How much of a change-agent can Lori Lightfoot really represent for Chicago?

Come Monday, Lori Lightfoot will take the oath of office essentially promising to uphold the constitutions of the United States and Illinois while overseeing the municipal structure of the city of Chicago.

Chicago's new 'first' family, Lightfoot, wife Amy and daughter Vivian. Photo by Lightfoot for Chicago

It is one that she has engaged in quite a bit of rhetoric implying she plans to revamp everything about the city. I also don’t doubt one bit that many of the people who voted to give Lightfoot three-quarters of the vote in last month’s election have visions of sugar plums dancing about in their heads.

ALMOST AS THOUGH the coming of Lightfoot is a Christmas holiday present for Chicagoans, along with residents of any other community whose operations are impacted by the Second City – only St. Nicholas’ visit has come along with the May flowers.

But I’ll have to admit that whenever I read the reports about how Lightfoot is going to come in and make significant change and is prepared to push around anyone who tries standing in the way of her vision – well, I’m skeptical.

Mostly because I can see all those political people of experience and influence who aren’t about to let their own amount of control be reduced by some woman who’s never held a day of electoral office before in her life.

Same kind of rhetoric once was used  … 

But then again, I also have been skeptical of the whole image that has been peddled about Lightfoot, the candidate. I actually think many of her backers have created an image of Lori that bears no reality as to who she really is.

THE LIGHTFOOT I saw during the campaign cycle (I never really paid much attention to her prior to this year’s elections, as did most Chicagoans, I suspect) had her experience with the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago – along with a corporate law firm and that stint she did with the Chicago Police Board.

She may well be a prosecutorial-type who viewed city government from the perspective of trying to figure out who needs to be taken down a notch or two – and who now thinks she has the authority to do just that.

But we may well find out that the daily operations of the city may be beyond her grasp. As though she has a learning curve to go through before she can truly get a grasp on the city’s operations and trying to figure out which of its problems she can actually have influence over.

… to describe Jane Byrne's 1979 mayoral victory

Otherwise, she could find herself bogged down in the morass of the city structure. Which would result in Lightfoot finding herself four years from now having achieved nothing of lasting significance.

SHE COULD BE the woman who made it through her term as mayor having been thwarted by aldermen at everything she talked about trying to achieve, but couldn’t because aldermen weren’t about to be reduced to the level of insignificance that some of Lightfoot’s backers, I don’t doubt, dream she’s going to do.

Of course, I suspect that the number of people who were concerned about having a person of some experience in charge of city government is probably about 26 percent.

That figure is the number of voters who actually cast their ballot for Toni Preckwinkle in the run-off election back on April 2.

When you combine that percentage with the roughly two-thirds of Chicago’s registered voters who didn’t even bother to cast a ballot for mayor, you realize how embarrassing the 2019 election cycle was for the city.

'House that Rahm built' will host Lightfoot inauguration

THE REAL QUESTION may well be how much more embarrassing will it become if Chicago’s municipal government structure devolves into petty bickering by the over-bloated egos of those officials who are going to be in charge of our city – and the influence it exerts over other parts of our Midwestern society.

Now I’ll concede it’s possible that I could be underestimating Lightfoot or exaggerating the level of pettiness that the City Council will exert against her.

But then again, my years of writing about political influence in Chicago have taught me that far too many things have been wrecked by the egos of all who have managed to gain a majority of the vote in past election cycles.

So come 10 a.m., when Lightfoot takes her oath at the Wintrust Arena (a structure that likely wouldn’t exist if not for the vision of soon-to-be former Mayor Rahm Emanuel -- despised by many of Lightfoot's most vociferous backers), we’re likely to see for ourselves just how much (if any) of the political trash-talk stands a chance of becoming reality.

  -30-

Chicago and Illinois back efforts to thwart count of citizens, not all people

It shouldn’t come as a shock that Chicago municipal and Illinois state governments are officially joining in a lawsuit filed in New York challenging the federal government’s attempt to gain an official count of citizens, rather than all people, when the next Census Bureau population count is done in 2020.

Emanuel fighting against proposed Census change, ...

For all the rancid rhetoric spewed by President Donald Trump against Chicago, it would only be natural that we’re going to be mistrustful of anything the “Twit who Tweets” tries to do.

WHILE I’M SURE that in Trump’s mind, the whole world is supposed to keep quiet and take whatever abuse he feels like dishing out, in the real world, people tend to fight back.

With real people usually siding against the bully who tries to push people around. I  couldn't help but notice that even the Republican candidate for attorney general, Erika Harold, is speaking out against Trump on this issue -- that's how bad an idea it is.

So we now have lawyers from Chicago city and the Illinois attorney general’s office cooperating with the lawsuit, which says the desire by Trump to have the Census Bureau add a question about everybody’s citizenship status is little more than a cheap trick to get certain types of people to avoid participating

Which would result in their being under-counted and would mean certain regions of this nation where the locals are more Trump-friendly would wind up gaining more influence.

... as is Lisa Madigan

BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, the Census population count is a very significant action that determines how government allocates its resources.

I’m sure the Trump-types think that anything given to anybody else is a resource wasted.

Personally, I view the idea of a citizenship count as wasted effort, because the Census is supposed to be a count of how many PEOPLE are actually living here. In a sense, citizenship is an irrelevant issue,

Now I have heard some individuals say they fear that marking “no” on a form asking “Are you a U.S. citizen?” will result in the federal government focusing more attention on them.

SOME FEAR THE Census Bureau will wind up notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement about their existence – and the end result will be more harassment.

Trump would prefer sycophants in charge

I’m not so sure I see that, since the Census already asks people to indicate their ethnicity and race (I always mark down that I am of Mexican-ethnic origins – both of my grandfathers were born there, along with one of my grandmothers).

Technically, that could open me up to official harassment from the federal government, since I don’t doubt there are some people in positions of authority stupid enough to think that all Mexicans, if not all Latinos, or anything even remotely ethnic ought to be illegal – and that the ones who have citizenship are somehow taking advantage of a “loophole” in the law.

Even though U.S. citizenship itself is really little more than an accident of birth. It’s certainly not a mark of an individual’s superiority in any way.

BUT THE TRUMP-types don’t want to view life and our society that way, which is why we get such nonsense-talk about making an issue of citizenship and the Census.

So bad an idea not even Harold can back it

Which is likely to create yet another drawn-out legal battle; one that could last for months – if not years.

The ideologues talk about the need to “protect voters” and ensure that the Voting Rights Act is being complied with. Although their view of following the law usually amounts to thinking that only certain individuals ought to have a right to cast ballots – as in the ones who will use them to support the “right” candidates.

Which, to me, sounds like such an un-American ideal. All the more reason we Chicagoans ought to feel pride that our officials are on the proper side, and we can only hope their lawsuit ends successfully, just as other legal initiatives that have thwarted Trump desires to end sanctuary cities and to cut off their federal funding.

  -30-