What Chicago needs is an honest, non-corrupt, economically literate, competent mayor that can lift the once-great city out of the tragic farce it has become. That might be a black woman. It might not.
Esther Cepeda, in one of the most insipidly stupid takes on politics I’ve read in quite awhile — and that’s saying something — believes that the gender and skin color of the next Chicago mayor is all that is needed to miraculously turn the city around, heal racial wounds, lower crime rates, improve economics and, perhaps, bring unicorns prancing on rainbows!
It’s so bad one has to ask, even in these times, how in the world do some people get nationally syndicated columns through the Washington Post Group? Let’s start at the beginning of the nonsense. Probably best not to be eating while I quote from Cepeda.
“Finally, a spot of good news for a beleaguered city that has long been known as a hotbed of racism and government-sanctioned segregation: the promise of Chicago’s first black, female mayor.
In a dogpile of a mayoral race, 14 candidates fought it out to connect to voters who had long ago given into a nasty case of learned helplessness. The two top winners — both black women — beat out a rich scion of a Chicago political dynasty, a Latina state official, the city’s former top cop and a bevy of other local luminaries.
The two finalists are former assistant U.S. attorney Lori Lightfoot and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. And no matter which one of them wins the April 2 runoff Chicago’s inauguration of a female African-American mayor will make a kind of history that none of the other top cities in America can claim.”
Set aside the overt racialism and bigotry over assuming based on skin color and gender alone that the next mayor will be better, what is she even factually talking about? “Inauguration of a female African-American mayor will make a kind of history that none of the other top cities in America can claim?” Um…Baltimore is on it’s third straight black woman mayor. And look how great Baltimore is doing! OK, actually it’s racked by racial strife, incompetence, a skyrocketing murder rate and a so-so economy despite being right next door to D.C.
Let’s see, who else? Oh yeah, Washington, D.C. elected a black female mayor; San Francisco elected a black female mayor; Atlanta elected a black female mayor; New Orleans elected a black female mayor; Charlotte, N.C. elected a black female mayor. Oh heck, here’s a full list here.
So what in the world is she talking about? And does she have an editor? When she says “top cities” is she saying New York and L.A.? That’s cherry-picking at its worst. Pretty sure most rational people could consider San Fran and D.C. among America’s top cities. But it is the sort of dishonesty we come to expect from the media. Even opinion writers should be held to a standard of some sort. But I dream.
More Cepeda” “And it’s a relief, indicating that there are still strides people of color can hope for…”
Because again, not the quality of the candidate, the issues, the plans, dare I say even, the content of their character, is what is important. Black. Female. Better. That’s the entire measuring stick. Nothing racist or bigoted here at all, folks.
So, yeah, the city could use good news in the form of a historic change of leadership from Rahm Emanuel, a big-interests-focused political operator. Either one of these two women could, in theory, address the neglect of the African-American community, which has caused what some experts consider to be a mass migration of black people out of the city and into the suburbs, neighboring Indiana or the Southern states where the original Great Migration began.”
I believe “address the neglect” translates to: A black female mayor will give blacks more stuff. If it meant reforming the school system, attacking the total decimation of the black family, changing the attitude towards education and jobs among young, black men specifically, and maybe even creative opportunity zones for investment, then that could really be something. But given Cepeda’s level of thought and insight, pretty sure she just means more stuff.
And finally, which of these two candidate finalists will win? Let’s look at one last note in Cepeda’s description to get a clue:
“At least it won’t be a boring race. As evidenced by her campaign thus far, Lightfoot — a self-proclaimed out and proud black lesbian — has seemingly never even heard of the “be nice” political playbook that’s expected of women politicians — perhaps a winning formula for other, future female high-office candidates?”
Straw man alert! Who exactly is expecting women to be “be nice” in politics? Not exactly what we’ve been seeing. And of course in another context, Cepeda would be bemoaning the state of our mean politics. What is really at work here is just the tired retread thinking of liberalism’s past quarter century.
Now, based on intersectional hierarchy, the black female lesbian candidate beats the black female candidate 3-2 in intersectional scoring. (Content of ideas need not apply.) But Chicago is well-known as a corrupt Democratic city and the non-lesbian black female candidate is part of that power structure. So it is entrenched power versus intersectional power.
Despite Cepeda’s fact-free, knee-jerk, stuck-in-a-rut thinking, it’s all but impossible to see how the city improves either way. Not, of course, because they are black women, but because they are shades of Chicago Democratic progressivism, which has proven itself a deep failure already. Changing faces won’t change the outcome.
Unfortunately, Cepeda and her fellow travellers will think the election itself means the city wins. That wasn’t the case with Barack Obama’s election as president. And it won’t be the case with Chicago’s choice.