Plunkitt Of Tammany Hall Movie Vs Book

1460 Words3 Pages

The book was better than the movie. Most of us have heard those words so many times that they’ve become a cliché. In the case of Starship Troopers, it would be more accurate to say that the book bears almost no resemblance to the movie. Citizens in the fictional society of Starship Troopers don’t take politics lightly, because they’ve earned the privilege to vote the hard way — through blood and personal sacrifice. The people of the Terran Federation are either "Citizens" or "Civilians". On the other hand, reading William L. Riordon’s Plunkitt of Tammany Hall provided an insight on many different themes at the turn of the twentieth including: honest graft, civil service reform, patronage, and how to succeed as a statesman. This book was an …show more content…

However people of higher levels of authority also have to suffer tougher repercussions of their actions: e.g. a lieutenant could hang for making a mistake that a private would merely be dismissed and maybe lashed for. Corporal and capital punishment are practiced by the government. Plunkitt of Tammany Hill was an interesting look into the politics during a time when the Industrial Revolution flourished and the American people looked for leaders. In the Plunkitt of Tammany hall, the heart of a political machine is based on a patronage system. Special favors are performed for constituents who show their gratefulness by voting for the machine. In essence, they are bribed to vote. Progressive reformers saw this as anti-democratic. One of Plunkitt’s main mottos was to stay close to the people. A statesman is more likely to be elected if the voters can relate to that candidate. Plunkitt boasted of his riches and of himself, which only distanced himself from the common people. At one point in the book, Plunkitt claimed his “enemies” told the townspeople that Plunkitt bought a very nice dress suit and an even nicer car the day before one of his elections. He maintained these statements were malicious lies and finally “did him in” or cost him the election. Why would his “enemies” have to make up contradictions about Plunkitt when he clearly states …show more content…

He admitted that his fondest dream was of the city becoming its own state. He commented, “The people wouldn’t have to bother about nothin’. Tammany would take care of everything for them in its own quiet way.” This was the kind of talk that probably alarmed progressive reformers. One might argue that he relied too heavily on the spoils system, that today is still present, but a candidate cannot rely solely on this system. Plunkitt’s opinion of woman in politics as un-American would not go over well with today’s voters or at least half of the voters. In the twenty first century, most Americans look for a well-educated and well-dressed statesman, who at the same time can relate to the common people. The American people hold a higher standard today for political figureheads than at the turn of the last

Open Document