Chicago’s ‘machine’ in the 21st century
“Machine politics in Chicago started in 1871 as a partnership between saloonkeepers, brothel owners, and politicians,” Richard Simpson, former Chicago alderman and current head of the political science department at the University of Illinois at Chicago, explained to the HPR. The Chicago machine became one of many urban juggernauts dotting the American political landscape from the late 19th to mid-20th century. As cities changed, machines yielded to more efficient, transparent, and meritocratic governance led by grassroots organizations, neighborhood associations, and career civil servants. Nonetheless, machines persist in a handful of cities. As Simpson noted, “We still see a machine government in Chicago, and a few other places like Miami and New Orleans.” In the case of Chicago, the Daley machine has evolved by centralizing power, broadening its tent, and professionalizing. In this way, America’s most famous modern political machine has managed to accommodate a shift in the values and circumstances of urban politics while maintaining a high degree of power and patronage.
Daley: Centralizing Power
“The key feature of [current Chicago Mayor] Daley’s modern machine is the centralization of power in the [Mayor’s Office],” Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, told the HPR. “While there used to be strong council members who would bring people from their neighborhoods into the machine, the mayor has wrested a lot of control from the city council and the aldermen and built up his own groups of support.” Therefore, while the city council retains some control over neighborhood matters, the mayor has a direct, personal, citywide mandate over larger issues.
Building this sort of support requires old-fashioned machine work. As Archon Fung, professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, pointed out to the HPR, “One function of the old machines that people often overlook is their ability to bring the new immigrant populations into the political sphere, providing social recognition and economic opportunities.” The immigrants to whom America’s political machines once appealed have long since assimilated. But in Chicago, as neighborhood loyalties of previous eras eroded, Daley created his own loyal groups to replace them. For example, Canary explained, “The Hispanic Democratic Organization was not an organic community group, but rather a figment of the mayor’s mind” before becoming his close ally.
Patronage and Professionalism?
As in an old-fashioned machine, the political work of groups such as the HDO helps its members to access government jobs. Despite having been under court decree for years, Chicago’s government employment process remains grounded in patronage. For example, although reforms require civil service tests to determine hiring, several City Hall employees were recently jailed for falsifying test scores. Continuing patronage allows the machine to extend its traditional role of assimilation to 21st century immigrants, such as those represented by the HDO.
Centralized and more inclusive, the modern machine is also more professionalized. A skilled workforce is crucial to an efficient city bureaucracy, yet seems antithetical to a patronage system. Chicago’s machine solves this apparent paradox through an “amazing balancing act” in which visionary professionals look the other way as unqualified individuals underperform. “Chicago is a system of stars and hacks, and it accommodates both,” Canary insisted. Fung does not consider this circumstance entirely problematic; he argues that political machine ‘hacks’ can offer important links between government and residents, while a professionalized bureaucracy risks becoming out of touch and unresponsive. “The view has to be more nuanced than just saying that machines are good or bad,” Fung remarked.
The More Things Change …
Indeed, Chicago’s new machine defies simplistic assessment. Despite the age-old association of political machines with corruption and graft, the purpose of Daley’s machine is not to enrich its participants but rather to perpetuate political power. The modern urban citizen objects to the former but not necessarily the latter, especially if the machine can provide good city services. The current recession may force Chicagoans to reassess their threshold of tolerable inefficiency, as Canary estimates the cost of public corruption at over $300 million a year. Furthermore, as Simpson suggests, Daley’s inevitable departure could breed a political battle and cause a slow transition to a new system. Regardless, the current manifestation of the machine demonstrates both the new realities of American urban politics and the possibility of retaining an old-fashioned framework despite these changes.