Wednesday, August 29, 2007
(12:12 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
The Joys of Neoliberalism in Chicago
I first began paying attention to state and local politics because of my interest in public transit, which has only increased since I decided to go carless a year or so ago. I can't say to what extent Illinois is representative of the states in general, but it appears to be undergoing a "soft" version of the austerity measures that the IMF imposes on Third World nations. There seem to be a lot of traditional Democrats, but arguably the two most powerful men in the state -- Governor Blagojevich and Chicago's Mayor Daley -- have embraced the neoliberal model (link to a PDF of a David Harvey article), to differing degrees.Blagojevich has triggered a major budget crisis with his vow to veto any budget that includes new taxes, even though new tax revenues are obviously necessary in order to keep state services at an acceptable level -- such that a state where every branch of government is dominated by the Democrats is completely gridlocked. His political inspiration seems to be Bill Clinton -- a politics of gesture, of showing that his heart is in the right place. In his case, it leads to mutually incompatible goals: for instance, institute a massive new entitlement (universal healthcare for all the state's children) while simultaneously opposing, "on principle," any increase in taxes. Supposedly one can make everything work by eliminating "pork" and other forms of "waste," but -- contrary to popular opinion -- there isn't an infinite amount of "pork" that can be cut. Instead of tailoring tax policy to meet the state's actual budget needs, what we get is arbitrarily "cut" state services to make sure the state "lives within its means" (i.e., within the tax revenues that have been more or less arbitrarily "cut").
Presumably Blagojevich knows that what he's asking for is impossible and is setting up the legislature to take the blame for said failure, so that he can continue to run on his impressive record of accomplishing precisely nothing -- aside from raiding the state pension fund and setting the state up for a completely predictable financial crisis down the road. Doubtless his "tough stance" on taxes will help his presidential ambitions, though arguably those ambitions will be hurt by the fact that the guy literally talks like a mobster.
Daley is, for me, a much more interesting figure. He is well known for his authoritarianism and his near-complete control of every aspect of city and county government, and he is much more consistently pro-corporate. Ben Joravsky of the Chicago Reader has documented in detail Daley's abuse of tax-increment funding (TIF) districts -- a program that was originally intended to draw investment to blighted areas, but that Daley has tended to direct toward further development of already wealthy areas.
As a white aspiring member of the professional class, I have to admit that Daley's vision works in my interests -- the downtown area is remarkably safe, even at night, and it's nice to live in a "vibrant" (gentrifying) neighborhood where crime isn't an issue. But there's a fundamental injustice at work in his program: the tax base continues to dwindle, but more and more of that money goes toward subsidizing corporate interests and developers. One of his pet projects for the CTA, for instance, has been to provide "express" service to the airports. Train service already exists for both, but presumably high-class people will be willing to pay extra not to have to be around ordinary Chicago residents. It's unclear where they will actually put the express tracks, but already there is a "super-station" under construction that presumably has something to do with this new service that will never exist (even though it serves the Red Line, which does not go to either airport) -- three blocks away from Clark/Lake, which is arguably already a "super-station" and where all but one of the city's main train lines (including the two that go to the airports) meet. The Olympic bid is another example -- business interests will profit handsomely, while the city itself will be lucky to break even. Any additional jobs will be temporary and poorly paid, and the best the poorer areas of the city will receive is an unnecessary stadium plopped in the middle of a blighted neighborhood.
I wouldn't mind Daley's authoritarianism if it actually worked in the interests of workers and the poor -- but then he wouldn't need to be authoritarian, because he could get elected on the strength of implementing popular and needed programs. You only really need a strongman when you're siphoning off money for schools to help subsidize the Chicago Stock Exchange, for instance, or more broadly, when you're acting like only about 10-20% of the city's population actually exists.
(Of course, this situation is helped by the fact that one of the most firmly liberal cities in the midwest was for many years served by two Republican-leaning dailies -- supposedly the Sun-Times is going to move in a more liberal direction now, which will be helpful to offset the damage that will likely be caused by the recent buyout of the Reader.)
