The Behavior Of Party Bosses

Rapid urbanisation has caused a variety of problems, including transport congestion, lack of sufficient homes and living conditions, sanitary and health care issues, and crime. For all these problems, city planners have attempted potential solutions, each with varying degrees of success. Cities including London, Manila and Mumbai have several of the aforementioned problems, and have each tried their own potential solutions. This essay will discuss how successful these schemes have been in resolving these issues.

There were 3 components to the political machines: the county committee, the ward or precinct leaders and the party loyalists. The county committee members were those that held the top offices in the county political party. People like Thomas J Pendergast from Kansas City, James Michael Curley in Boston and Richard J Daley from Chicago. At this level they controlled the party’s nominations, the money and the votes. Much of their power came from the people that they got elected that owed them favors for the votes.

Political machines and the reformers who rallied against them had incredible influence in urban politics in the 19th and early 20th century. Each, however, has been labeled as corrupt monopolies and are seen as selfish towards their own goals. While there are tactics that worked to help cities grow stronger, the value of equal voting for all citizens was compromised in each regime’s quest for power.

Boss Tweed is the best example of machine politics. He was in charge of the “Tweed Ring” in New York City. Machine politics worked wonderful in New York City where the Irish stuck together and used machine politics to their advantage(Mandlebaum 28). Tweed gained control over the police officers allowing him to exercise control over contracts of jobs. The Tweed Ring stole more than two hundred million dollars from the city and state (Mandelbaum 97). In 1872, the New York Times exposed and the lawyer Samuel Tilden exposed Tweed and destroyed his career (Mandelbaum 199).

The political machine is very powerful in the city and because of how powerful it is that urban United States was able to develop so much and increase in power in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. A political machine is system of political organization based on patronage, the spoils system, and political ties. Sometimes political machines have a boss and sometimes they may not have a boss, and always have a corps of workers who depend on the patronage given by government contracts and jobs. Machine politics has existed in many United States cities for a long time now, but are still in effect in some areas.

Political machines were common to see after the development of a mass electorate and industrialization. During the mid-19th century, all males were able to vote and there were a multitude of jobs available due to the industrial revolution that occurred in the mid-1700’s until the mid-1800’s, this is when most boss systems arose. Many U.S. citizens considered themselves a body of voters before they would consider themselves laborers. With this mindset, they were able to build exponentially large and strong political machines which were held together by the use of bribing jobs and patronage.

One of the hidden ways the government extorted the American people is a form of corruption and embezzlement known as political machines. Political machines were used to maintain power in the government, often times organizations or people would ban together to keep a certain politician or political group in

Powerful political “bosses” in each party compelled urban residents into voting for favored candidates, who would then give kickbacks and bribes back to the bosses in appreciation for getting them elected. Bosses would also spend money to improve constituents’ neighborhoods to ensure a steady flow of votes for their machines. Trading jobs and services for votes, a powerful boss might claim the loyalty of thousands of followers; the bosses found lodging, gave gifts of food and clothing, and patched up minor scrapes with the law. In this sense, party bosses and machine politics actually helped some of the poorest people in the cities, adding to the illusion of urban

Daley had three undeniable goals to accomplish, these goals were as follows: gain votes, obtain power and to make downtown more appealing for investors. Richard J. Daley was the last leader of the potent Democratic machine that dominated Chicago politics throughout his 21-year reign as mayor of Chicago (Encyclopedia, Chicago). A political machine is best described as an unofficial organization designed to keep a particular group in power. Political machines generally dispensing social services and jobs to growing diverse immigrant populations in exchanges for votes.

The political machines were detrimental to the turn of the century in American Society. Bosses used naturalization for personal gain of votes and support, had complete control over money and the cities, and corrupted governments. Thus, political machines did not benefit American society.

The fourth party system is marked by the development of political machines. A political machine is an unofficial patronage system within a political party that seeks to gain political power and government contracts, jobs, and other benefits for party leaders, workers, and supporters. Civil service legislation brought a decline in political machines.

With most urban growth in the developing world concentrated in the squatter settlements, it can be contrasted to the masses of growth received and predicted in developed countries. Numerous factors draw people towards cities such as; better employment and educational opportunities, hospital and health care facilities and overall better living standards. With interconnected challenges constantly arising, many ambitious planning and development schemes are projected to the government. Many inhabitants lack belief in these authorities; hence Roosevelt devised a rule for unrestrained reform, which emphasised, “that undivided power helps to prevent the forces that benefit from the status quo from blocking change” (Glaeser E., 2011). Although often-forceful

Growth costs more money in taxes and costs more for government services. Growth puts more stain on the majority of the population in health and quality of life, such as increase pollution, traffic, and strain on public works, while distributing the benefits to a small segment of the community. Jobs are not created by growth, but are simply redistributed from and among other localities. Additionally, the fastest growing metropolitan areas have the most unemployment. This happens since labor is extracted from a national labor pool, and growing localities attract the unemployed who are seeking work from other localities. For labor, It is more beneficial for workers to be part of a national movement to promote full-employment, rather than support the local growth machine. Some areas that are not overpopulated have clean environments, sustainable infrastructure, and aesthetic landscapes Yet, successful competition by urban localities only help to promote depopulation, ghost towns, and depletion--or extraction--of resources in and from localities. Molotch highlights that depopulation of an area, thus declining growth, is due to political decisions in other localities to promote

Unlike most machine bosses and their followers who had little formal education, many reformers were upper-class wealthy industrialists. The strong contrast between the educational background, class status, and interests of the reformers and political machines contribute to reasons for why there seems to be a struggle for power with the reformers representing the upper class and the, political machines representing the working-class and immigrants. In addition to the basis for their formation, the legislature that had been put in place by the reformers is not only proof of this struggle for power, but also further disadvantaged the working class and empowered the upper class.

Cities, which are currently plagued with several of the severe problems of dis-investment, crime, violence, lack of jobs and inequality, and more importantly, a lack of affordable and decent housing, quickly appeared in the forefront of the agenda. The dis-investment is present in many large cities, but especially in the largest, New York City. Historically, New York has been in the limelight of urban development, sometimes as a leader in the field.