CHICAGOàPOLITICS POLITICSàCHICAGO GOVERNING THE GLOBAL METROPOLIS THOMAS OGORZALEK, NU POLI SCI TODAY Chicago Politics • History of “The Machine” • Contemporary Chicago politics • In broader context: Urbanicity and “Blue America” • Some policies and Q & A Urban political science URBANICITY AND THE CHALLENGE OF BIG-CITY GOVERNANCE What is a city? What characteristics make cities distinctive? URBANICITY AND THE CHALLENGE OF BIG-CITY GOVERNANCE What is a city? What characteristics make cities distinctive? What makes Chicago distinctive? URBANICITY AND THE CHALLENGE OF BIG-CITY GOVERNANCE What is a city? • Density • Heterogeneity • Size • Centrality Cities are high-maintenance places, with a high demand for governance URBANICITY AND THE CHALLENGE OF BIG-CITY GOVERNANCE Cities are high-maintenance places, with a high demand for governance • Redistribution • Public goods • Regulation • Intergroup comity—getting along with difference URBANICITY AND THE CHALLENGE OF BIG-CITY GOVERNANCE Cities are high-maintenance places, with a high demand for governance • Redistribution • Public goods • Regulation • Intergroup comity—getting along with difference But they are also constrained • Formal limits by state government • Logical limits by federalism: interjurisdictional competition URBANICITY AND THE CHALLENGE OF BIG-CITY GOVERNANCE • High demand, but constraints • Solutions • Institutions to help govern • Political organization IDEAL DEMOCRACY Popular Will Government REAL DEMOCRACY Popular Will Institutions Government Institutions=“Rules of the Game” (Formal and Informal) REAL DEMOCRACY Popular Will Political Party Government MACHINE POLITICS: FACTIONAL ORGANIZATION (AKA Clientelism) Particularistic Goods Particularistic à Ward Ward Ward Boss Boss Boss à Political Support/Loyalty Political (Precinct Captains) (Precinct Captains) (Precinct Captains) POLITICAL MACHINE: UNIFIED HIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATION Boss Particularistic Goods Particularistic à Ward Ward Ward Boss Boss Boss à Political Support/Loyalty Political (Precinct Captains) (Precinct Captains) (Precinct Captains) MACHINE LEADERSHIP: SLATING COMMITTEE 1ST DEMOCRAT SLATE NAMING SESSION HELD: Subgroup to Get Job of Dumping 3 Judges Tagge, George Chicago Daily Tribune (1923-1963); Dec 21, 1955; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Chicago Tribune (1849-1987) pg. 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHICAGO MACHINE Distinctive features • Consolidates later than other major cities (1930s) • Closer ties to national Democrats • Last longer into present Character of decisionmaking • Unanimity as a group • Local autonomy MACHINE POLITICS, CHICAGO-STYLE • 1860s-1920s, factional machine politics • “Big Bill” Thompson, Republican boss • Charismatic personal leader • Democrats have 4 main factions: • Two led by “boss” types • Two led by “reform” types MACHINE CONSOLIDATION, CHICAGO-STYLE • Republican disintegration • Cermak takes leadership in Dems • Installs allies in top Dem leadership positions • Immigrant appeals: “A House for all Peoples” • “Pushcart Tony” • Ethnic hierarchy • Irish • Slavic • Kelly forges strong link to FDR • Federal patronage via New Deal CHICAGO’S ETHNIC ENCLAVES CHICAGO DEMOCRATIC MACHINE Democratic consolidation: Cermak, Kelly, Nash (1920s-1940s) City-wide dominance: Richard J. Daley (1950s-1970s) Fracture and Insurgency: Byrne, Washington (1970s-1980s) Retrenchment/Re-formation: Daley (1990s-2000s) Today? CHICAGO MACHINE: CORE AND PERIPHERY Substantive • Offices • Patronage • Services Irish Symbolic • Recognition Poles, Italians • Holidays AfAm, Latino • Parades CHICAGO MACHINE: CORE AND PERIPHERY Egs. Kelly, Daley, Sabath Pucinski, Rostenkowski, Marzullo Irish Washington, Chico Poles, Italians AfAm, Latino CHICAGO MACHINE AND RACIAL SUBORDINATION • Growing black population • 1900-1947: swing constituency • 1947-1959: Strong Dems, provide margin of victory • After 1959: Strong Dems, but superfluous bloc VOTING, CHICAGO 100 75 Dem (Mayor) 50 Afam Dem (Mayor) Afam Dem (Prez) 25 0 Year 1927 1931 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 (Keiser 1997) CHICAGO MACHINE: BLACK POLITICAL SUBORDINATION • Growing black population • 1900-1947: swing constituency • 1947-1959: Strong Dems, provide margin of victory • Marginalized constituency • Fewer Services and Jobs • Peripheral place in machine • Dawson remains as sub-boss • 1960s: Racial issues rise in prominence • Machine takes locally conservative stance BLACK EMPOWERMENT, CHICAGO-STYLE • By 1980, Chicago is 40% African American • Several large cities have had black mayors • Harold Washington, ex-machine Reform candidate, launches campaign BLACK EMPOWERMENT, CHICAGO-STYLE • By 1980, Chicago is 40% African American • Several large cities have had black mayors • Harold Washington, ex-machine Reform candidate, launches campaign • Wins primary v incumbent mayor (Byrne) and Daley (son) • Divisive racial politics in general election: • http://mediaburn.org/video/image-union-episode- 608/#video • Partisanship displaced by race 1983 MAYORAL ELECTION: DEM PRIMARY ORDER-FRACTURE-REORDER (Chicago Democracy Project) ORDER-FRACTURE-REORDER (Chicago Democracy Project) ORDER-FRACTURE-REORDER (Chicago Democracy Project) ORDER-FRACTURE-REORDER (Chicago Democracy Project) ORDER-FRACTURE-REORDER (Chicago Democracy Project) ORDER-FRACTURE-REORDER (Chicago Democracy Project) ORDER-FRACTURE-REORDER (Chicago Democracy Project) ORDER-FRACTURE REORDER SUCCESSION, RETRENCHMENT Richard J Daley Harold Washington Richard M Daley (1953-1976) (1983-1987) (1989-2011) SUCCESSION, RETRENCHMENT Richard J Daley Harold Washington Rahm Emanuel (1953-1976) (1983-1987) (2011-) SUCCESSION, RETRENCHMENT (NYC) Ed Koch (1978-89) David Dinkins Rudy Giuliani (1989-93) (1993-2001) SUCCESSION, RETRENCHMENT (LA) Sam Yorty (1961-73) Tom Bradley (1973-93) Richard Riordan (1993-2001) CHICAGO, 2015 How should we understand the 2015 election and Chicago’s current political climate? • Re-emergence of Machine? • “One percent” against neighborhoods/”working families”? • Intramural Democratic Party politics? CHICAGO, 2015: CONTEXT • Emanuel as first “post-machine” mayor (?) • Never been a run-off (since shift to non-partisan, 1989) • Anti-incumbent mood heads down-ticket • Progressive Caucus opposed to Emanuel • Karen Lewis and CTU • Endorse Garcia • (Some) unions v. “Chicago Forward” (Emanuel SuperPAC) GARCIA: COUNTY COMMISSIONER Like city council, but for the county. Formerly alderman and state senator Represents area on SW side, including Little Village, heavily Latino area (esp. Mexican and Mexican-American) EMANUEL, 2011 AND 2015 (WARDS) DID ANYTHING “HAPPEN?” Biggest changes might be • Closer contestation: drops in support for Emanuel, runoff • Added seats (but still not majority, or close) to City Council’s Progressive Caucus CHICAGO, 2015 How should we understand the 2015 election and Chicago’s current political climate? • Re-emergence of Machine? • “One percent” against neighborhoods/”working families”? • Intramural Democratic Party politics? RE-EMERGENCE OF MACHINE? Some continuity with “old” hyperlocal machine organization • Burke, Madigan • Emanuel allies But Richard M. Daley also reconstituted coalition • Downtown “development” coalition • Centralized investment, neoliberal service model • Emanuel is continuity with this CHICAGO, 2015 How should we understand the 2015 election and Chicago’s current political climate? • Re-emergence of Machine? • One percent against neighborhoods/”working families”? • Intramural Democratic Party politics? IDENTITIES IN CHICAGO • How salient are group identities? • Chicago demography changing • Lots of immigration, esp. Latinx • Increase in white pop • Slow decrease in black pop • PolarizationàFragmentation • Candidates drew from bases in first round ETHNORACIAL IDENTITIES IN 1983 • Turnout: 82% !! • In South Side wards, Washington got >95% • In whiter Machine-dominated wards, Washington got <10% • (Some in between) Paul Green ETHNORACIAL BLOCS IN CHICAGO 2015 .08 .7 22 12 21 7 9 68 .6 35 .06 17 34 25 20 26 18 24 14 15 31 4 165 37 .5 1 33 30 29 3 10 28 36 49 23 .04 32 40 .4 47 27 42 48 39 13 43 19 45 .7 5 15 50 113818 19 46 41 49 .3 .02 4 2 44 44 2250 48 20 16 33 1 26 46 10 8 7 29 30 40 6 2 17 24 3135 .6 3841453239123642112 25 21 928 27 1413444743 34 3 37 23 46 .2 50 43 0 42 48 13 47 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .5 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 3 27 11 39 afamp 40 45 38 3241 hispp 34 4 879 5 49 wallsp15 lowess wallsp15 afamp 216 29 19 garciap15 lowess garciap15 hispp 37 20 31 .4 17 28 23 16 18 36 30 33 1 10 24 14 26 35 25 .3 15 24 .3 37 12 .2 16 2817 22 34 .2 41 20 9 21 6 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 29 8 7 11 38 whitep .15 .2 23 19 27 emanp15 lowess emanp15 whitep 45 18 3 4 36 39 .1 15 5 3 13 10 32 2 28 4 3027 14 1 .1 50 18 25 29 33 40 43 42 47 44 35 31 26 49 48 46 19 .05 6 24 12 5 49 37879 36 22 26 46 10 2117 50 48 3416 20 25 15 384145303933433542112401 22 1413324431471223 0 0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 afamp whitep wilsonp15 lowess wilsonp15 afamp fiorp15 lowess fiorp15 whitep POLARIZATION V FRACTIONALIZATION Population Population Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 1 Group 2 EMANUEL’S SUPPORT ERODES ON SOUTH AND WEST EMANUEL SUPPORT ERODES MOST AMONG AFAM .2 .1 0 Emanuel2011 - -.1 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Emanuel2015 afamp2010 REshift Fitted values % Afam SCHOOLS AND EMANUEL SHIFT CHI CLASS VOTING: GENERAL 2015 42 43 .8 44 2 3 4627 41 34 11 47 32 .6 50 214 48 38 45 19 28 37 9 8 39 6 7 29 17 5 13 20 40 24 16 18 RErop 49 3323 1 36 10 30 .4 31 25 261435 15 12 .2 22 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 medhh CHI LATINX VOTING 1 .8 .6 garciap15a .4 .2 0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 hispp CHICAGO: THE AFAM CLOUD .8 22 12 15 14 3526 31 25 .6 10 36 30 23 33 1 49 1624 18 20 40 17 5 JGrop 67 29 13 89 28 39 2137 4 48 45 1938 .4 50 34 11 32 47 27 46 41 3 Support for Garcia for Support 2 44 .2 43 42 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 whitep % White NYC: THE GENTRY-CLOUD 1 BKBK QBXQ BKBK BXBX BK M BK BXBX Q BK BX M BK BXQ M M Q BK .8 BK BK Q M BX Q Q BK BK M BK M Q BX M M Q BX Q S M Q DeBlasio .6 Q Q BK DBT13G BK Q BK Q Q Q BK S M M .4 S BK Support for BK S .2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 WHITE NYC VS CHI: WHO ARE THE “WORKING FAMILIES”? Largely Latinx and working “Brownstone” gentrifying areas; class neighborhoods; NOT majority white, upper-middle majority white areas.