Chicago’s Black Politicians Build Dynasties
African American politicians in Chicago have learned from the WASP leaders who went before them; not satisfied with having the opportunity to fight for a high office, they are now trying to create dynasties.
Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, one of Barack Obama’s first political mentors, for instance, said he wants his son to succeed him when he retires. His son will, of course, have the chance to use the political machine of his father. It is difficult if not impossible to imagine him losing the battle for the seat of his father if he indeed decides to run. And it seems more than likely that he will.
It’s the latest twist on the “it’s our turn” catch-phrase popular when Chicago elected its first black mayor in 1983, said Laura Washington, a professor at Chicago’s DePaul University. “It also means it’s our turn to be as corrupt and irresponsible to the democratic process as their white predecessors have been,” said Washington, who also is a Chicago Sun-Times columnist.
And that is the main problem with dynasties. Dynasties are often corrupt and irresponsible. They do not have to explain themselves to the voters; after all, they are quite sure that those voters will vote for them no matter what. If someone has the audacity to run against them, the bold opponent will simply be taken out. His life will be made miserable, every possible force will be used against him.
These black politicians - like the whites who preceded them - are treating politics as a family business. To them it is the equivalent of running a well doing shop, or a law firm. They do not even think about whether or not this is in the interest of the people.
Wow, in a world FULL of political dynasties. The Stevens, the Kennedys, but BUSHES, you choose to focus on one and then link it to Obama, and choose to point out an irrelevant racial characteristic. Bravo.
If you bothered to read the article first, you might have noticed that (1) he acknowledged that this is a new example of an old technique; and, (2) the racial element is relevant insofar as it is the basis for the mentoring relationships. He never said this version was any worse than previous versions, in fact, he said it was exactly the same.
One of the most frustrating things about the blogosphere is commenters who go on the attack before bothering to even read what they are attacking.
Nepotism isn’t cool, no matter who’s doing it.
The line between nepotism and mentoring seems unclear to me, at least in political mentoring. I’m reading Feith’s new memoir right now and it is striking how much he benefited from social/political networks. And in his autobiography, Colin Powell recounts how he benefited from an informal network of black officers in the Pentagon in the 1970s and 1980s. It’s pervasive and I think it is too simplistic to say that it is ALWAYS bad. Certainly it is sometimes bad (e.g. North Korea’s Kims), but from that it does not follow that it is always bad.