Rahm's Fall

On the morning of May 16, 2011, the people of Chicago watched excitedly in Millennium Park as Rahm Emanuel, the city’s 46^th mayor, was sworn in. Full of campaign promises and ideas for reform after serving as White House chief of staff, Emanuel swept into office with 55 percent of the popular vote, clearing a field that included five other candidates. His association with the Obama administration and the Democratic Party’s message of hope and change were refreshing and inspiring in a city struggling with economic inequality, underachieving schools, and chronic violence. The spirit of anticipation was palpable in the crowd on that spring day.
The City’s Mood Shifts
Almost a year later, public opinion of Mayor Emanuel was slipping. A 2012 poll conducted by Lake Research Partners and released by the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) found that only 47 percent of respondents thought that Emanuel was doing an “excellent” or “good” job as mayor of Chicago. Another 47 percent of poll respondents felt that his performance was “poor” or “just fair”. An August 2014 poll released by The Chicago Tribune reported a 15 percent drop in approval of Mayor Emanuel’s work across all demographics from poll results released just over a year before. In that same poll, respondents indicated a willingness to support CTU President Karen Lewis in a head-to-head matchup. Some even reported that they would support relatively unknown Alderman Bob Fioretti over Emanuel, despite largely having no opinion of the challenger.
Three years after Emanuel’s inauguration, it is clear that the spirit of anticipation that once buoyed the crowds has soured and turned to a cloud of disappointment over the city. However, the reasons behind Emanuel’s fall from political grace merit further consideration. Emanuel himself has spoken with pride about the progress Chicago has made during his time in office. In a November 2013 interview with the HPR, he cited a 24 percent drop in the overall crime rate and a 23 percent drop in city shootings. He has also spoken fondly of the outcome of negotiations after the 2012 Chicago teachers strike, noting an extension of the school day and year to add the equivalent of two extra years of instruction for students starting school in 2013. In a June 2014 interview with Chicago Tonight host Phil Ponce, Emanuel laid out the progress his administration had made in areas like city budget management, healthcare reform, pension reform and bringing corporations and jobs into the city.
In light of these metrics and Emanuel’s proud assessment of his accomplishments, it may be hard to see how the people of Chicago could think so little of his administration’s work. Finding an answer requires an examination of the dynamics of the Democratic Party and its relationship with urban progressives. Emanuel’s history with the Democratic Party and the backing he received from prominent party politicians during his campaign would seem to indicate a willingness to champion party ideals. However, many in Chicago don’t feel that this is the case.
Progressives are Fed Up
Progressive activist organizations in Chicago and the communities they support feel that the mayor’s record in office belies his partisan credentials. Rose Joshua, president of the Chicago Southside Branch of the NAACP, voiced such sentiments during an interview with the HPR. The NAACP’s central mission is to promote equal political, social and economic rights for people of color. Joshua spoke with pride about the initiatives her organization has undertaken to address the disparities in access to these rights between the predominantly black South Side communities and other parts of the city
However, Joshua took a dimmer view of Emanuel’s actions. She admitted that the relationship between Emanuel and the Chicago NAACP was more or less nonexistent and felt that building that relationship would be hard considering the way his policies have affected Southside communities. “He came in under the guise of being the president’s man, and many African-Americans voted for him in unprecedented numbers because of that,” she noted. “Emanuel used that wave of popular opinion to whip the city aldermen and push his budgets and policy through.”
Unfortunately, the results of Emanuel’s work were not benefitting the African-Americans who had been so vital to his election. Joshua cited several instances in which people in the South Side communities her organization works with felt ignored by the administration. In one case, Emanuel chose to spend $2 billion of funding that had become available for desperately needed housing rehabilitation in the city on administrative expenses and staff salaries. In another, he chose not to renew city funding for the promising community-based violence intervention program CeaseFire, and instead applying that money to more police-oriented methods of crime prevention. Joshua also reported a growing sentiment among South Side residents that the results of Emanuel’s efforts to bring corporations into the city are not trickling down to them. By far the most damaging result of Emanuel’s time in office for these communities has been the closing of 50 public schools. “He chose to close those schools,” she opined, arguing that he had failed to appropriately use Title I funding from the United States Department of Education to support them.
Moreover, many South Side residents do not feel that Emanuel’s actions while in office have been true to Democratic Party values. “His administration has been one of less government, and less support for the people,” Joshua said, adding that if he is representative of the Democratic Party’s future, the NAACP and the people of Chicago will have to start being more proactive. With disaffection rising in traditionally Democratic communities, Chicagoans may start looking for candidates whose actions better exemplify progressive values. By relying on party loyalty to get public support, rather than responding to the needs of their constituents, politicians like Emanuel may risk being replaced by fresh candidates who better understand and act on community needs.
The Chicago Southside Branch NAACP isn’t the only progressive community organization critical of Emanuel’s work. Confusion about the Democratic mayor’s policies is shared by Chicago teachers. Mr. Jesse Sharkey, vice president of the CTU, expressed feelings similar to Joshua’s, but with less of a sense of disillusionment. He had known that Mayor Emanuel was coming into public office as a very “corporate” Democrat, considering his longstanding relationships with the finance and hedge fund management communities. That background seemed to greatly influence Emanuel’s actions in office, as he proceeded to close neighborhood health clinics, lay off librarians, push city workers to settle for lesser contracts, and make the courtship of corporations the crux of his economic development plans. It also seemed to inform his stance toward union workers, especially teachers. ”Our relationship with the Emanuel administration started poorly and stayed bad,” Sharkey said, speaking of the history between Mayor Emanuel and the CTU. “Emanuel made the schools one of his major campaign focuses, but he talked about what was wrong with schools in a way that threw teachers under the bus.”
Emanuel’s campaign rhetoric consisted of talking points about making it easier to fire teachers, holding them accountable with more student testing, and increasing instruction hours with little or no more pay. These proposals made union members feel under attack. Once in office, he began acting on this rhetoric with a plan to cancel a 4 percent salary raise that had been planned in teachers’ contracts for the end of the 2011-2012 school year. At the same time, Emanuel began efforts to increase the length of the school day by 20 percent and suggested that the teachers could have half of their contract-established raise back if they supported him.
The eight-day long 2012 Chicago teacher strike over unsuccessful contract negotiations solidified the conflict between unions and the Emanuel administration. “Emanuel was elected because Chicago is a Democratic city… but after seeing what he’s done in here, the question of what it is exactly that Democrats do has become increasingly complicated in people’s minds,” Sharkey reflected. This uncertainty is exactly what concerns many progressives about the future of the Democratic Party. Chicagoans see how Emanuel’s work is friendlier to corporate interests than to Democratic strongholds like organized labor, and public opinion of Emanuel falls as public confidence in the party erodes.
How Democrats Move Forward
Toward the end of her interview with the HPR, Joshua noted that the NAACP had held a candidate forum for the public during the last mayoral election. “Rahm didn’t come to our candidate forum and didn’t even give a reason for not coming,” she said. “He knew that he would have our votes.” Unfortunately for Emanuel, he likely won’t be able to operate that way for long. The NAACP’s voter registration work, combined with efforts by the CTU and other activist organizations in the city to increase civic engagement, will surely lead to a powerful expression of the public’s discontent. This, in turn, will likely diminish Emanuel’s support in the February 2015 mayoral election. In fact, Emanuel’s most popular potential challenger is currently CTU President Karen Lewis, an outspoken critic of the Mayor’s work. Lewis has not yet announced her candidacy, but has formed an exploratory committee and appears likely to enter the race.
Without more effort to align his actions and leadership style with the values of urban progressives, labor organizations and other traditional Democratic constituencies, Emanuel’s position as mayor will be at risk. An Emanuel loss to a more liberal candidate would surely prompt serious reflection among Democrats nationwide. Democratic elected officials might be forced to take heed of the party’s progressive vanguard.