Research Paper on:
City Governments, Reformed v. Unreformed

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
a city has a reformer in office may indeed determine how that city will fare in the next several years. While some people support politicians who want reform and desire  the idealism and the caring that seems to attach itself to those who call themselves reformers, others prefer sound economic policy that will see cities through the following decades and  centuries to come. Indeed, reform works sometimes, and perhaps in the short term, but in studying both types of situations, one may conclude that the unreformed city is best in  the long run. It is of course hard to come up with a valid and viable conclusion that supports either reformed or unreformed cities, as there are pros and cons  to each position. First, what is a reformed city government, and why do people want to initiate these? Reform is technically the creation of a temporarily organized opposition to an  Administration or party hierarchy that is based on corruption or assumption of privilege (Safire, 1993). Sometimes, it may be based on its refusal to share power (1993). Reformers are those  who are not very successful at maintaining themselves in a high political position, but they are generally capable of defeating those in power (1993). In other words, one may hold  office but have a hard time maintaining popularity. One example comes from New York City early in the twentieth century; Seth Low was a reform mayor and the Tammany motto  that won was "To Hell with reform" (1993, p.655). Reformers have also taken some abuse from distinguished sources as when Ohio governor Frank Lausche fought through a compromise to  increase unemployment as liberal and reform elements demanded a larger increase (Safire, 1993). He criticized those who wanted immense change, saying that sometimes there can be too much reform (1993).