It’s tempting to regard Richard M. Daley’s two years as mayor as a well crafted but very long reelection campaign. He has tended his political bases with care, adroitly deflected assaults, studiously controlled public images and information, and deferred some touchy major issues until after the election. Even critics often acknowledge that he has been very skillful. They even say he may have been a better mayor than they expected, though they hasten to add that their expectations were always low. Then they warn: Wait until he’s reelected. Then we’ll see the real Rich Daley.
It’s possible that Daley’s views have changed over the years, even if he doesn’t explain the transformation well, even if he never clearly broke with old machine ways as Harold Washington did. But whether or not the man has changed, the times clearly have. Washington’s victory made it impossible to backpedal very far, even if Daley wanted to. Besides, Daley can appropriate some of the post-Washington reform approach, mix it with political remnants of his father’s era, add a few dashes of his own politics, and come up with a new model for Chicago politics and government.
But Daley also hopes to incorporate a revived urban-growth coalition aimed at megaprojects and expanding the Loop and lakefront real estate market. Unlike the Washington model of participatory democracy, however, the new Daley model of government calls for increasing centralization of power, less open government, less democratic participation, and a more tightly managed style of government. This new managerialism fits neatly with the demands of media-money politics and the growth coalition, which is tired of pesky grass-roots questioning about where public and private investment should go.
IIT political scientist William Grimshaw once analyzed news coverage of Harold Washington and found that the mayor was portrayed critically as a political figure but treated respectfully as mayor. Daley–who dismisses any criticism with the disdainful but unrevealing remark “That’s just politics”–tries to appear to be just an apolitical chief executive minding the public store. His refusal to debate his opponents and his penchant for announcing major decisions without broad public participation represent attempts to remove his operation of government from the give and take of democratic processes.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Of course the most strident voices a few years ago were those of Daley’s council allies. Remember Alderman Mell standing on his desk during the council battle over the successor to Washington? Of course Washington and friends gave as well as they got in the turmoil. But the current quiet reflects more a consolidation of power by Daley from the beginning than any newfound harmony. By accommodating some reformer and neighborhood demands, Daley has also muted conflicts. Still, the city is at least as much endangered by a failure to have a full and vigorous debate as it is by loud voices.
But the tight Daley managerial style creates contradictions. Because of the law department’s tight controls the housing department last year approved roughly one-tenth the number of affordable-housing-project units typical under Washington. Nonprofit community-development groups also chafe at the delays in approving their projects. Partly because of the more cumbersome management, the housing department also failed to secure millions of dollars in federal low-income-housing funds it could have gotten.
It can make sense for cities to subcontract some work, but studies also show that privatization often raises costs and reduces quality. Moreover, the savings from privatization frequently come at the expense of workers’ pay and benefits.
