What do you think?
Rate this book
PINSTRIPE PATRONAGE: Political Favoritism from the Clubhouse to the White House and Beyond
Political patronage - awarding discretionary favors in exchange for political support - is alive and well in 21st century America. This book examines the little understood patronage system, showing how it is used by 'pinstripe' elites to subvert the democratic process. 'Pinstripe patronage' thrives on the billions of dollars distributed by government for the privatisation of public services. Martin and Susan Tolchin introduce us to government grants specified for the use of an individual, corporation, or community and 'hybrid agencies', with high salaries for top executives and board members. In return for this corporate welfare pinstipe partons giving politicians the ever-increasing funds needed to conduct their political campaigns. As budget cuts begin to bite, the authors argue that it is time to clamp down on the corrupt practice of pinstripe patronage.
- GenresPolitics
288 pages, Hardcover
First published September 15, 2010
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 10, 2016
Back in 1971, Martin and Susan Tolchin wrote a book, "To the Victors: Political Patronage from the Clubhouse to the White House," which had a profound influence on American politics. It demonstrated that the patronage networks once thought to be a bygone relic were still alive and well, and the book was cited in five major Supreme Court decisions restricting patronage hiring, from Elrod v. Burns in 1976 onwards.
The most interesting part of this book is the Tolchins' recounting of the history of the previous book, and the failures of earlier reform efforts. Far from offering a promised new perspective on political patronage and favoritism, however, this book is largely composed of a series of repeated newspaper anecdotes with unnecessary editorializing. It is worth reading mainly because it reminds one of only recently forgotten political skulduggeries. Who today remembers that Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republicans and handed the Senate majority to the Democrats in 2001 when Bush failed to include him in an announcement for Teacher of the Year that included one of his Vermont constituents? (Bush HAD intended it as a snub for this independent-minded Republican) Or that Arlen Specter switched parties and gave the Democrats a supermajority in 2009 only after Obama promised him a $10 billion line in the stimulus for the National Institutes of Health and some election help next year? (Five Cabinet Secretaries visited Pennsylvania announcing projects). The book also describes California Republican Jerry Lewis's winning the chair of the appropriation committee in 2005. His opponent mentions that "The day Lewis walked in there with a $350,000 check, I knew it was over." Instead of seniority, whoever raised the most money won the committees, and even after Pelosi took over the the House for the Democrats she established fundraising quotas for all the chairmanships. The book is filled with such simultaneously petty and consequential stories of political favoritism and its consequences. It does remind one how much of politics is based on such mutual back-scratching.
Yet, the authors' aim is scattershot and often misdirected. The Tolchins manage to critique everything from judicial conference elections in New York State (which assure parties select the candidates for judgeships) to President Bush's appointment of Justices Roberts and Alito, who promised to "roll back a woman's right to abortion." Whatever one thinks of some of these examples, they're not patronage, and its not clear if they're even mildly corrupt, but the Tolchins report them all with the same outraged tone.
I hoped this book would provide insight into some of the subtler types of modern favoritism, from investments of pension funds to outside contracts for attorney general lawsuit work, but the stories here are the same ones one has heard about for generations. That may be sad, but it's not interesting.
The most interesting part of this book is the Tolchins' recounting of the history of the previous book, and the failures of earlier reform efforts. Far from offering a promised new perspective on political patronage and favoritism, however, this book is largely composed of a series of repeated newspaper anecdotes with unnecessary editorializing. It is worth reading mainly because it reminds one of only recently forgotten political skulduggeries. Who today remembers that Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republicans and handed the Senate majority to the Democrats in 2001 when Bush failed to include him in an announcement for Teacher of the Year that included one of his Vermont constituents? (Bush HAD intended it as a snub for this independent-minded Republican) Or that Arlen Specter switched parties and gave the Democrats a supermajority in 2009 only after Obama promised him a $10 billion line in the stimulus for the National Institutes of Health and some election help next year? (Five Cabinet Secretaries visited Pennsylvania announcing projects). The book also describes California Republican Jerry Lewis's winning the chair of the appropriation committee in 2005. His opponent mentions that "The day Lewis walked in there with a $350,000 check, I knew it was over." Instead of seniority, whoever raised the most money won the committees, and even after Pelosi took over the the House for the Democrats she established fundraising quotas for all the chairmanships. The book is filled with such simultaneously petty and consequential stories of political favoritism and its consequences. It does remind one how much of politics is based on such mutual back-scratching.
Yet, the authors' aim is scattershot and often misdirected. The Tolchins manage to critique everything from judicial conference elections in New York State (which assure parties select the candidates for judgeships) to President Bush's appointment of Justices Roberts and Alito, who promised to "roll back a woman's right to abortion." Whatever one thinks of some of these examples, they're not patronage, and its not clear if they're even mildly corrupt, but the Tolchins report them all with the same outraged tone.
I hoped this book would provide insight into some of the subtler types of modern favoritism, from investments of pension funds to outside contracts for attorney general lawsuit work, but the stories here are the same ones one has heard about for generations. That may be sad, but it's not interesting.
April 3, 2012
I wanted to enjoy this book much more than I did. It was well written, an interesting topic, but it never really grabbed me.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews