I'll be the first to admit that I've got a lot to learn about Chicago politics and Chicago history. But I'm pretty sure that Dan Conley's salon.com article about Chicago politics plays roughshod with recent Chicago political history. Its intent is to put some flesh on the ethereal and soaring rhetoric of Barack Obama's new politics. If anything, Conley's Orwellian reading of Chicago politics makes me more nervous about the politics of hope that Obama represents.
According to Conley, politics pre-Daley were rife with unproductive and even destructive conflict. With a slight nod to Mayor Washington, he then describes how the Daley administration reached out across neighborhoods and race and engaged community groups to create real world solutions for the city's intractable problems. Conley puts forward a vision of "community values in politics, promis(ing) an America where politics is a good thing, where arguments on the merits are encouraged, where a seat is always open for anyone eager to sit at the table and contribute what they can." There's so much wrong with Conley's description of Chicago political history and the supposed participatory nature of Chicago politics that I'm baffled as to where even to begin.
The idea that community groups somehow have an added voice in political decisions in Chicago is ludicrous. Ask the staff of Little Village Community Development Corporation who have to rely on state and foundation funds for programming because of the presence of non-HDO staff in the organization. I'm sure the residents of the Lathrop Homes who are facing displacement because of the Mayor's vision of "mixed income development" means that the last bastion of affordable housing in Lakeview must disappear. Or the LSCs and parental advisory boards shut of the Renaissance 2010 process. The multiple community and tenant organizations and neighborhood leaders in Woodlawn, Washington Park and Kenwood shut out of community planning and development efforts would likely object as well.
If Obama's new politics are anything like Daley's, then it is a politics of tokenism, of ideological pay to play rules, and the divisive politics of authentic representation. Anyone can participate in the decision-making process in Chicago, as long as they toe the line and are willing to be background color for mayoral photo-ops and be willing to turn out in force to enable the Mayor to play the race and class card to bludgeon opposition. I've personally sat with at least two supervisors in non-profit organizations as they agonized over whether they wanted to keep their jobs or continue to play ball with the city administration. Is this the politics of hope, or a softer, gentler machine politics, a kind of managed democracy that only lets communities participate just so far? Will Obama be nothing but a beautiful, multicultural veneer on the usual politics and economics that benefit the glossy skyscrapers over the rough surface bungalow and two-flat?
I've not been immune to being swept up in Obama-mania. There are times, such as when he told the world that he believes that immigrants and low-skill African-Americans are not competing, but are rather both being slammed by economic restructuring, that I find myself mentally chanting "yes we can." But then I remember he comes from Chicago, from this faux "community politics" run by and from city hall. I remember his closest associates in Chicago include Hermene Hartman of N'Digo magazine and Valerie Jarrett and I wonder if he's nothing but a stalking horse for the black bourgeoisie of Kenwood and South Shore, who oppose living wages by shutting off conversations through appealing to race. Maybe it's just familiarity breeding contempt, but the idea of Valerie Jarrett or some other "authentic Chicago community voice" knee deep in the ambiguous CHA Plan for Transformation becoming HUD secretary in an Obama administration fills me with dread. I fear the becoming hooked on Obama is a little like getting hooked on Coke Zero: glossy, pretty, hi-tech, but in the end pretty much the same bad aftertaste and stomach rumblings.
Pedro / May 28, 2008 10:38 AM
Congrats to have the courage to question what Obama really stands for.
Too often, he talks of believing in one principle, and then his actions defy that very principle.
Item 1) He says that he will restore our standing with our allies. He then makes a policy statement that he will immediately renogotiate trade agreements with those same allies. Business interests tie nations together more than foreign policy, so by unilaterally altering commercial relationships, he believes that our allies are going to "like" us better.
Item 2) He stumps about changing the way politics work; no special interests, no cronyism, etc... He then throws his support behind Todd Stroger! Any Chicagoan can tell you how corrupt that man is and what his administration represents.