Moses’ machine-free power proved worse for democracy than machine corruption.

Evidence

But Robert Moses was not responsible to the public. Its votes had not put him in office, and its votes could not remove him from office. He despised its opinion. The considerations that he took into account were the considerations that mattered to him personally: the project, in and for itself; the engineering considerations that would Get It Done the fastest and cheapest way; and the considerations—economic considerations, whether the economics of honest graft, or of bonds, or of paychecks to union men—that mattered to the forces he was using to impose his will on the city. By giving the leaders of these economic forces—the bankers, the union leaders, the politicians—what they wanted, he did not have to give the people what they wanted. The old system, imperfect as it was, was responsive to the public. The new system—Moses’ system—was not. Robert Moses, who replaced corruption in New York City, was worse than corruption for the democratic processes. — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker, 3197

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: Caro’s central normative judgment of the whole book lands in one paragraph; reverses the reformer’s assumption that removing corruption cleans government.
• XREF: connects to: Tammany refined stealing from corruption into ‘honest graft.’ — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the…, 3025; Public-authority wealth let Moses operate as a uniquely powerful political boss. — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the…, 91; Moses centralized scattered corruption into a force that bent city government. — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the…, 95

Broader Connections

• Moses centralized scattered corruption into a force that bent city government. #qualifies (0.80) — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker, 95