
In this 1899 cartoon from ''
Puck'', all of New York City politics revolves around boss
Richard Croker
A 'political machine' is an unofficial system of a political organization based on
patronage, the
spoils system, "behind-the-scenes" control, and longstanding political ties within the structure of a
representative democracy. Machines sometimes have a
boss, and always have a long-term corps of dedicated workers who depend on the patronage generated by government contracts and jobs. Machine politics has existed in many
United States cities, especially between about 1875 and 1950, but continuing in some cases down to the present day. It is also common (under the name ''
clientelism'' or '''political clientelism''') in
Latin America, especially in rural areas, and also in some African states and other emerging democracies, like postcommunist Eastern European countries. Japan's
Liberal Democratic Party is often cited as another political machine, maintaining power in
suburban and
rural areas through its control of farm bureaus and road construction agencies. (American Journey, 2005)
The key to a political machine is patronage: holding public office implies the ability to do favors (and also the ability to profit from
graft). Political machines generally steer away from issue-based politics, favoring a ''quid pro quo'' (something for something) with certain aspects of a
barter economy or
gift economy: the patron or "
boss" does favors for the constituents, who then vote as they are told to. Sometimes this system of favors is supplemented by threats of violence or harassment toward those who attempt to step outside of it.
Political machines in the United States
In the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century, it was mainly the larger cities that had machines —
Boston,
Chicago,
Cleveland,
New York City,
Philadelphia, etc. — and each city's machine was run by a "boss," a man who had the allegiance of local business leaders,
elected officials and their appointees, and who knew the buttons to
push to get things done. There were benefits and problems because of
political machines ruling. Steps were also taken to combat these
organizations.
Many machines formed in cities to serve
immigrants to the U.S. in the late 19th century. Many immigrants viewed machines as a vehicle for political enfranchisement. Additionally, many immigrants were unfamiliar with the sense of civic duty that was part of
American republicanism. They traded votes for jobs and inside favors from judges, policemen, and city inspectors. Some bosses were ruthless in their endeavor to retain power. The main role of the
machine staffers was to win elections—usually by turning out large numbers of voters on election day. Occasionally illegal tactics were used in local elections (but rarely in state or presidential elections).
Civic minded citizens, such as the
Mugwumps, denounced the corruption of the political machines. They achieved national civil service reform and worked to move local patronage systems to civil service. By
Theodore Roosevelt's time, the
Progressive Era mobilized millions of civic minded citizens to fight the machines. In the 1930s,
James A. Farley was the chief dispenser of the Democratic Parties patronage system through the Postal Department and the
Works Progress Administration (WPA) which eventually nationalized many of the job benefits machines provided. The
New Deal allowed machines to recruit for the WPA and
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), making Farley's machine the most powerful, all patronage was screened through Farley including Presidential appointments. The
New Deal machine fell apart after
James A. Farley left the administration over the third term in 1940. Those agencies were abolished in 1943 and the machines suddenly lost much of their patronage. In any case the poor immigrants who benifited under
James A. Farley's National machine had become assimilated and prosperous and no longer needed the informal or extralegal aides provided by machines. In the 1940s most of the big city machines collapsed, with the notable exception of
Chicago. A local political machine in
Tennessee was forcibly removed in what was known as the
Battle of Athens.
Machines are often said to have drawn their strength from, and served as a power base for, ethnic immigrant populations. In truth it was primarily Irish immigrants who benefited from the Machine system, which reached its pinnacle under
James A. Farley during
Franklin D. Roosevelt's
New Deal administration. Also, even among the Irish, help for new immigrants declined over time. It was in the party machines' interests to only maintain a minimally winning amount support. Once they were in the majority and could count on a win, there was less need to recruit new members, as this only meant a thinner spread of the patronage rewards to be spread among the Party members. As such, later arriving immigrants, such as Jews, Italians, and other Southern & Eastern Europeans, rarely saw any reward from the Machine system. At the same time, most of political machines' staunchest opponents were members of the "established class" (nativist Protestants).
Since the 1960s, some historians have reevaluated political machines, considering them corrupt but also efficient. Machines were undemocratic, but at least responsive. They were corrupt, but they were also able to contain the spending demands of special interests. In ''Mayors and Money,'' a comparison of municipal government in Chicago and New York,
Ester R. Fuchs credited the
Chicago Democratic Machine with giving Mayor
Richard J. Daley the political power to deny
unions contracts that the city could not afford and to make the state assume burdensome costs like
welfare and courts. Describing New York, Fuchs wrote, "New York got reform, but it never got good government." At the same time, as Dennis R Judd, and Todd Swanstrom point out in ''City Politics'', ISBN, this view often coincided with a lack of period alternatives. They go on to point out that this is a falsehood, since there are certainly examples of reform oriented, anti-machine leaders during this time.
Hazen Pingree is one such example. Though sometimes labeled as a "boss", Pingree in fact didn't operate under the same type of patronage system that characterized the Machines. While this hardly settles the matter in other direction, it is simply important to remember that the legacy of the Political Party Machines in the 19th and 20th centuries remains ambiguous at best.
Smaller communities as
Parma, Ohio in the post-Cold War Era under Prosecutor Bill Mason's "Good Old Boys" and especially communities in the Deep South, where small-town machine politics are relatively common also feature what might be classified as political machines, although these organizations do not have the power and influence of the larger boss networks listed in this article. For example, the “Cracker Party” was a Democratic Party political machine that dominated city politics in
Augusta, Georgia for over half of the 20th century.
[1] [2] [3] [4]
Notable "Bosses" and their political machines
:''See also
Political boss and .''
National Bosses
★
James A. Farley of
New York ran the
Democratic National Committee and was
Postmaster General under
Franklin D. Roosevelt
State Bosses
★
James A. Farley of
New York held all three posts simultaneously and is the only National Boss
Ran the Democratic Political Machine that elected
Alfred E. Smith and
Franklin D. Roosevelt to Governorships of
New York State.
★
Thomas B. Catron of
New Mexico
★
Thomas C. Platt of
New York
★
Harry F. Byrd of
Virginia
★
Edward D. DiPrete of
Rhode Island
★
Robert M. La Follette, Sr. of
Wisconsin
★
Huey P. Long of
Louisiana
★
Matthew Quay of
Pennsylvania
★
Albert Jennings Fountain of
New Mexico
County Bosses
★
Daniel P. O'Connell of
Albany County,
New York
★
Leander Perez of
Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana
★
George Norcross of
Camden County,
New Jersey
★
George Parr of
Duval County,
Texas
★ Since
Richard J. Daley was simultaneously head of the
Cook County Democratic Central Committee for all of his reign as mayor of
Chicago, some might also classify him as a county boss.
★
John Stroger of
Cook County,
Illinois
★
Joseph Margiotta of
Nassau County, New York
City Bosses
★
A.A. Ames of
Minneapolis
★
Martin Behrman of
New Orleans
★
"Blind Boss" Buckley of
San Francisco
★
Fred A. Busse of
Chicago
★
Edward R. Butler of
St. Louis
★
George Cox of
Cincinnati
★
Edward H. Crump of
Memphis
★
James Michael Curley of
Boston
★
Richard J. Daley of
Chicago
★
John Henry Whallen of
Louisville, Kentucky
★
William Flinn of
Pittsburgh
★
Frank Hague of
Jersey City
★
Roy Vincent Harris of
Augusta, Georgia
★
Robert E. McKisson of
Cleveland
★
Tom Pendergast of
Kansas City
★
Abe Ruef of
San Francisco
★
Pete McDonough San Francisco
★
William Tweed of
New York City
★
William S. Vare of
Philadelphia
★
William F. Miller of
Cincinnati
References
★ Some material about the general structure of a clientelist system was drawn from the Spanish-language Wikipedia article , version dating from 21:18, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC).
★ Phillip Keefer, ''
World Bank'', 15 May 2005, Policy Research Working Paper no. WPS3594,
Democratization and clientelism: why are young democracies badly governed?
Further reading
★ John M. Allswang, ''Bosses, Machines, and Urban Voters'' (1986)
★ Erie, Steven P. ''Rainbow's End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840—1985'' (1988).
★ Finegold, Kenneth. ''Experts and Politicians: Reform Challenges to Machine Politics in New York, Cleveland, and Chicago'' (1995) on Progressive Era
★ Harold F. Gosnell; ''Boss Platt and His New York Machine: A Study of the Political Leadership of Thomas C. Platt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Others.'' (1924)
★ Harold F. Gosnell; ''Machine Politics: Chicago Model'' (1937)
★ Kaufman, Robert R. "The Patron-Client Concept and Macro-Politics: Prospects and Problems" ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'', Vol. 16, No. 3 (Jun., 1974) , pp. 284-308
★ Keefer, Philip. 2005. "Clientelism, Credibility and the Policy Choices of Young Democracies." Presented at The Quality of Government: What It Is, How to Get It, Why It Matters, International Conference, Göteborg, 17-19 November.
★ Mandelbaum, Seymour J. ''Boss Tweed's New York'' (1965) (ISBN)
★ Nylen, William. 2003. Participatory Democracy versus Elitist Democracy: Lessons from Brazil. Palgrave-Macmillan, New York. [review]
★ Samuel P. Orth; ''The Boss and the Machine: A Chronicle of the Politicians and Party Organization'' (1919), short survey
★ M. Ostrogorski; ''Democracy and the Party System in the United States'' (1910)
★ William Riordan, ''Plunkett of Tammany Hall'' memoir of New York City ward boss
★ Scott, James C. "Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change" ''American Political Science Review'', Vol. 63, No. 4 (Dec., 1969) , pp.
★ Stave, Bruce M. and Sondra Astor Stave, eds., ''Urban Bosses, Machines, and Progressive Reformers'' (1984).
★ Stave, Bruce M. , John M. Allswang, Terrence J. McDonald, Jon C. Teaford. "A Reassessment of the Urban Political Boss: An Exchange of Views" ''History Teacher'', Vol. 21, No. 3 (May, 1988) , pp. 293-312
★ Steffens, Lincoln. ''The Shame of the Cities'' (1904) muckraking expose of machines in major cities
★ Harold B. Zink; ''City Bosses in the United States: A Study of Twenty Municipal Bosses'' (1930)
External links
★
Bruce Stave, "Urban Bosses and Machine Politics" in ''The Reader's Companion to American History''