Detroit dopers - Why all the burned out homes?

Factual Questions
121

While it is true that people don’t elect leaders because they tell them they are going to rob them blind, there is a very powerful reason that allows some real bad actors into positions of power: patronage. Not corruption necessarily, although the slope is very slippery, but the motivation to vote for one candidate over another might be that he promised to get someone or their relative a job working for the city. It’s as old as civilization.

An incumbent leader with a base of patrons that can be easily motivated to support him at the polls is in the driver’s seat. In a situation where private sector employment has eroded, public sector patronage becomes even more powerful, to the point where public sector employees become a major political and economic force dedicated to the perpetuation of their providers. At that point, corruption is just a matter of time.

Also, what people need to remember is that what is happening in Windsor is the same as what is happening here in the US… everything’s moving south. Of course in Canada, that’s as far south as you can get. :slight_smile:

122

In the U.S., patronage hasn’t been a factor since the civil service exam became common many decades ago.

Before then, it was true that city officials could influence elections with the problem of jobs. But they had thousands or even tens of thousands of jobs to hand out. I highly doubt than the Detroit mayor or his people had more than tens of jobs under their control.

I’m guessing you’re confusing patronage with corruption. Was there corruption in Detroit? Sure, lots of it. But corruption and patronage are barely overlapping terms. Corruption makes you money and may influence others to spend money on your behalf. Patronage is the ability to hand out jobs.

Detroit could be the one exception, I suppose, but I wonder if you have any evidence that patronage existed in recent Detroit to the extent that it could sway elections? And if you’re talking about corruption, how does Detroit differ from every other large city?

123

I’m sorry, but have you ever been to Massachusetts?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/23/at_the_probation_department_patronage_is_job_one/
*
“The state Probation Department once set the standard for the nation in rehabilitating criminals. But nine years ago the Legislature freed it from meaningful oversight, and the results were predictable: budgets soared, and the welcome mat was out for hundreds of job seekers with political juice.”*

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20101202patrick_tells_publishers_he_will_target_job_growth/srvc=home&position=also

“(Governor) Patrick said he “blew it,” when it came to early supporter state Sen. Marian Walsh, who he offered a $170,000 post that had been empty for more than a dozen years.”

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1876434639/Bridge-repair-plan-will-fatten-state-payroll-Patronage-jobs-could-live-on-long-after-work-is-done
*
“Bridge repair plan will fatten state payroll - Patronage jobs could live on long after work is done”*

I’ll stop now… BTW these scandals are just in the last few years, and that’s just state government.

…sorry, I just can’t resist one of my personal favorites at the municipal level, 3-term mayor David Ragucci and his clan of trough feeders…

http://www.laborersforjustice.org/newspapers/boston_globe/everett.htm

*"Since David Ragucci became mayor in January 1998, City Hall has become a mini-employment agency for his extended family. At last count, the city has provided jobs or promotions for at least seven of his and his wife’s cousins, as well as an aunt, two brothers, and one of their former wives.

Ragucci even appointed his godfather – William A. McCarron, a former Everett school principal – as one of the city’s three fire commissioners. "*

The point I made regarding Detroit was that when there is little private sector employment available, public sector jobs become even more valuable and more prone to corruption in the hiring process. Also, those who have these jobs are more tightly bound to their provider, and willing to hold their nose to the fact that their cities are being pillaged and keep voting for their jobs.

Also, as the economy declines, there is an influx of government funding that allows public sector employment to increase as an attempt to address unemployment. Some of this goes to contactors, but there is a goodly portion that funds increased administration as well.

Therefore, it is perhaps advantageous in the short term to make it more difficult for private sector business to broaden the job market? When the shit hits the fan, the pillagers are long gone..

To say that patronage and corruption aren’t associated with one another is a bizarre observation, at best.

As for evidence that patronage influenced elections, how else would an otherwise sane individual explain the career of Kwame Kilpatrick?

124

Or Illinois? Despite court rulings making it technically illegal, I don’t think anyone’s under the impression that political patronage is dead in this state.

125

That does quote patronage. All of 250 people.

Article is archived, but it’s referring to the same thing.

The complaint is that the bill will create state rather than city jobs. Not one word about patronage except a vague accusation with nothing behind it.

Another instance (from 1999!) of a politician hiring a few family members. Emphasis on few.

Do you not understand the difference between a few and tens of thousands?

There is always corruption and always some friends and family hired. It exists everywhere and at every level. Sometimes it’s corrupt malpractice and sometimes very good people benefit.

Systematic patronage of the sort that swings elections is not the same thing, and you haven’t shown anything in your cites except an ability to Google the word patronage. The word is freely thrown around today and it may have lost all meaning since it hasn’t been a real practice in so long. However, the distinction I’m making is a valid historical one. When you can show me that the entire police, fire, sanitation, public works, parks, inspection, and every other body of city employees was for the party to hand out as favors in Detroit I’ll take the concept of patronage seriously. Today’s hiring of a few friends and family is literally orders of magnitude too small to be equivalent.

126

The links were prompted by situations of which I am personally aware. I didn’t have to go mining for them, but thanks for the assumption that I’m intellectually lazy. Those are the tip of the iceberg, the fraction of the corruption that gets dragged into the light.

Either you misunderstand me or you’re throwing up a strawman… I realize that patronage at the level of the old spoils system is no longer a factor. But to suggest that the civil service system has eliminated the ability for a politician to create a bloc of motivated voters supporting their own self interest, to the point that they can control an election among a distracted and unmotivated electorate is folly. You don’t need “tens of thousands” of supporters when voter turnout is 10-15%, as in Detroit. You might also be familiar with the case of Bell, CA? Yep, civil service at its finest there.

Also, you can’t make an standard of exclusivity (“the entire” anything) to support your argument, that’s just silly.

Do you think those folks holding election signs on the street corner for “their guy” are motivated by altruistic means? Oh, sorry, that’s too micro for you? OK then… Do you think that public sector union endorsements and political campaign contributions (funded by member’s dues) are made in the interest of the greater good, or in support of “their guy”? Just to add a sense of scale, according to the BLS, there are 7.6 million public sector union members nationwide. Bear in mind I’m not trying to pin the problem on labor in general, and public sector labor in particular, just giving an idea of the numbers that can be brought to bear by the unions at the ballot box.

Are you honestly trying to support the position that machine politics is dead in America?

127

Yeah, I’m completely comfortable saying that old-style machine politics is dead in America.

Politics isn’t dead. Special interests aren’t dead. Corruption isn’t dead. Getting out the vote isn’t dead. Greed isn’t dead. I’ve got mine isn’t dead. NIMBY isn’t dead. People are inventive.

But machine politics? That’s dead. And it’s a truly important distinction that it is dead, while other routes of attempting influence live on.