The essay will describe and critique four arguments in favor of machine politics made by George Washington Plunkitt in the book “Plunkitt of Tammany Hall,” concluding with an examination of a current case of alleged corruption by a Texas politician. One of Plunkitt’s best arguments was that the parties involved in this political structure rarely spoke publicly with false promises. While operating separately, these systems functioned to address current issues without resorting to the practice of traditional political mechanisms (Plunkitt 10).
The problem with this argument is that few productive decisions can be implemented based solely on personal interests and neglecting public ones. Unwilling to participate in public life, such machines acted rather as mediators than stimuli.
Another argument in favor of political machines involved Plunkitt’s discussion of the courage of these structures to denounce the shortcomings of political governance. Representatives of political machines condemned the legislative backwardness of individual regions and were not afraid to cast their votes in support of innovative solutions that could reorganize outdated orders (Plunkitt 10).
A potential flaw in this argument is that the members of political machines perceived the economic and social situations from the standpoint of strength. At the same time, poverty and corruption continued to exist because no serious attempts were made for transformation.
A third argument in favor of political machines described in the book was the decisiveness with which the members of relevant structures were ready to take control of power. Social security and fair legislation were valuable objectives that responsible parties pursued in their political campaigns (Plunkitt 22).
This argument is problematic because, as practice shows, few of these representatives were really aware of the range of work to be done. The lack of practical skills in organizing power was expressed in making rash decisions that could worsen the current situation, thereby not meeting the expectations of the population.
Finally, Plunkitt suggested that political machines were beneficial because their activities were based on the policy of supporting social well-being in general but not the development of individual regions. Urban-centered programs promoted in the 1960s aimed to optimize urban areas and ignore problems in old neighborhoods (Plunkitt 22).
One could counter this argument by pointing out that representatives of political elites lived exclusively in developed centers, for instance, New York or Washington. Concern about the fate of old neighborhoods had no actual effect on the development of these areas, which indicates the futility of the struggle to preserve the local infrastructure.
Turning to the present day, it is interesting to speculate about how Plunkitt would feel about the recent conviction of Sid Miller. After a trip to the rodeo in 2015, the agriculture commissioner was convicted of the unauthorized disposal of taxpayer funds for personal purposes (Platoff). According to the case analysis, a few years after his offense, Mr. Miller was required to pay a $500 fine for his corrupt scheme.
I believe Plunkitt would think that Sid Miller showed the desire, traditional for those in power, to take advantage of his official position and get the most out of his post. In my view, Mr. Miller clearly should have been penalized, and the fine of $500 seems insignificant. Open disregard of the legislative norms by a representative of the legitimate authority should be viewed as fraud and entail more serious punishment, up to arrest, and not just a financial penalty.
Works Cited
Platoff, Emma. “Texas Ethics Commission Fines Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller $500 over 2015 Rodeo Trip.”The Texas Tribune, 2018, Web.
Riordan, William L. Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics. Penguin Group, 2015.