Abstract
The story of Boston’s Ray Flynn and Chicago’s Harold Washington is simultaneously unique and puzzling. Both rose to municipal political power in the early 1980s on the wave of progressive and grassroots neighborhood movements. The movements they led faded nearly as quickly as they emerged in each city. Flynn served as mayor of Boston from 1984 to 1993, and Washington rose to power as the mayor of Chicago from 1983 to 1987. Flynn disappeared from public life in 1993 when he accepted a post as an ambassador to the Vatican. Washington died of a heart attack in 1987.
Pierre Clavel documents the rise of these two political figures in Activists in City Hall. His book provides an intriguing account of each case and raises numerous issues about the sustainability of progressive social movements in major American cities. The two cases are presented as part of a larger discussion of progressive mayors and administrations in several American cities: Berkeley, Burlington, Cleveland, Hartford, San Francisco, Santa Crux, and Santa Monica. Boston and Chicago are the two cases that receive the bulk of attention in the book.
Flynn’s emergence as a progressive mayor in Boston occupies Clavel’s initial attention. He summarizes Flynn’s rise to political power in the early 1980s and details the progressive coalition that sustained him until 1993. The author states that Flynn “left the mayoralty when the Clinton administration offered him the post as ambassador to the Vatican and he faded from the scene” (p. 36). Flynn is depicted as a unique and talented figure who managed to mobilize a progressive political constituency in the face of the powerful business and financial interests of Boston.
Particular attention is given to the ability of the Flynn administration to negotiate linkage agreements between private developers and neighborhoods in need of community development assistance. While many thought Flynn would be a one-term mayor, his skill at mobilizing neighborhood support while simultaneously keeping business interests reasonably happy sustained him in power for several years. Clavel implies that strategic staffing and the mobilization of intellectually sophisticated advisors sustained his administration longer than anticipated. Flynn gave particular attention to community development and neighborhood councils and was able to sustain this basis of power in the face of growing corporate skepticism. As Clavel concedes, however, the grassroots movement that nurtured Flynn eventually was unable to maintain control over the city administration. His successors have been more responsive to corporate interests and less dependent on community groups and neighborhood interests for support.
Washington’s rise to political power in Chicago was similar to Flynn’s ascendance in Boston. His brief emergence as big city mayor was made possible by a grassroots political movement. Taking a stand against the old political machine that dominated Chicago wards for decades, Washington mobilized neighborhoods and community groups behind his election. Initially, the established political machine and long-standing ward establishments were aligned against his administration. With the support of community and neighborhood organizations, however, Washington was able to mobilize enough political support to implement a progressive social agenda.
Similar to Flynn in Boston, Washington pursued linkage policies and other programs designed to benefit a lower- and working-class constituency, while at the same time providing benefits to the corporate community and urban developers. During his brief rise to power, Washington managed to overcome considerable opposition within the local political establishment as well as within the corporate community. Clavel observes that he was “creating a different kind of city government. But there was always the question of what would be a lasting change” (p. 146). His unexpected death in 1987 partially answered this question.
Washington took a slightly different path from that chosen by Flynn. His administration chose to focus primarily on the decline of jobs in the manufacturing sector. Chicago’s neighborhoods were decimated by the loss of manufacturing jobs and its associated effect on community institutions. By emphasizing the effect that declining manufacturing has on neighborhood life and culture, the Washington administration pursued planned manufacturing districts and provided zoning protection to manufacturing firms located in declining neighborhoods.
Despite different paths, both Flynn and Washington attempted to alter the distribution of resources and power in city hall in a progressive manner. Both pursued social justice, emphasized the importance of neighborhood politics to city government, and challenged the unequal distribution of city services and benefits in local government. Clavel does a good job telling the story of these two individuals and their progressive administrations.
Despite these positive observations, there are a couple of deficiencies in the book that should be noted. There is a strong subtext running throughout Clavel’s analysis. Although the book is titled Activists in City Hall: The Progressive Response to the Reagan Era in Boston and Chicago and focuses on the Flynn and Washington administrations, it is also about the role of intellectuals in city government. Both administrations were loaded with young intellectuals with advanced degrees in urban planning, sociology, urban affairs, and public administration. Clavel asserts that they were the architects behind many of the policies championed or advocated by both administrations. In fact, one might argue that these academics or intellectuals were the “brains” behind both administrations. I would like to know more about how these “brains” actually influenced policy in the two cities.
There are several questions left unanswered behind this observation. First, what was the role of intellectuals in city government? Second, were the intellectuals the source of the progressive policies and innovative ideas that characterized both administrations? Third, were the ideas that characterized both administrations the products of those who formulated policy behind the scenes? These questions are important to answer for several reasons. Every good politician surrounds himself or herself with competent advisors. In the case of Clavel’s account of Boston and Chicago, however, both Flynn and Washington are portrayed as heavily dependent on a cadre of young intellectuals and policy advisors.
It was not clear who was really behind the progressive policies in each city.
I was somewhat disappointed that Clavel did not address these questions since they are obviously important. In his final chapter (“Race, Class, and Administrative Struggle”), he evaluates each administration in terms of its contribution to urban policy. He asks if issues of race and class can ever be adequately addressed and attempts to assess the contributions of each administration to these perennial dilemmas. The conclusion also does not address the question of the role of intellectuals in city hall or their contribution to the issues of class, race, and urban development. Nor is the conclusion very satisfying in terms of the contributions of each administration to urban policy or to the sustainability of progressive movements in urban America. While some of these issues are addressed in a cursory manner, I would have liked to see serious attention given to an evaluation of the contributions of each administration to a progressive agenda. There is a little too much cheerleading and not enough hard evaluation of each administration’s actual contribution to the reduction of inequality in Boston and Chicago.
Despite these shortcomings, the book is a good read and provides solid documentation of two important cases in recent municipal history. Clavel addresses these important cases with considerable evidence and supplements the cases with research drawn from other progressive regimes in American cities. The book will make good supplementary reading in courses in community development, urban government, public administration, and city planning. I am currently using it as a supplementary text in a graduate seminar in Urban and Community Development.