| Popis: |
A N aroused public in New York City has, within the last few years, condemned its mayor as machine manipulated and indecisive, returned him to office by an overwhelming majority acclaiming his independence, and, in growing disappointment, reverted to denouncing his ineffectiveness as a leader. Obviously, the public is confused in its evaluation of political candidates and in its determination of what constitutes a meaningful course of action. The electorate of large cities throughout the country can be sympathetic, having experienced similar frustrations. The fault may not rest with the public nor their chosen mayors. Perhaps the experts have been negligent in providing a proper perspective to the problem. Since Lincoln Steffens' Shame of the Cities and the muckraking furor at the turn of the century, much attention has been directed toward big city government. Such governments have been under the constant scrutiny of newspapers, civic organizations, businessmen, state officials, and academicians. Study commissions function on a continuous basis, exposes are plentiful and a variety of changes and reform measures have been instituted. After at least a half-century of structural reform and governmental reorganization, however, it is still quite evident that no meaningful change has taken place in the essential quality of city government. The lack of political leadership in the city must be held accountable for its static posture. It would be expected that since large cities are the source of almost every advancement in our culture, the center of our civilization, they would provide the basis for political leadership and a training ground for potential state and national political figures. Quite the contrary is the case. > The author of this article presents data showing that the office of mayor in the large city is a political dead end avoided by our best potential national leaders. She argues that the only hope for salvaging the office of mayor as a significant local executive and as a training ground for potential national leaders lies in federal programs for urban development and reinforcement of the city's prestige in state politics. |
