What do you think?
Rate this book
The Shame of the Cities
The Shame of the Cities by Lincoln Steffens
285 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 14, 2017
26 people are currently reading
568 people want to read
About the author
Lincoln Steffens
100 books23 followersAs managing editor of McClure's Magazine from 1902 to 1906, American journalist Joseph Lincoln Steffens exposed governmental corruption in a series of articles, inaugurating the era of muckraking.
In a wealthy family, he attended a military academy. Following graduation from the University of California, he studied in France and Germany.
Steffens began his career at the New York Evening Post. He later part of a celebrated trio with Ida Tarbell and Ray Stannard Baker. He specialized in investigating politics and published collections as The Shame of the Cities (1904) and The Struggle for Self-government (1906). In 1906, he left alongside Tarbell and Baker.
From 1914–1915, he covered the Mexican revolution and began to prefer it to reform. In March 1919, he accompanied William C. Bullitt, a low-level official of state Department, on a three-week visit to the Soviet Union and witnessed the "confusing and difficult" process of a society in the process of revolutionary change. He wrote that "Soviet Russia was a revolutionary government with an evolutionary plan," enduring "a temporary condition of evil, which is made tolerable by hope and a plan." After return, he promoted his view of the Soviet revolution and in the course of campaigning for food aid of United States for Russia made his famous remark about the new Soviet society: "I have seen the future, and it works," a phrase he often repeated with many variations.
His enthusiasm for communism soured before the time of his memoirs in 1931. The autobiography, a bestseller, led to a short return to prominence for the writer, but Steffens ably capitalized not as illness cut his lecture tour short by 1933. He joined as a member of the California writers project, a program of New Deal. He died of heart failure in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California.
In a wealthy family, he attended a military academy. Following graduation from the University of California, he studied in France and Germany.
Steffens began his career at the New York Evening Post. He later part of a celebrated trio with Ida Tarbell and Ray Stannard Baker. He specialized in investigating politics and published collections as The Shame of the Cities (1904) and The Struggle for Self-government (1906). In 1906, he left alongside Tarbell and Baker.
From 1914–1915, he covered the Mexican revolution and began to prefer it to reform. In March 1919, he accompanied William C. Bullitt, a low-level official of state Department, on a three-week visit to the Soviet Union and witnessed the "confusing and difficult" process of a society in the process of revolutionary change. He wrote that "Soviet Russia was a revolutionary government with an evolutionary plan," enduring "a temporary condition of evil, which is made tolerable by hope and a plan." After return, he promoted his view of the Soviet revolution and in the course of campaigning for food aid of United States for Russia made his famous remark about the new Soviet society: "I have seen the future, and it works," a phrase he often repeated with many variations.
His enthusiasm for communism soured before the time of his memoirs in 1931. The autobiography, a bestseller, led to a short return to prominence for the writer, but Steffens ably capitalized not as illness cut his lecture tour short by 1933. He joined as a member of the California writers project, a program of New Deal. He died of heart failure in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
March 15, 2021
This is yet another text that is only alluded to, even in AP US History classes, but never really read in depth. Lincoln Steffens and his colleague, Ida Tarbell, were among the first investigative journalists in America, and earned the title (which they wore proudly) of being "muckrakers."
The text is very important to read for those interested in self-government in general, and the variety spawned by the American experiment in particular. Having recently read Alexis de Tocqueville's chronicles of abuses of power during the Ancien Regime in France, I chortled at the unbelievable scale of corruption in American "democracy" chronicled in these pages, the likes of which have never been seen in France, and perhaps, never in the Old World. Indeed, Steffens makes an interesting case in these serialized articles for McClure's: not only is this corruption and these abuses normal to the American system, which so prizes the individual will, but that the American people are fine with these crimes, as long as they aren't personally bothered about them in their daily lives...too much. Helpful reading for those who think democracy is to be even remotely considered a cure-all. For those of us who know Original Sin, not this particular system or that, lie at the root of our governmental problems, this is just more evidence on a stack which will grow in stature until the end of Time.
For those who prefer history to the narratives peddled by CNN and the approved mouthpieces of Airstrip One, this text also provides ample evidence of voter fraud in numerous municipal elections. Voter fraud is neither rare nor uncommon, not in the US, not anywhere. It is the hubris of the disciples of Fukayama who would have us believe that voting is the great equalizer. It can be. But only if people value virtue instead of lucre.
"The boss is not a political, he is an American institution, the product of a freed people that have not the spirit to be free." (p. 7)
"The spirit of graft and of lawlessness is the American spirit." (p. 8)
"The people are not innocent. That is the only 'news' in all the journalism of these articles..." (p. 9)
"[W]hen the leading men began to devour their own city, the herd rushed into the trough and fed also." (p. 21)
"The 'good people' are herded into parties and stupefied with convictions and a name, Republican or Democrat; while the 'bad people' are so organized or interested by the boss that he can wield their votes to enforce terms with party managers and decide elections." (p. 42-43)
"Boss Magee's idea was not to corrupt the city government, but to be it; not to hire votes in councils, but to own councilmen..." (p. 107)
"This business man, the typical American merchant everywhere, cares no more for his city's interest than the politician does, and there is more light on American political corruption in such a speech than in the most sensational exposure of details." (p. 109)
"Philadelphia, with 47 per cent of its population native-born of native-born parents, is the most American of our greater cities." (p. 135)
"Our people do not seek, they avoid self-rule, and 'reforms' are spasmodic efforts to punish bad rulers..." (p. 137)
"They know what is going on, but they do not join reform movements. The provost of the University of Pennsylvania declined to join in a revolt because, he said, it might impair his usefulness to the University. And so it was with others, and with clergymen who have favorite charities; with Sabbath associations and City Beautiful clubs; with lawyers who want briefs; with real estate dealers who like to know in advance about public improvements, and real estate owners who appreciate light assessments; with shopkeepers who don't want to be bothered with strict inspections." (p. 148)
"Though a blow in the face is as readily given as a shake of the hand, Tammany kindness is real kindness, and will go far, remember long, and take infinite trouble for a friend." (p. 205)
"The American people don't mind grafting, but they hate scandals. They don't kick so much on a jiggered public contract for a boulevard, but they want the boulevard and no fuss and no dust." (p. 213)
The text is very important to read for those interested in self-government in general, and the variety spawned by the American experiment in particular. Having recently read Alexis de Tocqueville's chronicles of abuses of power during the Ancien Regime in France, I chortled at the unbelievable scale of corruption in American "democracy" chronicled in these pages, the likes of which have never been seen in France, and perhaps, never in the Old World. Indeed, Steffens makes an interesting case in these serialized articles for McClure's: not only is this corruption and these abuses normal to the American system, which so prizes the individual will, but that the American people are fine with these crimes, as long as they aren't personally bothered about them in their daily lives...too much. Helpful reading for those who think democracy is to be even remotely considered a cure-all. For those of us who know Original Sin, not this particular system or that, lie at the root of our governmental problems, this is just more evidence on a stack which will grow in stature until the end of Time.
For those who prefer history to the narratives peddled by CNN and the approved mouthpieces of Airstrip One, this text also provides ample evidence of voter fraud in numerous municipal elections. Voter fraud is neither rare nor uncommon, not in the US, not anywhere. It is the hubris of the disciples of Fukayama who would have us believe that voting is the great equalizer. It can be. But only if people value virtue instead of lucre.
"The boss is not a political, he is an American institution, the product of a freed people that have not the spirit to be free." (p. 7)
"The spirit of graft and of lawlessness is the American spirit." (p. 8)
"The people are not innocent. That is the only 'news' in all the journalism of these articles..." (p. 9)
"[W]hen the leading men began to devour their own city, the herd rushed into the trough and fed also." (p. 21)
"The 'good people' are herded into parties and stupefied with convictions and a name, Republican or Democrat; while the 'bad people' are so organized or interested by the boss that he can wield their votes to enforce terms with party managers and decide elections." (p. 42-43)
"Boss Magee's idea was not to corrupt the city government, but to be it; not to hire votes in councils, but to own councilmen..." (p. 107)
"This business man, the typical American merchant everywhere, cares no more for his city's interest than the politician does, and there is more light on American political corruption in such a speech than in the most sensational exposure of details." (p. 109)
"Philadelphia, with 47 per cent of its population native-born of native-born parents, is the most American of our greater cities." (p. 135)
"Our people do not seek, they avoid self-rule, and 'reforms' are spasmodic efforts to punish bad rulers..." (p. 137)
"They know what is going on, but they do not join reform movements. The provost of the University of Pennsylvania declined to join in a revolt because, he said, it might impair his usefulness to the University. And so it was with others, and with clergymen who have favorite charities; with Sabbath associations and City Beautiful clubs; with lawyers who want briefs; with real estate dealers who like to know in advance about public improvements, and real estate owners who appreciate light assessments; with shopkeepers who don't want to be bothered with strict inspections." (p. 148)
"Though a blow in the face is as readily given as a shake of the hand, Tammany kindness is real kindness, and will go far, remember long, and take infinite trouble for a friend." (p. 205)
"The American people don't mind grafting, but they hate scandals. They don't kick so much on a jiggered public contract for a boulevard, but they want the boulevard and no fuss and no dust." (p. 213)
January 15, 2018
The book is highly recommended. As I understood, Steffens points to the origin of corruption to two important causes:
1. Politicians and reformers are businessmen (bankers, lawyers and merchants); for they make the “commercial spirit is the spirit of profit, not patriotism; of credit, not honor; of individual gain, not national prosperity; of trade and dickering, not principle.” However, he sees hope in this kind of politicians. “If our political leader are to be always a lot of political merchants, they will supply any demand we create. All we have to do is to establish a steady demand for good government.”
2. The people
Steffens then asks a good question: “Do we Americans [people] really want good government? Do we know it when we see it? Are we capable of that sustained good citizenship which alone can make democracy a success?” As he had been told that “the American people don’t mind grafting, but they hate scandals.”
And what kind of politicians the people want? Experts? No! because “so far there has been no market for municipal experts in this country. All we are clamoring for today in our meek, weak-hearted way, is that mean, rudimentary virtue miscalled “common honesty.” Do we really want it?”
Steffens does not propose any method to fix a corrupt system. What he did was “study a few choice examples of bad city government and tell how the bad was accomplished, then seek out, here and abroad, some typical good governments and explain how the good was done;-not how to do it, mind you, but how it had been done.”
The key differences between the success of Chicago and the failure of the other cities are:
1. “The Chicago plan does not depend for success upon any one man or any one year’s work, nor upon excitement or any sort of bad government. The reformers there have no ward organizations, no machine at all; their appeal is solely to the intelligence of the voter and their power rests upon that.”
2. “Reformers elsewhere are forever seeking to concentrate all the powers in the mayor, those of Chicago talk of stripping the mayor to a figurehead and giving his powers to the aldermen who directly represent the people and who change year by year.”
3. Steffens noted in Chicago that the “rings” and politicians did not have the same control over their city as those of St. Louis, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The reason as Steffens sees is that “reform in Chicago has such a leader as corruption alone usually has; a first-class executive mind and a natural manager of men. All they have is the confidence of the anonymous honest men of Chicago who care more for Chicago than anything else.” They have won by “a disinterestedness, which has avoided even individual credit; not a hundred men in the city could name of Committee of Nine.”
I agree with Steffens that “revolt is not reform, and one revolutionary administration is not good government.” Two characteristics of reform are made clear:
1. “Reform must always “go too far,” if it is to go at all, for it is up there in the “too far” that corruption has its source.”
2. Exposures and scandals do not break a corrupt system and “a reform law without reform citizenship is like a ship without a crew.” Exposures may “result only in the perfection of the corrupt system. For the corrupt can learn a lesson when the good citizens cannot.”
Want to read
May 27, 2009I started reading this a few years ago and found it distant and dry and fairly non-specific. My interest in the muckrakers, however, means that I will give it another go someday.
August 23, 2018
Well, I ordered and began reading this book with the expectation that it'd be a quaint condemnation of certain qualities of urbanism. The odd thing is that, apart from certain dated terminology (we no longer say “graft” or “boodle”) this book is thoroughly relevant to problems in the United States today.
The “Shame” of the title is largely about officials, political rings, police, and citizens who are corrupt or tolerate corruption. In many cases it's fairly normal stuff like bribery, but in others it's city government turned into a crime ring. Steffens stresses that in many of these cases the voters themselves turn a blind eye to fairly open criminal activity on the part of city government and tow the line rather than risk untried ideas, like reform. In some cases the people hold up corrupt political bosses as heroes, leading Steffens to sometimes brand cities “Shameless”.
The book covers St. Louis, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Chicago, and finally New York City. St. Louis actually gets two chapters since it amped itself into “shamelessness”. The only really encouraging article is actually the one on Chicago, since (as that writing) it actually had what seemed to be effective reform going on.
Philadelphia and Minneapolis are the worst cities as of the times they were depicted here. Philadelphia was in the hopeless grasp of its political ring which didn't even allow the people to vote (it simply “voted for them.”), and Minnepolis was in the hands of Doc Ames, who opened the door to all kinds of criminals, some of whom committed robbery of citizens with the blessing of the police.
Steffens points out a few times that the root of troubles in many cities is the greed of big business. He isn't entirely down on business men in government, but he is careful to point out that the voters must prove to these that they want good government so that these men will see that as good business.
The biggest shame for a reader today is that this book was written in 1904 and that just about everything depicted in it is still a problem today. I don't know how city government has changed in the ones listed, but the same things are going on plainly in the country, right up to the top. It's only too bad we don't call these things what they are anymore.
The “Shame” of the title is largely about officials, political rings, police, and citizens who are corrupt or tolerate corruption. In many cases it's fairly normal stuff like bribery, but in others it's city government turned into a crime ring. Steffens stresses that in many of these cases the voters themselves turn a blind eye to fairly open criminal activity on the part of city government and tow the line rather than risk untried ideas, like reform. In some cases the people hold up corrupt political bosses as heroes, leading Steffens to sometimes brand cities “Shameless”.
The book covers St. Louis, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Chicago, and finally New York City. St. Louis actually gets two chapters since it amped itself into “shamelessness”. The only really encouraging article is actually the one on Chicago, since (as that writing) it actually had what seemed to be effective reform going on.
Philadelphia and Minneapolis are the worst cities as of the times they were depicted here. Philadelphia was in the hopeless grasp of its political ring which didn't even allow the people to vote (it simply “voted for them.”), and Minnepolis was in the hands of Doc Ames, who opened the door to all kinds of criminals, some of whom committed robbery of citizens with the blessing of the police.
Steffens points out a few times that the root of troubles in many cities is the greed of big business. He isn't entirely down on business men in government, but he is careful to point out that the voters must prove to these that they want good government so that these men will see that as good business.
The biggest shame for a reader today is that this book was written in 1904 and that just about everything depicted in it is still a problem today. I don't know how city government has changed in the ones listed, but the same things are going on plainly in the country, right up to the top. It's only too bad we don't call these things what they are anymore.
December 31, 2020
There is hardly an office from United States senator down to alderman in any part of the country to which the business man has not been elected; yet politics remains corrupt, government pretty bad, and the selfish citizen has to hold himself in readiness like the old volunteer firemen to rush forth at any hour, in any weather, to prevent the fire; and he goes out sometimes and he puts out the fire (after the damage is done) and he goes back to the shop sighing for the business man in politics. The business man has failed in politics as he has in citizenship. Why?
Because politics is business. That's what's the matter with it. That's what's the matter with everything, -- art, literature, religion, journalism, law, medicine, -- they're all a business, and all -- as you see them. Make politics a sport, as they do in England, or a profession, as they do in Germany, and we'll have -- well, something else than we have now, -- if we want it, which is another question. But don't try to reform politics with the banker, the lawyer, and the dry-goods merchant, for these are business men and there are two great hindrances to their achievement of reform: one is that they are different from, but no better than, the politicians; the other is that politics is not "their line." There are exceptions both ways. Many politicians have gone out into business and done well (Tammany ex-mayors, and nearly all the old bosses of Philadelphia are prominent financiers in their cities), and business men have gone into politics and done well (Mark Hanna, for example). They haven't reformed their adopted trades, however, though they have sometimes sharpened them most pointedly. The politician is a business man with a specialty. When a business man of some other line learns the business of politics, he is a politician, and there is not much reform left in him. Consider the United States Senate, and believe me.
Because politics is business. That's what's the matter with it. That's what's the matter with everything, -- art, literature, religion, journalism, law, medicine, -- they're all a business, and all -- as you see them. Make politics a sport, as they do in England, or a profession, as they do in Germany, and we'll have -- well, something else than we have now, -- if we want it, which is another question. But don't try to reform politics with the banker, the lawyer, and the dry-goods merchant, for these are business men and there are two great hindrances to their achievement of reform: one is that they are different from, but no better than, the politicians; the other is that politics is not "their line." There are exceptions both ways. Many politicians have gone out into business and done well (Tammany ex-mayors, and nearly all the old bosses of Philadelphia are prominent financiers in their cities), and business men have gone into politics and done well (Mark Hanna, for example). They haven't reformed their adopted trades, however, though they have sometimes sharpened them most pointedly. The politician is a business man with a specialty. When a business man of some other line learns the business of politics, he is a politician, and there is not much reform left in him. Consider the United States Senate, and believe me.
March 28, 2018
This collection of essays from 1903-1904 lightly documents the corruption in St. Louis, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Chicago and New York City, and asks the fundamental question: Is democracy possible? In each of these cities—indeed, in every American city—government is captured by "rings" and life only proceeds by the leave of unelected thugs. The populaces range from apathetic (New York) to actually supportive (Philadelphia).
It's interesting to see the different styles of corruption, and the very dim, vaguely optimistic hope that maybe the votes will go the right way and bring about a genuine long-lasting change. This wan hope is typically destroyed by postscripts to the essays detailing the changes that have occurred since the essays were originally written.
We currently seem to use the Pittsburgh style of corruption, at most levels, though now it's extended to State and Federal governments as well: In Pittsburgh (and also St. Louis, to a degree), the trick was to do everything "legally". Pass laws that allow you to funnel money however you see fit, and then graft, occupational licensing, and even what might colloquially be called "bribery" all become "legal".
I found this book curiously reassuring, in the sense that 1903 is part of the so-called "Gilded Age" and often looked back on nostalgically—this was essentially a genre of movies going back before "The Strawberry Blonde" (1941) and extending past "My Fair Lady" (1965)—and it's pretty clear that every aspect of society was corrupt in cities big and small. (Tammany Hall is, of course, legendary, but I had no idea that the police department was the biggest revenue generator for the New York machine!)
So, things are bad, they're getting worse, but that's pretty much always true.
It's interesting to see the different styles of corruption, and the very dim, vaguely optimistic hope that maybe the votes will go the right way and bring about a genuine long-lasting change. This wan hope is typically destroyed by postscripts to the essays detailing the changes that have occurred since the essays were originally written.
We currently seem to use the Pittsburgh style of corruption, at most levels, though now it's extended to State and Federal governments as well: In Pittsburgh (and also St. Louis, to a degree), the trick was to do everything "legally". Pass laws that allow you to funnel money however you see fit, and then graft, occupational licensing, and even what might colloquially be called "bribery" all become "legal".
I found this book curiously reassuring, in the sense that 1903 is part of the so-called "Gilded Age" and often looked back on nostalgically—this was essentially a genre of movies going back before "The Strawberry Blonde" (1941) and extending past "My Fair Lady" (1965)—and it's pretty clear that every aspect of society was corrupt in cities big and small. (Tammany Hall is, of course, legendary, but I had no idea that the police department was the biggest revenue generator for the New York machine!)
So, things are bad, they're getting worse, but that's pretty much always true.
November 15, 2022
Do Americans want good government? That is the question Steffens pursues in these articles written over 120 years ago. Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York were all run on graft and corruption for decades. Those practices continue to echo today along with a new refrain of “fake news.”
I enjoyed reading this book over 45 years ago and found it a fascinating read again in the current age.
I enjoyed reading this book over 45 years ago and found it a fascinating read again in the current age.
July 25, 2020
This was a disappointment. I love the literature of the Muckraker era, and given how much corruption is on our lips today, I thought there would be plenty to love here. But there's little narrative and lots of moralizing. A few good zinger quotes about corruption and citizenship, but not enough to keep me interesting, even as short as it is.
August 1, 2024
I understand its importance, but this was pretty hard to get through in the present day. To be honest I only read a third of it before deciding I “understood the vibe” and clocked out. When I went back to reading a modern book I realized how much I’d been depriving myself by trying to get through this.
October 24, 2018
This might've been written 114 years ago, but boy, do I recognize the world it describes.
December 30, 2024
Relevant.
June 30, 2009
It's great to read the old purple prose of the muckrakers, but halfway through this book the reader may pine for a little hard-nosed, modern reporting, mayhaps a few dates, a little clarification on names; you know, the simple things.
Interesting though because despite the Jacob Riis photo on the cover, the "shame" of the cities in Steffens's view has nothing to do with rampant poverty. His book deals only with high-end corruption, and the "shame" supposedly comes from the inability of good citizens to run their own government, and the bad effects of political crooks on the reputation of their cities. Corruption here isn't shameful because it leads to bad ends, it's shameful because it reflects poorly on the morals and manliness of those in corrupt cities.
December 15, 2012
It would be easy to become jaded after reading this book. Although written over 100 years ago it is just as truthful today regarding corruption in the cities. Pravda, the Russian newspaper, recently wrote an editorial about the illiterate American voters. We confirm the editorial every time there is an election. We elect a president that no one knows anything about then, after doing nothing for four years, re-elect him. His followers are the most corrupt ever. One good thought that the author brings forth is that government corruption is tantamount to treason. "We have met the enemy and they is us."
July 26, 2008
This is one of my favorite books because it puts political corruption to a whole new light. I wonder what Lincoln Steffens would write regarding Republicans of the Bush Administrations.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews