Gangs and Local Politicians...an unholy alliance

[downtown]

So I can't post the entire article in here...not just b/c its not allowed, but its also fairly long. I highly encourage you guys to read at least part of it, which can be found here: \

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

To give you a brief summary, the article details the relationship between many Chicago politicians, and actual gangs, or organized criminal groups. The relationships stem from candidates and sitting Alderman (city councilmen) meeting with ex-gang members or "neighborhood reps", to using active gang members for get-out-the-vote programs, to setting up neighborhood work programs through gang members. At least one former Alderman in Chicago was running a huge money laundering operation while having an affair with a major gang leader. That...was a big deal.

The article brings up some interesting questions though. For folks that represent high crime areas, its pretty impossible to grow up without having ANY kind of connection to a gang...you're going to have a cousin or a neighbor who is pushing some drugs...and not everybody is willing to totally disavow everybody in their community who may be engaged in those activities.

Also, most of the associations listed in the article are perfectly legal...and some say pushing to get gang members into local politics gives them a chance to start "going straight", and become rehabilitated into society. Others are concerned that stronger ties with gangs may create the image that local pols are not getting serious about crime, or enabling criminal behavior. Some anecdotes in the article give that impression.

What do you think? Are some kinds of associations okay? Should a pol make sure that nobody with a felony is ever collecting signatures for them?: Should we welcome ex-con political involvement? How close is too close, and can you really represent the hood, without getting a little 'hood on you?

WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK

 

[Lone Wolf]

Welcome to Russia, America

 

[amadeus]

In gangland areas, are there really competitive elections to start with? Why would they need get-out-the-vote campaigns when their victories are already assured?

 

[luiz]

That's very common in Rio's slums. Some politician promisses the gangs to keep the police out most of the time and in return the gang forces the community to vote for the politician. Most (perhaps all) favelas are electoral feuds, where the result is known long before the voting is done. That's part of the reason why Brazilian democracy is a myth and a joke, especially at the local level.

Needless to say I consider any and all types of association with gangs to be unacceptable. If your cousin is in a gang and you want to be a politician you must disavow him.

 

[downtown]

In gangland areas, are there really competitive elections to start with? Why would they need get-out-the-vote campaigns when their victories are already assured?

The article indicated that gangland elections are actually some of the most competitive. Turnout for a city council election is often fairly low, and Chicago's city council wards are actually really small...so the ability to turn out specific blocks, or even buildings, can swing an election.

The political party of the winner is pretty much assured (all but 1 of Chicago's 50 Aldermen are Democrats), but multiple Dems run for each seat. Same thing for Statehouse primaries.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

It's Chicago what else do you expect?

 

[downtown]

It's Chicago what else do you expect?

I'm sure thats part of it, given the history of local Chicago politics, but I hardly think these issues are unique to the city. Luiz mentions this happens in Brazil ( I can certainly believe that), and I can think of several other American cities where these kinds of associations would not be unheard of. Heck, I bet most countries have at least one city like this.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's still better than local politicians allying with sectarian paramilitary organisations, so you're a few steps ahead of the Six Counties, as meagre a consolation as that may be.

 

[warpus]

I read parts of this article yesterday.

I'm not so sure about this.. For every "legal" thing that happens under this scheme, I'm sure there will be also two or three examples of corruption.

Doesn't seem very democratic to me.. But I guess in a city with so many gangs, what other option do you have? That's pretty much the deal, right?

 

[timtofly]

Aren't gangs just socialistic mafia's??

Seems to me they are more "democratic" than what the mafia's were.

They do represent the voice of the "people" more than the voice of one leader.

 

[downtown]

Aren't gangs just socialistic mafia's??

There isn't a whole lot of wealth sharing in urban gangs...don't really see whats socialistic about it?

 

[aelf]

Aren't gangs just socialistic mafia's??

You're absolutely right. Gang members are socialists. That's why we need to put socialists in prison.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think maybe he's confusing "urban gangs" with "Pancho Villa's bandit army"?

Which would certainly make this a better story if it were true.

 

[timtofly]

There isn't a whole lot of wealth sharing in urban gangs...don't really see whats socialistic about it?

There really is not a whole lot of wealth sharing on the governmental level, but people think that it works. It may be "massive" but it is not "equal".

I would say that all being equal there is more protection for what is "put" into a gang than any governement. The reason a gang works is that it is a smaller group than a nation is.

One usually does not kill another gang member to "get ahead". But we have US citizens that do that all the time.

 

[downtown]

Okay, so you're just basically making words then. It's impossible to really figure out what you're saying.

 

[aelf]

He put "socialistic" and "gangs" together. That's basically the point.

 

[warpus]

One day I will understand him.

 

[timtofly]

Okay, so you're just basically making words then. It's impossible to really figure out what you're saying.

He put "socialistic" and "gangs" together. That's basically the point.

No, I asked a question. I did not like the answer, so I kept on "making" words.

I did not say they were socialist. I was comparing them to mafia's. Unless now I think that a mafia is actually a dictatorship?

You could have just told me that a gang does not share anything, but they do a lot of looting and destroying around different neighborhoods. Seems I must be easily distracted by any mention of economics.

IMO a gang by nature has stronger co-dependancy, maybe even equality, than the mafia did. While they are violent by nature, they would be more inclined to a socialistic principle than the Mafia would?

@ Warpus

thanks

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's still better than local politicians allying with sectarian paramilitary organisations, so you're a few steps ahead of the Six Counties, as meagre a consolation as that may be.

They're basically the same thing now.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

One day I will understand him.

That cracked me up