Question Regarding Robert Moses Readings for Th. 3/19
As you are reading the 2007 reading about Robert Moses, ask yourself: What is at stake for these authors? How would you evaluate both the arguments and the historical sources that are used by Jackson, Ballon, and their accompanying authors, measured, say, against the account we have been reading by the journalist Robert Caro?
Issues to think about: How do they write? What are their footnotes and sources like (as compared to the sources Caro uses)? What sort of rehetoric or “discourse” do they seem to employ, and how does this affect you you interpret the reading???…
12 comments
For the authors Kenneth Jackson and Hillary Ballon, a lot is at stake. Because they are recognized names in the history of New York, especially Mr. Jackson, their backing of a book that redeems the otherwise dark and questionable career of Robert Moses is very conspicuous. If they fail at their attempts, they risk not only their academic and scholarly reputation, but also their public one. For Caro, as a journalist, he is always putting himself in high-risk and publicly conspicuous situations. Therefore, in writing The Power Broker, he runs the risk of being rejected, but nonetheless, he perseveres to create an enlightening book. It is interesting to note the exclusion of Caro from the opening exhibit at the Museum of New York. Jackson and Ballon may have done this so that their views would at least have a chance of being accepted by their audience. After all, Caro is regarded as the go to person concerning affairs of Moses, and a negative opinion by him might have dampened the spirits and cast an ominous shadow on the opening gala.
The main theme of The Power Broker is that Robert Moses was an “evil genius” or an all powerful entity that was impossible to ignore. However, Ballon and Jackson offer a lighter, more acceptable view of Moses. They state that, while Moses had wielded great power and created massive amounts of public works, these were not activities that were distinctive to New York, as it was the general trend of the time. This was interesting and refreshing to read after a tale of morbid selfishness and dictatorship, as presented in Caro’s book. However, it still remains fact that Moses did use some illegitimate means to reach his goals and that he was very unique, both then and now, in his ability to “cut through the spongy mass of the bureaucracy as if it were soft butter and he a knife”.
I feel that in writing their essays regarding Robert Moses and “The Power Broker”, Kenneth Jackson, Hillary Ballon, and the remaining authors lay their professional and public reputations on the line. Their opinions of Moses are rather different from those of Robert Caro who wrote an award winning novel on Moses. Caro’s book is an extremely well written and detailed account of the life of Moses, however I think Caro goes a little too far in portraying him as the bad guy. I was relieved to read the essays by Jackson and Ballon because their opinions of Moses seemed more balanced and realistic to me. In Jackson’s essay, he mentions that Moses was not without faults, however the point that he makes is that whether or not Moses was justified in his actions, the impact that he had left on the New York City is greater than that of any other planner or developer and he should be remembered for this. Caro on the other hand wanted Moses to be remembered very much for his aggressive persona and attitude. I feel that Jackson’s interpretation of Moses was more down to earth and made more sense to me. I did, however, disagree when Jackson tried to justify Moses’ racism simply because many people were racist at the time. I think his defense of Moses’ racism simply cannot be justified. After reading Gutfreund’s essay, I felt sorry for Moses in the end. When reading about his downfall from power, I felt that Gutfreund managed to portray Moses as a human being which is something that Caro does not do very often. I was able to put myself in Moses’ shoes and imagine being someone holding so much power and being responsible for so many structures, parks, and roadways being built, and then having all of this slip away. It was also interesting to read that Moses did not care for being wealthy. I feel that Moses truly cared about making the city into a better and more efficient place for its residents, however he was flawed in the ways he went about executing his plans. In terms of their references and footnotes, it is clear that Caro was more thorough and had more evidence and research to support his claims. Yet, as humans, we all try to see the good in others and these essays definitely try to show a less aggressive side to Moses.
In writing this book, I think that Ballon and Jackson present a view of Robert Moses different than the one found in The Power Broker in order to stimulate a new kind of debate regarding one of the most controversial figures in the history of New York City. This book shows how Moses’ works strengthened NYC and brought it into modern times, creating advanced road systems and an urban design plan that would foster change. In a way, I feel like this book was written in response to Robert Caro’s “The Power Broker” (for example, while Caro’s work is entitled “The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York,” Jackson names his first chapter “Robert Moses and the Rise of New York”), a risky feat considering the popularity of Caro’s work. The work seems to dispel some longstanding myths about Moses, while at the same time acknowledging many of his flaws, thus presenting a more balanced view of the real Robert Moses. I must admit, however, that I did find it confusing when the authors mentioned that Moses “did not control the water temperature so as to discourage black patronage.” Who do we trust, Ballon and Jackson, or Caro? And how do we decide?
I feel like Caro, in writing his book, was set on painting a portrait of Moses as a power hungry tyrant and an influential driver of the “fall of New York City”, and so he used sources that demonstrated just that. It appears to me that Ballon and Jackson, on the other hand, were more open-minded and objective in their approach, hence the reason why they present a case for both the good and the bad Moses. I notice that they use an eclectic mix of visuals and sources. I feel that this reading helps to explain the question that Nara posed in class the other day because it shows that it was not all about the power for Moses, but rather, he cared about the public and had a clear vision in mind for the future of NYC.
In Kenneth Jackson and Hilary Ballon’s “Robert Moses and the Modern City,” the editors focus on Robert Moses’ positive impact on New York City, hoping to balance the negative acclaim placed upon him by Robert Caro. They portray a different perspective, which emphasizes how Moses’ projects have influenced New York City in the long term rather than how he morally went about making his goals happen. Being that Ballon is an architectural historian and Jackson an urban historian, the editors naturally place more interest in the the details of Moses’ projects, how they shaped New York City to become what it is today. In Jackson’s essay, he points out between the 1950s – 1970s that New York City was suffering a decline through its high crime rate, concentration of slums, and fall in population, using statistics to back his argument. He then writes how Robert Moses’ planning improved New York City by making the city safer through its improved transit system, bringing housing units and restoring the vitality of the city through its new parks, bridges and highways. I also found it interesting how Jackson used numbers as evidence to prove that Moses was not entirely corrupt, by saying how he was not after money considering how his estate was valued at $50,000 in 1981. Yet he did not deny that what Moses was really after was power and prestige. Caro on the other hand uses his reporter-style writing to appeal to the masses, placing emphasis on the corrupt methods of Robert Moses in obtaining his goals. While Jackson and Ballon’s writing is very historical-like, as one might read a history textbook, Caro’s is somewhat more animated. For example, his words may stir sudden reactions of shock in us as we read of Robert Moses going to an all-time low again in order to reach his plans. Yet the evidence all these authors appeared to lack (at least in what I’ve read so far), is evidence from the primary source himself, Robert Moses. Maybe the mere sound of his name is intimidating enough to shy away from this feat.
The purpose of Jackson and Ballon’s book is to re-evaluate the Power Broker, Robert Moses. They aimed to isolate Moses from his personality, attitude, and focused on his accomplishments in relevance to the time period he was living in. Each accompanying author that contributed to this book share different perspectives of RM, so that the reader can see the bigger picture of him and form their own judgment, rather than accepting Caro’s.
In the introduction, Ballon and Jackson displays admiration and respect for Moses’ accomplishments. They connect his ability to plan on such a large scale to other fundamental plans of New York, such as the Manhattan grid and Frederick Law Olmsted’s design for Central Park. The introduction also highlights some facts that were not known about Moses in Robert Caro’s book: that Moses actually scaled back on his plans because of financial and political pressures and that Moses was not corrupt. Although his toll bridges brought in high amount of income, Moses did not keep those money for himself. He used the money collected from tolls to finance his projects so that the public does not have to pay for his accomplishments.
Jackson does not ask Caro to give his perspectives on RM because he had already written a whole book focusing on the “fall” of the Power Broker. His argument is that RM brought New York back to life. Population was dwindling in several states and because of RM’s success, he was able to increase tourist activities and reduce crime level. In my opinion, Jackson already has a negative disposition towards Caro’s book and thus, tries to defend RM in every aspect. He attributes RM’s racism to the time that he was living in, that the nickel fare was out of RM’s responsibility, and it was the congressional legislation that limited the money spent on individual units. But as a person with so much power, if he tried hard enough, RM could have helped the poor gain some of the benefits that the rich received. Caro also had quotes from RM that reflects his choice to not help the poor and his choice to discriminate them (such as making the pool temperature cold because black people do not like cold water). Gutfreund’s argument is more neutral in that she acknowledges RM’s flaws. She highlighted on his attitude and disposition towards people and attributed his success to being at the right place at the right time.
However, overall, Jackson and Ballon’s book offers a more comprehensive analysis of the power broker as they included other people’s perspectives. Caro is the only narrator in his book and focused on the corruption and need for power that RM had while Jackson and Ballon offer a little more. I would be interested in reading other authors’ essays on RM so that we can perhaps, finally, answer the question: Was Robert Moses corrupt?
I think that Robert Caro was more of a sensationalist. In writing his book, he was interested in the story behind Robert Moses so long as he could put his own slant on it and sell books. It was a bit vengeful. The other work is much more balanced in examining RM as a person and as a public figure. Their portrayal makes more sense, especially because I was often confused when reading the Power Broker as to how RM was a person working toward making the city better while also being such a power hungry and vicious individual. At times, it seemed that RM was not human. The Jackson and Ballon reading includes a variety of perspectives, which gives a more comprehensive view of the man. Ironically, this is what Caro claimed to have done in the blog that we read about the exhibition.
Jackson and Ballon create a much more reasonable impersonation of Robert Moses that doesn’t lean to a certain side as it does with Robert A. Caro’s novel. Jackson and Ballon area convinced that Moses should not be contributed to the fall of New York, but instead to just the opposite. I would have to agree with the two authors because Moses tried to create public projects that would fit with his generation. This meant that more attention would have to go to the highways and parkways, rather than the public transit system, viewed as obsolete technology. Moses did what he believed was in the best interest of the city, even if everything else was blatantly pointing to the fact that he was wrong. The fact remains that he did things that seemed to be in his personal interest, and his interest was improving New York City, obviously more for others, but either way he relentlessly pursued a dream of improving New York City. On the other hand, Robert Caro establishes that Moses is a negative force not to be reckoned with, who is only concerned with anything that would be beneficial for himself.
There as definitely much less at stake for Robert Caro in terms of telling the story about Robert Moses. This is why I am led to believe that Caro’s criticism might be more genuine rather than Jackson and Ballon’s praise of Robert Moses’ accomplishments. However, it is also possible that Caro may have been slightly over-zealous in depicting Robert Moses as a crazed tyrant trying to conquer the world.
I agree with both arguments presented by Caro, as well as by Jackson and Ballon. I think that part of the reason why Robert Moses’ was intimidating and aggressive was just because of some chip on his shoulder that he had since his days at Yale. I also believe that he discovered that his personality can be used as a weapon to get ahead and gain power.
In the beginning of his career, I believe that Robert Moses was more like Caro described him, but as he gained experience, he just used his intimidating personality to advance in the business and political world.
I have very mixed feelings about the rhetoric presented by these authors. On one side, I think that Caro is being slightly too cynical, but Jackson and Ballon are being slightly too optimistic. Robert Moses can not be blamed for taking advantage of his surroundings; he was exemplifying survival of the fittest.
From personal experience I have found the journalists who have less to lose than high status writers tend to be much more honest and open, however they also have the tendency to try to create propaganda which would definitely increase readership.
Judging from the writings alone, my opinion of Robert Moses is that he was a man who felt the need to prove something to the people around him as well as to himself because of a complex he had from his college days. What started as a thirst for power ended up becoming a booming and successful project as well as a whole new lifestyle for Robert Moses. He was able to gain power through the use of his own personality, his methods may have been slightly overbearing but the level of his corruption is arguable. The fact that Robert Moses focuses more on “walking the walk” than “talking the talk,” makes it very difficult to pinpoint whether or not he had evil intentions or corrupted morals.
While reading the excerpt, I felt that much of Ballon’s and Jackson’s arguments were aimed at defending the reputation of Robert Moses. Gutfreund did not explicitly defend Moses’ motives or influence, but rather documented and recognized his many accomplishments. Despite this, I still felt as if the authors set out to disprove many claims made by Caro in The Power Broker. In the excerpt, Jackson even claimed that Caro sees Moses as an “evil genius,” a title which carries much animosity.
Because the authors are historians, their writing has a periodic structure. They attempt to present an unbiased account of the succession of events throughout Moses’ reign of power. Caro, on the other hand, adds a journalistic slant to the history, making it into more of a story. One could even argue that Caro’s book was written from his perspective and not the actual truth. Because of the fact that Caro was not invited to the opening of the exhibit in the Museum of New York, I would suggest that there is a sense of tension between the authors. This is probably influenced by Caro’s recognition for providing the leading biographical catalogue of Robert Moses. Publishing a work with a different perspective could cause controversy and put the authors’ reputations at risk.
Euphemism: noun – the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt. Source: dictionary.com
Everyone knows the difference between stating to a child, “I’m sorry, dear, Rufus passed on to doggie heaven, a much better place…” and, “Hey, the family pet died today.” Even though you are essentially saying the same thing, the euphemism cushions the landing a little better.
That is exactly what these readings were, a mix of euphemism peppered with Jeremy Bentham-like Consequentialist Utilitarian principles. I fully understand the benefits of Robert Moses’ projects; just imagine what the city would look like without them. As Jackson points out, the projects marked a turnaround not only in New York’s infrastructure, but also in is social mannerism. Crime did go down, future outlooks were better. Jackson and Guntreund both highlighted the context of this social change in the overall country, further enunciating the magnitude of his work.
But, I must disagree with a few points they make. Like the Consequentialists, these authors feel that the work of Robert Moses is what ultimately matters, not the intentions or means of getting to those final products. I feel that the essence of public works should be supported with ethical and responsible goals that do not displace or disgrace. Continuing, I feel that Moses’ racist views can never be rationalized as ‘just a sign of the times.’ And finally, the quality of Moses’ projects is certainly not the best. I live on Long Island and traffic is a perpetual problem linked directly to the design of the highways. It also goes without saying that the roads are broken and damaged, unlike the well-designed and built German Autobahns that have lasted for over fifty years without any major improvement projects.
Like a euphemism, these authors never really faced up to the ways of Robert Moses. Is it for the bettering of their personal careers (as shown by the lack of them inviting Caro to a public works meeting reviewing the life and accomplishments of Moses)? Potentially. Does it also display a compromise in their character? Absolutely.
For Kenneth Jackson and Hillary Ballon, their reputation as credible historians is at stake. As historians, they have the essential duty to try and report the truth of events. They have to provide valid arguments and evidence to support their viewpoints on what they think happened with the subject at hand. In reading just a couple of chapters, this book seemed more of a response to Robert Caro’s book on Moses than simply their own exploration of Moses and his work and character. To an extent, it felt like they were trying to redeem Moses reputation from the fall it had taken in the 1970s and from Caro’s book. Some of their justifications of Moses’ actions (segregating and being prejudiced against African Americans) or inactions (not helping to save the nickel fare and the subway system) were weak. Implying that Moses suppose racism is not that bad of a thing because it was just how people thought at the time is not and can not be a valid excuse. Also in saying that it was not Moses responsibility to help with the subway system fell to the wayside especially since both books talks about Moses ability to get things done his way when he wants it if he wants it. However, it was still nice to be able to read the different viewpoints and get more than a one dimension sense of Robert Moses. Jackson, Ballon, and co. tries to, though not always succeeding, as with the section on racism, to provide a more balanced view of a very controversial figure in New York City’s history.
Ken Jackson and Hillary Ballon had a very different account of Robert Moses than did Robert Caro. While Caro was very critical of Moses and the work that he had done, Jackson and Ballon gave a most positive image of the man. I thought that it seemed that Jackson in his piece was trying to dispute some of the points made by Caro regarding Moses. An example was the claim made by Caro that Moses was a racist and lowered the water temperature of a pool in Harlem to dissuade blacks from going there. In many cases, while Caro made Moses out to be a sort of evil genius who ruthlessly transformed the city, Jackson and Ballon looked at his career through a different lens. They concluded that the changes that Moses brought to the city were extremely important to our development and would lay the groundwork for the economic revival of the late 20th century. For them the hard edges in Moses personality proved vital in getting through the projects that so many others had tried to do but failed.
I also think that when reading both of these accounts of Robert Moses side by side its necessary to examine the time period in which they were written. “The Power Broker” by Caro was written in 1974 during the decline of New York City. Looking at the high crime, graffitied subways and fleeing residents it was easy for Caro to shine a harsh light on the man who had yielded a great deal of power leading up to this decline. Jackson’s book was published in 2007, after the city had undergone an economic revival. At this point in time it was easy for him to admire the bridges, tunnels, highways and parks that Moses helped bring about. Finally as historians it is unlikely that Jackson and Ballon were very interested in writing a sensational book that would attract a lot of buyers. Caro on the hand was a journalist and this kind of book would have enhanced his career.