49th Ward Confusion Building

The political atmosphere in Chicago’s 49th Aldermanic Ward is no more clear today than it was prior to the February 27 election.

In fact, it may have become even murkier.

The dust from the recent election in the 49th Ward has not, as some politically naïve innocents assume, “cleared.” (The correct expression would be that the “dust has settled.”) 

Not only has the dust not settled, it is just as opaque today as it was last Monday, if not more so. We are now left to choose between Mooredon and Goore. For many, this is a difficult choice. One local pundit and avid Gordon supporter, whom I will call “Hilda,” revealed herself to be an innocent babe in woods when she wrote recently that she was amused by the current positioning of “losers” Adams and Ginderske. Hilda is amused that Adams and Ginderske are “thinking” about “who to endorse.” What is most amusing is that Hilda’s understanding of politics would lead her to find the process of politics to be a clear-cut process. It is not, it never has been, and never will be. 

Poli Sci 101: Politics is all about shadows moving through the dust, and sometimes losers win more than the winners. Hilda is now frowning, trying to comprehend that last murky statement. Hilda wrote, “three men ran against the incumbent.” That is only partly true. What Hilda forgets is that each man was running against a field of three opponents, not just against incumbent Moore. What Hilda is apparently lacking is common sense and a complete lack of political knowledge. Hilda believes that she has become an expert because she can shake her booty and a Gordon sign in the middle of the street with the best of them.

Note to Hilda: It takes a lot more than that and a free blog site to make you politically savvy. “Hilda” went on to say, “if two didn’t win...common logic would have them backing the one who did” if they were sincere about what they said during the campaign leading up to last Tuesday. Again, Hilda shows her naivety. Again, there were four men running, each against three. In addition, the moment the results were clear, Don Gordon and Joe Moore were on the phone to Ginderske and Adams pleading for their support. Ginderske and Adams were certainly running against Moore, but each was also running against each other and Gordon as well. 

Now, as in every political contest, behind-the-scenes deal making continues. (In fact, there was plenty of deal making by all parties before the election.) For Hilda - or anybody else - to be surprised by this is, well, surprising. Examples of Faustian bargains and dealing with the opposition are so numerous throughout history that it is stunning that Hilda could be ignorant of it.

In the upcoming Presidential primaries, for example, there will be candidates who truly want to win. Only one Democrat will win and only one Republican will win in the primaries, but the winners will be begging and pleading and offering treats to the “losers” in order to gain their support and, thereby, the support of their supporters. That, as Hilda might say, is just common sense. It's politics. It's how politics is commonly done.

However, there will be candidates who get into the race knowing they cannot win, indeed not intending to win. They will get into the race to collect a cadre of supporters and then, after “losing,” make political deals with the “winner.”

Hilda rolled out more innocence by saying that people who voted against Moore should have “the common sense and integrity” to vote against him in April. Just because somebody voted for Adams, Ginderske or Gordon it does not necessarily mean they were voting against Moore. In other words, “Anybody But Joe” is not the battle cry of every voter in the ward. There are plenty who are now chanting “Anybody But Don.” Believe it. 

To not believe it would be a fatal political error. There are still questions in the minds of those voters, and the biggest one out there on the street is which devil to go with. Do they go with the devil they know? Or the devil they don’t know? Those are not my words, it’s what I’m hearing on the street. Hilda’s most revealing insight seems to be accidental. She wrote that to guess at what an Alderman Gordon would do in office is nothing more than speculation. Hilda noted that the voters are all aware of Joe Moore’s track record. Hilda assumes an awful lot. She obviously assumes that all of the voters are well informed; they are not. She assumes that all of the voters think as she does; they do not. She assumes that everyone who knows Joe Moore’s track record disagrees with Moore’s track record; that is not true, as many people actually like what Moore has been up to. (I’m not one of them.) 

Believe it or not, there are those who voted for Moore because of foie gras or because they don’t give a damn about it. There are those who voted for Moore in spite of knowing about his corruption, just as they voted for Daley. Say, I wonder if Hilda voted for Daley? Near the end of her posting, Hilda asked readers whether it was intelligent or logical to compare a prediction (of Gordon’s performance should he win) to a record (Moore’s). Would it have been “rational” to have killed Kim Il Sung, with a record of corruption and folly, to replace him with Kim Jong Il, about whose future performance we could only once have predicted? 

Answer: The rational thing, Hilda, is to go with the known entity unless he is known to be murdering people. Fortunately, we are not completely rational beings. We are not Mister Spock, thank Odin. We often go with our gut feelings, which are not “rational” or “logical.” Hilda ended her sixth grade thesis by positing that the candidates, winners and losers, must be bargaining with each other more than she is reading about. Let me assure you personally that there is, and Don Gordon is bargaining furiously. And Hilda won’t be reading about it. By the way, there’s a lunar eclipse tomorrow night.