As a history major, I appreciated the article that portrayed Robert Moses in a more benevolent light. Historians generally try to avoid taking any individual person out of context– the “great man” idea, as we mentioned in class. Who Robert Moses was and what he did was a result of personal choices, of course; but he could not have existed if the time and place in which he lived did not allow him to do so. Moses lived within the context and constrains of post-WWII New York, and there were many factors that contributed to his rise to power, the nature of that power, and how the power was wielded.
I think that to harp on Moses himself, as a lone individual, is to miss the point entirely. The questions that both this article and the Power Broker do not have to do with Moses himself, but rather with the democratic system as a whole. Moses was only able to exist because of the political system, public opinions, and private choices of those in power which allowed him to do so. I think the story of Robert Moses is not just the story of a man–as interesting as it is. I think it is the story of a city, of a political culture and system– it is, in fact, a story about power itself. These articles are exploring the nature of power in a democracy– a system where the question of who gets power, how, and how much are the basic questions around which the entire government is based. These questions aren’t easy to answer, and have been in debate since the idea of “democracy” first existed.
