The “Boss” in American Politics.

Vincent A. Cianci, better known as Buddy, died a few days ago, aged 74. He was the former mayor of Providence, Rhode Island. Press coverage states Cianci was both loved and reviled in his city that, like many other America cities, has been rocked by financial troubles and shaped by demographic change. His obituaries suggest he was loved for leading a small, dying city through a renaissance and for being its biggest cheerleader. He was reviled because of his shortcomings, particularly criminality.

Cianci spent 54 months in prison overall after twice being convicted of felony charges. He was ousted from office on two occasions, once for attacking the man he thought was having an affair with his wife. Evidently, Buddy tried to jab a cigarette in the man’s eye before throwing an ashtray at him. The second conviction was for corruption, after Cianci had made a comeback to lead the city.

American city history is littered with stories of unscrupulous men gaining power and lining their pockets at the public’s expense. The infamous boss of New York, Boss Tweed, led that city for more than a decade. When he fell from grace, the extent of his chicanery was uncovered. One example was the mark-up he charged the city for pencils. At $70 a pop, the profit was outrageous, and this was in the 1880s! One of Tweed’s colleagues described the transaction as “honest graft.”

Come forward to the 1920s and 1930s, to one of the most notorious city bosses, Frank Hague of Jersey City. He became a very wealthy man, abusing his position as mayor. For example, he would buy land which he knew was ripe for development and sell it at a huge profit. Hague is rumored to have owned more than a third of New Jersey during his years in office. However, he ran a clean city. Residents of Jersey City could live their lives free from drug dealers, prostitutes and saloon keepers. Mind you, these pleasures could be enjoyed over the city line.

Hague would always start his election campaigns by tuning up the band, holding parades in town and free entertainment for all. He would also reduce property taxes before increasing them in the second year of his term! And he stayed in power for more than 20 years by giving his voters what they wanted.

Arguably, the most notorious boss of the inter-war years was Tom Pendergast of Kansas City which, by the way, is mostly in Missouri, not Kansas. Pendergast became a multi-millionaire, courtesy of the voters. He helped the poor when there was no federal or state welfare and made sure that destitutes and poor immigrants had places to live, clothes to wear, food on the table and a job for the man of the family. He covered the cost from business ‘donations’ in return for which business got tax breaks. Pendergast also sold goods and services to the city, especially cement. His cement company enjoyed a virtual monopoly in Kansas City and Jackson County road building contracts.

Before every election, Pendergast would levy political contributions from all city workers. 3% of salary from the lowest paid up, to 15% from the sheriff and other high office holders. How much of the levy went into Pendergast’s pocket is unknown. He, too, lasted more than 20 years in office.

The machine methods to achieve election victories for the boss were often flagrant breaches of state election laws. The practices included “ghosting,” putting names of dead people on the electoral register and having people impersonate them; “repeating,” voting more than once, hence the saying, “vote early and vote often”; and “ballot box stuffing,” handing a ready-made ballot box, stuffed with fictitious votes, to the counting authority in exchange for the real box. To retain power, bosses had to show they could control their patch. Success in elections meant control of the city.

Bosses could not have held power for so long if they had not given back. Both Hague and Pendergast ran their cities during the Great Depression, a time when, in the early 1930s, one in three adults had no work at all and most of the rest earned wages at or below subsistence levels. In 1930s Kansas City, unemployment varied between 1% and 2%. How did Pendergast achieve this record, which can be verified through the US Census and other surveys? An example is in road building and repair. Where automation could have been used by the city, it used manpower. It was better to have men employed, even if the cost to the city was higher. Business had its arm twisted to employ people, in exchange for tax breaks. It might not have been pretty but it was pragmatic.

City politics is retail. It does not deal with who goes to war, what taxes to levy aside from city tax and other big decisions made at federal and state level. In contrast, the federal and state governments do not cover the running of schools, the fire brigade, street maintenance and city roads. There are so many services provided courtesy of city government that the federal and state governments ignore. And the burden of the dreaded “unfunded mandate,” the order by the federal government to provide a service without providing the funds to pay for it, often falls on a city administration. No wonder bosses have to be imaginative to provide services to so many.

For most of the 20^th century, pretty well every American city was run by a machine, whose honesty and scruples were often open to criticism. Some machines and their bosses ventured into mainstream politics. For example, Mayor Daley of Chicago is alleged to have brought in the winning Illinois vote for John Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election.

Buddy Cianci is just one in a long line of American politicians who operated both inside and outside the law. Legislation in the latter half of the last century has prevented many machine outrages of the past. Even Chicago has lost quite a bit of notoriety, although Rahm Emanuel, its current Mayor, is surviving attempts to have him recalled. I don’t see things changing. There will always be room for the likes of a Buddy Cianci in the American political system.

The Politics of Trump: Fear and Anger

Last week, one of my blog readers wrote:

“I can find nothing in US politics to make me smile. The extremism and intransigence of all views from all colours of the political spectrum makes for a disturbed and disturbing society that frightens me.”

The political campaign by Donald Trump exemplifies one form of worrying extremism. He appeals to some have-nots, to conservatives who hate anyone but their own and to those who believe that in America greatness is achieved by bullying and “kicking ass.” He is loved by some gun-toting, beer-swilling voters who want no immigration, no foreign aid and no contact with the outside world. Isolationism has been a factor in American politics almost since the country was born, so nothing new there.

The Republican establishment expected to destroy Trump’s candidacy but is learning to live with him. Indeed, Tea Party favourite, Sarah Palin, openly supports Trump as the Republican nominee. According to The Washington Post, in private some veteran conservative Republicans have been reaching out to Trump and vice versa. Recently, Trump himself made overtures to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The Republican leadership has a difficult choice. Does the Party have a better chance of winning with Trump? The decision will have to come soon. The primaries start next month. Let’s assume the leadership decides to ditch him. Not since Ross Perot in 1988 and 1992 has an independent non-professional politician made such inroads. Indeed, since Perot, I cannot recall a non-professional politician making any headway in a general election. Yet there are other precedents. For example, in the five Presidential elections between 1900 and 1920, the trade union leader and socialist Eugene Debs ran as an independent. In 1912, he achieved 6% of the popular vote.

The essential difference that distinguishes Trump from the other Republican contenders is that he is not a professional politician. It is increasingly unlikely that Trump will be kicked out of the Party. As an independent, he would split the Republican vote. However, independent challenges can be influential. Almost 90 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt had his hands full with critics and three figures, two of whom were also non-professional politicians, opposed his administration and FDR regarded each of them as a potential threat, in varying degrees.

Father Charles Coughlin, “the Radio Priest,” attracted public attention from the late 1920s. He denounced President Hoover as “the Holy Ghost of the Rich.” By the end of 1933, Coughlin denounced Roosevelt’s New Deal as “a government of the bankers for the bankers by the bankers.” He criticised FDR as “a man in the pocket of the rich.” Coughlin set up the National Union for Social Justice to push for redistribution of wealth, reduction of poverty and curbing the excesses of the rich. However, he failed to put process behind policy and as the 1930s wore on, he ceased to enjoy any popular support.

Dr Francis Townsend was a different proposition. A retired medical doctor, he promoted the “Old Age Revolving Pension Plan.” All citizens over the age of 60 would be paid a pension of $200 per month by the federal government, provided such citizens were not convicted criminals, gave up all work and spent their pensions within 30 days. There were other factors including making pension money available to the 60 year old plus pensioners from a 2% Transaction Tax, i.e. a sales tax. The flaw in the plan was the large transfer of income to the elderly, who represented less than 10% of the population. Nevertheless the Plan attracted many supporters. In 1936, the Movement presented a petition to the government with 20 million signatures. The Movement’s popularity stemmed from Great Depression desperation amongst the voters. Ultimately, the Townsend Movement got nowhere politically but for a few brief years, he was a threat.

The third figure to challenge FDR was one of the most interesting, dynamic political figures in American politics. Huey Long was driven by ambition to help the people of Louisiana where, as a Southern Democrat, he was elected Governor in 1928. He made sweeping promises to build roads and bridges, create jobs and improve healthcare and education. Controversially for his times in a deep Southern state, Long did not play the race card. In 1932, he went to the US Senate, after installing a puppet government in Baton Rouge. He proposed and formed Share Our Wealth Societies with supporters creating an anthem from the song, “Every Man a King but no one Wears a Crown.” Long’s plan was to avoid economic slavery for the masses by capping personal fortunes so each US family would be worth no more than $5,000. Oddly, Long’s policies were hardly held to account by the national media.

“The Kingfish,” as Long was known, was motivated, crude, obnoxious, loud but nevertheless popular. Does this sound like a current Republican hopeful? By 1935, there were more than 27,000 SOW clubs across America and Long represented a serious political threat to FDR. The threat was removed when Long was murdered in 1935. I do not imply that FDR and his people were involved. The Kingfish was shot by a doctor who was jealous of Long’s success with the ladies!    

     

Trump’s politics aren’t new. There have been many politicians who thought that they could get elected by making people fear the future. In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater was the Republican nominee. He was the hero of the radical right, an evangelist of extremism, a man who defended the John Birch Society, argued for making the Social Security system voluntary and mused aloud about defoliating Vietnam with nuclear weapons. He famously said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.”

It is difficult to envisage a man like Trump achieving the Republican nomination for President. It is harder imagining him being elected President. I hope the Republican voters of America come to their senses in the primaries and tell this vile, prejudiced man he has no place in American politics.

Obama’s Final State of the Union Address

Some years back, I met up with American friends who were in town on the day before the Opening of Parliament. One said, “Isn’t the occasion like our State of the Union?” It made me think. Eventually, I answered, “do you want the short or the long answer?” He replied, “Short” and I answered “not really.” Then we got onto other things.

There are fundamental differences between the two ceremonies. The Queen is the titular Head of State. The President is the Commander-in-Chief but he is only de facto Head of State. We in UK have a parliamentary system of government, whereas America’s is presidential but based on separation of powers. However, there is a similar approach to putting on a public show. For example, the President arrives at Congress in a 157 vehicle motorcade. The Queen used to arrive in a gilded coach, drawn by four matching horses. Nowadays she uses one of her Rolls Royce’s. However, she is accompanied by mounted troops, resplendent in their best uniforms and followed by other members of the Royal family. It is quite something to see.

Once inside Congress, the President makes a procession to the rostrum in the House of Representatives, shaking hands and acknowledging colleagues. His speech is ready for him on the dais, where he usually stands for a few minutes, accepting the applause of members of both Houses of Congress, the cabinet members, the Supreme Court justices, the Chiefs of Staff of the armed services and the guests who fill the galleries of the chamber. All are then seated and the President starts his speech.

The Queen’s procession is different. Usually, she wears a long white gown with a train, held by page boys. Once Her Majesty is seated, the peers who comprise the House of Lords sit. An official, known as Black Rod, is despatched to the chamber of the House of Commons. By tradition, its door is closed against him and he uses his long black staff, known as a rod, to knock. When the door opens, Black Rod summonses the members of the Commons, the MPs, to attend the Queen. Led by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and the cabinet and shadow cabinet, all MPs walk to the bar of the chamber of the House of Lords and stay standing and somewhat squashed while the Queen’s Speech is read.

The speech is written by the government. It is handed to the Queen by the magnificently robed Lord Chancellor. Normally the speech takes ten minutes to read. It is peppered with phrases like “my government.” The speech sets out the legislative agenda for the new parliament. Depending on the majority the government enjoys, a high percentage of the legislation will pass. During the speech, there is no applause and no bobbing up and down, so evident in the State of the Union ceremony. Once the Queen finishes, she leaves the Lords’ chamber first. Then the MPs return to the Commons.

Once the President starts, his speech is interrupted frequently by applause and some of those present in the chamber get to their feet to show approval. Quite often the address starts to resemble a religious service as those present stand up and sit down like yo-yos. Often, the President will mention a legislative agenda but if he faces a hostile Congress, his chances of achieving even a limited program are poor. Hopefully, you will now understand why I said, “not really.”

Since the 1990s, I have often been privileged to watch a President fulfilling one of his constitutional duties, namely to “give to the Congress information of the State of the Union.” Clinton’s messages were often folksy but he knew how to go over the heads of Congress to the millions watching on television. On one occasion, excusing the inability to make a much publicised middle class tax cut, he told Congress “you play the cards you’re dealt.”

Unlike Barak Obama, George W Bush was not blessed with the gift of oratory. On one occasion, he came out with a memorable phrase, “the axis of evil”, referring to Iran, North Korea and other rogue governments seeking weapons of mass destruction. Mostly, though, his addresses were memorable for…not being memorable.

President Obama’s previous ‘States of the Union’ have shown him to be a great orator. However, he used his final State of the Union as if he was an ex-president. He spoke in conversational tones. His speech was mostly contemplative and backward-looking. For example, he regretted the lack of progress on gun control. He also lamented the rancorous Washington politics with Congress so badly deadlocked and hostile.

In a signal passage, he warned in an unsubtle reference to Donald Trump that depicting all Muslims as evil was plain wrong and counter-productive. “When politicians insult Muslims, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world.” He also criticised Senator Ted Cruz, another Republican presidential hopeful, who had called for carpet-bombing the Islamic State in Syria, by saying: “Our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians. That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.”

There was an Aaron Sorkin moment, when the President spoke of a new initiative to eliminate cancer. He is putting Vice President Biden in charge. Whether Congress will fund the policy is another matter. It reminded me of an episode of The West Wing when the fictitious President Bartlet wanted to make an apology for concealing his MS from the people. His solution was to find the cure cancer. His advisers stopped him. It’s a pity Mr Obama’s advisers didn’t do likewise. Oncologists the world over will explain that there are more than 300 cancers and to eliminate the disease entirely is pie in the sky. 

In his finale, the President stated, “The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close,” he added, implying that no other nation could come near to competing. Quite how this assertion squares with the economic giant that is China, the emerging economies of India and Brazil and the strength of the European Community was left unsaid. And if the US armed forces are so scary, why are the Russians acting with impunity in Ukraine and other hot spots?

For me, the speech was about legacy. The administration has no new legislative initiatives and will spend its final year in office shoring up the achievements of the past seven years. It was also a white flag to the President’s lame-duck status. It seems unlikely that there will be much political progress or development in this administration’s last twelve months of office.