|
|
|
The Enigma of Meyer Lissner: Los Angeles's Progressive Boss
By Mark H. Stevens
Meyer Lissner was Los Angeles's preeminent municipal political reformer between 1906 and 1913. Yet he was perhaps an enigmatic progressive. His life defied conformity and categorization to specific progressive norms regarding ethnicity, religion, upbringing, and social position. His gift for organization, combined with a keen political intelligence, enabled him to organize a formidable opposition to the Southern Pacific–dominated local political environment. Los Angeles's municipal politics thereafter remained nonpartisan. His political skill won him the praise of his progressive supporters and the scorn of his critics as a "reform boss," a charge with which they mercilessly pursued him throughout the remainder of his municipal career. Was Lissner a "reformer," a "boss," a combination of both, or neither? Do such categories matter, given the reality of Progressive Era urban politics and current trends in writing on the stereotyped struggle between the boss and the reformer?
|
|
|
|
Over the past twenty years, scholars of the urban Southwest have overturned any lingering presumption that urban progressivism was a particular phenomenon of the Eastern Seaboard or the Midwest. Precisely on account of the unformed, fluid character of southwestern urban politics, the region may have been especially receptive to progressive municipal ideas and structures.1 Los Angeles is a case in point. Unlike their eastern and midwestern brethren who battled entrenched machines that either controlled many utilities, contracting firms, or other businesses or worked symbiotically with them,2 the city's progressives marshaled their forces around a few dynamic personalities to confront the Southern Pacific (SP) Railroad, the corporate authority that seemed to lurk behind the local machine factions, which were themselves less entrenched in the city's wards than their eastern counterparts. |
1
|
|
Through talent, force of personality, and opportunity, reform politician Meyer Lesser managed to unite Los Angeles' progressive factions, in the process altering the local political landscape of Los Angeles. Lissner in some ways paralleled well-known figures such as Cleveland's Tom Johnson, who also used machine methods to pursue progressive goals. But Lissner was also enigmatic. His life did not conform to progressive stereotypes regarding ethnicity, religion, upbringing, or social position. He was Jewish in an era of gentile progressive reformers. His family history in America extended only one generation. He inherited neither his wealth nor status; both were earned. Like many structural progressives, he perceived municipal reform from a businessman's perspective. Yet, he was a staunch advocate of a greater democratization of American cities and society. He never held elected public office but supported those whom he considered best qualified or appointees from the civil service rosters. He never sought notoriety, preferring instead to operate on the periphery. His reformist perceptions were narrow, not broad; yet if it served his goals and expanded his base, he never dismissed an enemy from becoming a friend or ally. Eminently practical and acutely perceptive, he often sought alliances across socioeconomic lines. He subscribed to governmental efficiency, yet never allowed the tendencies of a disinterested bureaucrat to overshadow basic humanity and compassion for the unfortunate.3 While detractors tried to dismiss Lissner as a boss, supporters perceived him as devoted to creative politics and citizenship, which he promoted with élan and enthusiasm. He considered politics "the science and art of good government," though an honest politician, he felt, could not make money at his profession.4 |
2
|
| |
|
|
. . . |
There are about 10221 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
