Notes & Comments

Other questions may occur to the student of American politics, for instance – did different urban political systems such as political machines provide a smoother climb for those clambering up the political ladder? Did, for example, Gotham’s powerful Tammany machine in the 19th and 20th centuries and Chicago’s and Pittsburgh’s political machines in the mid-20th century act as escalators that propelled mayors upward? Or was it cities with reformed systems such as Detroit, Cleveland, and Los Angeles that seemed to confer some advantage for the politically ambitious? To the extent that we can test the hypothesis, it appears that traditional patronage machines were not very helpful and could not unlock the door to upward movement. On the face of the numbers it even appears that they have been a hindrance. The nation’s most powerful political organizations such as Tammany in New York, Kelly-Nash-Daley in Chicago, Lawrence in Pittsburgh, and Vare in Philadelphia were not exactly steam catapults for launching their mayors into upward ascent.³ Cities with reformed political systems such as Cleveland, Detroit, and San Francisco appeared to do slightly better.⁴

To get a handle of the issue, I defined upward mobility as Joseph Schlesinger had in his benchmark study Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Upward mobility in the political system is defined as attaining higher elective office, which is in turn related progressively to the size of the electoral district. Thus, upward progression would lead from city mayor to state governor or United States Senator, and then finally the big leap to the nation’s White House. The electoral base measure is measured by the size of the electoral district, whereby the city has a population base exceeded by that of the state which in turn is exceeded by the nation (a U.S. House of Representatives district is smaller than the city and not in the upward progression scheme). The political opportunity ladder ascends upward from mayor to governor and senator and then to president. Schlesinger also defines appointments to offices such as presidential cabinet posts, Supreme Court justiceships, and important ambassadorships as upward mobility.⁵

The academic literature on political mobility includes the work of researchers such as Marilyn Gittell, Theodore J. Lowi, Wallace Sayre, and synthesizer Raymond Wolfinger. These scholars who studied New York and other cities, all conclude pretty much, as Lowi put it that “Sayre’s Law” was operative, which held that mayors in general (and New York mayors specifically) “come from anywhere and go nowhere.” In short, the door to the mayor’s office leads to a dead-end job. To underscore that point, Russell Murphy in his study quoted the lines from Dante’s Inferno, which some thought should be posted above the mayor’s door: “Abandon all hope ye who enter.” In less elegant terms, Boston’s rascal mayor, J. Michael Curley, simply concluded that mayoring was “fun and exciting, but there’s no future in it.”⁶

The Yellow Brick Road: Cleveland

Of the fifteen big cities, Cleveland, Ohio led with the largest number of successful upward strivers: seven who made it to higher office after serving as mayor. The Lake City’s mayoralty helped launch two mayors into high state office: Ralph Locher into the Ohio Supreme Court and Harry Davis into the governorship. In addition, five former Cleveland mayors entered national politics: Thomas Burke and Frank Lausche became United States Senators (Lausche also served five terms as governor before his move to Washington); Newton Baker and Anthony Celebrezze were appointed to presidential cabinet posts (Secretaries of War and Health, Education and Welfare respectively); and Harold Burton won a seat on the nation’s highest court as an Associate Justice.⁷

<< Back, Page 2 of 5, Next >>