Introduction
Political machines were the cornerstone to American government during and immediately following Reconstruction. Rutherford B. Hayes was elected president in 1877 and sought to reform the political machine. Paul Ezra’s article, Congressional Relations and Public Relations in the Administration of Rutherford B. Hayes, take a closer look into many tools and tactics that Hayes utilized to a new political landscape. Ezra recounts several of Hayes’ diary passages, since a press core did not exist and political correspondence did not cover presidential action to the same extent today. These tactics included becoming more involved in the political process, developing his autonomy through vetoes and other methods, as well as s creating systems of testing and hiring federal workers. Although Hayes may not have been as successful as he wanted, Ezra not only explains the difficulties Hayes faced but argues that Hayes created the foundation for future reform.
Main body
Ezra begins the article by explaining the political landscape that Hayes found upon winning the 1877 election. Hayes had to find a new direction for the country in the aftermath of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and corruption left from Ulysses Grant. (Ezra, 78). Therefore, he began by developing his autonomy during what Ezra describes as, “divided government”. (68). Congress, during this time, seemingly had control over the Executive branch. When both the House and Senate were dominated by Democrats, following the 1878 elections, Hayes turned to his power of veto. Even though this power was scarcely used, Hayes would flaunt this ability in order to gain an idea of the direction Congress would vote or persuade them to vote in opposite directions.
Furthermore, Hayes decision to appoint his cabinet members, some without the prior Congressional approval, signaled that the political machines were undoubtedly losing their clout. Ezra believes that Hayes’ active involvement in these proceedings aided in the ability to get those advisors, for the most part, Hayes trusted. Aside from cabinet members, Hayes was also able to appoint other federal employees to key positions within the government to lobby on his behalf. (Ezra, 72). Although he did not hand the jobs out to his friends, Hayes was able to spread his influence to key political positions. Throughout these appointments, there were internal struggles within the Republican Party as well as the outright dismissal of candidates by the Democratic Party. (Ezra, 73).
Moreover, and perhaps Hayes’ legacy was his reform to the Civil Service system. For quite some time, Ezra explains, the system was an intertwined mess of unqualified employees appointed to positions due to the political machine. Hayes’ direction guided administrative and personnel changes needed to lay the groundwork for what would be later known as the Pendleton Act of 1883. (Ezra, 79). Ezra describes the Pendleton Act as establishing, “…a bipartisan Civil Service Commission charged with administering a system of competitive exams and professional standards for federal employees.” (80). Such an emphasis was placed on the Civil Service system before and during Hayes’ administration due to that same political machine prior to his election.
Conclusion
Ezra recounts Hayes’ administration in a much more positive light than he, perhaps, would. Hayes’ did not have the benefit of knowing the end state of his political reform or the influence that he would eventually have. However, through a more active role in the political process, not being afraid of battling Congressional disapprovals for government appointees, and reforming many other aspects of the political machine, Hayes did much more than put a dent into it. Ezra argues that Hayes had a very prominent influence on the shaping of the Civil Service system. Finally, Hayes, unknowingly, would start a trend of Congressional battles that would lead to further reform and the eventual breakdown of the political machine into modern politics.
Works Cited
Ezra, Paul. “Congressional Relations and Public Relations in the Administration of Rutherford B. Hayes.” Presidential Studies Quarterly. 28.1 (1998): 68-87.