Urban Politics
Using the examples provided by party insiders like George Washington Plunkitt, Richard Croker, and Big Tim Sullivan, what aspects of machine politics do you think would be particularly appealing to urban voters? What concerns or questions might you have about this system of representation and urban governance?
Student Reflection 1:
Despite the morally and politically problematic aspects of machine politics, leaders of these groups were able to gain and retain popularity amongst urban voters by contrasting themselves to the turmoil of formal government organizations at the time. The main tactic for the general population was to provide an accessible point of contact for a voice in politics, especially for people who wouldn’t have had much influence otherwise. For women and minority populations who began to take up a larger proportion of the federal workforce but lacked the lobbying power, or socially marginalized groups like the homeless or the incarcerated population, these politicians were channels of potential social mobility. More working class voters who would have been resistant to seeking legal assistance from the formal government system viewed their precinct workers as a relatable peer. When arguing against opponents of machine politics, party leaders appealed to voters by highlighting welfare services and their pro-reform movements. By leveraging the public’s distrust in government and its inefficiency, machine politics’ leaders presented an approachable and non-elitist face to win over voters.
Even on the larger scale of corporations, new political leaders earned their vote by offering money and stability of business, both of which were prioritized before political party power lines. With their ability to offer jobs even when the economy was unstable and high receptivity to market demands for goods and services, machine politics groups were favored by private sector employers. It was an additional benefit that by being independent groups, these parties were not subject to the same government control, therefore able to bypass formal scrutiny and carry out their plans more efficiently.
Exchanging patronage and services for electoral support in strategic interactions would have seemed to benefit the targeted communities in the immediate time frame, but in reality they were losing their political power as an urban population. By having to rely on these politicians who also took advantage of the urban social divide, workers lost their main form of collective influence. In the past, public sector unions had been able to hold onto power even amidst tightening restrictions after the Boston police strike, but in the era of enhanced machine power, there would be no regulation on who wanted or received these benefits, or who could provide countering policies.
[by an MIT student, reproduced with permission]
Student Reflection 2:
I think the most appealing aspect of machine politics—responsible for their surprising resilience in the face of multiple reform movements—is the personal, immediate, and practical aspect of the aid and benefits they provided. Bosses like George Washington Plunkitt built up powerful associations from grassroots movements by being clear about the spoils and benefits that supporting him would bring. When voters elected the Tammany group, they “knew just what they were doin’.“ Likewise, they expected jobs, which was the source of Plunkitt’s outrage at the number of jobs taken up by civil service deputies and therefore unable to be given away.
I believe this form of government was especially attractive because it brought a level of “reality” that had mostly disappeared in the anonymity and vastness of new urban life. In a city with a million people, it is easy to dismiss the reformer’s bureaucracy as a faceless, abstract concept. Bosses offered a clear quid pro quo that these often disgruntled, immigrant workers could understand: a vote for Tammany meant a job, a raise, or a favor. In contrast, the Republican “elite” drove away support in their attempts to usurp what they thought was a corrupt system, Despite their efforts to elevate well-mannered, educated men to power, voters saw them as bookworms who were unrepresentative of ordinary workers, deaf to their complaints, and belittling of their needs: “‘You don’t know what’s good for you. Leave it to us. It’s our business.’“ Furthermore, the rise to prominence of some of these leaders gave hope to their voter base. Seeing someone escape the slums to become wealthy and powerful made these leaders seem relatable, even when the probability of any of their voters following suit was exceedingly small. For the purposes of popular support, hope was often more important than actual results. Even if only one salary got raised, ten others would still vote for Tammany because they’d think, “That’s all right. I wish it was me.”
My concern about this form of government is that individual favors and benefits simply don’t scale well with the density of population and resources in a city. The most charismatic leaders aren’t necessarily the most skilled at managing logistics, public services, or governance. Despite how bookworms are portrayed, a mastery of knowledge over math, science, and history can assist with the complicated workings of an urban bureaucracy. A system that relies on favors is also doomed to fail as some resources are zero-sum; eventually, they will run out of favors to give. Regardless, I feel this form of politics is still present at the national level. The modern administration ran on concrete promises rather than abstract ideals to great success. Taxes, immigration, even egg prices are all easier to understand than climate change, international soft power, and the integrity of the constitution. The cabinet is filled with loyal supporters rather than the most qualified candidates. Machine politics seems like it’s making a resurgence today, only affecting a nation of hundreds of millions instead of a city of hundreds of thousands.
[by an MIT student, reproduced with permission]
