I find it interesting that you and Jalissa both cited paternalism–in your case, how Moses was part of a “class and generation that was not about helping one’s fellow man” and how Jacobs’ motivation is different than Moses’ due to her not being a “rich white man”. I have to disagree on this point somewhat. Although that may have been true during his early life, Caro describes how Moses idealistically and stubbornly fought for projects that would better the people before the Depression made him a jobless husband with three mouths to feed (Wait Until Evening)–if anything, I would say his need for money–i.e., his not not being a rich white man–may ultimately be what led him to shift away from for-the-people politics to become the unrelenting authoritarian he ultimately became known for.

I do agree, however, that the policies he acted upon were more in the interesting of efficiency and self-satisfaction than care for the actual people of the city. I also agree that the Cold War may have played a part in his more “selfish” policies; the fact that he became public enemies with FDR, who is remembered for his “socialist” New Deal policies, certainly suggests some aversion to socialist policy, or at least a preference for its opposite (Wait Until Evening).

I also agree that Jacob’s more community-driven policies would be more “acceptable” in today’s world than Moses’ (at least by the general public–those who made millions off of policies likes Moses’ would probably disagree). As Jalissa pointed out, efforts at establishing participatory budget policies in New York City have proven citizens’ interest in being involved with their communities; people who were previously inactive regarding voting and politics taking more of an interest in their community (Sangha, “Putting in Their 2 Cents”). Indeed, although they may not have been initially, Moses’ motivations for changing the city as he did were largely self-serving.