Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Local Government – An Introduction -- Question 4

Question for Carsten P, DeQuawn S, and Matt S. What was the Progressive Movement and what impact did it have on local government? Note in your answer who gained and lost power as the reforms proposed in the movement took hold.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Progress Movement came at a pivotal moment in American history, corruption in the public sector and fraud in government were on the rise. The movement sought to end partisan politics in and to exclude government from being ran by party bosses. It further extended government’s role in the everyday lives of citizens by institution civil services. The bosses of a political party lost power during reforms. Also, cities lost power in elections because of the new method of city official elections. The county/city form of administration strengthened the power of city/county governments. This reform placed professional employees in a key position to administer the day-to-day operations of the government.


DeQuawn Smith

Anonymous said...

The Progressive Movement lasted from the 1880s to around WWI. During the Progressive Era several governmental reforms were made. These reforms brought changes to the way local governments did things. Some of the reforms were primaries came about, nonpartisan at-large and isolated elections, the short ballot, the initiative and referendum, civil service systems, competitive bidding, and council-manager government for cities. These reforms were aimed at reducing partisan politics, because during the colonial periods and after parties are what really mattered in politics. Short ballots meant that it brought a more direct democracy rather than using long ballots. Civil service systems were setup to remove partisan political interference and they used merit. The council-manager government could perhaps be the most important piece to the new reforms. It appointed an executive in charge of the cities operation. This position is appointed by the Mayor and the Council. During this time I believe cities and city councils gained more power. They were able to implement new reforms to differ away from the state. Individual party leaders are the ones who lost power because they were unable to run their operations the way they wanted to. Things were now done on elections and appointments done by city councils.

Matt Spivey

Robert Botsch, USCA Political Science said...

Both of you got pieces of the answer, but not all of it. The movement was aimed at parties and the bosses who controlled the parties. Reforms were aimed at reducing the power of parties by trying to remove partisan influence in local government. But by turning elections into non-partisan affairs, voters were more confused about who they should vote for and voter participation dropped dramatically. Remember that party id is a great aid in simplifying elections for people. So those who voted were far more likely to be middle and upper class people, and of course the people they chose would be more inclined to focus on issues of concern to middle and upper class citizens. Thus the poor and working classes who were less likely to vote lost power.

In a nutshell, while the movement claimed to be taking the politics out of local government, it was really adding a political bias in favor of the more privileged classes.