How Chicago shaped Obama

Whomp

Keep Calm and Carry On
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
18,200
Location
Chicago
A piece in the New Yorker on Barack Obama's rise, fall and rise again in Chicago politics. I suggest reading the whole piece but will only include the beginning and a few sections for discussion. Since I live in the city of villages I have a pretty good sense of what the political landscape is in this city, especially where he gets his funding, and the state as a whole.

One day in 1995...
Spoiler :
Barack Obama went to see his alderman, an influential politician named Toni Preckwinkle, on Chicago’s South Side, where politics had been upended by scandal. Mel Reynolds, a local congressman, was facing charges of sexual assault of a sixteen-year-old campaign volunteer. (He eventually resigned his seat.) The looming vacancy set off a fury of ambition and hustle; several politicians, including a state senator named Alice Palmer, an education expert of modest political skills, prepared to enter the congressional race. Palmer represented Hyde Park—Obama’s neighborhood, a racially integrated, liberal sanctuary—and, if she ran for Congress, she would need a replacement in Springfield, the state capital. Obama at the time was a thirty-three-year-old lawyer, university lecturer, and aspiring office-seeker, and the Palmer seat was what he had in mind when he visited Alderman Preckwinkle.

“Barack came to me and said, ‘If Alice decides she wants to run, I want to run for her State Senate seat,’ ” Preckwinkle told me. We were in her district office, above a bank on a street of check-cashing shops and vacant lots north of Hyde Park. Preckwinkle soon became an Obama loyalist, and she stuck with him in a State Senate campaign that strained or ruptured many friendships but was ultimately successful. Four years later, in 2000, she backed Obama in a doomed congressional campaign against a local icon, the former Black Panther Bobby Rush. And in 2004 Preckwinkle supported Obama during his improbable, successful run for the United States Senate. So it was startling to learn that Toni Preckwinkle had become disenchanted with Barack Obama.


.....Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama
Spoiler :

is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them. When he was a community organizer, he channelled his work through Chicago’s churches, because they were the main bases of power on the South Side. He was an agnostic when he started, and the work led him to become a practicing Christian. At Harvard, he won the presidency of the Law Review by appealing to the conservatives on the selection panel. In Springfield, rather than challenge the Old Guard Democratic leaders, Obama built a mutually beneficial relationship with them. “You have the power to make a United States senator,” he told Emil Jones in 2003. In his downtime, he played poker with lobbyists and Republican lawmakers. In Washington, he has been a cautious senator and, when he arrived, made a point of not defining himself as an opponent of the Iraq war.

Obama has benefitted from impeccable timing. As the national Party entered a period of ideological timidity, he was at the vanguard of a Democratic revival in Illinois that had begun in 1992, when Clinton and Braun won the state, and grew stronger when, four years later, Democrats took over the Illinois House of Representatives. It continued through 2002, when Democrats won the State Senate and the governor’s office. By 2004, when Obama ran for the United States Senate, Illinois was a solidly blue state.

Not all of this was due to Democratic ingenuity; during this period the state Republican Party collapsed under the weight of corruption scandals. That is something of an Illinois tradition: four of the last nine governors have been indicted on charges of corruption, and three were convicted. As Saul Bellow once remarked, “Politics are politics, crime is crime, but in Chicago they occasionally overlap. The line between virtue and vice meanders madly—effective government on one side, connections on the other.”


....relationship with Tony Rezko and pinstripe patronage.
Spoiler :

There were further changes under way in Chicago. Obama had won his first campaign by using old-fashioned Chicago machine tactics at a time when the notion of machine politics was increasingly anachronistic. As the political consultant Don Rose and his colleague James Andrews explain in a chapter for a book about the current Mayor Daley’s first victory, the machine literally provided voters with access to food, health care, and a job. In most American cities, that model vanished after the Second World War; by then, the blue-collar base was leaving for the suburbs and reform movements were challenging machine politics. In Chicago, Rose and Andrews say, the elder Daley updated and preserved the system by creating a modern machine that combined “big labor and big capital, blue and white collars, and minorities”—a hybrid model that died with him.

Gradually, Chicago caught up with the rest of the country and media-driven politics eclipsed machine-driven politics. “It became increasingly difficult to get into homes and apartments to talk about candidates,” Rose said. “High-rises were tough if not impossible to crack, and other parts of the city had become too dangerous to walk around in for hours at a time. And people didn’t want to answer their doors. Thus the increasing dependence on TV, radio, direct mail, phone-banking, robocalls, et cetera—all things that cost a hell of a lot more money than patronage workers, who were themselves in decline, anyway, because of anti-patronage court rulings.” Instead of a large army of ward heelers dragging people to the polls, candidates needed a small army of donors to pay for commercials. Money replaced bodies as the currency of Chicago politics. This new system became known as “pinstripe patronage,” because the key to winning was not rewarding voters with jobs but rewarding donors with government contracts.

E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about this transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reëlected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms, developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new ad campaigns necessary for reëlection. “They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest,” Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.

At the time, Obama was growing closer to Tony Rezko, who eventually turned pinstripe patronage into an extremely lucrative way of life. Rezko’s rise in Illinois was intertwined with Obama’s. Like Abner Mikva and Judson Miner, he had tried to recruit Obama to work for him. Chicago had been at the forefront of an urban policy to lure developers into low-income neighborhoods with tax credits, and Rezko was an early beneficiary of the program. Miner’s law firm was eager to do the legal work on the tax-credit deals, which seemed consistent with the firm’s over-all civil-rights mission. A residual benefit was that the new developers became major donors to aldermen, state senators, and other South Side politicians who represented the poor neighborhoods in which Rezko and others operated. “Our relationship deepened when I started my first political campaign for the State Senate,” Obama said earlier this year, in an interview with Chicago reporters.

Rezko was one of the people Obama consulted when he considered running to replace Palmer, and Rezko eventually raised about ten per cent of Obama’s funds for that first campaign. As a state senator, Obama became an advocate of the tax-credit program. “That’s an example of a smart policy,” he told the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin in 1997. “The developers were thinking in market terms and operating under the rules of the marketplace; but at the same time, we had government supporting and subsidizing those efforts.” Obama and Rezko’s friendship grew stronger. They dined together regularly and even, on at least one occasion, retreated to Rezko’s vacation home, in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza/?currentPage=1
 
Good read (for both supporters and detractors).
I would agree but it appears his cartoon got more play around here than the actual article.

Also how ironic his situation seems to be parallel to JFK's as a little known charasmatic candidate, promises of change, Ivy Leaguer, generated a lot of excitement with the younger generation and a direct tie to the Daleys.

Unfortunately, I think he blew his opportunity to demonstrate that he really is a different kind of politician when he offered to use public spending limitations but when the cards were down he realized pinstripe patronage was the exlixir he thirst for.

I felt good about him when I voted for him as senator but I've learned my lesson. His brand has been tarnished by some of his recent change of opinion. Question is what beliefs will he decide are worth expending political capital on once he's elected (similar to his past)? He won't meet the already high expectations and my guess is he's one and done.

Last thing...hopefully he'll have JFK's strength in times of adversity but to be honest quotes like this make him sound more Chamberlain-esque.
Obama’s response to the event was published on September 19th in the Hyde Park Herald (about 9/11):

Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa.
 
Last thing...hopefully he'll have JFK's strength in times of adversity but to be honest quotes like this make him sound more Chamberlain-esque.

I'm curious what exactly you find wrong with the quote? It seems a lot better than an empty "America is #1! Everyone hates our freedom! United we stand! God bless us! Lets go kill some towel heads!!!"
 
I take issue with the fact that he justifies their terror. Empathy for killers?
The killing has nothing to do with poor people in poor countries.
 
I take issue with the fact that he justifies their terror. Empathy for killers?
The killing has nothing to do with poor people in poor countries.

I would absolutely disagree. I think the lack of empathy is the reason we have all of this. The attacks, the wars, the attacks before and the wars before.

By the way, empathy is simply feeling what they feel and knowing what they know. And as far as for fighting an enemy or understanding a populace I think that is the most invaluable intelligence possible.

It's actually things like this from Obama that impress me more. When he looks at a problem and calls it as nuanced as it actually is. Beats the snot out of some of the types of responses Fifty mentioned.
 
I take issue with the fact that he justifies their terror. Empathy for killers?
The killing has nothing to do with poor people in poor countries.

He doesn't justify it, he explains it. It seems much better to try to search for real motives than to just plug our ears, turn off our minds, and declare them just merciless psychopaths who wanted to kill us because they hate freedom and they hate us and they hate our way of life and they hate everything we say or do. The world isn't so black and white, it isn't just good vs evil.
 
I felt good about him when I voted for him as senator but I've learned my lesson.

I would have never, ever voted for Alan Keyes. He didn't even live in Illinois.
 
Empathy for who? I'm empathtic to the people who have to live under the oligarchs that suppress these people. The dictatorships, wars, communal hatreds, sectarian religious violence and terror groups. Empathy? I think not.
 
Empathy for who? I'm empathtic to the people who have to live under the oligarchs that suppress these people. The dictatorships, wars, communal hatreds, sectarian religious violence and terror groups. Empathy? I think not.

Not understanding why there are these hatreds, religious violence, and sectarian groups is the reason that the problems will always persist. Empathy doesn't have to mean sympathy, it can be entirely a learning experience and nothing else.

EDIT: Heck, if you're an FBI profiler or criminal psychologist, you're paid to be in some of the most repulsive minds there are. Understanding why perps do the things they do doesn't change the fact that they're guilty of it(barring mental incompetency), but it does provide is with the proper understanding to make sure no one ever descends into the mental state that they did.
 
He doesn't justify it, he explains it. It seems much better to try to search for real motives than to just plug our ears, turn off our minds, and declare them just merciless psychopaths who wanted to kill us because they hate freedom and they hate us and they hate our way of life and they hate everything we say or do. The world isn't so black and white, it isn't just good vs evil.
He explains nothing. I have to admit 8 days after 9/11 prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa was not exactly my first concern and not really a priority I'd want in any President faced with that situation.

They knew exactly that their actions would cause heartache, pain and suffering. If they didn't why would they video beheadings? Why would Wahhabist Juhayman lead a siege of the Grand Mosque on 11/20/79 (the beginning of Islam's 14th Century)? This explains more about the situation than what he explains.

Not understanding why there are these hatreds, religious violence, and sectarian groups is the reason that the problems will always persist. Empathy doesn't have to mean sympathy, it can be entirely a learning experience and nothing else.

EDIT: Heck, if you're an FBI profiler or criminal psychologist, you're paid to be in some of the most repulsive minds there are. Understanding why perps do the things they do doesn't change the fact that they're guilty of it(barring mental incompetency), but it does provide is with the proper understanding to make sure no one ever descends into the mental state that they did.
It has nothing to do with failure of empathy. "It grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance?" Come now. Why would two very wealthy men be running an organization, like al Qaeda, or the doctors who attacked Glasgow or for that matter architect M. Atta do such a thing? Because we don't empathize with the poor and ignorant? Not so much...
 
I take issue with the fact that he justifies their terror. Empathy for killers?
The killing has nothing to do with poor people in poor countries.

I'm not sure you get it he said : "a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers"

Not very deep or insightful because by definition murderers lack empathy.

I agree that poverty per se is not the cause as there are poor people all over the world and in most cultures they do not adopt terror or particularly terror against the US.

The truth is that it is a mixture of forces including US foreign policy that led to this situation. At least referring to underlying political and sociological forces is more correct than good vs evil and the instinct to do no harm in the heat of the moment by showing restraint after 911 is correct. It is hard to imagine how the emotional blustery off target war frenzy of Bush could have led to a worse result for US interests.
 
I take issue with the fact that he justifies their terror.

Spare us of this sordid nonsense, mr whomp.

Figuring out motives and incentives is important and often crucial whenever you attempt to solve a trend of crimes, such as organized terrorism. Continued US and Israeli aggression, terrorism and support for reactionary movements and undemocratic regimes in the Middle East provide the incentive and motive for dirtbag reactionary riffraff like Osama Bin Laden to target their operations against the US.
 
Whomp, really, I do not understand why this statement troubles you so. In fact, it is a prime example of someone who

a) attempts to UNDERSTAND the perpetrators, as a step of

b) UNDERSTANDING the circumstances that caused them to commit the crime, as a step of being able to

c) PREVENT these circumstances to avoid repetition.

The fact that Obama is able to do so (in contrast to Bush) even when obviously totally shocked and angered only makes his statement appear smarter and a better guide for policy.

Where, please, does he justify the terror attacks? He explains how they came to pass, but an explanation is not a justification.
 
Not very deep or insightful because by definition murderers lack empathy.

hu?

whose definition? And why?

Many murderers commit their act rashly, in anger, and instantly regret it.
 
hu?

whose definition? And why?

Many murderers commit their act rashly, in anger, and instantly regret it.

Or because they have to. I wouldn't like to kill cute rabbits, after all, their life is not fundamentally different from mine, but I'd kill and eat them if I'd starve otherwise.
 
I don't care if murderers empathize after the fact. I am sure that nuance isn't lost on you.
 
I don't care if murderers empathize after the fact. I am sure that nuance isn't lost on you.

what a helpful comment.

So you see no difference between someone who CAN and someone who CANNOT empathize? I am sure that nuance is not lost on YOU.... :p
 
I don't care if murderers empathize after the fact. I am sure that nuance isn't lost on you.

Well there is a reason that the US has multiple ratings of murder.
 
Top Bottom