1. Tulis, Jeffrey K., The Rhetorical Presidency (Princeton University Press, 1987), 203.Google Scholar

2. Swidler, Ann, “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,” American Sociological Review 51, 2 (04 1986): 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Edward Banfield and James Q. Wilson's understanding of political culture, a staple of the study of city politics, emphasized the values that informed citizen behavior. Swidler argues by contrast that culture's causal significance lies “not in defining ends of action, but in providing cultural components that are used to construct strategies of action” (loc. cit.). Although I find Swidler's general approach extremely useful, I think there is a greater role for values in politics than in her general formulation. As Ed Koch's “How'm I doin'?” reminds us, evaluation, including moral evaluation, is a central element of political culture.

4. Boston Daily Advertiser, December 5, 7, 8, 1855.

5. Schmeckbeier, Frederick I., History of the Know Nothing Party in Maryland (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1899), 100.Google Scholar

6. New York Herald, November 27, 1861.

7. New York Tribune, December 2, 1859, p. 8. “Sheehan” is a derogatory term for one of Irish birth; the “Benicia boy” was a pugilist from Benicia, California.

8. New York Herald, October 18, 1854. Municipal reform committee's introduction of its mayoral candidate. In 1859 the New York Tribune supported “the principle of Honest Municipal Rule independent of National Politics” December 1, 1859.

9. New York Herald, October 18, 1854.

10. New York Herald, December 2, 1859.

11. New York Tribune, December 2, 1859.

12. November 10, 1859.

13. December 11, 1855; December 8, 1856.

14. Daily Advertiser, December 6.

15. [Philadelphia] Evening Bulletin, April 9, 1860.

16. New York Herald, October 18, 1854.

17. Quoted in Chalmers, Leonard, “Tammany Hall and New York City Politics, 1853–1861” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1967), 88.Google Scholar

18. New York Tribune, November 17, 1860, p. 4.

19. Decemeber 2, 1856.

20. November 4, 1854.

21. New York Herald, November 24, 28, 1857.

22. New York Herald, November 22, 1861.

23. Frisch, Michael H., Town into City, Springfield, Massachusetts, and the Meaning of Community, 1840–1880 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 244.Google Scholar

24. Finegold, Kenneth, Experts and Politicians, Progressive Reform in New York, Cleveland, and Chicago, (Princeton University Press, forthcoming 09 1994), ms. p. 99.Google Scholar

25. The Money Machines (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1970), 149.Google ScholarPubMed

26. Strong, Josiah, The Twentieth Century, (New York, Arno Press, 1970 [1898]), 94, 95.Google Scholar Strong argued further that while “we do not forget our indebtedness to the immigrants” who fought in the Civil War and “have borne the brunt of the toil and hardship in subduing the continent,” “we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the foreign population, as a whole, is depressing our average intelligence and morality in the direction of the dead-line of ignorance and vice” pp. 97–98. Nativism and racism broadly construed remained a theme of municipal reform after the turn of the century. Like other progressives, municipal reformers were allied with eugenicists who provided elaborate intellectual rationales for lamenting the presence and political power of immigrants in the nation's cities.

27. National Municipal Review XI:1 (01 1922), p. 34.Google Scholar

28. Arizona Gazette, January 22, 1913.

29. Austin Statesman, December 17, 1908, December 24, 1908.

30. Austin Statesman, December 29, 1908.

31. Austin Statesman, December 29, 1908.

32. November 5, 1912. “A very patent thing,” the paper editorialized, “is that this will be the charter of Phoenix or the present antiquated awkward charter will obtain indefinitely. The city now struggling forward and moving in spite of the charter will continue to be handicapped at a stage of its existence when its form of government ought to be made to encourage and stimulate its growth.” August 2, 1913, p. 4.

33. Austin Statesman, December 24, 1908.

34. In New Mexico and Arizona there was little party organization among voters (although there were state party machines), and in towns like Albuquerque and Phoenix leaders of each party might see gains in nonpartisanship. In California municipal reform was subservient to a larger progressive movement to alienate voters from old guard Republicans (but not into the Democratic party).

35. San Diego Union, August 31, 1922, clipping in the Meyer Lissner Collection, Stanford University. Texas provides a different case. There the Democratic party was one with white supremacy, and held its place even among reformers for that reason.

36. Albuquerque Morning Journal, May 31, 1919, p. 3, May 25, 1919, p. 5, quoted in Schingle, Michael J., “Albuquerque Urban Politics 1891–1955; Aldermanic vs. Council-Manager Government”, senior thesis, University of New Mexico (History), 1976, p. 18.Google Scholar

37. Austin Statesman, December 27, 1908, p. 2.

38. Houston Labor Journal, October 5, 1917.

39. November 12, 1908, quoted in the Austin American, August 4, 1924.

40. Southwest designates Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. (Nevada had no cities reporting.) Northeast designates Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

41. See Kleppner, Paul, “Politics Without Parties, The Western States, 1900–1984”, in Nash, Gerald D. and Etulain, Richard W., eds., Major Issues in Twentieth Century Western History (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987).Google Scholar Martin Shefter has argued that the weakness of political parties in the West in the Progressive era was responsible both for Progressive successes there and for the continued weakness of western parties, compared to other regions. “Regional Receptivity to Reform: The Legacy of the Progressive Era,” Political Science Quarterly 98, 3 (Fall 1983): 459–483.Google Scholar

42. These arguments are presented more fully in Bridges, “Winning the West to Municipal Reform,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, 27, 4 (06 1992): 494–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. Southwestern cities are San Jose, Phoenix, San Diego, Austin, Albuquerque, and Dallas. Turnout is measured as the percent of all adults voting. Election returns collected by the author from city clerks' offices. The denominator includes aliens. Thus the machine cities, with their very large immigrant populations, might well have been expected to exhibit lower turnout. See Bridges, Amy, “Writing the Rules to Win the Game: The Middle Class Regimes of Municipal Reformers,” paper delivered at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association,Chicago, 1992.Google Scholar

44. Proponents of reform enjoyed the assistance of the National Municipal League's pamphlets, sample editorials, speakers'bureau, and campaign assistance. In 1921 the National Municipal Review began reporting the numbers of cities requesting assistance and its responses. In May, 1921 (X:5), for example, it reported, “The demand for speakers in citymanager campaigns grows from day to day; the demand goes hand in hand with the demand for the booklet, ‘The Story of the City Manager Plan’” p. 264.

45. Austin American, August 7, 1924, p. 3.

46. Dallas Morning News, October 1, 1930. To these examples many others could be added. The Dallas Morning News declared (10 1, 1930)Google Scholar, “Tax Rates Cut When Manager Operates City.” See also Dallas Morning News 10 9, 1930, p. 1.Google Scholar (Kansas City); Austin American, 05 27, 1924, p. 3Google Scholar (Beaumont); the Houston Press (10 1, 1938)Google Scholar chose Cincinnati to draw the moral of the savings of reform: “discredited widely as being one of the nation's worst governed cities” before the adoption of the manager plan, Cincinnati had, a dozen years after “the lowest tax rate of any American municipality, the lowest light rate, and benefits not provided elsewhere.”

47. San Diego Union, April 4, 1931, p. 453.

48. The Arizona Republic, October 28, 1949 (p. 6), characterized the Phoenix Charter government committee this way:

Each [member) has a high moral reputation…. As individuals they are not under the thumb of any boss. Moreover, they are known to have an interest in the people and in promoting civic welfare. They are not in politics for the sake of … personal gain…. All of them have proved their personal interest in civic work–in boys' clubs, in health activities, in work among minorities, in the welfare of the people of Phoenix.

49. Houston Press, 08 14, 1942, p. 1Google Scholar; “served unselfishly,” Houston Press 10 1, 1938, p. 4.Google Scholar

50. Houston Press, 08 14, 1942, p. 14.Google Scholar

51. Houston Press, 08 4, 1942.Google Scholar

52. August 14, 1942, p. 1; July 15, 1942.

53. Austin's Commissioner Harry Haynes made these arguments against the city-manager plan proposed there in 1924. “If the proposed city manager plan [passes],… the average citizen of Austin will have about as little to say about the conduct of this city as the negroes have to say about the conduct of the democratic party,” and “Austin will be run for the primary benefit of a few big business men…. City managership means big business in the saddle.” Austin American, 08 4, 1924, p. 1.Google Scholar

54. Like the Houston Press is 1938, Facts and Figures showed Hitler caricatures labeled “city manager.” (In 1938 the Press had underscored the thought with the caption, “You cannot recall me.”)

55. “We Want No Hitlerism,” advertisement, Houston Press, 10 1, 1938, p. 5.Google Scholar “Many of our boys are in some branch of our service fighting for freedom and against one man rule—Yet a few misguided and ill-advised club women—backed by a few super-intellectual men— … are trying to sell you down the river by forcing upon you … a one-man government in our fast-growing city.” “Join the Fight” (full-page advertisement), Houston Post, 08 10, 1942, p. 12.Google Scholar

56. Facts and Figures, 07 30, 1942, p. 4.Google Scholar

57. Facts and Figures, 07 30, 1942, p. 4.Google Scholar

58. White, Judge I. in Austin American, 08 7, 1924, p. 3.Google Scholar

59. P. 1 headline, Austin American, August 5, 1924.

60. Austin American, 08 7, 1924, p. 3.Google Scholar

61. There were a few exceptions. Tucson, Arizona, adopted council-manager government, but allowed partisan elections. Tulsa (alone in the nation) retained commission government long after it became a big city. Houston dismantled its city-manager government in 1947 in favor of the strong-mayor form.

62. The best discussion of NPSGs is Fraga, Luis Ricardo, “Domination Through Democratic Means, Nonpartisan Slating Groups in City Electoral Politics,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 23, 4 (06 1988): 528–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63. Barta, Carolyn Jenkins, “The Dallas News and Council-Manager Government” (unpublished M.A., University of Texas at Austin, 1970), p. 131.Google Scholar

64. Luckingham, Bradford, “Phoenix: The Desert Metropolis,” in Bernard, Richard M. and Rice, Bradley R., eds., Sunbelt Cities: Politics and Growth Since World War II (Austin: University of Texas, 1983) p. 319.Google Scholar

65. Cline, D. I., “Albuquerque, The End of the Reform Era,” in Goodall, Leonard E., ed., Urban Politics in the Southwest (Tempe: Arizona State University Press, 1967).Google Scholar

66. Johnson, David R., “San Antonio: The Vicissitude of Boosterism,” in Bernard, and Rice, , eds., Sunbelt Cities, p. 240.Google Scholar

67. Dallas Morning News, April 1, 1947, V4, quoted in Barta, pp. 70–71.

68. Albuquerque Journal, 04 8, 1958, p. 7.Google Scholar

69. Phoenix Gazette, 11 3, 1969, p. 15.Google Scholar

70. Dallas Morning News, 04 1, 1947, 112, quoted in Barta, p. 71.Google Scholar

71. Phoenix Gazette, 11 3, 1959, p. 15.Google Scholar For a similar claim in Dallas, see Barta, p. 34.; for Albuquerque, see Albuquerque Journal, April 7, 1958.

72. Dallas Morning News, 04 1, 1963, p. 1Google Scholar, quoted in Barta, p. 109.

73. Phoenix Gazette, 11 4, 1963, p. 4 (editorial).Google Scholar

74. Houston Chronicle, August 31, 1944, n.p. (Mayor's scrapbook); see also Houston Press, 07 7, 1943, p. 9.Google Scholar

75. Dallas Morning News, 02 18, 1951, III, 3Google Scholar, quoted in Barta, p. 83.

76. Albuquerque Journal, April 6, 1958; for a similar claim, AJ, 03 3, 1966, p. 2.Google Scholar

77. Dallas Morning News, 01 6, 1951, III 2Google Scholar, quoted in Barta, p. 82.

78. Dallas Morning News, March 26, 1967, c2, quoted in Barta, p. 121.

79. Albuquerque Journal, March 4, 1966, F6.

80. Albuquerque Journal, 04 8, 1958, p. 7.Google Scholar

81. Kelso, Paul, A Decade of Council-Manager Government in Phoenix, Arizona (University of Arizona, Tucson, 1960), p. 6.Google Scholar

82. Phoenix Gazette, 11 4, 1963, p. 4 (editorial)Google Scholar, and see also November 6, 1963, p. 35, “for story telling how Phoenix city charter was revised to provide a foundation for new and better municipal government,” and November 2, 1959, “First Charter Candidates Cleaned Up Political Mess,” p. 15.

83. Houston Press, 07 7, 1943, p. 9.Google Scholar

84. Albuquerque Journal, April 2, 1962, B3.

85. Stiles, Kenneth Jr., “A Study of Nonpartisanship—The 1963 Phoenix Municipal Primary Election” (unpublished M. A. thesis, Arizona State University, 1964), p. 101.Google Scholar

86. Dallas Morning News, March 19, 1961, quoted in Barta, pp. 103–4.

87. For 1953, 1955, see Stites, op. cit., pp. 54–55Google Scholar; Phoenix Gazette, 11 4, 1963, p. 33.Google Scholar

88. Barta, , “Dallas Morning News”, pp. 72–73.Google Scholar

89. Albuquerque Journal, 03 11, 1966, p. 1Google Scholar; in 1958 Property Owners' candidate Poorbaugh promised, “We'd quit spending so much money,” Albuquerque Journal, 04 2, 1958, p. 15.Google Scholar

90. Albuquerque Journal, 03 25, 1966, p. 8.Google Scholar

91. Phoenix Gazette, 11 2, 1959, p. 1.Google Scholar

92. For a discussion of Holcombe and his counterparts in other Texas cities, see Bridges, , “Boss Tweed and V. O. Key in Texas,” in Miller, Char and Sanders, H., eds., Urban Texas, Politics and Development (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Bridges, , “Politics and Growth in the Urban Southwest,” in Mohl, Raymond, Searching for the Sunbelt (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1990)Google Scholar, and Bridges, , Morning Glories, the Urban Southwest and the Course of ReformGoogle Scholar (in progress), chap. 4.

93. Albuquerque Journal, March 31, 1946; similarly, in 1854, Tingley's ticket insisted its record was one of “competent and honest management,” Albuquerque Journal, 03 20, 1954, p. 1Google Scholar; for claims of good fiscal management see Albuquerque Journal, 04 12, 1946, p. 1.Google Scholar

94. Campaign speech, October 3, 1950. Holcombe papers box 4 folder 9, Houston Municipal Research Center.

95. Campaign speech, October 5, 1948. Holcombe papers box 4 folder 4, Houston Municipal Research Center.

96. Campaign speech, October 3, 1950, Holcombe papers, and see similarly, 1924 Campaign speech in Holcombe papers, box 1. One problem with council-manager government, according to Holcombe, was the practice of electing amateurs to city government: “Your elected officials handle the multi-million dollar business of the city as a side line”—speech on proposed charter amendments (to abolish city-manager government in Houston), July 15, 1947, Holcombe papers box 4, folder 3.

97. Campaign speech, October 25, 1946, Holcombe papers box 4.

98. For a longer description of reform regimes at midcentury see Morning Glories, chapter 6.

99. The five southwestern cities are San Juan, Phoenix, San Diego, Albuquerque, and Dallas. All data collected by the author from city clerks' offices.

100. Bridges, “Writing the Rules.”

101. Growth, standing alone, is not a particular property of municipal reformers, but it is extraordinarily prominent in their rhetoric in the Southwest.

102. There were also several labor newspapers in Houston, Phoenix, and San Diego, providing a sometimes-critical reading of local government. No complete collections of these papers have survived.

103. Phoenix Gazette, November 3, 1969, p. 15.

104. There are many sources for the view that city wide elections made descriptive representation impossible. Among them, Cotrell, Charles L. and Stevens, R. Michael, “The 1975 Voting Rights Act and San Antonio, Texas: Toward a Federal Guarantee of a Republican Form of Local Government.” Publius Winter (1978): 79–99.Google Scholar

105. Cf. Swidler: “in settled lives, culture is intimately integrated with action … here it is most difficult to disentangle what is uniquely “cultural,” since culture and structural circumstance seem to reinforce each other. This is the situation about which … Clifford Geertz … writes so persuasively: culture is a model of and a model for experience; and cultural symbols reinforce an ethos, making plausible a world-view which in turn justifies the ethos” (op. cit. p. 278).