American History and Development - Research Paper Example

American History and Development Question 1 According to Peterson, the differences between nation-states is that the city is dependent on mobile capital, which culminates in the overriding need to attract labor and capital, a situation that dominates urban politics in a considerable manner. The nation-state on the other hand is not dependent on mobile capital; therefore, the nation-state is not driven by the local political adversities facing the city, which center on national promotion – towards participation in the running of private enterprises. Unlike the nation-state, the cities – as political entities – own a limited number of regulatory implements, which it can use to control labor flows and capital. In the case of nation-states, they are able to control labor flow and capital – therefore are not obligated to adopt indirect means, like the cities. In the case of the cities, the models of indirect control of labor flow and capital are in direct competition with one another, thus incapable of realizing harmonious control across the different cities within the state. With reference to the cities, local politics take place on a relatively narrow platform – thus, cities are forced into adopting development oriented policy models as opposed to redistributive ones (Peterson 29-31). Unlike the nation-state, the cities are obligated to adopting development oriented policies, as doing otherwise will push the mobile tax payer to the jurisdiction of other cities. Unlike at the nation-state, decision making models at the city level are restrained to policy choices, adopting those that are likely to promote the economic development of the city communities – which are conducive to enhancing and retaining the position of capital. In this line, the city is a relatively weak entity as compared to other economic and political institutions, where its policies options are determined by economic circumstances – often outside of its control. The general thesis expressed through the account is that the city as an economic and political unit is not dependent on itself; thus is obligated to make policy choices that favor its development in different aspects. That is not the case with nation-states, as they are more free and independent at determining their policy choices and strategies (Peterson 23-45). According to Shefter (4-15), the financial crisis of 1975 resulted from the newly instituted political systems and alliances, which acted against the city’s financial stability. One major effect was that the political models made it impossible for New York to trade its bonds, thus, meet its obligations, including paying workers. As a result, the city was close to bankruptcy – a situation that changed after the administration of the city instituted stringent fiscal policies, created by a coalition of reform political groups. Besides the 1975 crisis, the city had gone through five crisis situations, where the different crises shared in the root causes, impacts and resolutions. From Shefter’s study, it was conclusive that the political system was partly to blame, which implied the need for democratic control – towards the welfare of America’s urban areas. The thesis of Shefter’s work is that the ineffective political structure and reforms was to blame for the difficulties faced by the economic model of New York, these including the inability to trade bonds. The author, further, explains that such financial stability problems were facing other American cities, other than New York. From a comparative point of view, the problems facing cities as opposed to nation-states are that the cities rely on mobile capital – a situation which is further heightened by the ineffective national policies, which do not put into account the unique needs of different cities. As a result, the cities are forced to adapt to policy decision-making, where the policies that are adopted are those that will foster the economic wellbeing of the city. Further, Peterson’s account identifies that the limitations facing the cities include those beyond its control – thus forcing its policy making to adapt to the economic circumstances befalling its operations. The inclination of the limitation and the problems facing the city is similar to that given in Shefter’s books, where he points out that the American political model and reforms base – were the chief cause of the limitations resulting to the 1975 financial crisis. Among the different accounts – it is clear that the wider political structure imposes limitations upon the city, which makes it difficult for it to employ effective economic strategies and models – which can foster its development. From the two accounts, the response of the city is that it shifts to making choices from the options that are likely to foster its development – avoiding those that will affect it adversely. The major difference between the two accounts is that Peterson gives reference to mobile capital, while Shefter places focus on the ineffectiveness of the political structure – which places blocks in the way of the city’s economic strategies. In Peterson’s account, the role of national promotion towards fostering private enterprises is given central focus, which is not the case in Shefter’s case (Peterson 23-45; Shefter 4-15). Question 2 A political machine is a political institution, in which an influential chief or group controls the support of the group’s supporters, often during campaign times. The supporters are offered retribution for their contribution. The control of the machine is founded on the capacity of the workers – to offer their votes to their candidates of choice at election. A political machine is characteristic with stability, well-functioning structure headed by a leader or a small control group. Such machines may be urban or rural, usually operating at county or city basis, and in other cases at the national level. The group’s composition is grounded upon professional political figures, whose principal role is to acquire, maintain, and expand their political dominance and power. Machine politics, on the other hand, refers to urban political models that rely on the votes of diverse immigrant populations, welfare benefits delivery and the dispensation of jobs. These take into account the delivery of avenues of social mobility and welfare in a time when local government systems are delivering a shortage in this area of welfare. For instance, in the late 19th and early parts of the 20th century, Chicago maintained an influential dual-party culture, which prevented the emergence of a national political machine (Mushkat 23-25). The main deference between political machines and machine politics is that machine politics refers to the model that relies upon the diversity of immigrant populations – through promoting the welfare of these groups. Political machines on the other hand, are the political institutions – which are stable – in terms of structure and leadership – towards cultivating support for the political leader or the leading group. The functional roles of political machines are centered on the leadership of the machine, while machine politics is based on addressing the needs of the diverse groups, often, migrant groups – which are more vulnerable as compared to the mainstream groups. For example, in the case of America – the mainstream group is the typical American population, while the immigrant population consists of groups like the African-Americans, Americans of Indian and those of Jewish origin. The leadership of a political machine is centered on the influence of a boss or a small group, while that of machine politics is often well coordinated and run from the reference of a diversified control model. Political machines are common at rural, urban or country levels – while machine politics, often, operate universally across the entire jurisdiction region in question. The composition of political machines is concentrated around the power and the influence of the professional political figures, while that of machine politics is centered on the diversity of the voter population (Kurland 15-21). Machine politics is still prevalent in modern times. Within the American society, machine politics can be traced to the accounts of the book, “to save America: Stopping Obama’s secular-socialist machine,” which is a year 2010 factual book by a conservative campaigner and ex- speaker of the House, Mr. Newt Gengrich. The book presents critical evaluation of the influence of socialism and secularism on American liberalism and the Democratic Party. The book focuses on the socialist, secular ideologies ingrained in the liberalism of modern America. The author talks of the secular-socialist machine – in explaining the current liberal governance model of America, especially, the initiatives of President Obama and local policies. According to the author, the politics of America can only be comprehended by exploring the association between machine politics, socialism and secularism. This account clearly shows that machine politics, still forms a considerable part of the politics of America, which must be the case with other states (Gingrich & DeSantis 174). Evidence of machine politics among the voter population at Los Angeles may be traced to the center-periphery tension, which has remained a contagious issue in Los Angeles politics. Secession movements emerged in the 1920s and can be traced in recent years, including 1999, when secession efforts seemed to gain momentum, after voters instituted reforms towards the decentralization of the city’s political model. As late as 2002, the voters won over secession proposals – putting an end to the threat of secession (Abu-Lughod 47-51). Question 3 Gurwitt’s main argument is based on the historical account of the mayoral politics of Cleveland, showing how the politics of the area have – for ages been founded on race and not any other variables. The author presents the case of the 1989 elections, where voting preferences were mainly based on color lines – though the two major contenders were African-American. The author, further, presents the picture of the relaxation of racial politics, which has taken place for some time – seeing the confounding of old lines of choice and expectation. However, the author accounts that the case witnessed was a reduction and not a disappearance of racial thinking during politics, as most campaigns may be free of racial prospective, but the splitting of voter numbers are basically grounded on racial lines. Further, some groups like the African-American leaders identify black mayors as identities who are likely to be more attuned to black sensitivity. In more recent times, candidates have continued to expect better show up among the voters of their own races, though; they do not spell it out as clearly as the case may have shown before. Further, voters have developed higher thinking patterns, where they offer attention to what a candidate can offer – and the track record they have kept before, though race is still an issue in determining voting choices. The main argument expressed by Gurwitt is that – in the past, Americans were fully inclined towards making voting choices on the basis of racial lines, voting for the candidates that identify with their racial identities. However, with change in time and the increase in voter knowledge, individuals have shifted to evaluating the track records of candidates and the extent to which they can deliver upon their promises – though, they still give attention to their race (Gurwitt). An exploration of the mayoral politics of Los Angeles and New York revealed the crucial nature of interracial conflict and racial interests in determining local voting preferences. From an exploration of public opinion of over 35 years, with reference to mayoral elections – the author uncovers that interracial conflict can overrule party preferences and political ideologies in public voting. The analysis places reference on the success of the republicans in the 1990s at democratic cities – and the liberal overhauls that took place later. The book points out the significant associations existing between local economies, social diversity and government organizations. These are useful in giving an explorative account of the dynamic American population – and the consequence of such changes on the politics of Americans. The general thesis expressed by Kaufmann is the vital nature of interracial conflicts and prejudices, towards determining voting decisions – as these racial prejudices are capable of outweighing political ideologies and party affiliations. According to this account, interracial conflicts and racial inclinations could lead voters – into overlooking all other variables of determining the political candidate to be chosen, thus acted as a main determinant in shaping urban voting patterns (Kaufmann 10-15). The relationship between the arguments of Gurwitt and Kauffman are grounded on the basis of the influence, which both arguments place on interracial prejudices, in determining voter preferences and voter choices. According to the two accounts, interracial conflicts and prejudices influence the choice of political candidates, where the effect is that the members of a given race prefer the political candidates that share the same racial origin. Further, the impact of the racial prejudices and interracial conflicts are able to shift the previously held political preferences and inclinations – on the basis of public ideologies and party preferences. However, Gurwitt placed focus on the significance of increased voter awareness – where they have shifted to analyzing the track records of political candidates and the capacities that they show, towards meeting the political promises they offer to voters, which is not the case with Kaufmann. Further, Kaufmann offers attention to the previously held opinions regarding political affiliations and political ideologies, which is not expressly incorporated into the account of Gurwitt. Kaufmann’s account confirms the arguments of Gurwitt, supporting the association between the racial origins of political candidates – towards determining the urban voter choices. According to the two accounts, despite the increased awareness of urban voters and the previously held political party affiliations and political ideologies, the racial association of political candidates could take precedence, thus acting as a principal determinant of urban voting patterns (Kaufmann 10-15). Question 4 According to, “can people of color achieve equality in city government?” the author talks of obstacles to mass coalitions due to harmful stereotypes, these including inequalities and the power resulting from the different societal statuses. There is also, a resultant competition between different groups within the political system due to the need to exercise authority over others. “The setting and the issues from Racial Politics in American cities (2003)” talks of the impact of immigrants on American politics, who are often, marginalized, which results in their identification with their own political aspirants – so they may gain some extent of power. The minorities, further, engage in a continuous struggle among themselves, towards gaining power – which further affects social patterns including society politics. According to “Demobilization in the new black political regime: Ideological Capitulation and Radical Failure in the Post-Segregation Era," race plays a chief role in urban politics, thus will influence political patterns greatly. Local policy making plays a critical role in establishing segregation patterns, due to its role in creating inequalities and marginalization to some groups. With reference to “urban political economy,” wealth accumulation, together with the inequality and the power drawn from it – act as key determinants of urban sociology, therefore, a great impact on the political and voting patterns depicted. The concepts contained in the different readings are complementary to one another, as they center on inequality, racial or other identification on the basis of common characteristics like marginalization, power lines and their impact on urban politics. These variables are related to those discussed in urban political economy, as it talks about wealth creation as a source of inequality and power, which affects the political and voting patterns of societies. The concepts of the readings are cyclically connected – where one results to another, to culminate in societal classes and lines (Kaufmann 10-15). Works Cited Abu-Lughod, Janet. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: America’s global cities. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1999. Print. Gingrich, Newt, & DeSantis Joe. To Save America. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2011. Print. Gurwitt, Rob. “Black, White and Blurred: Race is still an issue in big-city politics. It’s just not the issue anymore.” Web. May 18, 2012. Kaufmann, Karen. The Urban Voter: Group Conflict and Mayoral Voting Behavior in American Cities (The Politics of Race and Ethnicity), 4th edition. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2004. Print. Kurland, Gerald. Political Machine: What It Is, How It Works. New York: Story House Corp, 1972. Print. Mushkat, Jerome. Tammany; the Evolution of a Political Machine, 1789-1865. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1971. Print. Peterson, Paul. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Print. Shefter, Martin. Political Crisis/ Fiscal Crisis (Columbia History of Urban Life), Morning side edition. Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1992. Print. Read More