The Status of Democratic Values and Procedures in a Changing Urban America

Abstract

THE STUDY of democracy's future in American local government -its procedures and values has particular relevance in light of assertions by some experts, Edward C. Banfield, Scott Greer and James Q. Wilson among others,' that the complicated problems associated with contemporary urban life cannot be solved, and are often aggravated, by the mindless exercise of Jacksonian or local, direct democracy with its insouciant lust meddlesome by a sovereign citizenry. Such a democratic system, when forced to vote bonds or approve governing bodies subjects as technical as metropolitan rapid transit, more likely will bungle than solve the problem. Further, other things being equal, such mass participation tends to encourage common denominator policies: the masses may patronize air-conditioned ballparks but they do not subscribe in great numbers to fine symphonies, masterful ballet companies and urban beautification. In other words, not all values are entirely compatible: presuming one values mass participation, then one must sometimes sacrifice aesthetics, economy, efficiency, expertise and so on. Or at least, if popular government is highly prized, then some calculus of consent must be devised, much as TVA did on a different areal level, which will reduce urban politics from noise to music so that the metropolis will be for itself instead of against itself as it orders civilized life in the mid-twentieth century.2 Some of those doubting the utility of popular government in each and every instance also assert that widespread participation need not be feared. As a matter of simple observation, most persons neither care to have nor actually do have sophisticated political knowledge, and they seldom participate in political affairs, especially in local governmental business.3 Further, that bastion of grass-roots