Yesterday, Tuesday April 2nd, was an election day in Illinois for some local races. The headline event was the Chicago mayoral election. We looked at that race previously, after the primary election in February narrowed the field to the top two vote-getting candidates, Cook County Commissioner Toni Preckwinkle and former US Assistant District Attorney Lori Lightfoot. Both are progressive African American women, with the political veteran Preckwinkle in the role of establishment candidate and election newcomer Lightfoot as the insurgent reformer. I had noted, in our previous look-in, that reformers don't usually do well in Chicago elections. Whatever the merits of that observation, I couldn't have been more wrong as a prognosticator: Lightfoot won in a romp of historic proportions, receiving something on the order of 74% of the vote citywide, and defeating Preckwinkle in all 50 city wards, according to returns that were reported this morning.
A few days ago, as it was becoming clear that Lightfoot probably was going to win, I had sounded a cautionary note that, as a neophyte, she may not be able to hit the ground running when she takes office. But, as an anonymous expert noted in Fran Spielman's news account in the Chicago Sun-Times, when a candidate gets a majority of votes in an alderman's ward, the alderman has to be "respectful of her agenda". 74% of the vote surely is a mandate to govern.
Lightfoot becomes the second woman to be elected mayor of Chicago, and the third African American mayor. She also is Chicago's first openly gay mayor. Here is an Associated Press photo of her celebrating with her spouse last evening:
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell notes that Lightfoot joins the ranks of seven other African American women to lead major American cities, the others being Charlotte, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Baton Rouge, New Orleans and Baltimore. (I am not certain that I'm ready to anoint Baton Rouge as a "major American city", but I'm happy to let Mitchell have her celebratory moment.)
Longtime observers of Chicago politics may recall the chaos the ensued the last time (and only previous time) that an insurgent African American was elected mayor of Chicago: Harold Washington in 1983. That racially divisive election resulted in the infamous "Council Wars", in which the city council was split between African American aldermen who supported Washington and white aldermen who opposed him. White aldermen did their best to thwart Washington at every turn.
My observation as one who lives outside the city limits but who still is connected to Chicago and consumes Chicago media every day is that the political racial animosity, while surely still simmering to various extents, is just a small fraction of what it was back in the 1980s. The world has changed, thanks be to God!
As for elections closer to my home in my suburb: it was the quietest election I can ever remember. There were only a half-dozen races on the ballot - we didn't even elect a mayor for my town this time around. For our village trustees (our version of aldermen or city council members for our "village" of 75,000 residents), we were requested to vote for four candidates; only five were presented on the ballot, of whom the first four were endorsed by the local newspaper. It was similar for the local park district and library board (I had never previously noted that local media endorsed library board candidates, but apparently the library is a taxing body, so it's a good thing). Beyond that, there were three school district trustee races (elementary school, high school and community college districts), with only incumbents on the ballot. Perhaps it's a bit dismaying that there aren't more candidates to choose from, but ours is a place where most people are basically satisfied with their lives, or at least the parts of it that local government can influence. The schools are fine, the library is fine, the roads are fine, the snow removal is fine - everything's fine. There were very few yard signs in evidence around our neighborhood. A voter would have had to be attentive to be aware that yesterday was an election day. I haven't seen the voter turnout numbers for this area, but I'm sure they were paltry. I was the only voter in my precinct when I was there.
And it was a beautiful morning. The highlight of the voting experience was the walk to and from the local school to vote. The sun was shining, the birds were warbling and the trees were budding. There were even a couple clouds of gnats to wave out of my path. Spring is finally climbing out of bed in the Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, and the city apparently starts a new day with Lori Lightfoot now assuming the helm.
Holy cow, 74 petcent is a landslide. Either Preckwinkle had made some enemies or people just really were in the mood for change.
ReplyDelete"Petcent" should be percent.
DeleteProbably some of both. It seems to me that this is becoming a trend: having a political track record is more of a liability than an asset these days. Track record = material for opponents to attack. Harder to attack a clean slate.
Delete"Track record = material to attack". Isn't that the truth. Seems like the media is already trying to weed out the candidates with any kind of experience; to heck with waiting for the voters to do it at the primaries.
DeleteSince 1996 we have elected the less-qualified (on paper) candidate president with enormous consistency. We have now filled the House with unhousebroken Tea Partiers and the Senate with climbers from among the unhousebroken House members of the Gingrich tide.
ReplyDeleteAnd now we all love Pete Buttigieg, mayor of a middle-sized city.
Still haven't had enough?
Once upon a time, to make one's way in show business, one had to labor for awhile at the bottom of vaudeville bills or work out a few summers in the Catskills. Now all one needs do is get some tats, get a rep and release something. And the quality of our performing art has soared... like a Boeing 737 Max 8. Can't think why.
Well we certainly elected the king of least qualified last time around. I would take Mayor Pete over him and many of the others who have thrown their hat in the ring. Our hierarchy of prejudices will be on display. My worthless prediction: a young white guy, even though gay, will have a better chance than a woman or person of color.
DeleteHow about the Me-Too endorsement OR opposition. Will Mayor Pete get a pass?
DeleteWell, I don't think there'll be any women coming out if the woodwork claiming he harrassed them! Maybe some guys.
DeleteHe's bound to catch some flack from the conservative Christians, including some Catholics. But they weren't going to vote for a Democrat anyway.
I think it's interesting that he makes a case for being a liberal Christian.
DeleteLiberal Christians. Yeah, we had a lot of them back in the 1960's. Even Richard John Neuhaus and Michael Novak, for a few years. Now? Not so much.
DeleteI don't think I'd vote for Biden should he enter the New York primary. If he's the Dem candidate I would.
ReplyDeleteBut the me-too movement is going to find itself in the famous dust-bin of history if girls hankering for 2 minutes of fame keep popping up with the "inappropriate" touching claims. Nancy Pelosi gave Biden et al good advice: shake hands (of course there are some religions that prohibit hand shaking between women and men!--gotta watch out for that!)
But most of all, waving the flag of "inappropriate touching" undermines the effort to call out real "sexual harassment." Madness!
My personal opinion is that Biden really did cross a line, in that instance with the Nevada Lieutenant Governor (or whatever her office was), in which he came up behind her, grabbed her by the shoulders, and nuzzled his nose in her hair. The only woman with whom I would do that, and that's only with her permission, is my wife. His defense, "Hey, I'm an affectionate guy" leaves me skeptical, to say the least. If he was an employee of mine and pulled that stunt with a female co-worker, I'd write him up and refer it to HR for further remedies.
DeleteHow chivalrous of you, Jim. How about supporting your female co-worker in the action SHE wants to take instead of rushing in to make the decision for her? There are honestly some things women would prefer to be handle themselves.
DeleteJean, aren't there some women, somewhere, who would be grateful for some support, either from individuals or from corporate policies and social norms, when powerful men stick noses, uninvited, in their hair?
DeleteWhere I worked, a supervisor(which I wasn't) had to make sure the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed. And we all had to attend training and sign off that we understood and agreed to policy on any kind of harassment and boundary issues. I think that's pretty standard nowadays, and a supervisor would have to at least do some "corrective counseling" if the lines were crossed.
DeleteJim, my only point is that it would be good to discuss the situation with the woman involved before deciding to strap on your write-up pen, and giddy-up on down to the HR office like Randolph Scott to save the little lady.
DeleteIt would be fine by me if you wanted to take hair-sniffers, shoulder-squeezers, and pussy-grabbers aside to tell them they're making men look bad. Or even if you wanted to say, "Howdy, ma'am, is this varmint bothering you?"
But forcing a woman into a harassment report on your own initiative. Nope.
Jean, fair enough.
DeleteAlong the lines of what Katherine wrote: every company I've worked for since the Anita Hill hearings has had us take sexual harassment awareness/reporting training, with regular refreshers. I'm sure it's soaked into my bones by now. That said: there are a couple of really ugly sets of incidents that have happened in places where I've worked over the years. Disrespecting personal space seems to be a tactic for harassers - a means to the end.
Joe Biden strikes me as the big dumb dog type of guy. He gets carried away and jumps on anybody and licks their face if they let him. My Uncle Dick was like that. He talked loud and close and was always grabbing us kids for funny pictures, smooching all the women (including his mom and aunt), and shooting off firecrackers and other incendiary devices. He was like a 12 year old, but not a Christmas goes by that my brother and I don't laugh ourselves sick remembering him.
DeleteThere is another type guy whose boundary issues are more disconcerting. A former co-worker in the music department told me about a Certain Famous Musician (now dead), who French kissed all the students he was introduced to, men and women. As a college student, she was told not to get freaked out by it if she didn't want more unwanted attention. It was clearly some kind of sexual power trip. But everyone pretended it was just an idiosyncracy of genius and laughed if off.
A supervisor has a responsibility to maintain a professional workplace. It's not about being a knight in shining armor. If you're disrupting the working efficiency and don't fly right, your ass should end up being sent to the cornfield. But what do you do about unprofessional bosses?
DeleteSupervisor, sure, of course. If they see intolerable behavior, they have to write it up. Jim was talking about female co-workers.
DeleteTo Stanley's point: fwiw, my original comment about HR and write-ups was from the point of view of a supervisor (one of which I am). In real life, I work remotely so I'd rarely be in a position to directly observe that kind of behavior in the office. But as Stanley notes, if a complaint comes to me, I have to handle it accordingly.
DeleteThere is such a thing as an office romance, and there could be a situation in which a guy approaches a coworker from behind and embraces her, and that gesture would be welcome. Human relations, even in the workplace, are complicated. If (wearing my supervisor hat) I saw that kind of an embrace and wasn't sure what to think of it, I should approach the person who was embraced and make sure s/he was ok with it. If the embracer was the boss of the person being embraced, that raises another set of issues that need to be sorted through.
None of these workplace scenarios directly apply to the Biden incident in the news; his category seems to be more like Jean's Certain Famous Musician. I hope it's all as harmless as Biden wants us to think it is, but it's a red-flag-raiser.
Oh, yes, apologies, you said "if he was an employee of mine ..." Yes, you'd have to say something, but hope that hair sniffing and shoulder squeezing would not = auto write-ups.
DeleteI dunno. I read Selma Hayek's account of dealing with Harvey Weinstein. I was horrified, and I hope they lock him up.
However, I may be singularly unattractive, but I have only encountered a handful of garden-variety creeps who were more obnoxious than dangerous, and I was able to repel them with a loud, public, and immediate response. Having some man intervene on my behalf would, in my view, have made me look weak and helpless, the exact opposite of what you want to convey to these a-holes.
We all got "assertiveness training" in college. Why aren't parents teaching this to their girls while they're doing all that hovering?
"The Joe Biden Media Frenzy: Once again, journalists are giving in to their own worst instincts."
ReplyDeleteAn op-ed in the NYTimes, which, of course, has been frenzied for several days on the Biden story: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/opinion/joe-biden-media.html
Should say: glad Lightfoot won. She's got a big job ahead!
ReplyDeleteBut...here's more Biden mulling:
"I Worked With Joe Biden. Here’s What to Know About the Frontrunner Myth Growing Around Him"
Time Magazine
Jennifer Palmieri,
"I am a little surprised that people have been surprised by the rough patch Joe Biden has hit in the past few weeks. The questions Biden has faced—from his handling of the Clarence Thomas hearings to his physical displays of affection—were entirely predictable. I imagine he himself predicted them.
"When I was White House communications director for President Obama, I saw him express physical affection for women and men both, and he often greeted me warmly with a hug or even a kiss on the forehead. It was unusual behavior for a work setting, yes, but he is someone who has endured a lot of personal loss in his life and wears his emotions on his sleeve. In my experience, his overly affectionate behavior was his way of putting more love and support in the world. That was not all women’s experience, though. He clearly made some women uncomfortable, and now he is facing the consequences.
"I have watched expectations rise around Biden with trepidation. A lot of Democrats have set their hopes on him. They anxiously eye Bernie Sanders’ strong standing—as a candidate they believe to be too far left. They see a Biden candidacy as a way to recapture the white working-class part of the Obama-Biden magic and win back those Obama voters who turned to Trump. All the while, there’s a nostalgic appeal to a Biden presidency: His folksy ways feel like a tonic, an assurance that things can return to “normal.” A President Joe Biden, the thinking seems to go, would reduce President Donald Trump to a bad dream. Now, suddenly, nothing about a Biden candidacy seems inevitable, including whether there will even be one....
more...
Delete"But it was never fair to make Biden a vessel for Democrats’ hopes and anxieties. His early standing atop the polls seems like more of a reflection of many Democrats’ 2016 grieving process than a predictor of who will ultimately win the Democratic primary. No one is going to be able to return America to “normal” and no one—particularly in a field this large and talented—can enter the race in first place and expect to stay there.
"In my experience, early frontrunners like Biden face a battle against attrition. Even if he ultimately wins the Democratic primary—which he still has a good chance of doing—his support will first likely erode, not grow. He will have to shed all of these false expectations that hang around him now and come back with support that he’s earned by being a good candidate for 2020. Any early support based on the assumption that a candidate will do well is fickle.
"Admittedly, given the history of abuse women have endured for—oh—all of human history, nuance has unsurprisingly been a hard tool for men to employ in defending their actions. But it’s not impossible that the Joe Biden I know could be the one to navigate these waters. Many women have come to his defense in the last few days—while appropriately respecting, with concern, the unease some women said they experienced.
"Biden has already said he understands he needs to listen to the women who are uncomfortable with his behavior. And assuming he runs, he will need to answer more questions on this topic than I am sure he would like. It won’t be fun for him, but that’s what he will have to endure to convince voters he has learned the right lessons. In my experience, two qualities define him: the love for his family and an unshakeable belief in the American people. There is an opportunity for him to do some good here, to prove right the women who have stood up for him.
"There are more positions Biden will have to explain. He has been in public life for a long time and has a long record—built during a period of immense social change—that has to be reconciled with the country America is today. But there is something of real value at the core of Joe Biden that cannot be denied. It is as foolish to count any candidate out at this point as it was foolish to believe any one candidate was an obvious savior."
His long record, and his long time in public life are both his greatest strength and greatest weakness. What Jim P. said a while ago about "Track record = material for opponents to attack" certainly holds true for Biden. But we know who he is and what he stands for. We'll see if Americans are yearning for something known and perceived as normal. I would certainly vote for him against Trump. Can't vote for any Democrats in primaries (in our state it's a caucus anyway) because I'm still registered Republican.
DeleteHow can any Italian family even exist under no-touchy, no-huggy rules? At men's Cursillos and CHRPs there is always a lot of hugging, even among those of Belgian heritage who do not hug at home. I recognize that among the upper classes there are some men who have one of their "people" embrace their wives. But that has something to do with family fortunes, or something. I wouldn't know.
ReplyDeleteSome of the women Biden made "uncomfortable" explicitly said there was nothing sexual about his action. If uncomfortable is the new standard, I gotta say I am uncomfortable around all women because I've never been able to figure out what makes them comfortable, much less un. I can't tell when they are just talking and when they are cross-examining or taking surreptitious notes.
And the French! With their three cheek kisses!
DeleteUncle Joe is an equal-opportunity glommer. We all know people like this. They cry easily, they laugh easily, they slap backs, they kiss every woman they meet, they hold your hand too long at a wake. Biden glommed on to Stephen Colbert when they were talking about relatives killed in transportation wrecks.
ReplyDeleteIf somebody crosses your invisible boundary, you move away, stiffen, and/or turn your icy smile on them and tell them, "Goodness, I need some air!" I've done it hundreds of times.
You don't stew about someone sniffing your hair for four years and then tell the national media about it. My God.
If we are going to apply these types of purity tests to Democratic candidates, we might as well declare Trump the 2020 winner right now.
Exactly.
DeleteHow about applying the tests to Trump? He's already been out doing a big-hug "impersonation" of Biden -- a place someone with a record like Donald J. Trump should never, never go.
DeleteRepublicans have all the dope on Trump that an individual of normal intelligence needs to determine whether his treatment of women (or.people in general) is acceptable. They have decided it is, or is at least preferable, to whatever they fear the Democrats will usher in. That's something they will have to live with and explain to their God someday.
DeleteMy concern is with what Democrats are doing to possibly disqualify experienced candidates who might be able to beat Trump based on some ever-changing definition of "new social norms."
Kirsten Gillibrand and her ilk seem to be calling a lot of these shots and then using any criticism against them as proof that their critics are misogynists. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/gillibrand-still-faces-questions-about-al-franken/578281/
I don't know that Biden is the right candidate for right now. He has made other miscalculations before the hair-sniffing incident came up.
But I am very leery of the rigid "feminist" orthodoxy that is emerging.
"But I am very leery of the rigid "feminist" orthodoxy that is emerging". Yeah, me too. If they double down on ideological purity they will just hand it to Trump again. Fortunately I don't think Gillebrand, et al, will necessarily end up being the kingmakers that they might wish to be.
DeleteThere is a pretty funny Modern Family episode in which a prospective client of Phil Dunphy is what Tom describes as a "glommer" - greets people with kisses on the mouth, including Claire when he's introduced to her. The schtick for that particular episode is that Claire gets progressively freaked out while Phil, the quintessential Idiot SitCom Husband, is completely oblivious.
DeleteIf Biden is a glommer, I still think he crosses lines. It weirds me out. Maybe people have been a little more permissive because he was a big-time Senator and then Vice President. But isn't the whole point of #MeToo to tell powerful people like him to stay on their side of the line?
I don't think he's the same as Trump, whom I take to be a pig and a philanderer. My take on Biden is that he's not those things - but he has boundary issues.
Sort of to do with this subject, last night our parish had their safe environments training for the EMHCs. It was about protection of children and vulnerable adults. Mostly I don't think situations will come up in that ministry. But I was glad I went, it was useful information for any adult. Most of know how to respect boundaries by now. But collectively we are the "village" that watches out for and advocates for the children.
ReplyDeleteKatherine - I don't know when your husband was ordained, but when I was ordained in 2004, completing the Safe Environment training (which in our archdiocese is Protecting God's Children, from the Virtus outfit) was a condition for ordination. I agree with you - I sort of rolled my eyes when they imposed the requirement, but after taking it, I was really glad I had. We've had continuing-education requirements ever since - a monthly article to read and quiz to pass. Just takes a few minutes and is a good refresher. Definitely keeps it top of mind.
DeleteMy husband was ordained in 2000. I don't remember if it was part of deacon formation. But he has done the training and updates because he is in jail ministry and has worked in adult literacy classes.
DeleteOur presenter last night was good. A couple of things she touched on were protecting one's children from pornography, and human trafficking. Turns out the worst time for sex trafficking in our state is during the College World Series, which is a yearly event in Omaha. The hotels around the airport are where it happens. Some of the hotels have had their employees go through awareness training, others have declined that. Of course that is a red flag for law enforcement.
Steve Chapman, an opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune, picks up on the theme of the advantages of being a political newbie these days.
ReplyDelete"One conclusion to be drawn from the mayoral race is that large fields make for unpredictable outcomes. There were 14 candidates on the ballot in Chicago’s Feb. 26 election, including some formidable figures who enjoyed big advantages in name recognition, proven vote-getting prowess and fundraising. But given such a wide range of options, voters are unlikely to coalesce rapidly behind any of them — even those who start out looking like winners.
"For a candidate, assembling a majority is not the first priority; building a small base of supporters can be enough, at least in early contests. Lightfoot, today’s landslide winner, got just 17.5 percent in the first round, and that was enough to put her in first place. Toni Preckwinkle made the runoff with only 16 percent. The candidates who didn’t survive captured 2 out of every 3 votes.
"We already knew about this phenomenon from the last presidential election. No one gave Trump a chance of winning early on. But he won the New Hampshire primary with 35 percent of the vote, and he was able to win several more primaries with far less than a majority. One key to his success was a surfeit of rivals who managed only to kill each other off until he had a commanding lead.
"In the mayoral race, we found that being well-known at the start is not an indispensable attribute. A long and crowded campaign gives obscure candidates a chance to gain attention. Lightfoot’s victory should be taken as encouraging by such Democratic presidential contenders as Pete Buttigieg, Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper and even Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-chicago-mayor-lightfoot-president-2020-story.html
Plz Lord, don't let it be Trump vs Marianne Williamson!
Delete