Urban Politics - Research Paper Example

Urban Politics Cities and nation-states Throughout his book “City limits”, Paul Peterson argues that the American federal structure has significantly limited the powers of cities through various tendencies that seek to please the tax base. According to Paul Peterson, there are a number of differences between Cities and Nation states particularly with regard to both their horizontal and vertical intergovernmental constraints. Most of the current challenges facing these cities are closely related to the differences between the city governments and the federal state governments. One of the main differences is that unlike the nation –state governments, cities often lack the formal authority that is required in resolving issues such as those related to their development and economic growth. Another important difference between cities and nation-states is that cities tend to have more heterogeneous populations than nation-states with regard to race and ethnicity. This fact has particularly impacted many aspects of the contemporary urban politics of most American cities. Another difference between cities and nation states lies in their voting systems. For example the system of voting used in most American urban politics is comparatively different with the voting system used in nation states systems. In city governments, voting is the only way through which individuals can participate in city politics whereas in nation state governments there are a number of channels which enable people to participate in local and regional politics. Consequently as opposed to nation states, cities are only able to vote on a few issues such as allocation matters. Similarly with regard to governance of American cities and the nation states, the economic resources and activities of cities are often directed towards developing their local wealth even when such activities are compromising the rights and securities of the other regions or the entire Nation. On the other hand, nation state governments are always concerned with both the reaction of wealth as well as the security of the greater nation as a whole. Generally most of the differences between cities and nation states are more evident when Cities are seen as autonomous units rather than as part of the federal framework. Paul Peterson’s main thesis is that the intergovernmental constraints as well as the current business mobility are some of the limits of the city governments that set them apart from the nation state governments. Both Paul Peterson and Shefter’s arguments share a lot of similarities as well as some differences regarding their view of urban politics and governance of cities. In his book titled “Political economy of fiscal crisis”, Shelter critically examined the various factors which resulted in the 1975 financial crisis of New York City and demonstrated how the political system of the city particularly the contemporary political alliances have continued to negatively impact on the City’s fiscal stability. According to Shefter’s findings, the problems that resulted in the fiscal crisis were not unique to New York City but were also common in the political systems of many other cities across the United States. One major similarity between Paul Peterson and Shefter’s arguments is their assertion that the current economic challenges facing most American cities are closely connected with the political systems as well as the administration of these cities. For example most of the American cities have at one point faced financial challenges to the point of bankruptcy due to the fiscal limitations that is caused by the nature of their political systems. On the other hand, the two arguments differ in some points. For example that Paul Peterson based his arguments on the belief that the economic limitations of American cities is primarily caused by the constraints of the city’s political systems. Shefter instead focuses on the fiscal instability of both the local and state governments as the primary reason for the economic problems of most American cities (Shefter, 270).  Political machine and machine politics There are several differences between Political machine and machine politics. The term political machine is particularly being used in the modern times to refer to the informal system of party organizations and political patronage that are increasingly common in most major cities and suburbs. Such systems are generally made up of a leader with support from businesses and group supporters and are largely designed to favor particular political leaders and spoil the system for others through the use of invisible control of the various structure of the existing representative democracy. The effectiveness of any political machine is usually measured by its ability to secure votes for the particular candidate during elections. On the other hand, Machine politics is the use of machines and new technology during the political processes such as voting processes. For example it is generally assumed that machines can be effectively used to make the voters more accountable in any election process. Machines also help make the voters to be anonymous and therefore the voting remains private. The main difference between political machines and machine politics is that political machines are primarily used as tools of mobilizing electoral support through various means while machine politics. Machine politics is a common phenomenon in the politics of most big cities in the United States and some of the candidates have even attempted to use money laundering as a way swaying the voters into supporting their candidacy (Judd and Swanstrom, 87). Although the use of machine politics was prevalent in the 20th century when it was widely practiced in both municipalities as well as states, machine politics is still common in our contemporary society. There have been several instances in the recent periods where machine politics have been evident particularly in the practice of contemporary American politics. The practice of machine politics is still common in the cities of Los Angeles and New York as well as other American cities where most of the urban political elites have sometimes used reforms as a way of disenfranchising the minority voters or immigrants (Sonenshein, 15). In these cities, elections are often characterized by competition between party machines and reform minded politicians. The issue of race in urban politics The article “Black, White and Blurred” by Gurwitt Rob argues that racial discrimination is still a major concern in the politics of most big cities in the United States. Gurwitt cites the elections history of Cleveland which despite being the first major city in the United States to elect an African American mayor, the city is still caught up in serious racial divisions with regard to its urban politics. As a result the city is virtually split in the middle by the color line creating what Gurwitt termed as a blurred racial landscape. It is however worth noting that there have been some positive changes in the conduct of urban politics and the members of the minority groups are increasingly being elected in to various posts in various towns across the United States. (Sonenshein ,34). Some times the urban politicians may use racial opportunism as a means of ascending to power while in other cases; the voters themselves may decide to divide themselves along the racial lines. In the book “The Urban voter”, Kaufmaan effectively discusses the racial and groups conflicts that have historically characterized mayoral voting in many American cities for many decades. “The Urban Voter” is based on the thesis that the effects of the racial conflicts in urban politics is stronger than political ideologies and partisan attachments and therefore race will always take a center stage in most urban politics(46). Additionally her analysis of the American urban politics also provides a critical look at the various interactions between the local economics, government institutions, diverse social groups and the rapidly changing urban demographics. Gurwitt’s main arguments generally seem to support Kaufmann’s assertions that race is still a major issue in the American urban polities. According to Gurwitt(15), the changing demographics and culture is increasingly allowing voters to seek and get votes even from the members of other racial groups based on their political ideologies but race will still continue to dominate the conduct of American urban politics. Gurwitt is however hopeful that the generation is likely to be focused on ideologies and issues affecting the urban voters rather than race factor during mayoral elections. On my analysis of the urban politics of Los Angeles and New York, racial conflicts are the underlying cause of group conflicts during urban elections and local voting. Equality in city governments In the book “Racial politics in American cities” the authors have attempted to address a number of issues and challenges regarding the influence of race in the politics of American cities. The first chapter of the book discusses some of the major problems and the possibilities of achieving equality particularly for the people of color in city government. The authors of the essays contained in the book are experienced scholars of urban politics who carried out extensive research on urban policy development processes with regard to the concerns of the minority social groups and immigrant workers. Consequently the first essay argues that some of the possible challenges that may hinder the achievement of equality in the city governments include the underlying historical injustices that have created mistrust and tension between the members of the various social groups living in these cities (Strom and Mollenkopf, 16). For example blacks have been historically marginalized both socially and economically and this not only creates racial tension but has significantly impacted in their ability to participate freely in the urban politics. On the other hand, some of the possible actions that can be taken to address the challenges of inequality in the city governments include carrying out affirmative action, implementing free and fair elections policies as well as developing programs that seek to empower the minority social groups and enable them take active role in urban politics. These arguments concur with the assertions of the chapter titled “Demolibilization in the new Black political regimen”. According to this chapter, the general lack of alternative drive in the post segregation era has to some extent resulted in further demobilization of the members of the African American social group. McClain and Stewart (46) also agree that most of the members of these minority groups are still economically marginalized and this may negatively impact on their participation in the urban politics. Conclusion In conclusion, most of the challenges facing urban politics in American cities are generally attributed to the fact that unlike the nation –state governments, cities often lack the formal authority that is required in resolving issues such as those related to their development and economic growth. Additionally cities tend to have more heterogeneous populations and this may present other problems such as the discrimination and marginalization of the members of the minority social groups. Works Cited Gurwitt, Rob. “Black, White, & Blurred,” Governing, 14.12 (2001): 12-19. Print. Kaufmann, Karen. The Urban Voter: Group Conflict and Mayoral Voting Behavior in American Cities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. Print. Judd, Dennis and Swanstrom, Todd. City Politics: The Political Economy of Urban America, 6th Edition. New York: Longman Publishers, 2007. Print. McClain Paula, D. and Stewart, Joseph. Can We All Get Along? Racial and Ethnic Minorities in American Politics,4th edition. Boulder: Westview Press, 2006.Print. Shefter,Martin. Political Crisis/Fiscal Crisis: The Collapse and Revival of New York City. New York: Basic Books, 1985. Print. Sonenshein Raphael. Politics in Black and White: Race and Power in Los Angeles (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.Print. Strom, A. Elizabeth, Mollenkopf.H. John. The Urban Politics Reader. New York: Routledge, 2007.Print. Read More