George Plunkitt of Tammany Hall and Civil Service Reform

          Although many people may disagree with the workings of Tammany Hall, there are those who have not realized the political implications created by the machine.  The machine exploits power in a pragmatic matter and, consequently, Tammany Hall has affected many aspects of society in a positive light, creating a politically connected population.  Unlike past generations under Tammany Hall, the majority of the people of present generations now feel distanced from government.  Essentially, through the workings of Tammany Hall, society had felt more inclined to participate in politics.  Simply, as George Washington Plunkitt highlights in his series of essays,  Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, interconnectedness with the people and patronage, which, to Plunkitt is destroyed by the Civil Service Reform, are imperative in politics.

          Throughout the series, Plunkitt speaks of the importance of getting in touch with society.  He advocates community involvement in government, but in an atypical manner.  In contrast to  what government preaches nowadays to people as to how to get involved in politics, such as voting, helping in a campaign or catching up on government legislations, Plunkitt simply states that to get an individual to be involved, a politician must just simply provide direct help.  Consequently, when one helps an individual, support by that person in an election is basically guaranteed.  Or in the words of Plunkitt, these people will “get a followin’”.  In essence he argues for immediate relief for the people rather than actions taken by the reformers, which idealize a long-term solution for the poor.  Essentially, people will remember to support you for helping them when they most need it and, therefore, they will pledge a wide array of votes for your office.

         Although Plunkitt’s method of providing immediate help to people does not create a long term solution for future generations, his way does hold some truth as to getting people active in politics.  Presently, we have different manners in which people may participate in government, but the greatest issue still remains:  many people do not vote.  Those that always do vote, however, are called activists and they generally participate in all forms of government.  Still, there are different levels of measuring political participation.  One category of voters is called Voting Specialists, which vote but probably do nothing else.  The next category is Campaigners who vote, are very active in campaigns, and have a clear party identification.  The next level is Communalists whom are active in local issues.  Finally, the last are Parochial Participants, which do not vote, but will contact elected officials for any issues they may have.  However, despite these different methods of participation in politics, voting percentages are still low. 

         But, by following Plunkitt’s method, participation may increase as parties will generate voters to march to the polls.  Although we would rather have voters that vote based on the policies their candidates are willing to take on, with Plunkitt’s method, at least voters are still voting for whom they would want to take office, which does, in fact, create legitimacy for the candidates taking office.  He argues, “…we would have government of the people by the people who were elected to govern them.”  Consequently, while politicians provide immediate help for the people, the numbers of voters will rack up as a result as people march onto the polls for loyal support.  But, still, the fact of the matter remains:  people do not vote and it allows room for others to question the legitimacy of our democratic government.

         Essentially, Plunkitt studies human nature, and “acts accordingly.”  He understands the nature of people and uses his understanding to his advantage.  To rack up votes, Tammany members basically buy them.  For instance, they compete to have the best gifts for weddings or assure to be the first to say condolences at people’s funerals.  Basically, to get to the people, they “reach out into the homes of their district” and learn about their lives, both inside and out.  This manner of racking up votes is imperative.  It is a way in which parties can mobilize voters.  Nowadays, our parties lack this effort and, consequently, this is a reason why people do not vote – because they do not feel connected to the candidates.  Thus, learning about constituents is essential.  Speaking to them and introducing one-self is a way of name recognition.  Voters will remember your name and, when you help them out, it’s likely that they will vote for you.  Therefore, mobilization of voters by parties is an important method to get people to vote. 

         However, despite all of this, the only problem with Plunkitt’s method of basically “buying” support is the issue of patronage.  By building loyal voters for candidates, some supporters expect to be rewarded in return.  In the realm of politics, that means granting them a job in the field.  But, Plunkitt has no problem with that.  He believes that it is essential to reward party supporters because it creates a sense of patriotism.  According to Plunkitt, you cannot “interest young men in their country if you have no offices to give them when they work for their party”.  He believes that, as a consequence of not providing jobs for loyal constituents, supporters lose patriotism in the American nation and, as a result, turn to anarchy, as some of his examples suggest.  Therefore, one can deduce that Plunkitt is staunchly against the Civil Service Reform Act that was passed in 1883 to counteract the spoils system that results from Tammany Hall.

          The Civil Service Reform Act was created to reduce the patronage that political machines sought to increase.  In return, it would create a merit-based system in which those who take government offices are those who are qualified and have essential skills to manage the job.  The act provided a series of examinations that would provide federal jobs based on merit, rather than based on reward, essentially creating a fair working environment.  However, Plunkitt attests that providing jobs based on merit means harm to our government.  He believes that patronage is the best suited method of providing jobs to people because the people that will be hired really are working in the interests of the state because of their patriotism and determination to serve the nation, not because they can answer any random question of the civil service examinations and know every and “any part of the Greek language.”  Still, his argument lacks credibility because he is basing the function of our government on patriotic emotionalism, which is exactly what the Constitution attempted to prevent:  a government based on emotion.

Additionally, the act would assure job security for federal employees.  Since the spoils system gave jobs to those who worked for the party, once the party wins election, all those already in the federal offices would be fired in order to reward the loyal supporters with jobs.  Therefore, because of the spoils system, jobs tended to be based on election results, which provided no job security for people.  Essentially, the civil service law reversed many of the technically unfair practices that were used by Tammany Hall.

         Aside from Plunkitt mentioning the participation of government by the people through patronage and the issues of Civil Service Reform, Plunkitt slightly touches basis on the inner workings of government.  For instance, Plunkitt stated in Chapter 15 how senators and assemblymen were trying to trade votes for bills that each really wanted to pass.  As a result, there were people who promised six votes for Plunkitt’s bill, the Spuyten Duyvil Bill, in exchange for his vote for the Remsen Bill.  Actions like this are called trade voting or logrolling.  Simply, it means that politicians promise to exchange votes for bills each are anxious to pass.  Usually, this occurs in politics when an issue in a bill does not concern a politician’s district or an apparent preference is not made in their district.  Consequently, politicians will exchange votes.

           On another note, Plunkitt also mentions the problems with the media.  He says “the papers and some people are always ready to find wrong motives in what us statesmen do.”  According to Plunkitt, Tammany Hall members are referred to as dishonest grafters by the media, when, in reality, they are simply trying to make an “honest penny” out of all their efforts to improve their districts.  As a result, the media creates a faulty or hurtful image for Tammany Hall.  Although, as Plunkitt puts it, “papers are complaining that the bosses get rich while devotin’ their lives to the interests of the city.”  As in today’s society, the media is always working to exploit the inner-workings of government, to expose its faults and inform or influence the views of the people.  Unfortunately, for politicians, image can be destroyed by the media.  For instance, the President is almost always mentioned on television or in the newspaper, exploiting any “racy story” that it can.  Essentially, politicians are always censured by the media, which influences the people’s outlook on government.

         It results that Plunkitt’s pragmatic approach to government, as demonstrated in his essays, highlight the realities of aspects of today’s government.  Although his acts seem corrupt, he staunchly believes that there is nothing wrong with Tammany Hall’s methods.  Tammany Hall has been ostracized for its overuse of patronage and, consequently, has been extremely critical of the Civil Service Reform.  However, it is essential to recognize that Tammany Hall speaks of many topics of government that are still true today.