Today's News - more IdPol Gaslighting
Didja hear 'bout the new mayor of Chicago? She's a black lesbian. Isn't that great IdPol news? Yeah, right.
What you might not know is that she's also a millionaire corporate lawyer who covered up racial discrimination by the Chicago police force.
----
Mayor-Elect Lightfoot is a longtime corporate lawyer, a partner in the venerable multinational Mayer-Brown firm, and a former federal prosecutor...A Chicago Tribune investigation of Lightfoot’s Mayer-Brown years found that “she has represented corporate clients accused of racial discrimination, as well as police and prosecutors accused of the kind of misconduct she has criticized as a candidate. Lightfoot also has made millions of dollars working at a firm whose attorneys have represented tobacco companies and other corporate clients accused of egregious wrongdoing.”
- Paul Street, Identity Rules: A Report from Reddening Chicago
What do real leftists, as opposed to corporate flacks, think of her?
“It’s hard,” Chicago native Matt Reichel wrote me, “not to be skeptical of a former federal prosecutor who spent most of her career siding with the cops in police misconduct cases until she recently decided to opportunistically rebrand herself a ‘reformer.’”
"when it comes to all the key issues around police reform, gentrification, the schools,” (veteran Chicago left activist and author Joe) Allen ads, Lightfoot “is our class enemy...”Lightfoot will serve the same corporate and financial “elites” who Emanuel attended to and who have made millionaires out of Lightfoot and other Mayer-Brown partners.
The only thing in her favor is:
Still, it will be nice for ordinary Chicagoans to see the last of Emanuel in City Hall...
If you are still clueless about where she is coming from, the Empty Suit will make things clear:
The 44th president called to congratulate Lightfoot, one rich fake-progressive identity-cloaked corporatist talking to another.'"
Even the punch-pulling "socialist" rag, Jacobin told the truth about Lightfoot:
Lightfoot’s previous experience in government service was as a Rahm-appointed chair of the Police Accountability Task Force, in which position she resisted calls to hold the police murderer of Rekia Boyd, as well as many other perpetrators of police violence, to account. She also served as a federal prosecutor, putting many people in prison as part of the war on drugs. In private practice, she worked for Mayer Brown, where she represented corporate interests — and, incredibly, the Republican Party.
While there was an enormous amount to criticize in her opponent Toni Preckwinkle, Lori’s background is as an agent of capital and defender of police repression. Her supporters in this election suggest this won’t change once she occupies city hall, as she has been backed by major developers and financiers, as well as figures like Alderman Nicholas Sposato, who has gone on Tucker Carlson’s show to attack undocumented immigrants.
- Will Bloom, A Socialist Wave in Chicago
And people wonder why I say elections don't matter in America today? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Just change some superficial window dressing, and its back to business as usual. America has been so dumbed down that they fall for this bunkum every single time.
Comments
I swing from
I do not know to say, to what I have to say is too vulgar to post. Nothing in between.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
When it comes to "IdPol"...
...I daresay Mark Twain (1835-1910) kind of summed the current situation up:
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them."
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
I can't get over how some folks in this online community...
...rely upon readers not doing a dive on the source links provided in some posts here. This post is a perfect example of this phenomena.
1.) Lightfoot was one of the VERY FEW candidates that took Emanuel on--directly--by choosing to run against him (rather than deciding to announce they were running for mayor AFTER Emanuel announced he was withdrawing from the race) months before he announced he was withdrawing from the race.
2.) When Lightfoot ran the Police Accountability Task Force, she almost doubled the number of Chicago cops who were fired or forced to resign.
3.) Lightfoot's Police Board's scathing report of CPD travesties made national news, many times over. It was a major embarrassment to Mayor Emanuel.
4.) The fact that she was well-paid, as are many lawyers, and that she was a partner at a major law firm that had certain clients that were--for lack of a better term--politically repulsive is immaterial, especially since she wasn't representing those clients.
5.) The fact that she is an African-American woman, and she's gay is, by definition, NEWS. It was Preckwinkle and the Democratic Party machine that highlighted the fact that Lightfoot was a lesbian. Repeat: The opposition focused upon negative "IDPol" throughout the election cycle. They spent a lot of money pushing the "Lightfoot is a lesbian" meme to the more conservative, church-going voters. It was a major component of the media coverage of the race throughout the final months of the election. And, the effort backfired on the status quo, bigtime. REPEAT: It was corrupt political/machine politics--her opposition--that focused upon "ID Pol" (it was newsworthy from that aspect, alone, throughout the final months of the election) not Lightfoot.
6.) And, the "Oh, by the way..." reality is that, also (quite buried, btw) in Paul Street's VERY poorly-supported/empty criticisms--and totally unmentioned in this C99P post were these other inconvenient facts...
...there's one problem with this last sentence quoting Joe Allen (in bold, immediately above), and that is that Street acknowledges--as has almost everyone else who's reported on the results of this election--that both Preckwinkle and Lightfoot had VERY SIMILAR positions on almost ALL of the major issues! So, does that mean that Preckwinkle "...is our class enemy..." too?
Frankly, after reading this post, I'm thinking the diarist (and, Street, for that matter) would've stated the same things about Lightfoot's opponent, Preckwinkle, had she won the election, instead of losing it by almost a 3-to-1 margin, this past Tuesday.
What part of "...the public was fed-up with all the graft and corruption in Chicago politics..." do folks following this election, and its outcome, NOT understand?
# # #
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Sorry, stopped playing "lesser evil" a long time ago.
Of course it does. What are you smoking?
Just because Preckwinkle was worse doesn't change who Lightfoot is.
And, I'm not merely relying on Street. Let me tell you some personal background.
I was born and raised in Chicago. I had three cops in my family. My brother was a Federal investigator there. Exactly as the article said, my brother thought LL was great, she was pro-cop. (ON EDIT: changed LP(preckwinckle) to LL (lightfoot).)
My brother loves Trump. We have always completely disagreed about politics, and he is saying exactly what Street was saying about how cops love her. IOW, I don't need Street to tell me the sun came up this morning. I know Chicago and its politics.
So they had a Hillary vs Obama "choice", and most people were so misinformed that they voted for the lesser evil. I don't understand why you are attacking me for pointing that out.
You seriously disappoint me with your utterly conventional political take on yet another pile of Kabuki theater.
Being from and still living in Chicago
you're 100% correct.
Unidentical twins were running for mayor, one won.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
So you really buy into the IdPol narrative?
I don't care if people are green, polka-dotted, hermaphroditic, Zoroastrian, or in a wheelchair.
I care about their policies and whom they are beholden too.
My rejection of IdPol and all its distractions was expressed both in the title and the first sentence of my OP, and here you are telling me that you completely accept the IdPol narrative, and I am wrong to
ignorecall bullshit on this ongoing propaganda campaign.I'm just going to say you are 100% wrong on that. I can't say anymore because I would rapidly get impolite.
Yes, I'm really sick of the
celebratory idpol too.
This 'first' stuff is getting so old. I lived in Houston from about 1978-1989.
Lee Brown was Houston's first black mayor, elected in 1997. Kathy Whitmire was the first woman mayor elected in 1982. Annise Parker was the first gay elected mayor of Houston in 2010. To lift from Wiki:
Whitmire was the first mayor to appoint an African American, Lee P. Brown, as Houston's police chief. Brown had previously served as Commissioner of Public Safety, in Atlanta, Georgia. In Houston, he introduced the concept of Community Policing, creating improved relationships between the police department and the various diverse communities of the city. He left Houston in 1990 to serve as Police Commissioner of New York City. [C] Brown was succeeded by the city's first female police chief, Elizabeth Watson, after he resigned to accept the top police job in New York City.[8] Whitmire also appointed the first Hispanic, Sylvia R. Garcia, as presiding judge of the Houston Municipal Court.
And recall the unforgettable Barbara Jordan.
So here is Texas, of all places, busting barriers decades before Chicago.
dfarrah
I'm sure the motivation is nothing but the people...
After all, people could only be promoting this out of the goodness of their hearts and commitment to social Justice!
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBjMaUlXnjs]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Salt Lake City, Utah elected a lesbian mayor
in one of the most reddest states in the country I'd say that was pretty remarkable. Granted SLC is more of a blue area of the state, but I for one am glad that people have quit focusing their attentions on what people do in their bedrooms for looking at what they stand for.
There was a quite massive campaign undertaken by Preckwinkle...
...and the Democratic Party machine to highlight the fact that Lightfoot was a lesbian. It was a prominent/major and disgusting component of Preckwinkle's sleazy/machine political effort throughout the race. The TRUTH is that Preckwinkle and the corrupt Democratic Party machine made it a front-and-center "issue." So, yeah, it was definitely "news," not just based upon the results of the race, but THROUGHOUT it. The Democratic Party MADE it a major news story in Chicago. (And, it backfired on them quite poorly!) If we're going to have an honest discussion about what happened in this election, let's deal with REALITIES on the ground in our historical review of it!
Lightfoot's opposition--and the Democratic Party machine, in particular--were the ones pushing this lesbian story! Put that in your criticism of ID politics! It was, by definition, "NEWS," created by her opposition, no less!
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
The fact that conventional politicians love IdPol...
...doesn't cut any ice with me.
In case you did not understand the point of the OP: IdPol is a giant excuse to avoid talking about real issues, to engage in horse-race politics, and the scandal du jour.
I don't care what the corporate media said about the corporate candidates. Not my circus. Not my monkeys.
AFAIAC, your reply is off topic.
Sorry, Arendt, but you're ignoring a big piece of the...
...anti-Lightfoot media campaign bought and paid for by the status quo. In fact, as many observers noted, "The race got ugly," (and the press covered this extensively in their coverage of the race, as a result of that) quite specifically due to Preckwinkle and the corrupt Dem machine focusing upon Lightfoot's sexual preferences; injecting negative "ID Pol" into the election effort. Period. The only folks here ignoring this inconvenient fact are those trying to make hay out of it, now (as if this was something that was Lightfoot's fault), just like the corrupt Party machine in Chicago.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Again, not my circus. Not my monkeys.
I gave up on the corporate media twenty years ago. It is nothing but the oligarch's propaganda, spouted by the media whores in their pay.
Why should I care if one gangster used IdPol to attack another gangster. They are both still gangsters, and I wouldn't vote for either of them.
And, I repeat, IdPol is a gigantic distraction from the real issues of the looting of our economy, the destruction of our industrial base and our middle class, and the rise of the prison industrial complex.
So, what's your take on the Will Bloom article?
You directed your fire completely at the Street article, while ignoring the confirming article at Jacobin.
Bloom says the same as Street - that LL is a corporate creature.
I'm waiting for you to debunk the second witness to the crime, the same way you did the first.
ON EDIT:
Bloom points out that five self-proclaimed socialists won seats in the city council. That's 10% of the city council. That is NEWS, not the IdPol narrative you call "NEWS". And, as Bloom points out, that socialist angle got minimal corporate media coverage.
Perhaps Bloom's socialist POV is why you didn't bother to dig into his story.
END EDIT.
Lightfoot's opposition (Preckwinkle and the Dem machine)...
...made a major effort, throughout the election cycle, to use the fact that Lightfoot was a lesbian against her. The Democratic Party published/distributed all sorts of nasty sh*t about Lightfoot's sexual identity, to the point where it became a major issue in the campaign (one which massively backfired on the political machine). See my previous comment, just up above. ID politics, used against Lightfoot, was major news in Chicago.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
So the Dem Machine was using IdPol . . .
. . . lots more so and certainly more viciously than Lightfoot.
And Lightfoot won in every single aldermatic district. Including white working class ethnic districts. Hmmmm.
Seems sorta like she's an FDR Democrat.
This double negative thinking is a plague
People were offered two corporate candidates. The fact that the one who was attacked with IdPol memes does not make that candidate non-corporate.
And it sure as hell doesn't make her an "FDR Democrat".
When are people going to stop imputing things from negative results?
Nobody's arguing Littlefoot is unflawed
Lightfoot's opponent was the one using IdPol. Fuck that shit, right? And that's how the people in 40 freaking aldermatic districts voted. IdPol loses. Yay!
Maybe Lithtfoot isn't an "FDR Democrat".
If not, and probably not aside from her winning across ethnic and racial divides, the left should keep her feet to the fire. And I'm sure the DSA aldermen and women will do just that, even if you think they "pull punches" like you criticize Jabobin for . . . .
That's a non-reply. You're dodging.
I asked about Will Bloom's article. I asked about the five socialist aldermen.
You regurgitated the same IdPol talking points you recited above.
Try again.
Frankly, Arendt...
You totally missed the mark on this. You might get plenty of rec's, but the reality on the ground, and in the evidence--as the election actually played out--undermines much of both your and Street's baseless claims. The most off-topic bullshit I've read about the race--and I've probably spent a good 20-30 hours researching it by now--is contained in the primary source matter you've used in your post. Once again: There's no "there" there! All the innuendos, guilt-by-association claims, false accusations and bullshit in the world that Street (and others) threw at Lightfoot, both pre- and post-Election Day, was more than transparent enough for the voters to see through, to the point where Lightfoot garnered the biggest election margins in Chicago mayoral politics in almost 20 years.
Fire! Aim! Ready! (I do realize that occurs quite a bit around here, doesn't it? I need look no further than your post to see that mentality writ large.)
Repeating: The entire "IDPol" issue was used as a weapon by the corrupt administration, which was massively supporting Lightfoot's opponent (Preckwinkle).
I see too many folks here addressing all political matters (and related blog reparteé) with not-so-creative variations of a one-size-fits-all approach: "They all suck!" Frankly, it's quite tiresome. And, to be even more frank about it, I think you're one of the very best bloggers in this joint; and I definitely expect more from YOU than what you put forth in this piece. It's the very definition of extremely weak political tea.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Furthermore, it is "your circus!"
You "went there" the moment you pushed the publish button on your poorly-sourced blog post.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
IdPol is a circus. Its not my circus.
You continue to insist that I must play this insipid IdPol game. You think politics is "gotcha".
I do not vote in Chicago. And I do not vote for establishment candidates, whether they are attacked with IdPol or not.
You demand that we stay completely inside the rules of corporate politics. You demand that we pick among one of the corporate candidates and fight for them. You demand that the issues that the corporate media highlight (IdPol) are the only issues in the race. (see below) You claim that because the majoritry of the 30% who voted picked Coke over Pepsi somehow makes this rigged contest legitimate. You think you are scoring points by quoting from the soap opera that the corporate media created about LL.
I reject all that. Politics these days is a scripted farce with almost zero genuine content. The massive neoliberal privatization campaign is a genuine issue, with Rahm's Chicago taking the lead in that - e.g., the infamous sale of all parking meter revenue. The charter school assault on education is another genuine issue, where again, Chicago is an epicenter. Obama hired Arnie Duncan (zero education background) to lead the Federal push for charters. Rahm followed up by closing dozens of inner city schools and trying to crush the Chicago teachers union. Those are issues. I don't hear you talk about them.
And, days later, you NEVER addressed the five socialist aldermen, an issue I raised twice. You want to control the conversation here. Classic "never respond, always attack" tactics.
I don't campaign or fight for any candidates anymore. The 2016 elections proved to me that democracy has left the building. I stand to the side and point out the bullshit. And corporate attorney Lightfoot as a "reform" candidate is utter bullshit.
What does Lightfoot do, first thing? She goes to meet with the Godfather of Illinois, Governor Pritzker:
The Pritzkers own Chicago. They groomed Obama, who appointed Penny Pritzker Secretary of Commerce. Of course, it was verboten to mention that Penny ran the South Shore Bank into the ground for a great personal profit. Some people claim that South Shore ran the first sub-prime mortgage racket.
The Pritzkers have been corrupt since Abe Pritzker helped the Chicago mob go legitimate by getting into the real estate racket, e.g. Hiatt Hotels. (As a teenager, I remember the hit on Alan Dorfman in a Hiatt Hotel in Lincolnwood. I drove by that hotel every day on my way to school. It was understood that Hiatt was "mobbed up".)
And who does LL run to the minute she's in office? Governor Pritzker.
But that counts less to you than all the IdPol crapola about LL's gayness.
AFAICT, you and I live on different political planets. This argument is going nowhere because you absolutely refuse to see that there is more to politics than IdPol. I've got news for you. Chicago has been corrupt since way before Big Bill Thompson (see Bathhouse John Coughlin) looked the other way for Al Capone. LL is just another made man in the Chicago machine.
But you seem to want to pretend that politics is nothing more than the stupid IdPol crap that fills the media. You berate me because I get recs for what you consider nonsense. Closed mind much? Call me when you want to discuss how TPTB use IdPol to keep the masses clueless and fighting while they rob us blind.
I appreciate you bringing counter views here.
As cynics, we are sometimes too willing to believe the worst. It is so often right, but in actuality, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Reply to your REPEAT
You are captured by the IdPol narrative. You completely accept it. You seem to think that by repeating that talking point you are convincing me of its validity. You are not.
You support the media's reduction of policy to IdPol. You haven't said one word about LL's insider connections, insider support, and insider agenda.
You haven't discussed the fact that many people think Rahm knows that Chicago (and probably Illinois) is going to go bankrupt real soon. He is getting out of town before that happens. My family, Chicago residents for three generations, are looking to get out. They say the city is unaffordable and unlivable.
Some cynics (like me) think that, come the bankruptcy, the new mayor will get the blame for all the neoliberal crap Rahm pulled - and, wow, what a coincidence, the next mayor is a perfect IdPol pinata for the blame narrative.
But rather than discuss the politics of privatization in Chicago, and all the other sops to the rich (that all evidence suggests LL will continue), you support that the campaign should be all about IdPol. I haven't heard you say word one about Chicago's dire financial situation.
I suspect you will come back with LL's support for investigating the police. If you do, I will have an answer for that.
I am confused.
Two people I respect are in the midst of a vigorous argument. I haven't followed Chicago politics since 1968. (Haven't missed it either.) I seem to be hearing that the candidates are equally supportive of TPTB. But TPTB invested overwhelmingly in the one who lost.
I don't understand why. They must have had indications of a defeat on that scale. Also, even if the candidates are equally reprehensible, isn't it some kind of victory that the candidate backed by the powers that be lost so convincingly.
These are not rhetorical questions. I'm trying to understand.
Here's my POV. I believe it. I don't necessarily expect you to.
The key is the two candidates come from two different gangs of political mafiosi - the old Chicago machine, and the new Chicago machine. It was a gang war. One gang tried to take out the other gang's candidate with IdPol, since most Americans are hypnotized into thinking that IdPol is all there is to politics anymore. But they were mistaken. Most Chicagoans don't care about Lesbians after two terms of Rahm.
If the Gambinos and the Genovese get in a fight, do you really think you (not a wiseguy) will be better off if one versus the other wins? No. They are both gangs, and when the fight is over, they will return to shaking you down.
I believe she should be
given a chance. She hasn't started the job - won't until May. It's impossible to predict what a person will do once they are in the "chair." This is a jumping to conclusions essay. I'm a wait and see person. For example, I was not for the person who won our governorship. Because I detested her opponent, I pulled the lever for her. She has been a pleasant surprise. So my own jump to a conclusion was not warranted. I feel the same about this situation. If she proves your essay true, yell from the rooftops.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
"Give XXX a chance".
Give Obama a chance.
Giving people with a lifelong record of screwing you a chance is how we got into the mess we are in.
Sorry, stopped doing that a while back.
Why don't you give me any fact that shows she intends to stop being the creature of big money interests in Chicago, other than a bunch of Obama-esque verbiage?
What a silly request.
Seriously, I have no special powers to predict the future. I bow to yours, however. I am working not to be so angry so that peace has a chance. It’s difficult, no need to point that out, but I must try. Retaining any sense of humanity is important to me.
I must continue to give people chances to prove they have their humanity. I’ve been given chances, sometimes when I didn’t deserve it. I believe I stepped up and strive to continue. It’s difficult tho, in this environment, so I understand your anger. I just rather remain positive and optimistic. A better future might be the result.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Hope and change, 2.0. n/t
Even 3.0 is possible.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
I promise not to move the football, Charlie Brown. n/t
Good one!
My son moved the football until he didn’t. People can change their behaviors.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
It doesn't sound
like there was much of a choice.
I am more angry at the fact that so few non-captured candidates are available.
dfarrah
And that is exactly
where we should focus. That is the very root of the problem, imho, but we have been expertly distracted from that by all the emotion of Id politics. I was one of those for far too long and look where we are now? My God, still hoping for hope and change from people who revile us every day with their actions while smiling in our faces. And on it goes....
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Someday, arendt, you will find a socialist organization or . .
. . . candidate(s) you can support.
Problem is it will be too late.
What an ambiguous statement.
But I've come to expect them from you.
When you spell out whether that is sympathy or sarcasm, I will respond.
Neither
. . .
I enjoy reading your informative and oftentimes brilliant attack pieces. And the responses to them.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsBwBct0_5U]
Ok, sorta sympathy. Thanks
Your writing style is very oblique. I have a hard time interpreting the meaning behind your words, but I recognize that some of that is my problem.
Don't Worry
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ebdER-Egk]
@arendt @bobswern
considering 5:
I disagree that it is by definition NEWS. You make it news by claiming it to be news.
I think it shouldn't be news and in fact it is not. The way you are born and what your body is telling you about how you feel about the opposite sex, is NOT news, these are biological personal facts and not a reason to claim them as news worthy.
Just saying - ymmv. And nothing for Ungood.
https://www.euronews.com/live
give 'em hell, mimi!! :-)
give 'em hell, mimi!!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Sounds familiar.
Some on the left proclaiming newly elected politician as hope and change, others warning that he/she's not what is being portrayed by that portion of the left. As far as I can tell, just about every time it turns out to be the latter.
Not knowing a thing about this election but reading some of the information it appears she's just another corporate and special interest backed politician who will work for those corporate and special interests. Sounds like she might be better than who she's replacing and who she beat, but how often do we hear that from portions of the population, like every time? The same thing was said about Macron, Tsipras, Obama, Trump, you name it, there's always people who believe the next politician elected is the answer and the way forward. Then it doesn't work out that way and we do it again.
At this point and all things considered, the fact that she's a black lesbian doesn't mean shit. It might be news to some, but it has no relevance to what policies and actions said politician will take or support while in office.
I find that gimmicks only work so long
I for one won't be seeing any movies this year. Even with their incredible 3D CGI, which I'm guaranteed to have never seen before.
So, when I hear about the idea that suddenly a radical combination of identities that I've never seen before is going to be my representative...
I respond the exact same way I hear about anything advertised on tv. "That's Nice. I'll wait for the next generation when they've worked out all the bugs. And undocumented features. Actually, do I really NEED this?"
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
But forgive me if I do
celebrate not only the policies, first and foremost, but also the firsts for Jewish and socialist-democrat if the Bernmeister wins. And of those two, clearly being of a socialist bent and getting elected would be a huge accomplishment in this land of In Capitalism We Trust.
At the same time I would have mixed feelings about celebrating his being the first elected president over the age of 75. I might open a bottle of prune juice to mark that milestone.
Once again, I do not confuse policies with personalities
Before Bernie sold out, I was all for him - and it didn't matter one way or the other that he was Jewish. After he sold out, it didn't either.
I am a policy guy, and I find all this "up close and personal" bullshit as offensive in politics as it is in the disgusting US TV network coverage of Olympic athletes.
I just don't care about people's personal stories. I care about their policies and their politics. I am more than willing to let some ethnic/sexual/religious group have their little celebrations, but its no reason to vote for somebody.
Case in point: Hillary and you must vote for the woman.
Bernie sold out to be treated like he is now?
The duopoly is doing everything it can to fuck him over and then some.
How are they restraining themselves in that respect or what of worth are they giving to Bernie?
But that's exactly why I gave up on Bernie
He either was threatened into submission, in which case he no longer speaks truth to power.
Or, he thought that by being nice to the DNC, they would treat him with respect because he commands a large block of voters. If that's the reason, it was a big mistake. The DNC treats him like dirt because they hate and fear his block of voters. And now, compromised Bernie is at the head of that block of voters again.
IMHO, he will fold again; he won't fight the inside-the-party knife fight about delegates and rules. He won't call out the flood of bullshit fake liberal candidates being thrown out their to dilute his vote.
And that's why he's dead to me. I don't support people who have either been compromised or gave their power away.
...
Some people prefer living people to dead ones. I don't want him dead. My guts tell me he was threatened under the radar of the public. Sanders might have decided to not talk about it in public to avoid a shitstorm. I don't blame the people who were threatened for them having been threatened. I blame those who threatened in the background under the radar. They deserve the shitstorm, because they are the bullies in the underground.
All in all I would say blaming someone for saving his life to survive gangsters and mafiosos, is only fair, if oneself has been in the same situation and lost one's life doing so. Then we have two dead people and nobody is speaking up anymore.
I prefer people who bully in public than in the under/back-ground and make the threat visible and hearable.
Let's just accept that being alive is more helpful than being dead. Or in other words, if you prefer someone give up his life as a martyr, make sure the martyr made some babies before he goes, so that the fight may continue. Sigh. I like your attitude because you are still alive. Let's acknowledge that that has a value too.
https://www.euronews.com/live
He's still inside the democrat's bubble
Bernie is towing the line on Russia Gate and Venezuela. He might not want to invade Venezuela militarily, but has he spoken out against our sanctions that are crippling their economy? Recently Trump put more sanctions against the ships that transport Venezuela's oil.
Russia Gate has been the biggest psyops run on this country and Bernie is helping to spread the propaganda about it.
This article seems to agree with you. I agree with both.
Don't 'feel the Bern' if you don't want to get burned again
Maybe he just didn't see the point of waging a Quixotic battle.
And envisioned running again in 2020 on better footing.
And Mimi makes some poignant points below, too.
I disagree with some of his policy stances and decisions, too, but either I'm just more forgiving and/or have an understanding of politics that allows me to disagree on some matters with the candidate I support. Being at least agnostic, I'm not big on Messiahs.
Although Bernie had and now has an even bigger critical mass with him, that didn't/does't mean that he had/has the power to defeat TPTB. He didn't give away anything that he didn't have and won't be giving away anything he has now. You can't accept incremental change? Well, neither can I which is why I've set a "doomsday" date of March 3, 2020. Till then, I'll do what I can to advance his candidacy.
Of course, you can and probably will argue that Bernie only offers incremental change. But I don't see the critical mass that has emerged as being able to demand anything more than that. And Bernie still offers the best bet we've ever had since FDR of taking on TPTB. And I don't see anybody out there besides Bernie who can even offer the possibility of confronting climate change issues, US militarism. etc. If not him now, I don't see anybody else on the horizon who can develop the kind of critical mass he has and who can win a national electoral battle.
I can understand you disagree with his tactical decisions but I think it goes overboard to call him a sell out, especially when you seem to acknowledge that he not only didn't get anything good but is now only continuing to get shat upon by TPTB. Well, I don't see the alternative given the level of politics these days what with capitalism still ascendant (I don't seem imminent collapse or anytime within many decades). And even partial collapse doesn't necessarily lead to progressive anti-capitalist politics as recent history shows us. The consequences of total or near-total collapse are even scarier imo based on the track record of the 20th Century.
How did Bernie sell out?
Nuff said in my book. He will call out fake Russian interference, but not real interference on his own campaign? Why not?
Because the Clintons gave him . . .
. . . what? Aside from shit and more shit?
If you insist on calling him a sell out, at least detail what he sold out for, please.
I get it. You won't indulge or indulge in a politician who engages in Realpolitik.
If you can let me know how all those Clinton/Obama supporters can be magically wisked away or converted otherwise, please let me know. Speak truth to them? How's that been working out?
I did and I have numerous times
I have answered your question twice here and in other essays and yet you keep asking and moving the goalposts.
See my two comments here. His views on Russia and Venezuela are not something I will over look.
Bernie has a track record of voting against sanctions
Also as Norman Solomon has noted in a truthdig discussion:
"almost two years ago, Bernie Sanders voted against sanctions on North Korea, Iran, and Russia, you know, a package. And it was a courageous vote, because he pointed out that these sanctions in those cases reduced the chance of bringing about peaceful relations, and increased the chance of military conflict.
I think it’s notable . . . that Bernie condemned not only military intervention, but he cited three examples of non-military, subversive, CIA-type undermining of democratically-elected governments. He cited Brazil. He cited Guatemala and Chile."
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/did-bernie-sanders-critique-of-u-s-pol...
I think we should know how Bernie stands re Venezuela given his track record:
https://www.portside.org/2019-04-04/heres-how-2020-candidates-stack-war-...
Do we have to back him into corners like with reparations and ignore other candidates?
Michael Tracey's tweet
is a classic that will be hard to beat for a long time.
Sadly I agree with him.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
The personal angle
is a good way for pols to connect with voters on a human level, and for the media to drive ratings while avoiding the sort of wonkish policy discussions you and I might welcome. We among the elite, those who follow these things closely and critically, might agree that the politics of personality and IdPol generally (and in its negative sense) have gone too far, though people will naturally gravitate to or at least be interested in a similar type. That just begins the inquiry, it doesn't or shouldn't mean personality and IdPol should be the entire discussion.
So I was intrigued by HRC becoming the first ever F president, but didn't vote for her b/c of her appalling hawkishness. Lots voted for Donald entirely b/c he talked tough and in a way they could understand, and had easy to digest and understand solutions for mostly complicated problems. Plenty fell for his idyllic and false portrait of the past and how he would bring it back.
Plenty of people vote based on very superficial reasons. It's like Adlai said: "Madame, it's fine that I have the thinking person's vote. But I need a majority."
There are certainly many things we agree about.
Poor Adlai. I was in pre-school the last time he lost. An honorable man in a dishonorable profession.
While I don't like to think of myself as "the elite" simply because I follow issues instead of celebrity personalities, it does seem that is true - more every news cycle. I agree with your comments about Trump, as well.
Btw, how did the
Bernster sell out?
arendt can answer for him-/herself, but the usual
complaints lodged against Bernie involve (1) his going-along with establishment Russiagate and anti-Maduro narratives, (2) his failure to stand up for his own defrauded and mistreated supporters during the 2016 primary season and national convention, and (3) his silence on issues like protecting whistleblowers, in particular Julian Assange and Wikileaks who proved the Democratic National Committee did cheat him and his followers.
Thank you, lotlizard, for saving me the work.
That is a good enough list for this purpose.
Was there a Green Party or other alternate party candidate
running for Mayor of Chicago?
2nd., I must say, not being Chacagoan, that I did like what I saw of Lightfoot's program. Dispersed city services and encouragement of professional apprenticeships would buy my vote in most circumstances.
Is it possible that Lightfoot is simply a non-ideological pragmatist? I know, I know, that is what we thought Obama was, but still, is that what she is?
Also, I think the time has past when spouses, their background and alliances, can be allowed to fly under the radar. I do NOT want to see the likes of another Kushner ménage, a sentiment for which I make NO apology, being permitted to make public policy.
Do any of you here have any explanation for why Chicagoans rejected Prestwinkle? Did the DSA endorse either candidate and how much influence do the DSA and allies now have?
Mary Bennett
@Nastarana
According to Wikipedia, there were nine Dem candidates in the primary. Besides Preckwinkle and Lightfoot, there were:
Bill Daley - son of Richard J. Daley. Brother of Richie Daley - enough said.
Willie Wilson - business owner and longtime political candidate. Black politico.
Susana Mendosa - former city council, comptroller of Illionis. Hispanic politico.
Amara Enyia - Nigerian political organizer. Pres. Austin (nbrhd) chamber commerce. Consultant.
Jerry Joyce, Gery Chico, Paul Vallas - three inconseqential white politicos.
No socialists. No Greens. Just a bunch of "made men" jockeying for postion.
Given her resume, no. She's an insider.
I don't expect you to take my word for it, though.
on the other hand, arendt,
i love it when identity politics misfire, and the jokes just write themselves!
she's by gawd Proud to be a Coal Miner's Daughter: cue loretty lynn.
but hey, she' tweetin' up a storm about the new netflix video of her early campaign and...her charisma. ; )
The misfiring of IdPol in Chicago was much better
And AOC's response to the right-wing extremist funnyman Saavedra:
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1114294594282434560
This thread has splintered. I can't speak to all the sub-parts..
because a) I don't have the energy, and b) because my wrist is sore from scrolling up and down trying to find one or two new posts amidst sixty or seventy dead ones.
Here are two major, tangential sub topics:
There is an side argument about the usefulness of supporting Bernie Sanders.
Now the latest AOC kerfuffle has been introduced.
We have lost focus from my original topic. That is, the portrayal of LL as some kind of IdPol warrior, braving the slings and arrows of the evildoers(TM), while in reality she is just another insider politico doing the bidding of TPTB in Chicago.
I will continue to respond to people that stay on the original topic.
Mostly redacted
thanks for this essay, sorry I interrupted. sry
[redacted]
Why can't we just love one another?
Edit: Completely redacted
The target of this comment was withdrawn. So I withrdaw this.
Not to mention the "Bernie Bro" appellation
. . . which I thought was more exclusively the provenance of DKos and Marky M.
But back to Chicago and why not?
ISTM Lightfoot got on the MSM news because she won the election.
If the DSA or what remains of the Fourth International(?) put forward a candidate (the former didn't endorse anyone for mayor) and s/he won, they would have been on the MSM news too. I don't know if the MSM there paid any attention to the the victory of the four(?) DSA candidates.
It's a pretty good thing that the four(?) DSA candidates won, no?
No. The DSA *was not* covered.
Five socialists were elected aldermen, running on a DSA platform. I posted a Jacobin article about that. bobswern twice refused my request to address that.
And here you come, blaming the DSA for doing nothing.
Not buying it. Try again.
No no no
arendt, I'm not blaming the DSA for anything. You won't get away with turning me into a straw man of your making. I was congratulating them from the get-go for engaging in electoral politics while you were berating Jacobin (a DSA mag) for being a "punch-pulling 'socialist' rag." Your exact words.
And I read about the DSA aldermatic victories in MSM, too
It wasn't either favorable or unfavorable mention and no, it wasn't extensive. But I've also read accounts from alternative media sources that can't seem to agree on the number of DSA candidates who were elected or are among the overall number of aldermatic reps.
This is degenerating into a game of gotcha
I said
What is unclear about that?
Indeed what is unclear about . . .
. . . "punch-pulling "socialist' rag" whatever the context? C'mon, own it. AOC is DSA and you've been even tougher on her.
And again, I was not at all or in any way criticizing the DSA in my response to you. I rather like the organization for the most part.
Finally, I think your criticisms of me doing the gotcha game amount to the pot calling the kettle black but hey we can disagree. I don't want to belabor it. We both probably can do ourselves good by getting away from the computer screen.
and here i'd thought you
might have needed some laughs by now. okay, then, this, and yes i can think of a hella lot of things to do with rahm's shuttered schools, as i'd said when i'd offered it on bob swern's post a couple days or so ago. cord had offered this excerpt:
but you might want to check out the mega-bucks she'd talked about inside the article...in comparison to the NYPD, for instance.
Lightfoot changed her position on that, shortly after....
...she made that statement. So, you're quoting a false meme. I covered this elsewhere (don't remember if it was here or in my own post on the election.
This "They all suck" posturing by the diarist is childish and devoid of substance. And, frankly, I'm very disappointed in Arendt's "arguments" here, especially when one does a deeper dive on his supporting links. The bottom line is something barely mentioned by others here, and it's this: The Chicago Democratic machine--on top of being identified as massively corrupt, to the point where the graft and corruption reached Lightfoot's opponent, Preckwinkle (her campaign donation receipts), directly--failed miserably in their efforts to weaponize identity politics as far as Lightfoot's sexual preferences were concerned. It was a major portion of Preckwinkle's public relations efforts, paid media content, and of the subservient Chicago media's coverage throughout the final weeks/months of the campaign.
Arendt's own statements and links, throughout this post and his comments in it, essentially failed to recognize these INCONVENIENT FACTS. Again, Lightfoot's opponent, and the media's coverage of the campaign, in general, included lots of time and effort covering this negative "IDpol" story. Lightfoot did NOT focus upon identity politics, everyone else did, in a failed effort to obtain the support of the conservative, anti-Lightfoot voting bloc. It backfired massively upon Preckwinkle and the Chicago Democratic Party machine. It was due to this reason, and the constant media reports/barrage of multiple instances of graft and corruption, tied directly to Lightfoot's opponent, Preckwinkle and her cronies, that caused the downfall of the Cook County Democratic Party's efforts to maintain control of City Hall on Election Day. In a nutshell, that was 95% of "the entire election story!"
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
good grief, even if
she 'changed her position' after march 19 (although you don't say 'changed how, it shows to me that she is a shill for more spending for police. not totally dissimilar to those saying: 'oh, tulsi gabbard's no longer in favor of torture, she's evolved snce those interviews'. yeah, but when that presidential time bomb she'd mentioned...starts ticking...
I find your obsession with campaign minutiae to be devoid...
of substance. I already said we live on different political planets; and you keep demonstating that fact.
Its not "they all suck". Its they are all corporate and so is the media. You want to pretend that some marginal difference in corporate candidates is important, be my guest. But there are very many people here who saw the 2016 treatment of Bernie and the subsequent Mueller Inquiston/Russiagate neo-McCarthyism as the official notice that democracy is dead in this country. You want to go shout down the cut telephone line, go ahead. Nobody from inside this corrupt political/financial/military system is going to save you.
I have to say that your words that I quoted in are a very professional job: "posturing", "childish", "disappointed", quoting "arguments", the tease that a deeper dive will prove you right. No substance, just a lot of huffing and puffing, leaving an impression without providing any evidence. Nice work.
OTOH, you have never addressed any of the side issues I have raised: the socialist aldermen being ignored, the direct espousal of charter schools by LL, the immediate embrace of LL by the Pritzker gang. Now you are defending LL's continued embrace of the police by saying (paraphrase) "she changed".
It is a classic tactic of political flaks to refuse to raise their POV above this poll or that statement. So is denouncing sources because reasons. (Paul Street has been around the left a long time. That you think he is a bad source tells me a lot.) Well, it goes both ways. You quote the NYT a lot, and they are not to my liking.
Bottom line: We are just going to disagree. And I expect that when we run into each other again, we will disagree again. I will keep it civil, but I am not buying one word of what you are selling.
This horse is dead.
Its "barely mentioned" because it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Its not a "bottom line" for this discussion. The discussion in this OP is that IdPol is a distraction that allows corporatists to dodge the issues. You keep trying to make one instance of that distraction into the central point.
I wouldn't say you are trying to hijack my thread, but it is annoying that you keep trying to make LL into some kind of good person just because she was attacked via IdPol and survived said attack.
I have explained several times why I don't care what kind of Kabuki campaign one corporatist ran against another corporatrist, when I have said that all uses of and citations of IdPol are part of the high-level strategy to ignore real issues. Now if TP had attacked LL for her support for Charter Schools and failed, I would have been very interested - because that's a real and important issue.
You don't accept that refusing to bite on IdPol is a legitimate point of view, and you keep belittling me when I explain that. Maybe if you would simply acknowledge that my POV is legitimate instead of "childish", we could lose some of the edge in our interaction.
My opinion
I'm late to the party. I meant to post a comment yesterday but got sidetracked with spring fever.
I knew nothing about the race in Chicago until it was over. That night I saw LL on the local news (in TN) before I read anything about her on here. Of course the reason why she was on the news was because she was "the first black lesbian" mayor. But in that moment I dismissed her entirely, not because she is the "first black lesbian" mayor, but because she was on the local news. I believe that if someone that was really an outsider and not an establishment candidate, it would not have mattered if they were black, brown, white, red, or purple nor would it have mattered if they were straight, lesbian, asexual, or something else. It wouldn't have mattered because they'd have never made it to the local news. The only qualifier for making the local news is whether they are an establishment politician. If they're selling the same old snake oil that they've been selling for years, then they'll get a spot on the news. If it was someone that wanted to do things differently, they'd have been ignored and swept under the rug as much as possible.
Of course, all this is my opinion and my reaction.
Fantastic comment. The "local news" metric.
Thanks for that.
I am a bit confused here.
LL is an "establishment politician" but this was her first foray into politics?? Results of the big three, NYC, LA, Chi., mayoral elections do get reported nationally.
Who in your opinion, if anyone, was the best candidate? What is your opinion of Prestwistle, who does seem to be a known quantity? What are your objections, if any, to LL's policy positions, other than "they were all lies", which, alas they may have been. We have all seen that movie many times.
Is it your opinion that all of city govt. will be working against LL and she will be unable to govern?
Mary Bennett
Let me try to answer your questions
LL was appointed Assistant US Attorney, a position with some "clout" in Chicago politics. Then she was appointed as an administrator in the Chicago Police Department - an outfit with a lot of "clout" in Chicago. These appointments demonstrate that she has backers willing to put her name forward. Its not like she is a political newbie. Its just that her previous roles have been lower profile appointments. This is her first run in front of the voters, but she is an insider.
In my opinion, no decent candidate stood a chance. An open seat in a machine politics town? Every two bit hack was throwing his hat in the ring just to boost name recognition. Even LL and TP got like 13% of the vote in the primary. The whole scene was almost as crazy as when California elected Shwarzenegger and their were like 103 candidates in the primary. In a situation like that, you need some machine behind you. That's why the runoff was between the Old Machine candidate (TP) and the New Machine candidate (LL).
My objection to TP is that she is just another machine candidate. The machine serves the rich and powerful in Chicago, while making IdPol gestures to the masses.
Let's start with one of the two genuine issues I highlighted, charter schools. If you go to LL's platform webpage and then to her Education Policy page, you will find - after a bunch of platitudes - the following concrete statement:
If you google the NTA, you find that
If you go to the AUSL webpage, and look at their Board of Directors, you find people from McKinsey, from Boeing, from investment firms and charter school companies. IOW, the NTA is a charter school, and she's touting it.
Bottom line: LL is full speed ahead of more charter schools, and it took me five minutes of Googling to demonstrate that based on starting from her own words.
Of course not. She is an insider. She comes with backers and an agenda. Its the same old neoliberal agenda that has run Chicago for the last twenty years. She will change nothing. It is all Kabuki.
The Socialist Case FOR Identity Politics
While browsing alternative sources re. the Chicago elections, I found this socialist rejoinder in favor of Identity Politics in the Trotskyite publication The Socialist Worker: https://socialistworker.org/2019/04/03/towards-a-critical-defense-of-ide...
I don't know if that is the official position of that publication or whatever organization they link to these days.
It also seems there has recently been quite the bruhaha among various stripes of Trotskyites, much of it around what I agree with you is the circus of IdPol (I just wish you would apply your criticisms more equitably along those lines:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/02/inte-a02.html
LOL. Thanks for that.
I looked at the link, and the second para caught my eye...
They're Trotyskyites. Vicious purges come up as often as the sun rises. Its too bad that various splinters of the Trots have caused so much trouble. I'm thinking of the neocons.
I completely agree that what you posted about deserves to be slammed. I just don't tend to take the Trots seriously.
I disagree with a lot of the pro-IdPol analysis but . . .
. . . don't agree that it should just be slammed as seems to be your penchant. But that's you and I actually value that if only for probably selfish purposes in not wanting to wade through too much nuance.
TBH, I haven't finished reading the piece yet. I've been thinking too much today as it is and will be just as happy to get back to binge-watching some Soma and then going out for some exercise.
I think it's worth reading. And criticising. And debating. IMO, still better to simply send Bernie $27, tho. For whatever reason.
Don’t get hopes up re Chicago’s 1st black lesbian mayor—Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2019/apr/06/lori-lightfo...
Thanks for this. That its from the Guardian is even better.
I'm adding Diversity™ to McResistance as important neoliberal brand names.