“C’MON; I NEVER THOUGHT HE’D LAST THAT LONG AGAINST CLAY!”

10/2/09

This morning, Chicagoans received the terrific news that they won’t have their pockets picked for the next seven or eight years in order to provide even more lucre for those who have already gotten rich, fat, and happy under the Daley administration. The lapdog, cheerleading news media in this town, sullen and down in the mouth in the wake of these developments, were reporting that, in the wake of the news, crowds in the Daley center were shocked and dejected. Some were so upset that they were crying “actual tears.” If such tears were shed by members of the crowd who actually think rather than chant slogans fed to them by the Mayor’s various propaganda organs, one can only conclude that these were tears of joy; we just dodged a MAJOR financial bullet. See, for example, my insightful 9/22/09 post “I GO TO RIO…”

Already, some pundits are saying that the demise of the Olympic bid means the demise of Mayor Richard M. Daley. I don’t think so. Yes, the Mayor’s approval rating is as low as it has ever been. Yes, he looks foolish (but perhaps not as foolish as the President) in the wake of having been shot down in the first round after, while not actually saying so, displaying a belief that Chicago 2016 was pretty much a done deal. And yes, John Kass made a good, though not unassailable, point when he indicated that the Olympics would keep Daley alive politically by providing a means of dispensing largesse to those who have supported him in an environment in which a depleted city treasury no longer provides such opportunities. However, talk of Daley’s being a “lame duck” or “finished politically” is premature, or perhaps downright wrong, for a number of reasons. As much as a lot of people understandably seem not to like Daley and the corruption and other shenanigans that have seemed endemic to at least the latter half of his mayoralty (but you wouldn’t know it by the 2007 election results), just take a look around the city. This city has never been cleaner, more beautiful, or more inviting. And the progress is not limited to downtown, as the Mayor’s detractors like to say. An old friend and I spent much of last Friday driving around the west side, in neighborhoods that one wouldn’t enter in broad daylight, heavily armed only ten or fifteen years ago. A few weeks before then, I diverted off the Stevenson onto King Drive on a trip to the Science and Industry Museum with my kids. The change in those neighborhoods is nothing less than stunning. As one with a somewhat libertarian viewpoint, I can’t attribute all this progress to the Administration, but, especially in a city like Chicago, where business and government are often indistinguishable, Mayor Daley has to get some credit. But even if you don’t buy the “Good for Chicago” argument, Daley seems safe for the mere fact that you can’t beat somebody with nobody. And right now, there is nobody around who can beat Daley, or at least nobody who can get the votes of two especially disgruntled, and necessary, constituencies, firefighters and police officers on the city’s far northwest and southwest sides.

The only sense in which Mayor Daley may be facing the end is that he might decide, in the wake of the miserable failure of his excellent Olympic adventure, not to run again, especially given the magnitude of other problems, including an empty treasury and the parking meter fiasco, facing the city. He’s been Mayor now for 20 years and, by the time 2011 rolls around, he will have served longer than his father, which one supposes was one of Richard II’s goals. Why put up with this any more, especially with, without the Olympics, he has few means to keep his supporters rolling in dough? Some more cynical, and more opposed to Daley, than I might argue that the whole reason for Rich Daley’s being Mayor falls apart if he no longer has means of doing “business” with his friends and supporters.

So, unless Daley decides not to run again, he is not political toast by any means because of the Olympics. But the failure of the Olympics certainly can’t help. As I pondered these developments this morning, an analogy so clear came to my mind that I had to recommend it to my readers, to wit:

To understand Daley’s position, rent the outstanding 1962 film, written by the until recently incomparable Rod Serling, Requiem for a Heavyweight. Early in the film, Luis “Mountain” Rivera (Anthony Quinn—no relation) goes seven (or maybe it was eight, but, in any case, far more than was expected) rounds against a very young fighter named, at the time, Cassius Clay, who played himself. Rivera’s crooked manager, Maish Rennick (Jackie Gleason), has bet heavily against his fighter, placing his bets through gangsters who, based on Maish’s assurances, bet that Mountain wouldn’t last more than three or four rounds.

The portion of the movie most relevant to this discussion comes very early: After Mountain lasts longer against Clay than Maish had predicted, the gangsters catch up with Maish, chasing him down an alley and finally cornering him in a boxing ring. They are very upset that Mountain lasted as long as he did, costing them lots of money. But they don’t kill Maish; instead, they give him a severe working over and warn him that there will be no next time.

Is Rich Daley, in the wake of his Olympic fiasco, Maish Rennick? Are the guys he has made rich, or richer (And, no, I’m not saying they’re gangsters. This is Chicago, so some of the guys behind Daley have somewhat, er, questionable pasts, but certainly such unsavory types are in the distinct minority among the beneficiaries of Daley’s (the taxpayers’ of Chicago, really.) beneficiaries.), leaving him on the ropes but giving him one just more chance?