Thursday, February 16, 2012
Regrets Week / Politics / Clout City My name is Ben Joravsky and I am a lifelong Democrat
Posted by Ben Joravsky on 02.16.12 at 08:00 AM
As you can imagine the list's so long I doubt there’s enough room to fit in all the names unless we return to the good old days of yesteryear, when Reader cover stories ran on and on and on.
So I’ll boil it down to this….
I’m a Democrat. Can’t help it. It was ingrained in me at an early age by my parents, who grew up in the Depression, worshipping FDR.
It’s particularly difficult for a New Deal Democrat like me living in Chicago during the age of Mayor Emanuel, who's just a tad to the left of Rick Santorum.
By the way, Mayor E—anytime you want to make it official and just join the Republican Party, go right ahead.
But the fact is I’d probably vote for Mayor Rahm—library cuts, crony Charter Schools, rent-a-protesters and all—if he were running one-on-one against a Republican.
In fact, I have voted for Emanuel when he was running one-on-one against a Republican congressional candidate.
Oh, the shame of it.
Though, in my defense, I have never, ever voted for Rahm when he was running in a Democratic primary.
So—there!
I’m not proud of any of this. Year after year I tell myself—this will be the election in which I break free from my Democratic yoke, if only to show the party bosses that I will not vote for any chump they put on my ballot.
And to the polling place I march. And into the polling booth I go. And up the voting stylus I pick. And just as I’m ready to bring it down next to the Republican, the heavens open, and out booms the voice of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: “Don't do it, Benny!"
And I vote Democrat.
Oh, the guilt. The regret. I’m sorry. I won't do it again. Though I will.
Sigh.
Among those Democrats—aside from the aforementioned Congressman Rahm—are Dan Rostenkowski (when he was under indictment), John and Todd Stroger, Joe Berrios, and assorted water reclamation district hacks whose names I’ve long since forgotten.
Oh, yes, and Blago—at least five times (he was my congressman before he was my governor).
Though in my defense I did not vote for Blago in 2006, the last time he ran for governor. I voted for the Green Party guy.
I know you hear a lot of people making that claim. In fact, if all the people who claim they voted for the Green Party guy actually voted for the Green Party guy then the Green Party guy would have won the election.
As opposed to Blago.
Who I did not vote for.
For which I feel—get ready for this—regret.
Yes, yes, that’s right, readers. The sickening, self-righteousness with which every two-timing hack politician in this state acted as though Blago’s impeachment brought reform to Illinois…
Well, it was enough to make me wish I’d voted for Blago in 2006.
As opposed for the Green Party guy—whose name, for the record, is Rich Whitney.
So, considering my voting history, how, you ask, can I chide my fellow Chicagoans for being simpletons who vote for mayors like Daley and Emanuel?
Well, I shouldn’t. Though I do. For which I have—no regrets.
Act as I say, people, not as I do.
In that way, I have much in common with Mayor Emanuel, who pretends as though money doesn’t matter when it comes to schools other people’s kids attend, even though he had the best public education money could buy.
Up at good old New Trier.
You knew I’d find a way to work in that Mayor Rahm went to New Trier.
And I do so without regrets.
Comments (13)
Showing 1-13 of 13
I, too, always say this is the last election I'm going to vote Democrat... And then the Republicans go and nominate a lunatic like Bill Brady for governor and I can't vote for Quinn early and often enough.
like
dislike
Brady is not a lunatic, Matt. I don't understand why so many people feel that way. He always struck me as a very level-headed and rational person. Yes, he expressed some fairly conservative social views throughout his career but he had to do that because he was representing a conservative district. I never saw any evidence that he was a right wing nut. If he had won I think he would have governed the state in a very responsible and even-handed manner. But unfortunately, people voted for Quinn.
As to this article, Ben may consider himself a liberal and that may be the way that current political labels would define his views. But I stand by my assertion that much of Ben's views really should be considered conservative and to the right of Emanuel. Joravsky has been harshly advocating against changes to the public school system while Rahm has made attempts to somewhat revolutionize it. As far as I can tell, Joravsky basically wants to keep the same way of doing things at CPS. That strikes me as conservative, not liberal. A liberal, by my definition, would want to shake up the status quo at the schools and aggressively experiment with things that could give kids from difficult backgrounds a chance of success. With TIFs, Ben's views really are the conservative point of view compared with Emanuel. Emanuel believes the government has a strong place in the process of economic development and that it it can be beneficial to use taxpayer funds to pick and choose, to a certain extent, what projects would do the most good for the city. Joravsky, on the other hand, basically thinks the free market should decide everything, at least in the more prosperous areas of the city, and thinks that government should stay out of it. To a large extent, Ben is right in his criticism of TIFs. But I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that this position is the conservative viewpoint and is to the right of the mayor. It doesn't matter that most of the people who criticize Emanuel (and Daley before) about this think they are doing it from the left. They are not.
@IAC:
"Joravsky has been harshly advocating against changes to the public school system while Rahm has made attempts to somewhat revolutionize it."
I can't help myself: Let's say a politician wants to "change" society by legalizing indentured servitude. According to your definition, this politician would be labelled as liberal since he wants to change the status quo. Change equals liberal? Dang.
"A liberal, by my definition, would want to shake up the status quo at the schools and aggressively experiment with things that could give kids from difficult backgrounds a chance of success."
By my definition, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream has zero calories. Fact!
"Emanuel believes the government has a strong place in the process of economic development and that it it can be beneficial to use taxpayer funds to pick and choose, to a certain extent, what projects would do the most good for the city."
So the education system is secondary to a grocery store in terms of economic development?
"Joravsky, on the other hand, basically thinks the free market should decide everything, at least in the more prosperous areas of the city, and thinks that government should stay out of it."
Now you're in the "2+2=5" zone. Doubleplusgood.
"I never saw any evidence that he was a right wing nut."
That's because you yourself are a right-wing nut.
It's the height of foolishness to think that there's any meaningful difference between the Democrat and Republican parties nowadays.
Someone needs to do a spoof of the scene from The 300 with Leonidas bellowing...
This. Is. Chicago.
Oh well. Not like Detroit's any better.
"It's the height of foolishness to think that there's any meaningful difference between the Democrat and Republican parties nowadays."
Says the man who thinks that a jet fighter is an investment.
"Let's say a politician wants to 'change' society by legalizing indentured servitude. According to your definition, this politician would be labelled as liberal since he wants to change the status quo. Change equals liberal? Dang."
No, that's not my definition. Obviously, a change to something conservative would be a conservative policy choice. But I don't think Emanuel's education policies are at all, by the traditional definition, conservative. He wants to lengthen the school day, make significant changes to schools that are not educating students properly, and experiment with new types of schools that offer innovative programs. How is any of that conservative? Whether you agree with his ideas or not (and whether you think they can be successful), it seems to me that they clearly should be considered liberal or progressive policy choices. The reason why people are labeling them as conservative, in my opinion, is basically because it is not supported by the major interest group that normally supports Democrats on educational policy (teachers unions). Since people associate Democrats with being liberal and Republicans with being conservative people just automatically assume that a policy that goes against those traditionally supported by Democrats and their supporters is conservative. But I'd be interested to hear how how you think that what Emanuel is advocating for fits in with the traditional definition of being conservative and why the ideas you and the teachers union support (i.e., keeping everything basically the way it is) fits within the traditional definition of being liberal.
"So the education system is secondary to a grocery store in terms of economic development?"
I have no iota of a clue what you are talking about there. All I was pointing out is that the idea of TIFs as an economic tool requires the belief that it can be beneficial for the government to have a meaningful role in the decision making process of what private development should go where. The idea, often expressed by Ben Joravsky, that TIFs are not useful because most of the development would occur anyway or even that the program makes neighborhoods worse off comes from the perspective that the free market left alone as much as possible is the better way of doing things. That is the conservative perspective. I don't think there is any doubt about this at all. This is separate from the argument that TIFs might be useful but that they are implemented in a poor manner. That wouldn't necessarily be a conservative viewpoint. But that is not what Joravsky has expressed. From my understanding, he is against all TIFs in areas that are not economically depressed. So he wants the free market to have a bigger role than Emanuel does and wants the government to have minimal input in these types of things. Without a doubt, therefore, Joravsky is to the right of Emanuel (and was to the right of Daley) on this issue. That's nothing to be ashamed about. I agree with Joravsky about TIFs more often than not.
Rahm is going to ruin Chicago. Wasn't anyone listening when he was running for office? I too vote Democrat but that's because the Republicans are so far of base.
I've been a Chicago voter since before Ben was old enough to vote, much less move to chicago. And it's been decades since I voted for a Daley. Even back in the days when Mayoral elections were partisan, and i didn't vote for republicans, either.
I wrote in some weird guys, but never any weirder than the guys who got in.
My Sentiments exactly Ben, I grew up in the Land of the 33rd ward politics, when Blago started his state rep. Years. Thank you for the remap process we get a whole new pack of pun dents to choose from every 10 years. How many more community groups does Rahm have to buy before he actually gets to join the Republican party ?
I'm proud to say that I never voted for Richie Daley. (I was too young to have had an opportunity to vote for his father.) But I confess I did vote for that piece of shit Blagojevich twice, even after I knew him to be a crook. I've been voting for more Greens lately, in preference to voting for Democratic criminals or Republicans.
