POS410FinalPaper Rough

8/6/2019 POS410FinalPaper Rough

1/9

Lucas Lindsey

POS 410

May 5, 2010

Ed Rendells Philadelphia and the Politics of Pluralism

Buzz Bissingers first hand account of Ed Rendell and David Cohens struggle to

keep Philadelphia from drowning in the waters of insolvency and conflict does much to

inform the contentious discussion that surrounds local level authority. ThroughoutA

Prayer for the City, local power is transient, highly compartmentalized, and never

exclusively possessed by local political elites such as Mayor Rendellelites who are,

instead, often reliant upon outside forces and interests beyond the scope of their direct

control, rendering them unable to consistently access the power it takes to enact policies.

Rendell and his administration are repeatedly dependent upon the decisions and even the

whims of other individuals at varying levels of government, private enterprise, and the

local community. This frequent inability of Philadelphias mayor to reliably effect change

illustrates the decidedly constrained nature of his power. Likewise, the broad array of

interests served and policy issues discussed inA Prayer for the City demonstrate powers

lack of concentration in any single group or stratified class of Philadelphian society. In

the face Philadelphias diffusion of power, Mayor Rendell is frequently reduced to the

status of mere cheerleader and lobbyist on behalf of others. This group of others

includes business interests, special interests such as minority groups and local unions,

concerned taxpayers and unemployed voters, and officials at higher levels of government.

And though the outcomes recorded by Buzz Bissinger inA Prayer for the City are often

inequitable between the vast collection of interested parties, none are so

disproportionately favored that any true pattern of control and elitism can be


2/9

distinguished. Indeed, the reactionary nature of local groups, the case study structure of

the book itself, the many local, regional, and federal forces upon which Ed Rendell relies,

and the motives behind economic development in Philadelphia reveal a pattern of

community power discernable only through the lens of the pluralist theory.

For the purposes of this critical look at community power in Ed Rendells

Philadelphia, it should be understood that this author believes that power is represented

by consequential actions, be they permissive or prohibitory, that measurably change the

outcome of a given course of events. In more simple terms, power is then the ability to

get something done or to effectively bar progress from occurring. The pluralist theory of

community power, in this paper defended as the most viable explanation given the events

and perspective ofA Prayer for the City, assumes that power is broadly diffused, often

inequitably, throughout various local factions, and these factions must negotiate through

disagreement in order to achieve their respective, desired outcomes. According to Nelson

Polsby, a late American political scientist, The first, and perhaps most basic

presupposition of the pluralist approach, is that nothing categorical can be assumed about

power in any community. It rejects the stratification thesis thatsome group necessarily

dominates a community (476). When looking critically at the consequential actions of

Rendells administration, this pluralist approach necessitates the rejection of premature

assumptions that elitist business interests inflexibly determine political outcomes and

public action. Instead it becomes important to note, as described by Bissinger, not only

the reactionary nature of interest groups but also the cameo-like role each plays; In

Rendells Philadelphia, no singular group has interest, influence, or even appearance in

the policy-making of every issue-area.


3/9

Contrary to the pluralist theory of community power are the city limits and regime

explanations, which are similar insofar as both underscore the influence of business

interests in city affairs (an emphasis that ultimately lead to their undoing as feasible

descriptions of Philadelphias community power structure). Their differences are subtle

but important. City limits theory claims that business interests are unitary throughout the

city because economic development leads to a comparative economic advantage over

other cities, resulting in the retention of large private industries and a wealthier tax base.

Though the most attractive alternative to a pluralist perspective, city limits theory fails to

adequately address the reactionary and, at times, ineffective capacity of business interests

to prevail and fails to provide sufficient reasoning for the numerous socially driven issue-

areas that require Rendells attention. In the same way, regime theory, which

characterizes the relationship between political elites and business elites as a robust

governing coalition, provides marginal answers to questions raised inA Prayer for the

City but largely falls short when Rendell faces significant pressure from neighborhood

groups and social aid issue-areas.

In his defense of pluralist research methodology, Nelson Polsby cites multiple

cities in which a wide variety of significant issues-areas are studied, in order to learn who

prevails in community decision making (Polsby, 476). Usually three to four issue-areas

dominate each case study.A Prayer for the City, read as an immersive, long-term case

study of community power in Philadelphia, is no different. The structure of the book,

which follows key political and social issues as ongoing story arcs, mirrors the

methodology of an extended pluralist case study and lends itself to a pluralist perspective.

Polsby writes that none of the issues followed by pluralist researchers were trivial and


4/9

probably were, in fact, the most important issues before [the] communities during the

time [the] studies were being carried out (Polsby, 478). Bissinger, in his time as Rendell

and Cohens shadow, included issue-areas using much of the same criteria. In the Preface

toA Prayer for the City, he outlines various overarching issues that shaped the focus of

Rendells administration and, consequently, the book itself (Bissinger, xii-xiii). In his

own words, Bissinger sought to create a vivid and unique portrait of a politician trying

to save a city and to create an equally vivid and unique portrait of the politics of self-

interest that must be negotiated daily, almost hourly, to even attempt to act in the public

interest (Bissinger, xii). The overarching issues that he lists include Philadelphias

unprecedented budget deficit and ensuing union negotiations, decades of seemingly

unstoppable job and population loss, public housing on the brink of collapse, the closure

of the citys Naval Yard, and the community wide fears of failing public schools, crime,

and racial divides. Bissinger believes these are the issues that are important Rendells

administration as it attempts to save Philadelphia, and his emphasis of the various

politics of self-interest, coupled with the extensive assortment of his chosen issue-

areas, not only echoes of a pluralist perspective, but hints at a variety of competing self-

interests that have the ability, because of the communitys diffused power, to impede

Mayor Rendells capacity to make consequential changes.

Modern critics of pluralist theory cite societal issues that are both consciously and

unconsciously precluded from public consideration, issue-areas they straightforwardly

deem non-issues, as evidence that power is not diffused but instead concentrated to the

extent that one group or individual is able to create or reinforce barriers to the public

airing of policy conflicts (Bachrack & Baratz, 950). While this critique may be an astute


5/9

observation in other cases, it is not true of the Philadelphia in which Bissinger writes.

Mayor Rendell, whether he wants to or not, is frequently forced to address a wide variety

of non-economic issue-areas the likes of which are typically precluded from public

debate in other American cities (and, it seems, even in various period of Philadelphias

own history). Issue-areas of this nature are intermittent throughoutA Prayer for the City

and are perhaps best exemplified by Rendells efforts to quell racial tensions, dispel

rumors of downtown favoritism by working on neighborhood issues, and assume control

of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. In line with the pluralist prediction of reactionary

interest groups, Mayor Rendell is obligated to meet with white residents at a local

recreation gym and Latino leaders at City hall following the shooting of a white

Philadelphian by two Latino men. Both groups react to the inflammatory event with

claims of oppression and demands for greater consideration and influence in city affairs.

Concurrent to this, black leaders also claim to be shut out of local policy making. In the

words of Bissinger, Rendellhad a political need to keep black elected officials happy

and contented. He did not want to raise their ire, as doing so might in turn galvanize the

black community, which might in turn encourage a black candidate to run against him in

1995 (Bissinger, 76). Revelations such as this illustrate the consistent vulnerability of

Rendell to business andsocialinterest groups alike. For Rendell, these issues-areas,

which might be non-issues withheld from the light of day by other cities, become

necessary political risks that reveal the delicate balance of community power between

reactionary groups.

The Rendell administrations takeover of the Philadelphia Housing Authority is

pertinent example of past non-issues that find themselves aired publicly throughout A


6/9

Prayer for the City. Bissinger notes that by seizing control of the PHA, Rendell makes a

high-risk move that could very well result in political suicide. What is important to

emphasize here is that Rendell does not take on these issue due to any profound ethical

calling but instead because of pressure that comes from the abstract specter ofthe people

(and their power to elect) as much as it does interest groups and business elites. Pressure

to address this and other social issue-areas such as racial tensions is not exerted by

stratified elites wielding inordinate amounts of influence but by everyday residents. They

are not to be ignored in the power structure of Philadelphia. Their worries are the citys

worries. And they are not willing to have their worries pushed to the periphery to once

again become non-issues.

Further illustrating the limits of local elites power is the simple fact that

Rendells story is rarely his story alone, and seldom is Rendell capable of enacting

policy, even policy that favors business interests, without the timely backing of other

prominent and influential local, state, and federal level individuals and groups. At the

community level, Rendell found the backing of Council President John Street especially

helpful in negotiating with District Council 33. In fact, Bissinger observes that Ed

Rendell and David Cohen go to ridiculous lengths simply to remain in good standing with

Councilman Street should his control of the City Council and standing in the African-

American community be of use. He notes, they fed his ego constantly, caressing and

stroking it to the point where Rendell, whenever something good happened in the city,

generally gave John Street credit regardless of whether or not he deserved it (Bissinger,

138). From the state and federal government, Rendell experiences both the permissive

and prohibitory power of external forces. In a gamble likened to playing Russian


7/9

roulette with every chamber of the revolver loaded, the city of Philadelphia won an

appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that greatly empowered the citys negotiating

position with local unions early in Rendells time as mayor (Bissinger, 135). Had the city

lost the appeal, negotiations could very well have tipped in favor of the unions. Rendell

hardly received consistent backing from the state though. Governor Tom Ridges

sabotage of Bernard Meyers business proposal to build ocean liners in Philadelphia, save

the Naval Yard, and keep thousands of high-wage blue-collar jobs proved far more

influential than all of Rendell and Cohens desperate attempts to make the deal work.

Furthermore, while Rendells confident pitch in the back of a limo to President Clinton

and his growing favor with Secretary of HUD Cisneros did result in the saving of a few

thousand jobs as well as an coveted urban enterprise zone, the importance of these men

alone reveals the limitations of Philadelphias mayor. In the face of these external forces,

local power is precarious at best and scarcely wielded at the whim of a singular group or

interest.

Despite the vast array of social issue-areas addressed by Rendells administration,

a common refrain among critics was that the Rendell was a business driven mayor

interested only in the affairs of economic development and empowerment of local

businesses and business interests. Bissinger writes, a criticism of Rendell had always

been that he was a downtown mayor driven by downtown interests to the virtual

dismissal of the neighborhoods and that the mayor, by his own admission, spent the

majority of his time on economic development (Bissinger, 280; 291). Mayor Rendells

efforts in this regard, however, were merely the efforts of a man desperate to save his

own home from burning to the ground. In the face of decades of negative job growth and


8/9

economic stagnation, the inner city was crumbling, the public school system was failing,

the unemployment rates among blue-collar workers hovered at dangerous levels. And

without the direct intervention of the mayor, the citys rate of job loss would have been

far more catastrophic than it already had been (Bissinger, 291). The perceived favoritism

shown to downtown development, which David Cohen dispels by categorizing the

mayors schedule into downtown focused events and neighborhood focused events (the

two were on par with one another), was a frantic necessity born out of the societalneed to

provide everyday residents with a reliable job. This means the intentof economic

development was driven by socio-economic and socio-political factors, not driven by

business elites, even if the outcomes happened to also be in the interest of certain

business elites (some however, such as Bernard Meyer, could attest to the limited success

of business interests). It is true that economic development may have been the

overarching goal of Rendells administration, however it was not only justified and called

for in a city that had bled jobs and population for decades but was a necessary means to

an end in that increased tax revenues, a vibrant and satisfied workforce, and a bustling tax

base all allow for the long-term improvement of social issue-areas such as public schools

and law enforcementissue-areas that the public often identifies with.

Special interest groups, state and federal politicians, the local media, the looming

onset of reelection, and, by extension from the latter, the swaying opinion of potential

votersall of these groups exhibit transitory power that is both active and passive in

influencing the actions Mayor Rendell must take. Ultimately, his role, perhaps simply

because it involves dealing with each issue-area, holds considerable influence on policy

outcomes, however his power is frequently tempered by external forces and effectively


9/9

resides in his ability to coordinate and compromise. Therefore, community power in

Rendells Philadelphia is diffused throughout the citys plurality of interests, and those

that hold measurable power are able to permit or prohibit outcomes to the extent that they

are able to be conduits for the momentum of others. This is especially true of Mayor

Rendell, whose interests were the incredibly contentious and decidedly diverse interests

of the common good. His efforts, driven by necessity and empowered by various

influential groups and individuals, resulted in the betterment of Philadelphia not only for

a select few aligned with business interests but for a plurality of classes, groups, and

residents. While Linda Morrison may have prematurely likened the efforts of Rendells

administration to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, it is clear that Ed Rendell

was able to be the conduit through which consequential change took place, yet he never

could have hoped to do it alone or with only the help of a few wealthy businessmen at his

side (Bissinger, 285).

References

Bachrach, Peter & Baratz, Morton. Two Face of Power. The American Political

Science Review 56.4 (1962): 947-952. Pdf.

Bissinger, Buzz.A Prayer for the City. New York: Vintage Books, 1997. Print.

Polsby, Nelson. How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative. The

Journal of Politics 22.3 (1960): 474-484. Pdf.

Documents

POS410FinalPaper Rough