 1.4 2.0 1.2 2.2 1.3 Population in Millions1930
8.3
7.7 17.8 41.525.3
22.5 1.3. Total 810 100.0 2482 100.0 3.11. Includes New York City, Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties in New York and Fairfield County in Connecticut. 2. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Mass., R.I., and Conn. (Minus Fairfipld
County)
3. Pa., N.J., and N.Y. (Minus Yatropolitan N.Y.C. Areas).
4. Del., Md., Va., W.Va., Ky., Tenn.,M*., Ala., Miss., Ark., Ccla., Tex.,
La., (eo., Fla., N.C., S.C.
5.
Mt.,C
l, IIn .,We., Wah.,.hio.6. lenn., N.D., S.D., Iowa, Nab., Kans., Mnt., Colo., Wo., Idaho, Ariz., N.M., Qa*., Nve.,0re., Wash.,, Utah.
TABLE 11
CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES BY RESIDENCE
Acquaintances Number. of Total
Contacts
Number-% of Total
Contacts
Acquaintances Populationin millions
1930 1.1etropoli-tan D.C. Metropoli-tan N.Y.C. New Bag. Mid. Atl. South East North Central West Other Don't Know Total
1. Includes Suburban Md. and Va. Residences of those working in Washington. Place i10 137 17.3 16.9 3.1 38 104 236.22 16.1 4.1 12.8 6.0 7.9 12.8
6.4
2.94.6
2.7 3.1 3.1 2.8 0.7 8.3 7.7 17.8 41.3 25.3 899 401 116 103 318 149 197 12 287 2482 69 8 241 810 0.5 0.9 29.7 100.0 11.6 100.0 1.2 3.1TABLE 12
CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES BY PRE-GOVERNMENT
ORWM ff ETM'00P-TINS
Acquaintances
Occupation Number-% of Total
Contacts Number.. of Total Contacts Acquaintances Banking, Finance Basiness, Manufacturing Farming, Ranching Law Eduatibn-Me dieaine Publishing Newspaper, Publicity Labor Other None Dbn't Know 69 8.2
15
1.8
137 16.2 25 3.05
o.6
13 1.5 30 3.6 8 0.9 72 8.5 197 225 23.6 26.8 141 198 3.8 158 4.2 425 11.4 66 1.8 96 2.6 109 237 2.9 6.3 13 o.4 387 10.7 471 12.6 374 10.0 844 100.0 2675 100.01. Some individuals are listed under more than one occupation. 2.9 2.9 10.5 3.1 2.6 19.2 7.9
1.6
Total 2.h 1.7 3.2TABLE 13
AQQUAINTANCES AND CONTACTS BY PRE.-GOVERNMENT OR O NW N COUATION(T E_
Acquaintances Contacts Contacts
Acquaintances (0cupatilon Banking, Finance Bainess, Mnufacturing Farming, Ranching Law Education Yedicine Publishing Newspaper, Pblicity Iabor Other None Don't Know Number-.% of Total
48
7.1 69 10.3 14 2.1 136 23 12 308
44
20.23.4
0.7 1.8 1.2 86 12.8 187 27.9 Number-% of Total14,
198424
6.7
9.14
7.2 19.9 3.196
106 237 13 189 285 320 11.1o.6
8.8 13.4 15.0 100.0 2125 100.0 2.9 2.9 10*7 3.1 2.8 19.28.8
7.9 1.64.3
3.3 1.7 Total 672 3.2THE EXECUTIVE
The administrative core is taken to consist of the Cabinet, Assistant or Under Secretaries, heads of independent agencies, and those classified as
"other" in TableS. The majority of their 876 contacts is with the wmall group of 20 odd men indicated in TableZ. (The White House group is omitted to dis. allow heavy weighting to personnel not primarily involved in policy formation.) Thiso.core contains approximately
45%
of thePresident's total male contacts. It represents those responsible for the planning and execution of policy.These core contacts are indispensable to the President's mode of opera"* tion although after a comparison with other periods of history it may perhaps fail in certain normative aspects. Nevertheless, the results in Table 3
indicate that b more influence exists in department ,secretaryships than in the heading of independent agencies but that the agency head outranks an assistant
secretary in a department.
Sociologically the group has the following characteristics apart from the total acquaintance population:
Residence1
Representation from New York City is heaviest in the Eecutive itself with 21% of the total contacts and 33% of the contacts with those from outside the District of Columbia. Thus 7% of the population acquires approximately one-third of the control exercised by those ithout a permanent federal career. The previous questions on this group are thus reinforced in importance.
Religion2
The high contact/acquaintance ratios for Catholics and Jews as compared to Protestants show their absence from lower level position. Once again a structure
1. 2.
See Table a5. See Table 17.
O\)
'4
in practice virtually closed to certain capable elements becomes a
po&--sibility.
The Democrats predominate as expected. Education2
A fall-weff in cxntact/acquaintance ratio for advanced degree people
occurs here although those with bachelor's degrees dominate those with less education. While the desirability of advanced degree people in the upper strata of political life is hardly to be assumed, if the 1934 data continued as a long-run trend, the channels that lead to governmental promin.. ence would again be open to question.
A
Executive life begins at 4h--there is an extremely sharp rise from the 31-40 group to the 41-50 group on all measures.
000aion4
Business and banking constitute a group as prominent as the lawyers.
Tbgether the three classifications dominate the federal structure. The farmer is apparently non-participant in lower level administration but acquired a strong hand in the prescence of Morgenthau and Henry Wallace. Labor, in co0.. trast, did not even manage to garner the office of the Secretary of Labor. Ecept in the case of strike settlement, labor leaders, past and present, were absent from the personal sphere of Franklin Roosevelt in this period.
1. See Table 18. 2. See Table 16.
3. See Table 14.
The remarks made for the general population can be repeated for this section. The education and residence results are again worth examining over longer time intervals. In addition, it would be interesting to learn if labor has increased its representation since its development after passage of the Wagner Act.
TABLE 14
CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES BY AGE ~TBEXECUTIVE Acquaintances g Number-% of Total 12
8.7
37 27.0 36 26.3 27 14.7 Don't Know 25137
Contacts Contacts Acquaintances Number4 of Total43
4.9
329 228 219 37.5 26.o 25.0 18.2 100,.0876
0.0 TABLE 15CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES BY RESIDENCE
TE EXECUTIVE
Acquaintances
Place Number-% of Total
Contacts Number-% of Total Populations in Millions 1930 Contacts Acquaintances V I Metropoli- 63 tan D.C. Metropoli.. 20 tan N.Y.C. New England 7 Middle Atlan- 9 tic South 13 East Nor-th 11 Central West Other Don't Know 6 2
6
~ta1 137 100.0876
100.06.4
31-4051-60
Over 60 Total3.6
8.96.3
8.0
2.3 296 18933.8
21.6
46.0
14.6 7.09.5
8.0 1.46.3
6.3
4.7
7.86.1
8.1 7.1106
78 86 3 7 12.1 8.9 9.8 0.3 o.8 14.3 1.2 Total 137100.0
876
.i .0 6.4TABLE 16
CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES Bft EDUCATION
THEXECUTIVE Acquaintances level Through High School Some College Bachelor Master Ph.D,etc. Don't Know ToLVtal Number. of Total 17 114 49 10 23 137 12.4 10.2
35.8
7.2 17 * 16.8 100.0. Contacts Contacts Acquaintances Number-% of Total 141 76460
60 87 876 16.0 8.3 8.6 52.5 6.8 9.99.4
6.o 3.6 2.7 100.0 TABLE 17CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES BY RELIGION TIE EXECUTIVE Acquaintances Religion Protestant Catholic Jewish Don't Know Number-4 of Total 37
9
86 27*0 7.0 3.6 62.8 Contacts Contacts Acquaintances Number-% of Total 2411. 87 73 27.59.9
9.0 54.1 9.7 14.6 Tota 137 100. 876 100. 100.0 876 100.0 Total 137TABLE 18
CONTACTS AND ACQUAINTANCES B! POLITICAL PARTY
TBE EXECUTIVE Democrat Republican Progressive Donn't Know Acquaintances Number-.% of Total 62
145.2
10 164
7.3 0.7 46.7 Contacts Contacts Acquaintances Number. of Total 633 72.3 22 2.5 7 .8 10.2 2.2 7.0 216 137 100.0 876 100.0 6.4 TABLE 19ACQUAINTANCES AND CONTACTS B! PRE-GOVERNMENT OR
CONCURRENTN0A N- TIEO Acquaintances Number-% of Total Contacts Number-% of Total Banking, FinnAoe Business, Manufacturing Farming, Ranching Law Education PIblithiagV Newpaper IAborr Other None Don't Know 12
4
8.1 2.8 33 22.4 12 8 2 2 8.15.4
1.4 1.4 16 10.9 27 18.4 17 11.1 Total 147 100.0 1024 100.0 7.0 Total Contacts Acquaintanoes 6.7 11.2 13.3 21.1 4.9 9.6 34.2 6.64.4
11.6 69 115 137 217 53 93 16 2 90 209 23 9.1 1.6 0.2 8.8 20.3 8.0 1.0 2.2 7.8 1.4 TLotal 147 100.60-024
100.60CONGRESS I. Power
Congressmen constituted approximatelyj'fper cent of Roosevelt's acquaintances and
3
per cent of his contacts. The contact data gener.-ated by this behavior provides a basis for empirical evaluation of models of Congressional behavior.The legislative process can be viewed as one of coalition formation between President, Senators, and Representatives. In order to achieve a legislative goal, the President will presumably contact those Congressmen whom he perceives to have the power or influence to effect a favorable dew*
cision.'
Wile the perceptions and thus the contacts may not precisely reflect the power distribution, a desire for a successful legislative program (cer-tainlywell-known ain of the New Deal,) should force the actual contacts towards equilibrium with those optimal under the power distribution. The number of contacts of any one Congressman, therefore, should be a monotonic function of his power to effect a favorable decision.2,3,
1. The word "favorable" is used to exclude contact with those Congressmen who are "powerful" leaders of the opposition. In the formation of a
majority coalition these men have little actual power in a situation where the majority and the President are in essential agreement.
2. Eventually contacts made solely on a basis of friendship should receive some discount. Qa the other hand, if the President "likes" a particular Congressman, his ability to shape legislative proposals stemming from the &Becutive may be considerably enhanced.
3. In a Congress where the President's party is in the minority the analysis should still remain valid. "Favorable" here would generally mean tempering legislation to an acceptable positioh. Although in a game-theoretic sense the President's opposition would share in legislative power (see Duncan Lace and Arnold A. Rogow, "A Game Theoretic Analysis of Congressional Power Dis.-tribution for a Stable Two-Party System", Behavioral-Science, I, (1956),83-95.), the President 's party might still be expected to predominate in contact, for they are the ones most likely to favor his goals. The other party's contacts, however, in any case would be considerably increased as the President will in this case be forced to settle for things acceptable as well as favorable.
the
This contact model of power may be compared with/abstract one generated by game theory. Game theory arrives at power distributions
by considering for any coalition (or member) the set of possible voting
permutations in which the coalition is pivotal relative to the set of all possible voting permutations. The imediate observation, made from Table 22, is that the Democrats overwhelmingly dominated the scene with
84 per cent of the Congressional c ntacts. This is in line with the game theoretic prediction that in a Congress structured as the 73rd power resides wLth the majority party and the President.1
.While the last result was hardly formidable, the following con. tradiction between game theory and contact data will hopefully prove more interesting. Between Senator and Representative, game theory pre-dicts a power ratio of 9:2.2 This power ratios given in Table 20 place the Senator-Representative ratio at 205:25 or approximately 16:2. while the disparity is obvious, the ratio derived from contacts requires some explanation.
U,.
(from previous page) The author suspects that power is at least ini. tially not linear with contacts, for the man who appears only rarely may be "invited" as a matter of;eference while he who appears fre. quently may actively participate in shaping legislation.1. Lace and Rogow, o. cit. The Democrats had a 60 -35 majority in the Senate and a 310-117 majority in the Huse. They were still short of the 2/3 majority in both houses for all power to reside in Congress. There was, however, no way 4Ao measure the President
I power vs. that of Congress in this study.
2. See L.S. Shapley and Martin Shubik, "A Metbod fbr Evaluating the Dis-tribution of Power in a Committee System", American Political Science
In deriving the contact power ratio, we assumed "power" to be linear with contacts. If the assumption is in any direction,
it is probably too generous to the man who had only one or two con-tacts. Under linearity, "power" is then equal to the expected value of contact. The expected value for a member of a class is the total of contacts for the class divided by the total class membership. This
calculation time$a constant factor results in the contact power ratio.
Of further interest are the contact power ratios, when the houses
are broken into the committee chairman or majority leader and not com-mittee chairman or madjority leader groups. Denoting the latter by superscript "2" and the former by superscript "l", one finds Senator1:
Senator2: Representative1: Representative2: 323:137:86:17. The fact that there is less than a 2:1 difference between SenatoZd Repre-sentative is in agreement with the well-known tradition that repre-sentatives of long-standing are not inclined to switch to the Senate. Notice also that there exists between Senator1 and Representative2 a factor of 19 and between Representative1.and Representative2 a factor
of 5. The President thus expected relatively only the smallest gain
from contact with the ordinary Representative.
Before leaving the power ratio data, let us experiment with the thought that one contact for each man in the period was essentially a "deference" con-tact, mainly a social courtesy and largely not a part of policy formation. Such
1. Actbally the ratios derived from game-theory and contacts both make the
assumption that "power", a concept, is a measurable variable. There would be greater safety in simply asserting that voting permutation
