POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY all parts of the world geographical surroundings have a strong influence on political conditions. This is equally true among primi tive people and among those most highly advanced. For example, in eastern Persia the chief political idea of the primitive "Fowlers" who live on birds and cattle in the vast swamps of Seistan is to evade pay ing taxes. This is because they are easily able to hide themselves and their simple belongings among the tall reeds where the tax col lector cannot find them. The settled agricultural people on the open irrigated lands not far away, on the contrary, look upon taxes as no less inevitable than the seasons, for their environment furnishes no way of escape. Among advanced people environment produces a similar political effect when it causes the coastal sections of a country to vote for ship subsidies, while the interior is strongly against them. Each of the great elements of geographical environment plays its part in causing political differences, for location, land forms, water bodies, soil and minerals, climate, and plants and animals all make some people want the government to act in one way and some in another.
(1) Why the East and the West as to Immigration.—The opposed desires of the East and West of the United States as to immi gration well illustrate the political effect of location. The western United States, which faces Asia, does not want Asiatic immigrants. Its people feel so keenly on this question that some of them have engaged in riots against the Chinese and Japanese, and have com pelled the country as a whole to adopt the policy of excluding these races. The East, because it faces Europe, is indifferent about Asi atics, but is intensely interested in European immigration. For many years the East wanted as many immigrants as possible, and hence was against all restrictions. Now, however, the East is in much more danger from undesirable immigrants than is the West. Hence in almost every session of Congress Eastern members introduce bills to restrict European immigration. They feel that unless the level of the immigrants from the backward countries of eastern Europe is raised, this country will soon find itself greatly injured because of the dull minds inherited by great numbers of its citizens.
Why the Coast and Interior Differ as to Congressional Appropria tions.—Although the East and the West differ as to immigration because they face different oceans, they agree with one another and differ from the interior of the United States as to spending money for harbors, because they are both on the sea-coast. Both East and West want large appropriations for the navy, for coast defenses, for harbor development, and for the encouragement of foreign trade. The inte rior States, however, are inclined to say that the United States is so strong and rich that no power will ever dare attack us, and the coun try will prosper no matter whether the government helps foreign trade or not. What they want is large appropriations for river im provement, national highways, irrigation projects, forest reserves, and national parks. They say that if vast sums are spent to deepen harbors on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, equally large sums ought to be spent for improvements in States which have no water-borne commerce.
This conflict of interests often leads to log-rolling and results in the so-called pork-barrel bill. Unscrupulous congressmen try to get appropriations for some project in their own district no matter whether it is good or bad, and all sorts of foolish compromises are the result. It is a grave mistake to think that money should be spent in one's own particular State whether it produces national benefit or not. People who do this overlook the fact that money spent on New York Harbor, for example, is a direct benefit to Chicago, St. Louis, and almost every part of the country, because it stimulates trade and reduces the price of imported goods. In the same way the coast States err when they oppose the spending of money for irriga tion or for the building of great national highways. It is time for Americans to give up the prejudices and greed which spring from their location and ask only whether a given project will be a benefit to the nation as a whole, no matter where the money may be spent.