•  Talk about what will become the revised lists for the group projects.  Answer any preliminary questions about the group presentations.
• Pass out sign-up sheets for the experiments.  Explain the nature of the subject pool to your students and let them know what they can expect.

Overlap from the last class discussion:

• Last class, we finished up our discussion of reform politics, focusing particularly on the following questions:
• What are reform politics?
• What is the social class bias of reform politics
• What are the three (3) key characteristics of the reform political system
• What are the subsequent effects of the reform movement on voter registration?
• Where do the Authors from this week’s readings fall in the debate over the politics of reform?

• All quarter, I have been discussing (although indirectly) what should be obvious to you now: that understanding racial and ethnic cleavages are essential to understanding urban politics.
• In today’s class, we move into an entirely new section.  This is the largest section of the syllabus, and this sections deals with racial issues head-on. This section focuses on racial succession, the rise of minority mayors, and the dynamics of bi-racial coalition formation.  I will structure today’s lecture as follows:
1. Immigration, internal migration, and the “delicate task of urban governance” (Judd and Swanstrom, pp. 400-432).
2. How city governments handle this delicate task of governance
3. Racial and ethnic struggles in American cities have given rise to three (3) major movements:
4. The Urban Liberalism movement
5. The Urban Populism movement
6. The Urban Conservatism movement
7. We will also talk about some of the political strategies employed by Urban Liberals, Urban Populists, and Urban Conservatives.

Immigration led to internal migration:

• Judd and Swanstrom make the connection between immigration patterns and patterns of internal migration.
• Both foreign immigrants and “old stock” Black, Latino, and Asian Americans (who were born in the US and whose parents were born in the US) sought urban areas for better opportunities.
• Just as there were negative reactions by “old stock” White Americans to the influx of foreign immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries, there was opposition to the migration of American minorities to urban areas among Whites.
• Many also believed that there was conflict between racial and ethnic minorities: in the struggle for political inclusion, a “gain” for one minority group meant a “loss” for other minority groups.
• With these changes in city populations came changes in city leadership and the delicate task of city governance: it was becoming more and more common for racial and ethnic minorities to be elected as city leaders, and these leaders had to find a way to “keep the peace” between (rivaling?) minority groups w/out using force to ease racial/ethnic tensions.

• The major approach to handling this delicate task was for leaders to try and make city government representative of the plurality of interests in the city.
• In an attempt to deal with this challenge, three (3) major movements have emerged in response to racial/ethnic tension in American cities.  I will explain each one in detail in the pages that follow.

• Arose immediately after the Civil Rights Movement (CRM)
• Black, Asian, and Latino leaders had to find a way to build successful coalitions (both electoral and governmental) and stop perceiving each other as potential enemies.
• The logic of the movement can be summarized something like this (for a detailed description, see Jeffery Pressman’s APSR article on the necessary preconditions of successful mayoral leadership):
• Most big cities are governed by strong mayors (in fact, strong mayor governance grew directly from the reform movement. Some scholars likened post-reform mayors to being chief executives of their cities.).
• These mayors are said to be effective leaders
• In order to be effective, they have to be able to do the following (this is not an exhaustive list):
• Must exercise control over what goes on in city departments
• Must mobilize governmental support—build a strong constituency base
• Must be a dynamic leader (be able to get things done both w/in and out of office)
• Must develop working relationships with labor and business interests via recruitment and interaction.  Business relationships are important because of the resources that businesses bring.
• Must be able to develop a governing coalition (GC).  Here media support is important.
• Must be able to control local party organization.
• Must maintain effective relationships with council and commissioners.
• Cultivate economic and political resources that can be used for various purposes on his/her behalf (i.e. executive staff, media director, etc.).
• In short, the mayor must make sure that all the action in the city comes out of the mayor’s office.
• Obviously, with all these interests to look out for, it is difficult for mayors to fulfill all these necessary preconditions.  Sometimes, mayors “pick their battles” focusing on some goals while ignoring others.  Different mayors have used different strategies to govern cities, and I discuss some of these strategies below (this is not an exhaustive list either):

• Kevin White of Boston, MA
• Established a base in the community by giving neighborhoods increased opportunities to participate in the governing process.
• Developed his own political machine and expanded the power of his office
• Campaigned for state legislator
• Used a national platform to draw attention to the problems of the cities
• Participated in the nationwide city renewal programs movement.

 Ambitious Diplomat:

• Henry Cisneros of San Antonio, TX.
• Attempted to become a national figure—to become more visible across the country
• Establish a national audience (i.e. he participated in the national league of cities, speaking out against certain city issues).
• Created a political base in Latino communities
• He appealed to a larger audience in order to have that influence resonate back to his city.

 Grassroots Policy Leader:

• Earnest “Dutch” Morial of New Orleans, NO (1st Black Mayor).
• More emphasis on citizen participation
• Linked middle class Whites with the grassroots Blacks (this was opposed by conservative Blacks and middle class Blacks).
• The main idea is that coalitions and supporting players are important to broadening mayoral power

 Liberal Money Manager:

• Ed Koch, NYC
• Supports liberal programs while still focusing on the city budget.
• Wanted to re-establish the city’s fiscal integrity
• Cut many programs
• Established bonds with the federal government
• Promised to balance the budget

• Also sprang from the CRM (1950s-1960s)
• The term "populist" is associated with political movements that are considered “on the fringe of politics” by the mainstream press.
• “Populist” originally referred small scale agriculture: the image of the heroic rural family farmer vs. moneyed cities.  In the context of urban politics, the populist movement means that city politics and policies were ran in the interest of the “common clay” (ordinary citizens).
• The term has always been a little derogatory (i.e. politicians pandering to the populace)
• More neighborhood-based in focus
• Tends to be against urban renewal
• Used to express their gripes against urban renewal via protest, but now, they do it via political participation.
• Example: grassroots, citizen-headed organizations promoting “smart growth in American cities (i.e. CDCs—Community Development Corporations)
• Advocated functional relationships between mayors and voters (note, populist mayors have had difficult times becoming conservative money managers

...Drawing on the discussion above, here are some examples of leadership strategies used by urban populists:

 Urban Populist:

• Dana “Buck” Rhinehart, the former mayor of Columbus, OH (replaced by mayor Michael B Coleman, who would be classified as a
• Adapts big democracy projects to attract media attention (similar to the progressive innovator strategy in that she focused on the downtown Columbus convention center and revitalized amusement parks, etc.).
• These innovations are meant to aid in the political success of the mayor.

 Progressive innovator:

• Richard Lee, New Haven, CT.
• Attempts to centralize power by lobbying the federal government for money.  In other words, he tries to use the federal government as an “urban bank.”
• Established strong power base in communities
• Built coalitions within the city

• Headed by White, working class and middle class citizens,
• Direct response to the rise of Black and Latino elected officials
• Tend to emphasize deracialized campaigns
• Build electoral coalitions with conservative White businesses
• According to Judd and Swanstrom, Urban Conservatives had a three part agenda:
• To cut taxes by decreasing city spending (this appealed to businesses and middle income citizens)
• To bring order back to city streets (i.e. to crack down on the homeless, panhandlers, and criminals)
• To use local government to bolster private investment

 …Drawing on the discussion above, here are some examples of leadership strategies used by urban populists:

 Conservative Fiscal Manager:

• Henry Maier of Milwaukee, WI
• Focused on controlling the budget (keeping taxes low.  This is an increasingly popular tactic, especially among Black mayors)
• Claimed to be protecting the “voter’s pocketbook” (maybe talk about pocketbook vs. sociotropic voting).