Why Pack Journalism Sucks: Rethinking Chicago's Mayoral Race

 

<Brandon Johnson, after winning last week's mayoral runoff

https://workingfamilies.org/2023/04/victory-in-chicago-for-brandon-johnson/>

Pack Journalism (noun): 

<Journalism that is practiced by reporters in a group and that is marked by uniformity of news coverage and lack of original thought or initiative.>

(Merriam Webster's Dictionary)

<i.>

If you want a fitting metaphor for, "What's wrong with this picture," the opening paragraphs of this Chicago Sun-Times  article, from January 25, 2021, should suffice. The story focuses on a hotly-debated police training center project that Mayor Lori Lightfoot had opposed, as Police Board President, which now apparently seemed far-reaching enough to win her support: 

"Allocating funds for a police academy 'is viewed by many as further affirmation that needs of the people will never be prioritized over those of the police,' she said on that day.

"A month after taking office, Lightfoot dramatically changed her tune and embraced the project she had condemned, making it bigger and more expensive.

"On Wednesday, Lightfoot completed her about-face on a project that was once the target of nationwide protests, cutting the ribbon on the $170 million complex at 701 N. Kilbourn Ave., along the 4300 and 4400 blocks of West Chicago Avenue."

For progressives who'd supported her 2019 election, the groundbreaking marked one of many maddening 180-degree retreats from the themes she'd promoted during her campaign -- including greater accountability over one of the nation's most dysfunctional police departments.

As the writer notes, despite the protests, Liightfoot doubled down -- figuratively, and literally -- on the project, whose cost had once been estimated at $95 million. For Activist Ja'Mal Green, who became Lightfoot's youngest ,mayoral challenger, at 27, the center served as an especially glaring snapshot of his city's misplaced priorities:

“Making sure that young people have safe spaces, job opportunities, apprenticeships. Schools should be open throughout the day and on weekends. These are priorities. We have done none of those things. We couldn’t even get swimming pools open in the summer.

“The fact that young people are slapped with curfews instead of given safe spaces, but we had all of this money to put toward a police academy to do right now, while young people are literally suffering. It’s just about the timing and the prioritization, about how do we care or not care about people in the neighborhoods.”

Fast forward to February 2023. With Lightfoot looking more and more like a one-term mayor, how did the mainstream media characterize her failure to make last week's runoff?

In a word, with the C-word: crime, crime, and more crime, as verdicts poured in from CNN ("the latest demonstration of growing concerns about crime in one of the nation's largest cities"), The New York Times ("a resounding defeat that reflected widespread dissatisfaction from voters over her handling of crime and policing in the nation's third largest city"), and Vox.com ("a referendum on her first four years in office and on crime in Chicago").

<"I Feel A Little Chilly In Here..."/

The Reckoner>

<ii.>

Some media outlets proved way less restrained than others in their hysteria, such as Politico.com ("Calling All Police: Lightfoot Needs A Lifeline"), the ever-reactionary New York Post ("Chicago Mayoral Race Is A Warning To Big Cities Everywhere"), or Bloomberg.com ("Chicago Mayor's Loss Has One Cause: Crime"). 

Still, we should expect a lot more from our established media outlets, who continued to treat the runoff between the eventual winner, progressive Brandon Johnson, and former Chicago Public Schools Superintendent Paul Vallas, as a personality-driven clash of wills. Only, one that crime (and its twin sister, COVID) would continue to dominate, as any number of headlines suggested:

"Chicago Mayor Candidate Backed By Police Makes It To Runoff" (Bloomberg, 2/28/23).

"Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot's Struggle To Be Reelected" (New York Magazine, 2/21/23).

"Chicago Mayor's Race Shows Impact of Crime In COVID's Wake" (The San Diego Union-Tribune, 3/01/23).

"Chicago Mayor's Race Dominated By Concerns About City Crime" (US News & World Report, 2/25/23).

"In Chicago Mayor's Race, Two Hopefuls Reflect Democrats' Split" (Associated Press, 3/19/03)

"Progressive And Centrist Democrats Clash In Chicago Mayoral Race" (Financial Times, 4/06/23).

Notice the uniformity in style, and tone? This is what pack journalism does -- boil the prevailing narrative into one convenient, soggy, steam-pocked tea bag. Once the gatekeepers on the ground settle on one, nothing else is allowed to pierce the fog that results.

<"Idle Chatter":
The Reckoner>

<iii.>

Much of the coverage of the resulting Chicago runoff focused on claims that Johnson either planned to "defund the police," or at least, make that idea the centerpiece of his policymaking approach, if he ever made it to City Hall.

That seems like the gist of Politco.com's piece, which characterizes Johnson as "the left-wing challenger who’s threatening to deny her (Lightfoot) even a spot in the runoff." The writer makes a number of credibility-stretching claims, like this one: "What's more striking, and what's at the heart of Lightfoot's offensive, is that some of the same polls indicate that defunding the police is highly unpopular with Black voters."

Which polls, exactly? And which segment of Black voters? We're never told, beyond "some surveys I've seen," and "Polling from the campaigns and outside groups" -- surely, not the most reliable barometers in any race, no matter how heated, right?

Not done with speaking for all Black voters, the writer makes his biases clearer as the story progresses ("Vallas has resurrected himself as the tough-on-crime favorite of the Fraternal Order of Police [FOP]"). For added punch, he also nods to the election of New York Mayor Eric Adams, another rising star of the stack-'em-like-cordwood crowd.

So what did Johnson have to say about all this, exactly? Plenty, if you visit the Issues section of his campaign website, as Politico's writer should have done:

"As mayor, I will chart a new strategy for public safety, rather than relying on the same failed approaches that have brought trauma to communities across the city. I will work with police and first responders to invest in community-based interventions that de-escalate conflict, reduce violence and make our neighborhoods safer. I will create an Office of Community Safety, reopen the city’s mental health clinics, fully fund year-round youth employment, and foster partnerships between communities and law enforcement to make critical investments preventing crime before it happens."

Johnson proceeds to offer a detailed overview of how he plans to attack the situation, "by investing in the basics: good schools, good jobs, housing and mental health." His proposals range from reopening the city's 14 public health mental health clinics, to doubling the number of youth summer jobs to 60,000.

As you'd expect, much of Vallas's website focuses on ideas for revamping the Chicago Police Department. His proposals range from allowing former officers to return with the same rank that they left, to boosting the number of detectives by 10 percent, and hiring more officers to patrol public transit.

The closest he comes to acknowledging different (read: non-stacking) ideas is his call for a summit of city, state and officials to discuss "holistic solutions" to crime, such as "street violence interruption, youth violence reduction, youth diversion, and returning citizen support agencies and programs."

How Vallas planned to pull off such a gathering, after pledging so much political capital to his FOP fanbase, is anybody's guess. Vallas's loss makes the point moot, I suppose, but it's a fair question to ask future stack-'em-like-cordwood advocates. Vallas wasn't the first of that breed, and he won't be the last.

<Joint Rally Poster:
Bernie Sanders' Facebook page>

<iv.>

For all the hoopla projected onto Lightfoot's missteps, and the runoff that followed, what's striking is how many Chicagoans just shrugged off the whole spectacle. Only about 35 percent bothered to cast a ballot, which is roughly half the turnout for presidential elections. 

Judged by that metric, Johnson's seems less impressive than it looks. Yet, in another sense, the game wasn't close as the box score indicated. As the ballot counting continues (through April 18), Johnson's total has grown to 302,619 votes, versus 282,406 for Vallas. Though it's hardly a rout, the resulting margin -- just over 20,000 votes -- is decisive enough.

Among those who did vote, there seemed a clear interest in taking a different approach. Yet, by and large, the mainstream media largely missed the boat, with some exceptions. The American Prospect and The Intercept did a good job of peeking behind the curtains of power broking, as well as public media outlets, like WTTW (see below).

But those were the exceptions. The most damaging effect of pack journalism is that the good questions never get asked, which ensures that good ideas never get a hearing.

Let's start with the obvious ones. Statistics show one in four children, and one in 10 adults, are living in poverty, or incomes of 50% below the federal poverty line. Seventy-six percent of students receive free or subsidized meals, and an additional 16,000 students are homeless.

With so many struggling to survive, how can Chicago call itself a world-class city? Yes, crime has ratcheted to levels not seen since the 1990s, but aren't such glaring disparities a key driver of it? How much difference, realistically, would putting a cop on every corner make in such an environment, when crime becomes a more attractive, if high risk, option?

How could someone like Vallas credibly handle those issues, given his longtime involvement with the for-profit (charter) school movement, and a campaign funded largely by the city's wealthy white power structure? How deeply does he support core Democratic priorities, when he once toyed with switching parties?

Voters should also have gotten a deeper dive into city finances, which largely took a back seat to all the feverish chatter about crime. As mayor-elect, Johnson will inherit estimated deficits of $360 million for the city, and $628 million for its schools. How much can he accomplish, especially if the City Council and state lawmakers don't pass all the new taxes he's proposing to fund his programs?

The power structure needed to hear the toughest questions of all. As the Sun-Times noted (see my previous post, "When In Doubt, Stop Digging"), the Black political establishment lined up mostly behind Vallas, almost to a person. So did Illinois's senior Democratic Senator, Dick Durbin. 

Why did so many of them endorse someone whom voters have rejected for governor (2002 primary), lieutenant governor (2014), and yes, mayor of Chicago (2019)?  How can somebody who's struck out so often at the ballot box ever present himself as a serious candidate?

We'll never know, because those questions barely get asked, so nobody had to worry about trying to answer them. The problem is that accountability and transparency are critical ingredients to ensuring a vital democracy, or at least, one that bears some resemblance to what you studied in government class.

Spoon feeding voters a steady diet of "beauty pageant" or "horse race" models of news coverage that reduce issues to mere personality clashes, or mindless handicapping (Who's up? Who's down?), drastically undercuts those ideals.

But this is the final, unhappy result, when journalists hunt in packs. The swells can sleep soundly behind for yet another night, knowing they've copped another hall pass for their sneaky behavior, because the watchdogs are dozing along with them, or too distracted to care much themselves.

More than anything else, I hope that Johnson's victory finally forces some long-overdue discussion of the social costs of enshrining a top-down, pay-to-play political culture, and who really benefits from it. It sure hasn't been the average Chicagoan. --The Reckoner

Links To Go: Hurry. Hurry,
Before The Pack Tosses A Distraction Bomb:

The American Prospect:
Brandon Johnson's Ground Game
Defeats Obama Machine In Chicago:
https://prospect.org/politics/2023-04-05-brandon-johnson-defeats-obama-machine-chicago/

Brandon Johnson: The Plan For A Safer Chicago:
https://www.brandonforchicago.com/issues/public-safety

Politico.com: Calling All Police: Lightfoot Needs A Lifeline
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/28/lightfoot-chicago-mayoral-election-on-politics-00084669

Paul Vallas: Paul's Comprehensive Public Safety Plan:
https://www.paulvallas2023.com/publicsafety

The Intercept:
Is Chicago Mayoral Candidate
Paul Vallas A Republican?:
https://theintercept.com/2023/04/04/chicago-mayor-paul-vallas-republican/

WTTW: Brandon Johnson Defeats Paul Vallas:
https://news.wttw.com/2023/04/04/paul-vallas-leads-brandon-johnson-tight-chicago-mayoral-race

When In Doubt, Stop Digging: The Case Against Lori Lightfoot (UPDATED: 4/4/23)

<"Stop Digging, Stop Digging":

Take I/The Reckoner>

<i.>

Mayor Lori Lightfoot's flagging re-election effort in Chicago reminds me of a color quote by the '70s-era British politician Denis Healey: "Healey's first law of politics: when you're in a hole, stop digging." Ironic advice indeed, as Healey would lose two bids for the Labour Party's leadership, in 1976 and 1980. He settled for deputy leader, only to face a stiff challenge in 1981, in which he retained his new post by a margin of less than one percent.

Barely two years later, Margaret Thatcher's landslide re-election would render Healey -- and many of his colleagues -- totally irrelevant. He duly resigned, and fell into the traditional roles allotted to British political also-rans (House of Lords, Shadow Cabinet memberships). He was the House of Lords' oldest sitting member when he died, at 98, in 2015.

\What's worth noting here is that Healey never rose above the two major Cabinet posts that he held (Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of Defense); this, despite widely held views of him as the logical successor to James Callaghan, whom Thatcher had beaten to become Prime Minister in 1979. The Labour Party itself would remain locked out of power until 1997, when Tony Blair finally broke the drought.

So what stopped Healey from becoming Prime Minister, or at least, Labour's next opposition leader? Most historians cite his apparent inability or unwillingness to tone down his combative speaking style, and reach out beyond those already agreed with it, as the decisive factors. 

A man who zigzags between vowing to "squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak" -- as he did, in 1974, in pressing for a wealth tax -- to negotiating a bailout from the International Monetary Fund that triggered deep, divisive budget cuts, as they did in 1976, is unlikely to inspire great public confidence.

It's not hard to imagine Healey's critics shuddering whenever he put himself forward for the big jobs; to paraphrase Elvis Costello, they had seen the movie, and it did not move them. Yet Healey's essential advice ("stop digging") still stands, even if he didn't follow it himself, and Lightfoot would do well study it, even though she doesn't seem capable of major introspection, as we'll see.

<"Hey, guys, I told you to stop 

dragging out those shovels..."

Denis Healey stares down
his political future with a smile: April 1974>

<Rob Mieremet, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons>

<ii.>

Where Healey and his party dug themselves a hole, by comparison, Lightfoot finds herself staring out of a trench. For Chicago's newly-minted mayor, the major priority is avoiding an outright defeat in Tuesday's elections. If Lightfoot somehow avoids a first round knockout, she and the other top vote getter proceed to a runoff in April. 

With nine candidates crowding the ballot, a runoff seems more likely than not, though polls suggest a fair amount of volatility. A recent WLS-TV poll  has former Chicago school superintendent Paul Vallas on top (22.1%), followed by Lightfoot (17.1%), and Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson (16.1%). Congressman Chuy Garcia, the onetime front-runner, now languishes in fourth (13.8%), followed by wealthy businessman Willie Wilson (11.8%). All others poll in single digits.

As WLS notes, two other figures carry greater concerns for the mayor's second term prospects. One has Vallas crushing Lightfoot in a runoff by 19 points (49.3-30.1%). The other are the 54% of those who responded claim they won't vote for her, no matter what. It's a remarkable reversal of fortune for someone who surfed a tidal wave of goodwill to become the Windy City's first openly gay, second female, and third African-American mayor in 2019.

Lightfoot's victory teased the promise of a major break from the top-down, foul-mouthed leadership of her predecessor, Rahm Emanuel -- who'd abandoned plans to seek a third term, rather than risk a humiliating defeat from the voters he'd spent eight years antagonizing. But that's exactly not how things have worked out.

<"Just Sit Here In Awe..."

The Reckoner>

<iii.>

So why, exactly, is Lightfoot fighting for her political life, a mere four years after she arrived? One reason? Combativeness. At various times, she's clashed -- heatedly, and repeatedly -- with the City Council, the media, the teachers' union, and progressives who once saw her as their best hope for breaking with the Windy City's notoriously top-down, get-along, go-along, ring-kissing political culture.

Her bleep-bleeped belittlements range from succinct blasts ("You're 100% full of shit"), to unhinged serial rants ("My dick is bigger than yours and the Italians, I have the biggest dick in Chicago"). At best, they sound like the outbursts of a former federal prosecutor who was never ready for prime time; at worst, they suggest someone who seems a few sandwiches shy of a picnic, as Healey might say, perhaps. 

In These Times (see link below) paints a compelling portrait of an insecure, domineering authoritarian who brooks no dissent, and never hesitates to hurl the considerable weight of her office against all who question her. As someone who's often experienced these tactics myself, this former supporter's quote speaks volumes: 

“I thought she’d govern like she campaigned, and we didn’t get that. We got a very dictatorial style of governing, just like we did with Rahm, and it’s disappointing."

<"Stop Digging, Stop Digging":
Take II/The Reckoner>

<iv.>

Abrasive or not, though, Lori Lightfoot's brittle, rough-edged governance isn't the only reason that she's fighting to keep her job. Critics also cite her willingness to continue pouring Tax Increment Funds (TIF) -- a program that's meant to serve blighted areas -- toward subsidizing the pet development priorities of Chicago's wealthy elite.

As proof, look no further than the $6 billion Lincoln Yards project, an initiative that Lightfoot once blasted Emanuel for wanting to fast-track. Now, of course, she's all for it. It's the kind of U-turn that prompts those who didn't trust her in 2019 to remind voters why all over again, as Saqib Bhatti, co-executive director at the Action Center on Race & the Economy, tells In These Times: 

“Lightfoot’s been an unmitigated disaster — I think under her we’ve seen a continuation of the failed policies of Emanuel and [former Mayor Richard M.] Daley, but with even less charm somehow. She’s continued putting major corporations and the wealthy above the needs of poor Black and brown folks in Chicago.”

None of those developments should surprise anybody. I saw the chickens roosting during my brief tenure in the late 1990s, when the abuses of TIF funds were just beginning to gather steam under Mayor Daley.

Entire neighborhoods were left to rot, because they were filled with average (read: mostly minority) people who didn't have "the juice" to squeeze City Hall for their fair share of its spoils. No one was in their corner, so that was that.

The social inequities that seemed like a mere gap when I arrived, then began to yawning into a chasm. The Ed Burkes and Vrdolyaks kept making out, like the bandits they always were, as they remained the sun around which the city's clannish political culture orbited. They paid less of their "fair share" than ever, while the rest of us paid more and more, and more and more -- fees, penalties, permits, and so on. You name it, they raked it in.

Hence, that's why I'm saying little, for now, about the other major issue in the race, which has done so much to sour Chicagoans on Lightfoot: crime, and what to do about it. It's an issue that's ripe for demagoguery, and this race is no exception. But based on what I saw, putting the proverbial cop on every corner won't ever be enough, which is the major theme of Vallas's campaign.

However, as Johnson has repeatedly pointed out, the criminal justice system keeps on growing by leaps and bounds -- in terms of its budget, and payroll -- not to mention how many unfortunates wind up shuffled off to new residencies at the nearest gray bar hotel. Yet, if the polls tell us anything, Chicagoans have never felt less positive about their city, and its future.

<"Hey, guys? Guys? I don't see any light in here, 

and it looks like an awfully steep climb to the top. 

Can somebody give me a hand?">

<Coda>

Yet with so many people continuing to struggle for basic needs that City Hall continues to ignore, I remain deeply skeptical that locking them all up -- or slapping heftier fines, or jacking up the taxes they already can't afford -- will make any real difference.

Admittedly, Lightfoot has faced major hurdles, ranging from financial, to the fallout of COVID-19, homelesness, and fierce anti-cop apathy, fueled by incidents like George Floyd's murder...to name a few. Yet, like her unfortunate '70s counterpart, Lightfoot has responded by simply doubling down, staring straight ahead, and continuing to dig.

Chicagoans may well decide that this type of behavior is reason enough to send Lightfoot off to Chicago's One-Term Hall of Fame (Michael Bilandic, 1979; Jane Byrne, 1983; Eugene Sawyer, 1989), because they see her as the kind of leader that they don't want.

Whether they get the kind of leadership they so desperately need, however, remains very much an open question, with no easy answer in sight. Whoever wins the job would do well to heed a saying attributed to another cast-off British Prime Minister, Edward Heath: "A week is a long time in politics." --The Reckoner

<UPDATE #1(10:58 p.m., 2/28>

Well, Lightfoot now has a new entry on her resume: first incumbent mayor in 40 years to lose a re-election bid. Jane Byrne was the last incumbent mayor to fall shy of a second term, in 1983.

Unofficial returns posted by 9 p.m. showed Paul Vallas, as expected, finishing with roughly 36% of the vote, well ahead of the second place finisher, Brandon Johnson, who garnered 20%, followed by Lightfoot (16%), Garcia (14%), and Wilson (9%). The remaining candidates netted five percent, combined, between them.

As I already stated, whatever happens in the April 4 runoff won't paper over the chasm-sized cracks in the system. I'm guessing that Johnson's primary bloc of voters, young progressives, are tired of a top-down culture that's only served up diminishing returns, for the average person.

Will there be enough of them to overcome the (mostly) white ethnic voters, who presumably read Vallas's less than subtle appeals of "taking back our city" (emphasis: mine) as sufficient affirmation of their us-against-them aggrievement, and reasonable enough confirmation of the easy answers that his campaign trots out?

Time will tell, but again, I can't get the essential point out of my head. Chicago is a hard place to govern, at the best times. Now imagine the challenge, after three decades of predatory politicking, much of it driven mainly by the swells who continue to make ever-spiraling piles of money, even as the deluge eddies and swirls around them. Nothing about tonight changes my feelings. As Mr. Costello said -- "I've seen the movie, and it does not move me." --The Reckoner

<UPDATE #2: 10:55 p.m., Tuesday, April 4>

Well, the fairy dust has finally settled on the hullabaloo that surrounded the notion of a Johnson victory (or, as police union head John Catanza so infamously stated, there would be "blood in the streets" if his preferred choice, Vallas, lost the race -- why does anybody still cling to the idea of these reactionary SOBs ever being our allies, exactly?). 

About two hours minutes ago, the Associated Press called the race for Johnson. With 99% of the vote counted, the AP tally showed 285,773 votes for Johnson (51.4%), to 269.951 for Vallas (48.6%). Though it's hardly a landslide, I think the results are decisive enough. 

Apparently, Chicagoans didn't fall for Vallas's pitch that putting the proverbial cop on every corner would make them feel safer, and all their problems -- including the city's gaping social inequities -- magically disappear.

Johnson's victory feels doubly appropriate, for two reasons.  First, it falls on the anniversary of Martin Luther KIng's assassination, and second, it coincides with the 40th anniversary of the late Harold Washington's election as the Windy City's first Black mayor, after weathering one of the most viciously racist campaigns in my own memory (courtesy of the late Bernard Epton).

The most critical takeaway, as far as I'm concerned, is a concept that the mainstream media and its status quo allies stubbornly refuse to accept,namely, that people -- particularly those who fall south of 40, as in, non-Baby Boomer elite -- are tired of business as usual politics, and a system that never stops gaming them. 

The other big takeaway is that when you swing for the fences, you might just surprise yourself. That's also true of tonight's other big result, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, where liberal leaning Janet Protasiewciz crushed a challenge by Daniel Kelly who vaulted to national notoriety by meeting with the Badger State's election deniers in 2020, as they plotted to overturn Biden's presidential win. That's only one of many shortcomings you'll find in searching his name via Google, if you care to do it. (But you might need a cold shower when you finish.)

For too long, orthodox liberals have meekly embraced the politics of mere transactionalism -- always leave those who support you holding out, and hungry forever; never shoot for the moon, when you can do the bare minimum -- and the mere avoidance of total catastrophe as the only worthwhile policy goal worth embracing.

But politicians like Johnson have other ideas, as he told Yahoo News (see newly added link below): "Democrats have been in charge of Chicago for a century. Only they are not the right Democrats, according to Johnson, who says past mayors have been beholden either to the city’s notorious Daley family political machine.

"Or they always looked to the national establishment, like Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s former chief of staff. Maybe they were combative loners like Lightfoot, finding few friends on either right or left.

"Republicans and Democrats have collaborated to move austerity budgets," Johnson told Yahoo News.

Obviously, questions remain whether Johnson, as another newcomer, can move the needle in one of the nation's most notorious pay-to-play political cultures, but I'm cautiously optimistic. His County Commission background makes him a better fit for the office than Lightfoot's unblinking authoritarian style ever did, or Valla's sly winks to the wealthy and far right forces that tried to buy the seat on his behalf.

Unlike his predecessor, Johnson will enter City Hall with a strong knowledge of where the bodies are buried, so to speak, which determines how things get done. Whether he can raise enough money for his agenda through six new taxes, as he proposes, remains to be seen. 

Clearly, though, the chance to strike up a different sort of politics spoke loudly and clearly in both of these races. Time will tell if the winners are up to the challenge, but tonight, at least, I'm saying, bravo, Chicago, and bravissimo, Wisconsin. Onward and upward! I've seen that movie, and it truly does move me. --The Reckoner

LInks To Go (Hurry, Hurry, Before
They Price You Out Of Paradise):

Chicago Sun-Times:
After Tight Race For Mayor,
Black Political Establishment May Face A Reckoning:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/elections/2023/4/4/23670457/mayoral-race-brandon-johnson-black-political-leaders-city-council-politics-natalie-moore-column

Governing.com
Lori Lightfoot Looks
Like A One-Term Mayor:
https://www.governing.com/now/chicagos-lori-lightfoot-looks-like-a-one-term-mayor

In These Times
Why Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot
Is Facing An Uphill Battle For Re-Election:
https://inthesetimes.com/article/chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-chuy-garcia-brandon-johnson-paul-vallas-election

WBEZ
Chicago Voters Feel Unsafe,
Unhappy With Police Relations:
https://www.wbez.org/stories/poll-crime-tops-chicago-voters-issues-this-mayoral-election/d883f428-d268-4c39-9a9d-6aa13566c447

Yahoo News: Brandon Johnson
Could Be A National Progressive Star:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brandon-johnson-chicago-mayor-paul-vallas-213142198.html

America's Uniform!

I am old enough that I remember when everything was more beautiful. People wore bright colors and designs, instead of endless blue jeans and T-shirts. I had the thought watching a crowd at a holiday parade, they are dressed so darkly and everyone was in blue jeans young and old. There is no difference anymore. There is no lightness in the party of life anymore. Am I strange to think that seeing a dress with a few flowers on it would be nice once in awhile? One day at the grocery store I decided count how many women you see NOT wearing blue jeans with a T-shirt/polo ensemble, I saw 4, among hundreds. What does that say? Mao couldn't have dreamed of "uniforming" a nation with such ease! 

"In recent months there have been reports in the foreign press that after a long absence skirts and dresses are returning to China. The way Chinese women dress has often been looked upon by foreigners with some dismay and disapproval. 'How can they bear to look all the same?', 'How drab the streets must be', and 'What has become of all those rich colours, embroideries and fabrics?'. . . Frequently, the widespread tendency for men and women to dress in plain cotton jackets and trousers is thought to be the result of strict official measures brought into operation in 1949."

Guess I am old enough to remember different. America wears a uniform now perhaps to match the uniform thoughts?---The Squawker.