PADM 510 American Public University System Public Administration Paper Compare and contrast the theories and work of Frederick Taylor, Max Weber, and Luthe

PADM 510 American Public University System Public Administration Paper Compare and contrast the theories and work of Frederick Taylor, Max Weber, and Luther Gulick. Tell how these theories impact public administration as we know it today.

Include at least two references from the required readings along with two new ones.

You should have no less than four pages of double-spaced work not including the title page and the reference page.

Use in-text citations and an APA formatted reference.

Remember to use academic writing and proofread carefully for spelling and grammar errors.

Required Readings are atached:

EXPERTISE,DISCRETION, AND DEFINITE LAW: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN WOODROW WILSON’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN SPEECHES OF 1912.

Meier, K. J. (2010). Governance, structure, and democracy: Luther gulick and the future of public administration. Public Administration Review, 70, S284-S291. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1111/j.1540… Administrative Theory & Praxis
Vol. 24, No. 3, 2002: 487–506
EXPERTISE, DISCRETION, AND DEFINITE LAW:
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN WOODROW WILSON’S
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN SPEECHES OF 1912
Brian J. Cook
Clark University
ABSTRACT
The presidential election of 1912 was the defining political contest of the
Progressive Era. Woodrow Wilson’s speeches from that campaign
produced a remarkable synthesis of political thought and evocative
rhetoric. A close look at several key speeches shows that Wilson
developed further his thinking about the place and purposes of public
administration in a progressive democracy. Careful and precise law as a
constraint on the power of expertise and on the reach of administrative
discretion was at the heart of Wilson’s thinking. Students of public
administration should consider what ideas Wilson the politician offers
that could help advance current endeavors to refine and enrich the theory
and practice of public administration in a liberal-democratic regime.
Scholarly scrutiny of Woodrow Wilson’s political thought has grown
substantially in the past three decades, following in the wake of the serial
publication of the complete Wilson papers beginning in 1966. Wilson’s ideas
about public administration have received substantial attention in this regard.
One important component of published findings is that Wilson continued to
probe the subject even after publication of “The Study of Administration.”
Disagreement prevails, however, on whether Wilson extended his ideas or
departed from the path-breaking essay, and on whether further development,
in Wilson’s ideas, have any current relevance to public administration theory
and practice. The perspective that appears dominant in the literature is that
Wilson’s thinking was rather muddled, and not very original (e.g., Miewald,
1984; Stillman, 1973). Furthermore, some scholars not only question
attribution of the now discredited politics-administration dichotomy to
Wilson, but also his more general influence on administrative theory and
practice (e.g., Martin, 1988; Van Riper, 1984; but see Thorsen, 1988).
Yet the scholarship on Wilson’s ideas about public administration remains
incomplete. It has focused almost exclusively on Wilson’s views about
©2002, Public Administration Theory Network
488
Administrative Theory & Praxis ❖ Vol. 24, No. 3
administration fashioned and articulated during his academic and literary
Scholars appear to have assumed that in political life Wilson found little
inclination or opportunity to give the matter careful thought (see Thorsen,
1988). I contend, however, that active pursuit of elective office reinvigorated
and stretched Wilson’s thinking about administration. The impetus was the
challenge he faced, as he might have portrayed it, of interpreting and giving
persuasive voice to a mass electorate’s unarticulated inclinations regarding
the place of administration in progressive democratic governance.
Previously I examined Wilson’s early political rhetoric (Cook, 1998). I
found recurring arguments and important insights about the structure and
purposes of administration in a modern democracy reflecting further
development in Wilson’s political thought, especially in the context of his
efforts to align himself with the cause of progressive reform. I now turn my
attention to Wilson’s 1912 campaign for the presidency. A focus on Wilson’s
1912 political rhetoric speaks directly to questions about the meaning and
importance of the Progressive Era for public administration today in a number
of ways. First, the 1912 election, including Wilson’s speeches, was a crucial
step in determining the meaning of progressivism then, and what it means to
us now. Second, in several of his most important 1912 speeches, Wilson
articulated particular notions about the proper role of public administration in
a liberal-democratic regime. Third, the arguments Wilson espoused continued
the evolution of his ideas in ways that current scholars ought to consider as
they endeavor to refine and enrich public administration theory and practice.
PROGRESSIVISM AND THE 1912 ELECTION
Historians have debated extensively whether progressivism actually ever
amounted to a coherent and sustained political movement, and what, whether
coherent or not, one might take to be the meaning of progressive reform.
Broderick (1989), in his detailed study of the 1912 election, characterized
progressivism as a “complex, multi-faceted movement,” which “searched out
ways to deal with the new industrial America that a nationwide
economy . . . had created under a Constitution written for a remote agrarian
age” (p. 1). Furthermore the “lines of battle” among business, labor, social
justice advocates, political machines, and electoral reformers that emerged in
the wake of progressivism’s surge “were never clearly drawn” (p. 4).
In his sweeping review of progressive era historiography, Rodgers (1982)
reported helpfully that the “progressive” political label “came into vogue
during the 1910 electoral campaigns. The phrase ‘progressive movement’ was
a product of 1912. But the modern label ‘progressivism,’ launched in 1912 as
an antonym to toryism and socialism, was never a common term of selfidentification, and did not come into widespread use until picked up,
sometime after the fact, by journalists and historians” (p. 127, note 1).
Rodgers sifted out from the work of historians covering a wide spectrum of
Cook
489
methods, styles, and ideological perspectives the conclusion that “those who
called themselves progressives did not share a common creed or a string of
common values” (p. 123). Instead, they “possessed an ability to draw on three
distinct clusters of ideas—three distinct social languages—to articulate their
discontents.” Rodgers labeled these clusters antimonopolism, social cohesion,
and social efficiency. Again, Rodgers stressed that the three idea sets “did not
add up to a coherent ideology we can call ‘progressivism,’” but they all tended
to focus “discontent on arbitrary, unregulated individual power” (p. 123).
More recently, from a political science perspective, Milkis (1999)
attempted to distill what progressives, past and present, have stood for. In the
early 20th century, progressives were committed to “strengthening the
national government to prepare the country to address the growing complexity
and diversity of political life in the United States” (p. 5). More specifically,
echoing Rodgers’s trilogy of idea sets, Milkis pointed to three elements,
discernable to the present day, that stand at the core of progressivism: “a
concern with the power of business, a commitment to ‘pure democracy,’ and
the dedication to new rights as a bulwark against the uncertainties and
injustices of the marketplace” (p. 9). Milkis labeled “[m]ost significant” the
progressive effort “to dissolve the concentration of wealth, specifically the
power of giant trusts, which, according to reformers, constituted uncontrolled
and irresponsible units of power in American society” (p. 6). Closely tied to
this was the progressive push “championing government of the People directly
by the People,” to be accomplished by “strengthening the federal
government’s authority to regulate the society and economy.” The road to this
result involved “hitching the will of the people to…new national
administrative power” (p. 7; also see Skowronek, 1982). The divergence of
views on how exactly to accomplish this formed the centerpiece of the
electoral battles of 1912.
Milkis drew his crystallization of progressive principles primarily from the
platform and rhetoric of Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive (Bull Moose)
Party. The “robust debate [the Progressive Party] aroused about the future
course of constitutional government is what defines the 1912 election as a
critical episode in American political development” (1999, p. 11). More
generally, the 1912 election “was more critical than the 1896 contest in
sanctioning the major transformation of the ideas, institutions, and policies
that shaped political life in the United States at the turn of the century” (p. 3).
Milkis and Tichenor (1993) have also called the 1912 election the “climactic
battle of the Progressive era” (p. 2).
Other scholars have similarly endorsed the centrality of 1912. Link (1954)
contended that the “election of 1912 marked the culmination of more than
twenty years of popular revolt against a state of affairs that seemed to
guarantee perpetual political and economic control to the privileged few in
state, and nation” (p. 1). He further discerned far-reaching change and
dramatic political significance in the 1912 election outcome. “What was the
490
Administrative Theory & Praxis ❖ Vol. 24, No. 3
meaning of Wilson’s election, what did it signify for the future of the country?
Certainly it was as much a political revolution as Jefferson’s election had
been.” Link’s Jefferson reference meant in part a sectional shift in power back
to the South because of Wilson’s roots in the region. More important,
however, was that whatever the weaknesses in Wilson’s New Freedom as a
progressive program, Wilson was in many ways a true progressive political
leader because he “had made no binding commitments to any important
economic interests. He would be embarrassed by no important political
bargains. Few presidents have entered office so completely free to serve the
general interest” (p. 24).
Finally, Broderick (1989) contended that “the lines of argument developed
in 1912 had staying power for two full generations; not until the 1970s was
there a discernible reversal of the thrust.” More pointedly, “the campaign of
1912 offered the moment of decision on the future of progressivism” (p. 5).
Indeed, as Rodgers pointed out, the 1912 election was itself central to
developing whatever coherent sense we have of the meaning of progressivism.
The election of 1912 is, therefore, a worthy object for close examination to
understand the development of progressivism and its impact in the present on
political, and administrative, theory and practice. Because Woodrow Wilson’s
speeches were a defining component of the 1912 election, they deserve careful
assessment for the ideas and insights they hold.
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN WOODROW WILSON’S
1912 POLITICAL RHETORIC
In the four months before he had secured the Democratic Party nomination
on July 2, 1912, Wilson delivered approximately 30 speeches, making few if
any direct references to administration. He did articulate several themes
indirectly related to the relationship between public administration and
democratic governance. Carried forward from speeches of the previous two
years, these themes found their way into later speeches of greater significance
for understanding Wilson’s evolving ideas about administration. I first
examine some of these primary and nomination campaign speeches briefly,
and then provide a more extensive description and assessment of the Wilson
speeches from the 1912 general election campaign.
The Primary and Nomination Campaign
Two characteristics of Wilson’s preconvention speeches stand out. First,
the speeches are filled with imagery and pronouncements that leave no doubt
about Wilson’s intention to cement his progressive credentials. Second,
Wilson keyed on several issues and themes—the tariff, corporate trusts,
monopoly, private control of government, and referendum and recall—that he
carried forward from the many speeches delivered during the initial phase of
Cook
491
his active political life. As with that prior set of speeches, it was in his
attention to the problems of the trusts and monopoly that Wilson explored
themes most relevant to questions about the proper role of public
administration in democratic governance. These themes concerned the public
responsibility of officials in both public and private organizations,
government structure, and the central importance of public law. They formed
the foundation for Wilson’s specific treatment of public administration in his
New Freedom speeches for the 1912 general election campaign.
Wilson’s rhetoric brandishing his progressive credentials was remarkably
consistent with key characteristics of progressivism identified by scholars. For
example, in a campaign address delivered in Atlanta on April 17, 1912,
Wilson praised “the great Virginia Declaration of Rights” (Link, 1977, p.
330). He stressed, “One of the first principles laid down there is that all
magistrates, all elected officers, are trustees of the people, at all times
responsible to them” (p. 330). Articulating even more directly the progressive
doctrine of pure democracy in a April 30, 1912 Baltimore campaign address,
Wilson attacked the leaders of the Republican Party for accepting the thesis of
Alexander Hamilton that:
the only safe guides in public policies are those persons who have the
largest material stake in the prosperity of the country. They believe in a
government by trustees, and they do not trust the judgment of the people
with regard to great and complicated affairs.…They believe in
government for the people, but they do not believe in government by the
people. (1977, p. 374)
Wilson also articulated prominently the progressive assault on special
privileges, especially of business, and tapped into the discontent about
arbitrary, unregulated power. During after-dinner remarks Wilson offered on
February 19, 1912 to the Sussex Society of New Jersey, for example, he
declared:
therefore it [is] important that there should be a system of laws by which
the gates of opportunity should always remain open.…No scruple of
delicacy ought to stand in the way. The key of the gates has got to be
found, no matter if some “special interest” should be shy about a personal
search. (Link, 1977, p. 181)
In a March 7, 1912 address to the General Assembly of Maryland, Wilson
quoted Thomas Jefferson to the effect that “there must be ‘equal opportunities
for all and special privileges for none’” (1977, p. 181). Wilson pointed out,
however, that:
special privilege has sprung up in this country. Special privilege will
spring up in any country, but what created our present state of mind is that
special privilege does not merely exist, but is organized, and we are not
certain that the Government is sufficiently organized against it. (p. 228)
492
Administrative Theory & Praxis ❖ Vol. 24, No. 3
In the Atlanta speech in April, Wilson contended that “the business of this
country is being dominated by small bodies of selfish men, and we have now
to contrive thoughtful policy and to contrive a government which will
emancipate this country from private control, and put it back into the hands of
the people” (p. 342).
Wilson’s most elaborate and studious treatment of these various and
interconnecting themes came in a February 24, 1912 political address to the
Woodrow Wilson Club in Nashville. This was in many respects his first major
speech of the 1912 campaign. Wilson wove together several themes to
showcase his progressivism while also trying out a set of arguments that he
would build on in the campaign ahead. Consistent with his Sussex Society
remarks, Wilson also used several rhetorical devices in the speech—
references to search, looking inside, turning upside down—that he would later
elaborate on and employ in his portrayals of public administration’s proper
scope and function in a progressive democracy.
Wilson argued, for example, that “with the necessary legislation, we can
say that a corporation, so long as it acts within its charter, or is within the limits
of the law, is something we won’t look inside of…, and into the details of
whose organization we won’t pry” (Link, 1977, p. 197). Corporate
inviolability no longer holds, however, “the minute somebody inside begins to
use it for purposes he has no right to use it for; then we are going to turn it
inside out and see who is inside.” The responsibility principle then would be
“that with regard to breaches of the law we will deal not with corporations but
with individuals.” A particular administrative structure would then follow.
We can oblige every corporation to file with the proper officer of the law a
sworn analysis of the way its business is done.…Then when a wrong is
committed we will turn to the analysis and find the [corporate] officer
who…ordered that particular thing done, and we will indict him not as an
officer of the corporation but as an individual who used that corporation
for something that was illegal. (p. 198)
The needs and aims of this approach were far-reaching. “[Y]ou have got to
disentangle the puzzle; you have got to find where the lines of personal
responsibility interlace…for the purpose of saving the country and saving its
business” (p. 199).
The General Election Campaign
Roughly simultaneous with his ascension to the presidency of Princeton
University, Woodrow Wilson had emerged as one of the leading public
speakers in the nation, highly sought after across the country. Wilson
consistently delivered speeches notable for their intellectualism, illumination,
gentle and sometimes deprecating humor, and erudition. On occasion, a
Wilson speech or public lecture reached a deeper level of insight. But
something even more profound happened in the fall of 1912. Pursuing the
Cook
493
highest elective office, and facing a highly charged issue agenda before a
nationwide constituency, Wilson increased the quantity, intensity, and depth
of his public speech dramatically.
Across the four months between his July nomination and election day on
November 4, 1912, Wilson delivered 66 major speeches, addresses, talks, and
formal public remarks. This was a monthly rate five times the notable
rhetorical effort of his first three years in politics (see Cook, 1998). Wilson
“also delivered about one hundred shorter speeches,” including “remarks from
the rear platform of his special [railroad] car” used for the cross-country
swings in his campaign (Link, 1978, p. viii). It is the major campaign
speeches, however, that the editors label “Wilson’s greatest forensic
achievement (indeed, we think that they are among the greatest speeches of
modern history)” (Link, 1978, p. ix). The editors stress that “while Wilson
usually highlighted the same themes, he rarely ever developed them in the
same way, and each speech contains unique passages that shed new light.”
And, as others have recounted, the editors point out that Wilson delivered all
his speeches, even the most important, extemporaneously, using at most “onepage outlines to remind himself of the points he wanted to develop.”
By my count, it is in ten of his major speeches especially (a little more than
fifteen percent), that Wilson articulated themes and ideas touching directly on
questions about the proper foundation, function, and overhead structure of
administration for a democratic polity. In one or two instances, this was the
primary theme of the speech. In most instances, however, Wilson’s treatment
of ideas about administration and democratic governance was woven into a
tapestry of themes that he developed and refined as the campaign progressed.
The proportion of Wilson’s speeches in which administration is a subject may
seem relatively meager. Yet his ability to sustain at all the attention of general
public audiences, while speaking on a subject that today most citizens would
at best think tedious and obscure, must be regarded as a triumphant synthesis
of the public intellectual and political orator.
Again, the nucleus of Wilson’s treatment of administration in his 1912
campaign speeches was the problem of monopolies and large corporate trusts.
The Sherman Act, aimed at business…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment