On another thread, Scotch referred to ‘machine’ politics in Chicago. Could someone enlighten me as to what the term means?

Re: Machine Politics

Politicians acting like robots. Responding on situations in an automatical way without thinking or looking into the real problems they encounter.

Jan

Re: Machine Politics

Thanks, Jan. I was under the impression that the term was in some way more systematic - so while I can imagine individual politicians acting thus I can’t quite see how it’s applied to a political culture.

Re: Machine Politics

It’s clearer for me to recognize the context if it’s slightly changed:  “The Political Machine” delivers “Machine Politics.”

Politics and the member politicians can develop into quite a fiefdom. Too often the members lose track with what’s going on just a short distance outside the walls of the kingdom; the fiefdom starts to run itself (ie, a machine) instead of being driven by the constituency.

Re: Machine Politics

“Politicians acting like robots. Responding on situations in an automatical way without thinking or looking into the real problems they encounter.”

That’s only part of it (although I might not accept the “robot” part of your definition).

If you consider the premise that “Politics” in and of itself is a selfish proposition,designed to serve “one person” or one group with a common intent, the “machine politics” or “political machine” is the system by which the objectives are met. Most are “reactive” as opposed to “proactive” networking its way to amass support and to destroy opposition.

Chicago has a distinct reputation for its “politcal machine” as a very blatant one. They have a history of voting improprieties that reach as far as having “dead people” casting votes that influenced elections. The overall system has been unapologetically corrupt and has even gained some level of acceptability. Barak Obama’s political career is entrenched in the “machine politics” of Chicago,but I don’t want to open that door. The Clinton’s political aspirations have been refered to as “machine” like ie “The Clinton Machine”, which screwed up during the Primary process. I might also add that this isn’t something relegated to Democrats. It is the process by which “politics” is inserted into any proposition. Political intents and or ambitions have no real loyality to any particular party.Doesn’t have to...doesn’t need to.

Suffice it to say,"most" political intents have a “mechanic” to it that produces the desired affect.

Politics is a virus. Everything has a natural mechanic that makes it function be it an economic proposition,government, business, even the everyday job. Being that “politics”, in and of itself has a selfish nature for the person or persons that employ it, it will disrupt that “natural mechanic” of the entity. People have lost positions on a job,failed to get promotions due to politics. Politics disrupts economic and governmental mechanics. It has no kinship with “truth”. When it does, it’s purely accidental. It is not part of the intent.

....we’ve never curied a virus.
Just a thought.....

Re: Machine Politics

Thanks, Jan. I was under the impression that the term was in some way more systematic - so while I can imagine individual politicians acting thus I can’t quite see how it’s applied to a political culture.

It never occurred to me before, but the concept of a “political machine” may be uniquely American. For a quick course in American machine politics, look up “Tammany Hall - Boss Tweed” or “The Pendergast Machine” both are shining examples of political corruption and profiteering American style.

Bob

Re: Machine Politics

It never occurred to me before, but the concept of a “political machine” may be uniquely American.

Which would explain jan-bruijn’s answer--if not why he felt obliged to proffer one. (It wouldn’t, however, explain TheDukester’s meandering fantasy.)

In Chicago the term is most closely associated with the former long-serving Mayor Richard Daley (not to be confused with the current long-serving Mayor Richard Daley), infamous for his over-reaction to protest at the 1968 Democratic presidential convention.

This along with Wastrel’s gives you three examples but no definition. Political machines are generally hierarchically organized all the way down to individual (ethnic) neighborhoods and characterized by quid-pro-quo political patronage. Daley (the first-and last of the big city bosses) was said to have controlled tens of thousands of patronage positions.

Re: Machine Politics

Being born and bred in Chicago, i can tell you that “Machine Politics” was borne under the Richard J. Daley administration, and since his death, has trickled down through his successors; Jane Byrne, Michael Bilandic, Harold Washington, Eugene Sawyer, and now Richard M. Daley. In short, “Machine Politics” or a “Political Machine” is a disciplined political organization in which an authoritative boss (such as a Mayor) or small group commands the support of a corps of supporters (better known as “cronies/"lackeys" in Chicago), but really known as campaign workers, who may receive some sort of reward for their work, be it monetary, or even a high paying “ghost payroll” job which Chicago is infamous for. Any way you slice it, it leads to corruption, which is why our now illustrious Ex-Governor Blagojevich is who he is, because he himself came from the “Chicago Political Machine”. Our Mayor, Richard M. Daley is a corrupt bastard who has skated up to this point, but now that Blago has beed impeached, i can only hope that our city/state continues to sweep these crooks out of office and restore a good name back to Chicago/Illinois.

-Terry

Re: Machine Politics

J. was first elected mayor in 1955, which would make it difficult for many of us here to have adult memories of much of what came before him, but according to Roger Biles writing in the Encyclopedia of Chicago J. inherited his particular machine from predecessors beginning with one Anton Cermak in 1928. Chicago “machine rule”, according to Biles, “unequivocally ended” with the election of Harold Washington in 1983.

...but really known as campaign workers, who may receive some sort of reward for their work, be it monetary, or even a high paying “ghost payroll” job which Chicago is infamous for.

All campaigns require campaign workers. I’ve been a volunteer campaign worker for three presidential campaigns myself, and, of course, paid professional workers are also required.

Most patronage positions in political machines are legitimate jobs and don’t require a “ghost payroll”.

Re: Machine Politics

Thanks to all respondents - some very helpful posts!

Of course, I realized the Dukester would probably make his usual observations about the nature of politics… and one day, it will be time to take him to task! But I’ve work to do now, so it will have to be later, sir!

Re: Machine Politics

Well, I hoped we could get beyond a mere definition and delve into the dynamics of ethnicity, the United States comprising persons from elsewhere--or persons with ancestors from elsewhere, in most cases not especially remote ancestors. (This is the context in which the question of machine politics originally appeared.)