politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So, being from Chicago, Johnson's problems are mostly personal and of his own making. Like the article highlights, his staffing and approach has been pretty abysmal. He has a tendency to appoint unqualified pastors to positions (which, to be fair, is classic Chicago graft and not unheard of in the city with other mayors), and he doesn't handle criticism well (that is, everything is "because he's a black man" even if the criticism is justified). Plus, antagonizing the very popular governor from the same party is just a stupid thing to do. Some decisions are taken haphazardly (like trying to house migrants on toxic land). Others are just insanely stupid given the history of Chicago and basic financial literacy, like trying to take out a high interest loan to satisfy the Chicago Teachers' Union or paying over $1M per unit of affordable housing.
The closest thing to an indictment of progressive policies is how Johnson wants to balance our budget, i.e. through taxes, even though Chicago is one of the most highly taxed places in the country already. He seems constitutionally incapable of reviewing for waste in the budget, of which there is plenty thanks to graft built up over decades. In this case, we don't really need more of a tax in the city; we need the money that's already being sent to be used more effectively. Decades of financial mismanagement and straight up corruption (which are, to be clear, not Johnson's fault) led to where we are now. Even that, though, is not really because he's progressive.
In all, Johnson's problems are not because of overarching progressive policies; it's because he personally makes poor decisions and doesn't really have a grasp on how to effectively govern. While I haven't looked too far into Mamdani, if he can simply make sound management decisions and not alienate those who should be allies, he'll have a better time.
I worry that poor execution or bad decision making is what will sink the progressive movement. People assume that Johnson's poor performance is due to inherent issues with democratic socialism, when in fact it he's just not good at his job. Not all progressives have the right disposition and skills to do great things - and if progressive voters can't or won't distinguish between policy and performance, then the movement is likely to fizzle out.
A lot of performance also depends on having the correct support in place, with a willingness and ability to quickly replace undermining elements.
I consider assembling the right team part of the leadership position. 🤷 If there are structural problems where a leader cannot remove underperforming or undermining team members, then success is unlikely.
Aren't council elected? I'm unfamiliar with Chicago electoralism and hiring/firing policies, but a difficult to remove person who talked one way and performed another is certainly problematic, whether it's intentional or not. At the end of the day, in capitalism, people will fight tooth and nail to stay in a job where they are not only under qualified without hope of proper support and training for themselves, and they're also outright miserable, because bills still need paying and homelessness and hunger are still criminalized.