RSS
Home
5th District Dem special primary election postmortem: No room for progressives
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Instead of using the Web to obsessively follow every move in the 5th District special primary election (some people did), I formed opinions about the candidates aiming to fill Rahm Emanuel's former seat by attending two separate forums, paying special attention to their views on progressive issues. I hold one indelible memory of this weird little campaign: The initial half hour or so of the first forum, held at DePaul University on Feb. 1, when each of the candidates was given three minutes to introduce him or herself.
Eight of the 11 candidates in attendance were political novices, and at times it sounded as though they were making the exact same pitch, which I'll paraphrase thusly: "No, I've never held a political office. But why would you want that? Professional politicians got us in the mess we are in. Now let me tell you why my experience as a lawyer/doctor/Navy pilot/psychiatrist/realtor/economist/surgeon makes me the ideal candidate to represent you in Congress."
The candidates were then asked to state their positions on three issues of interest to progressives: Single-payer health care, gay marriage, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (to be specific, they were asked about the Oslo Accords). What happened next was a fascinating display of where the political will in the district is heading. All the candidates pledged support for either single-payer or some form of universal health care, although some took pains to point that this would be difficult to accomplish. Likewise, everyone went out of the way to pay lip service to gay marriage rights.
But when the candidates talked about the Middle East conflict, conviction gave way to the sort of wishy-washy doublespeak we've been hearing from Washington for decades: Vague statements about the need for peace with no plan to get there, with obligatory mentions of the need to ensure Israel's security. The two exceptions were Jan Donatelli, the only one who mentioned the word "Palestine" and called for a "free and independent" Palestinian estate; and Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley, whose sole thought on the issue was that "Hamas has to recognize the existence of Israel, and that hasn't happened yet." For that he got enthusiastic applause and a couple of shouts of "Yeah!"
My next stop was a forum at the Muslim Community Center on Feb. 10. Only six candidates attended; whether that was a reflection of how busy the other candidates were or of the regard with which they held this community I can't say. But it was refreshing to see that most of those who did show up had finessed their position on the Middle East conflict a bit, including Quigley. On the downside, when a RainbowPUSH coalition representative asked the candidates to name specific steps they would take in defense of civil rights and civil liberties none of the them sounded like they had given much thought to those issues, but most of they all agreed that the Patriot Act needs to be revisited or repealed.
Most of the candidates had to leave before the forum ended, so by the time Jorge Mujica of the March 10 Committee posed a question about immigration policies, only Donatelli and Victor Forys (a Polish immigrant) were left; both of them stopped short or promising full legalization for the undocumented, but they spoke convincingly about the need for fair immigration policies.
So here's my overall perception of the candidates. The career politicians who attended the forums — Quigley plus State Reps. Sara Fiegenholtz (12th) and John Fritchey (11th) — were proficient but uninspiring; between the three of them there was not one novel idea or even memorable slogan to be found. The best that could be said of them is that they never condescended to the political novices around them, treating everyone with equal respect.
Most of the rookies struck me as being unprepared for the task, even if their hearts were in the right place, but three of them made an impression. Charlie Wheelan talked a good game; he convinced me that he keenly understands the challenges facing the country and may even have the answers to some of them. But he tried too hard. Always prattling off a long list of titles and accomplishments — University of Chicago professor, journalist, author, globetrotter, and more — he often seemed like an adult version of the title character from Malcom in the Middle: An overeager geek with a compulsion to prove that he's the smartest guy in the room.
Donatelli, on the other hand, was all about no-nonsense working class grit; picture Sarah Palin with brains and elbow grease instead of fundamentalist creepiness and folksy pandering and you won't be far off the mark. Having struggled to break the glass ceiling as a Navy pilot in the 1980s, she was strongly pro-woman without falling on feminist cliches; she also made it clear that her military experience had taught her that the troops are not political pawns, and she sounded very credible on progressive issues.
Then there was Tom Geoghehan, who hardly needs an introduction, since he was profiled and/or endorsed in The Nation, In These Times, and other progressive publications. With a three decade-long record as a labor lawyer to back up his bona fides, Geoghehan showed a rare gift for populist gab. From the DePaul forum:
We need to stop throwing money at insolvent banks. If they're insolvent, let's take them over. [...] As the banks get bailed out from us, they're charging us higher interest rates, cutting back our credit, and dragging more people into collection courts. The banks we're bailing out should be writing off these debts, just as their own debts are being written off by us, the taxpayers.
Realistic? Maybe not. But amid an ever-spiraling crisis, it's hard to ignore or resist lines such as these, and with burgeoning support among progressives, Geoghehan looked like he might be actually a contender.
Alas, not even close. Despite drawing intense attention in the blogsphere and the mainstream media, the primary failed to excite the populace, which may well have been suffering from election fatigue after the epic presidential campaign; turnout was low, and the voters who bothered to show up were clearly not in the mood for change. Quigley won fairly handily, followed by Fritchey and Fiegenholtz; 40th Ward Alderman Patrick O'Connor, who wasn't present at the forums I attended, came in fifth.
As for the rookies, there were two surprises. Forys was propelled to fourth place by strong support from the Polish-American Community, and Wheelan somehow managed to beat Geoghehan by about 400 votes; Donatelli came in a disappointing ninth. Some pundits are making a case that Quigley's victory shows the Chicago machine has lost power, but the machine barely put an effort into this campaign; Mayor Richard Daley didn't even endorse a candidate. The take-home message for me was that establishment candidates still hold an edge in the post-Obama era — but Wheelan, Geoghehan and Donatelli are a plucky trio, and I suspect we'll hear from them again.
Should progressives support Quigley? He is certainly preferable to Fritchey and Fiegenholtz, and if elected he would be a step up from Emanuel, but the notion that he's a reformer strikes me as a bit of a stretch. That he opposed county tax hikes and patronage at the Cook County Forest Preserve District says less about him than it does about the sad state of affairs in this county. Ultimately, your feelings on Quigley will depend on what your pet causes are. For example, he has a good record on environmental issues, but if you're big on Palestine solidarity his pandering to the Israel Lobby is guaranteed to turn your stomach.
Then again, if you're an enviro you probably ought to vote for the Green Party's Matthew Reichel in the general special election, but one way or another the result is all but predetermined — the GOP has only held this seat once in the past century, and this time they saddled themselves with Rosana Pulido, director of the Illinois Minuteman Project and all-purpose self-loathing Latina.
