Mayor Daley's administration was shellacked this week with a series of convictions for fraud, based on patronage hiring. Yet Chicago's political community has been a-flutter with rumors that Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. will not challenge Mayor Daley next February. This has reformers and opponents of Chicago's regular Democratic Party scrambling to develop a logic that shows just why 2007 will be the long-awaited death of old-school Chicago politics and the birth of a truly open neighborhood democracy designed to serve the people. Given the current atmosphere facing City Hall and the Mayor's office, opponents of Daley and the regular Democrats are champing at the bit to "kick the bums out," and they know a media narrative would help them do it.
A former Northwest Side activist who supported an aldermanic opponent to a Regular Democrat in 2003 whined to me that if Jackson truly is out, it'll come down to another block-by-block street fight, with reward not at all in proportion to effort.
"And then half the guys you'd get elected would probably sell you out, anyway," he told me via email.
The problem is that without a high-profile candidate like Jesse Jackson, Jr. on the ballot as an organizing figure around which an opposition slate can be built, the aldermanic races that would be pivotal to altering the character of the City Council have to be fought one-by-one, requiring more resources and more focused and labor-intensive field work.
In other words, with an opponent like Jackson, who has been trying to build momentum for a mayoral run by harshly criticizing Daley, you would have a Daley Party and a Jackson Party, and opposition candidates could get instant legitimacy, media attention, and logistical support just by being part of the Jackson Party. Not to mention the vote that would come from being so clearly a legitimate "anti-City Hall" candidate. Without Jackson, no Jackson Party, and what one is left with are highly localized races where the incumbents' natural advantages as the master of services in the ward, and general voter apathy, come to bear.
If Congressman Jackson is indeed out of the race barring something unforeseen, then not only does the logic of a sea-change election falter, the math does, too. Chicago's low-turnout municipal elections are often cited as both the cause of "Machine" dominance and its greatest weakness — an aldermanic opponent often only has to mobilize a few thousand supporters to put them over the top. The reverse of that being, of course, that these elections are low-turnout for a reason: most people don't really care unless there is something big on the ballot, something that brings out all of the major institutional stakeholders — something like a high-profile bitter race for mayor.
And as for the worry that those elected would end up "selling you out" — a complaint levied at, among others, Rey Colon, who upset incumbent pro-Daley alderman Vilma Colom in 2003 — with an all-powerful, re-elected Daley on the Fifth Floor, just what would two, three or even six or seven reform Aldermen accomplish in City Hall, if they were even able to resist the temptation to turn pro-Daley?
Which brings us to the half-witty title of this column: you dear readers, how well do you know your alderman? Would you vote against him or her, and if so, why? The reason I ask is that my sense of it is Chicago's growing young and professional population has a natural instinct to oppose the status quo and so could be moved to vote in a municipal election if it grabs their attention (and they feel it is worthwhile), despite the fact that their alderman, for all intents and purposes, may serve their interests perfectly well.
Are most Chicagoans (you know, "normie" Chicagoans) dissatisfied with their aldermen? Is voter apathy a function of satisfaction, or dis-? When it comes down to the devil they know and they devil they don't, would most Chicagoans be willing to cast their lot with a newcomer on principle, when that principle is simply that the Council isn't "reformy" enough?
Congressman Jackson's rumored bowing out makes the long-sought-after death of the regular Democrats a long shot, the campaigns promising to be ugly wars of attrition, if competitive at all.
Or can opposition candidates unite behind a message and pull the fight out of the neighborhoods and across the city?
Inquiring minds — and nervous alderman — would like to know.
Over the next few months as we move towards the campaign season this winter, this column will evaluate as many of the 50 wards as possible, starting with those wards where, let's face it, most of y'all probably live.
brian / July 12, 2006 10:44 AM
I have met my alderman (Laurino), and I think she's great. She reachces out to the community, and gets things done. I called about a garbage can and got one within a week.
Ald. Stone on the other hand, is a fossil. We tried to work with him about building a bike path in a park (who can oppose that?) and we were stonewalled. My favorite part about meeting him was watching someone get a zoning change and saying immediately "I"d like to make a donation to Alderman Stone's re-election campaign." Sheesh.