Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
It was about 21 years ago--man, where does the time go?--when Mayor Harold Washington called me into his office for an interview. The mayor had a little time on his hands, and we were in the midst of a long discussion about Chicago politics when he said something I've remembered ever since: "Black politicians are like crabs in a crab barrel. If they see one of their own climbing up, they reach back to pull him back in the barrel."
I was thinking about Washington's observation when I read in the paper that state senator James Meeks had all but endorsed Mayor Daley over his two black challengers, William "Dock" Walls and Cook County circuit court clerk Dorothy Brown. When asked if he was going to support Brown, Meeks replied, "I probably won't be endorsing anybody who's going to lose."
This comes on the heels of Seventh Ward aldermanic candidate Sandi Jackson, wife of Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., suggesting that she and her husband might back Daley. It also comes after Congressman Bobby Rush announced he felt Daley "deserves another term" because he's been "a great mayor."
Of course, it's a free country--we're all free to endorse anybody we want. And I surely don't think that black politicians should only endorse other black politicians. But neither Meeks, Jackson, nor Rush backed Daley in 2003. So I'm wondering: what's changed in the last four years to make them support him now?
The Sorich trial convictions? The hired truck scandal? The demolition of Meigs Field? Soaring property taxes? The Duff affirmative-action scam? The fact that only 9 percent of the city's contractors are black? The continued breakdown of the Red Line? New revelations about Daley's apparent indifference, as state's attorney, to allegations regarding the torture of black crime suspects by Jon Burge?
Or are they like those crabs?
Don't waste your time with Coconate. He is upset that Congressman Jr. strung him along and now he has no one to dance with. Most people know he is a nutcase and back away from him.
in answer to your question
I vote crabs
This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning.
I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'.
While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind.
I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public.
This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s).
Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected.
In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%.
It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist
the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties.
So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!).
Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula:
* 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them.
* 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST
know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate.
* 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and
IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST.
* 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST.
* 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed.
Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election
participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above.
If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate?
If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to
sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office?
Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)?
Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)?
Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways?
As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing.
The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.
The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power
ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by
their deeds.
Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few.
To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said:
* You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time
* You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time
* But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time
The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at
just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.