It’s official: Rahm Emanuel won the election and will be Chicago
I say “God help us” – not just because I think there’s nothing Rahm can do to save the city. Oh, to be sure, Rahm will go through the motions and appear on lapdog-media TV making “Rah-Rah, let’s go Chicago Broad Shoulders
The low turnout
I must admit surprise at the low turnout for this particular election. Out of 1.4 million registered voters, only 42% had bothered to vote for mayor. That’s especially surprising since voting early by mail was an option. That is, voters didn’t even have to bother to go to their polling places. Out of those 42%, 55% voted for Rahm – and the media calls that a landslide. Perhaps so, but there’s another way of looking at those numbers: Only 23% of Chicago
Worse yet, in my book: For every two who voted, there were three who didn’t.
How to explain that? Maybe those “three who didn’t” realized that none of these candidates could save the city:
Rahm Emanuel (with 55.27% of the vote), Gery Chico (23.93%), Miguel Del Valle (9.26%), Carol Moseley-Braun (8.99%), Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins (1.64%), and “Dock” Walls (.91%).
That is, these voters concluded that the city was past saving. So, rather than compromise their dignity by voting at all, these good citizens simply ignored the election. That seems to be the likeliest reason, though I wish they had considered the following:
“Chicago
But those good citizens might have also thought: “If Watkins becomes mayor, then we’ll only have a return to Council Wars, as during the days of Mayor Harold Washington. But this time, the Council will be a bunch of Democrats pissed-off that a Machine Democrat didn’t win the mayor’s seat.”
Blame the candidate?
I was almost tempted to blame Watkins for not running a more inspired campaign. When I viewed footage on her website of a few of her public speeches, I thought: “This person seems too self-effacing, almost apologetic.” I’m not saying she should have tried to out-asshole Rahm Emanuel at his worst, but surely she could have done more than roll over and play dead.
The lapdog-media did its best to exclude or minimize her. She was not even listed as an option when most public opinion polls were conducted. She was not invited to speak with the front-runners during any of the three televised debates. And of course the whole brouhaha over whether Rahm was even eligible to be on the ballot served his purposes quite well – by allowing a circus-like atmosphere to envelope the campaign to the exclusion of any serious debate on the issues. [He couldn’t have planned that any better…hmm..(?)]
And then of course media occasionally got cute, with remarks like this appearing on the CBS website*: “Braun and Del Valle trail, along with two other candidates – [Watkins] and [Walls] – who did not participate in the debate.” They didn’t “participate” because they hadn’t been invited!
I’d even read one mainstream account of how Rahm’s people tried to spin his potty-mouthing and belligerent past. They claim he has matured over time. I beg to differ. Rahm’s behavior, back in the day, was not a sign of immaturity. It was a sign of mental illness – which, by the way, doesn’t just go away over time…it just manages to mask itself.
Should Watkins have tried some high-visibility, grandstanding maneuvers, like showing up outside the debate locations with busloads of supporters, demanding to know why she’s being excluded? Should Watkins have indulged in a bit of guerrilla theater by arranging for her mock crucifixion in the middle of Daley Plaza
“How is it that you were able to ‘earn’ $16.2 million during your two-and-a-half-years of employment with an investment banking firm, even though you had no training or experience whatsoever in this field? Don’t you think you should come clean with Chicago
Should Watkins have promised to use her training as a Certified Public Account to “get to the bottom” of Chicago
I had even sent e-mails to her campaign with suggestions on how she might proceed. By the way, these e-mails were never acknowledged. So I don’t know why Watkins didn’t run like she meant it. To my mind, there are three possibilities:
- She and her campaign staff were incapable of envisioning bolder campaign strategies.
- She ran a token campaign this time around, with a view toward running more seriously four years from now.
- She was threatened to “tone it down”…or else. [This is
Chicago
At this point, though, I want to thank Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins for at least having made an effort.
The only real, long-term solution
Years ago, an actor friend of mine was crying in his beer about how people just don’t go to see live theater any more. But then he remembered something: “If you want an audience, you have to go out and get one. You have to find a way to grow an audience. And if your message is too subtle, you have to find a way to raise consciousness.”
I suggest that a Coalition of Independents do just that. They can organize, resolving to run at least one independent in each of Chicago
“Between 1972 and 2009, a total of 30 Chicago
But even such negativity can be overcome, if only a power base can be established. And that base should come from the local universities, since they (unlike the labor unions, for example) haven’t been sucked into the culture of corruption that is uniquely the City of Chicago ’s and the State of Illinois
Of course, anything can be corrupted – even a reformist movement. This is Chicago
The mission of such a group is to seek out and enlist/draft potential candidates among academics (or other pillars of the community) who would be willing to run for election, and to serve if elected. The Coalition could also serve to advertise their existence, and promote the necessity of dismantling the One Party system in this town. They could even ask embarrassing questions like, “Why isn’t the money that’s been collected under the TIF programs been spent on economic development, as it’s supposed to be?”
Chicagoans don’t have to just lie down and take it any more. But they do need a focal point and visible leadership, which such a Coalition could provide.
If enough well-intentioned men and women do nothing, then we’ll always have business as usual and we’ll always lack viable alternatives. And we’ll always have people like Daley, Emanuel, and Edward Burke in charge. “Oh well, people are always free to leave if they don’t like it” – that’s what a cynic might say. Right! People are leaving – at least, those who can. As for those who get “left behind,” they might as well get used to comforting themselves by thinking, “Oh well, at least we have Democrats in charge here.” [Put that on your tombstone, dammit!]
Somehow, though, I don’t think that will be much consolation to our remaining residents, who will see their city sinking further while the boys at the top (and their cronies) manage to keep doing very well, thank you very much!
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“The only thing that can save Chicago
No comments:
Post a Comment