While I found it quite interesting to read about the close relationship between Roosevelt and La Guardia, which I was not aware of before, I found it most interesting to learn about La Guardia’s amazing efforts to turn New York City into a safer, more accommodating pace than it had been before. We all know about the terrible living conditions of tenement housing in the city, and La Guardia seemed to be one of the first mayors to actually try and take action on it. New York had always been seen as the center for opportunity in America, which many immigrants unfortunately learned was a very romantic exaggeration. Many immigrants still suffered and did not gain the kind of social mobility that they were promised. But La Guardia tried to change that. By emphasizing an importance on infrastructure and public housing, he really did help turn the New York City into a “City of Ambition”–La Guardia seemed to be busy non-stop.

Reading about all of La Guardia’s advancements made me think about the concerns of our most recent mayor, Michael Bloomberg. Instead of trying to stimulate the economy and focusing on affordable housing in the midst of a major rent problem, he focused on things like large beverages and stop-and-frisk, which I have always found baffling. This book makes me think more about the prospective future of our new mayor, De Blasio. De Blasio has claimed to plan on focusing on affordable rent, which I think is one of the most pressing issues that our city is facing. Will De Blasio measure up to someone as ambitious and persistent as La Guardia?

During this first section of City of Ambition, I found it remarkable that two men—La Guardia and Roosevelt—with such markedly different histories and upbringings could arrive at the same place in politics. These men epitomize Progressive politics of the early 20^th century, yet their rise to that pedestal and their reasons for their politics are quite different. La Guardia symbolizes the American Dream, the Carnegie-esque rags to riches tale of hard work, charisma, and belief in oneself, while Roosevelt illustrates an incredible thirst to live up to a name and a reputation, to do anything to be the best. The differences between these two giants seem to symbolize the incredible variation within the Democratic party, which Roosevelt very successfully united. Both men enjoyed tremendous political success and began to redefine the role of government: no longer was the American government something that should be arbitrarily limited; rather it became a tool to better the lives of the people, an extension of the community. The interactions with political corruption, particularly Tammany Hall and the Democratic machine in New York City, are quite interesting as well. Systematic attacks by Roosevelt and La Guardia on the machine played a major role in cleaning up 20^th century politics.

I found it quite interesting that it was the Great Depression that “moved La Guardia from the margins to the mainstream” by creating a forum for more progressive thoughts. This is most striking because one doesn’t associate what is commonly considered a tragedy with the opportunities created by Progressivism. It seems that without an event as drastic as the Great Depression, La Guardia would never have had a situation well-enough suited to make moves in Congress such as having his ideas for anti-injunction bills finally passed.

Concerning the Great Depression, I also was very intrigued to find that Roosevelt had believed so firmly in betterment through the relocation of the masses from urban areas to those that were more rural. I find this most interesting because though it makes sense, I don’t understand how he would have chosen who to relocate and who should stay in the city. I feel this theory, though hypothetically sound, would have failed if executed to its full potential. As the text cites, there is an inherent “practical difficulty” in the governmentally-driven relocation of a large group of individuals.

While reading City of Ambition by Mason B. Williams I came to a new understanding of the backgrounds of one of the U.S.’s greatest presidents F.D.R. and one of N.Y.C.’s most noted mayors Fiorello La Guardia. Although I had previously known of their difference of class, I had never heard of a difference in their motives behind their reform policies. Despite both being inspired by the Progressive movement their initial motives behind wanting social reform were vastly different. La Guardia coming from a working class immigrant family had his own personal experiences with the corruption of government and therefore felt a responsibility to fix that issue. Roosevelt’s motives where both less personal and altruistic. Coming from an upper-class New York family, he felt he had an obligation to society to improve the lower class. At first glance, this seems like a fairly altruistic reason to create social reform. However, as Williams continues to describe Roosevelt, it is clear that it was more about finding social acceptance and recognition amongst the upper-class than it was about helping those less fortunate than he was. This information now made see that even the great F.D.R. was still mortal.

Reading the first section of City of Ambition, I was surprised by the political nature of President Roosevelt, and Senator, and later, Mayor La Guardia. During this time, at the height of political corruption, and party polarization, it was remarkable to notice how, during a time of great difficulty, two powerful politicians, belonging to two separate parties, willingly worked together, and supported one another, to achieve a common goal. It’s remarkable to read about, and to witness the difference in the two political parties of our time, and to wonder what caused such a split, and an unwillingness to work together to achieve a common goal.

When I read part one of City of Ambition, I was intrigued to notice the blatant similarities in political agenda between two men of very different backgrounds. Franklin D. Roosevelt grew up with an elite social status with advanced education and other invaluable resources at his disposal, while Fiorello La Guardia struggled to emerge from a stodgy, stagnant life as a clerk in an American consulate in Budapest. But both had the relentless drive to overcome obstacles such as the onset of polio or the death of loved ones to fight for the welfare of the country. Although Roosevelt was loyal to the Democratic Party and La Guardia dared not abandon his allegiance to the Grand Old Party, both both believed in the ideology that society could be improved through human action and that the task of government was to adapt to new technological age. Their similarities in ideology as only further highlighted during the Great Depression, as they promoted the development of public power and claimed that the inadequacy of existing relief efforts should be addressed by using spending resources of higher government. It’s remarkable to observe how two men of different political backgrounds were able to convene upon the solution of the issue of a failing nation.

The beginning of Mason B. Williams City of Ambition revolves around the rise of La Guardia and Roosevelt’s political prominence during the 1920-30’s. It was interesting to read how two men from totally different backgrounds found themselves fighting for a better government at the same time. Their childhood’s became the basis of what they focused there attention on when it came to reforming the government. Roosevelt’s passion for the environment at a young age led him to push for environmentally friendly hydroelectric power and the loss of his father to eating diseased meat led La Guardia to push for cleaner manufacturing in the food industry. These changes in history is what constitutes a standard in an advancing society and what helps us to grow. Being that New York is where anything and everything happens and from what I’ve read about the actions taken by La Guardia and Roosevelt, I wonder what our next wave of living standards will be. Of course we already have technology that continues to change our daily lives, but  who will be the next person to take their struggles and passion from childhood and change our  society in the unique way FDR and La Guardia have.

Bread Givers was an interesting book in terms of perspective. The other books we read were historical accounts of the time period. This book allows us to experience the early 20^th century through the eyes of one family making the reading more engaging.

As for the family lifestyle I found the fathers role out of the ordinary. His dependence on his wife and daughters contradicts the typical stereotype of a family supported by a patriarch which I thought was common for the time period. Throughout the book I was under the impression that the father neglects his responsibilities and is a burden, both financially and culturally. His refusal to integrate throughout the novel might be his only redeeming quality since it makes him a constant in a world that is otherwise always changing.