Assignment 2 AUSP-125

docx

School

SUNY at Albany *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

125

Subject

Political Science

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by EarlBarracuda3050

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, political bosses held a considerable amount of authority within political organizations. These organizations were particularly involved in urban areas and immigrant communities. Political bosses wielded great control over job distribution, especially distributing government positions and contracts in return for the support of their followers. They managed to maintain stern control over local politics and were frequently involved in corrupt activities, such as bribery and electoral fraud. However, this political corruption came to a halt in the modern century. The decline of political bosses can be accredited to a flurry of factors. Historical reforms enacted during the Progressive Era, such as the implementation of direct primary elections and civil service changes, played a large role in decreasing their power. These reforms essentially looked to introduce more transparency and accountability into political processes, making it increasingly difficult for political bosses to wield influence over their organizations. It’s noteworthy to mention that technological advancements, especially the introduction of the internet, have brought in a new age of transparency. The influx of information through social media has made it more incredibly challenging for political bosses to operate as they usually would, as public outrage and investigative journalism now serve as a powerful tool against their corruption. The overall demographic of the individuals that political bosses would reside over has dramatically changed as well. As our society has become more diverse and urbanized, our reliance on loyalty-based transactions, or even ethnic connections, has declined. An example of this is a pizza parlor changing its ways from only hiring Italians to hiring anybody of any ethnic background. This has essentially resulted in a landscape where traditional political organizations hold much less control over its employees. The development of stronger political institutions and improved

accountability has also played a detrimental role in decreasing the power of political bosses. In modern democracy, the separation of powers and independent judiciaries have created checks and balances that prevent any single individual or group from wielding excessive power. These laws are enacted to prevent corruption, bribery, and other unethical practices that has been a staple of political bosses. These legal and ethical constraints place an even greater strain on political bosses to maintain their integrity and “follow the rules.” As mentioned previously, political bosses enjoyed power because they operated within a system of patronage, where they would provide services and resources to their supporters in exchange for political support. This direct contact with their supporters set them apart from the average politicians, who could have been perceived as distant or less responsive to the needs of their supporters. The political organizations run by bosses would often engage in securing government jobs for supporters, as well as offering financial assistance and helping with basic needs like food and housing. These deeds created a strong and loyal base of support; However, it's important to note that the direct benefits provided by political bosses came with a catch. Support and the exchange of favors almost always lead to corruption and unethical practices, as individuals were expected to demonstrate loyalty through their political support. Political organizations under the control of bosses could demonstrate favoritism, favoring certain groups of individuals over others. It is noteworthy to mention that as our democracy has evolved and instituted certain reforms, the emphasis on transactional benefits from political bosses has almost disappeared. Our current democratic systems will typically emphasize a more transparent and accountable distribution of resources and services. Supporter services are now expected to be delivered without ask and based on need, rather than loyalty to an individual. Some politicians do still engage in direct

supporter service and advocacy, much like a political boss, but this is expected to be part of their general responsibilities. I do believe that political bosses may have better represented their supporters needs than the average politician at the time. Political bosses had an amazing reputation for being in tune with the needs and concerns of their supporters, often in a more direct and tangible way than any politican could have. This synergy was a key source of their political strength and support. The political bosses' close ties with their supporters, as previously mentioned, came from their practice of providing essential services and resources to their supporters. This would include jobs, financial assistance, housing, and other forms of support. In doing so, they built strong networks of loyal supporters and created personal relationships with individuals in their communities. This face-to-face approach made political bosses more responsive to the immediate concerns of their constituents. In contrast to the tangible political bosses, the average politican was distant. This included elected officials, business leaders, and bureaucrats. These figures were often perceived as distant from the everyday problems of ordinary citizens, as opposed to political bosses who involved themselves directly in the lives of their supporters. Granted, they might be preoccupied with broader policy issues and economic interests. However, they still would seem detached from the pressing needs of the local population. It is important to note that these close relationships between political bosses and their supporters did come at a cost. The level of support from an individual often relied on loyalty to the boss and his political organization. This loyalty was enforced through patronage and the exchange of favors. This system of loyalty almost always lead to corruption and unethical practices, as well as favoritism toward certain groups or individuals. There is an expectation of elected officials to represent the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

interests of their supporters. While they may not engage in the same level of direct patronage, they are expected to address the concerns of their constituents through policymaking, legislation, and governance. Elected officials are supposedly accountable to the public through regular elections, and the democratic system is supposed to provide mechanisms for citizens to voice their concerns and needs, but this often not the case. The issue of loyalty to financial interests versus supporters is a complex one in the world of politics, and it can have varying circumstances. Establishment politicians, who will often rely on campaign contributions and support from financial interests, could face a view that they are more linked to those who have funded their campaigns or have significant financial influence. This view has led to significant concerns about the influence of money in politics and potential conflicts of interest. In contrast, political bosses gained power through their direct support from less-resourced supporters by providing them with essential services and resources. This support, as mentioned, created a strong bond of loyalty between the boss and their supporters. This might imply that political bosses are less influenced by financial interests, however it's important to note that they had their own sources of power, which could also lead to conflicts of interest and favoritism. While political bosses may have been more closely aligned with the immediate needs of their supporters, this relationship came with a different form of loyalty and patronage, which could be just as problematic as financial loyalties. Political bosses might have interacted with financial interests, particularly if they were looking for funding for their political organizations or support from business elites. The concerns and fears harbored by the political bosses and their formidable organizations were deeply rooted in the threats these power brokers posed to the integrity of society and to democracy. A large concern was the practices of corruption and nepotism that

were often associated with political bosses. As mentioned, these figures would control government jobs, and hand out contract and resources to their loyal supporters in exchange for unwavering political loyalty, which would undermine the principles of democracy. In response to these issues, comprehensive reforms were initiated. Among these reforms were the civil service changes that sought to professionalize the bureaucracy. By introducing standardized hiring processes and merit-based approaches, these measures aimed to halt the influence of political bosses over public employment, which would therefor enhance the efficiency and fairness of government operations. Electoral reforms also played a pivotal role in safeguarding the democratic process. These included the introduction of secret ballots, direct primary elections, and campaign finance regulations, which would collectively ensure that elections were conducted fairly and that the influence of money in politics was minimized. It’s questionable to say that these reforms work to be completely honest. Internal party reforms were another significant step toward reducing the power of political bosses. These measures, which would often include changes to party rules and the candidate selection process, decentralized the power within political parties, which in turn made it more challenging for a single individual to wield absolute control over party nominations. In addition to concerns about corruption and nepotism, the links between political bosses and powerful business interests raised issues about the influence of economic factors on the political landscape. To counter this, antitrust and regulatory reforms were implemented to stop the sway of business monopolies, and to ensure that economic policies were aligned with the broader interest of the public. The media played an instrumental role in exposing the corrupt practices of political bosses. Investigative journalism in particular brought a new light of instances where there was political corruption and misconduct. This exposure greatly informed the public and ended up holding political bosses accountable for their

actions. Collectively, these preventive measures constituted a wide effort to strengthen our democratic institutions and reduce the influence of political bosses. Over time, these reforms helped to curb the power of political bosses and to establish more accountable and transparent political systems, ultimately upholding our democratic values.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version