William J. Kelly
The American Spectator
5/12/2011
…With Rahm Emanuel soon to be inaugurated (some would say coronated) mayor of Chicago, operatives wonder if any of the “old rules” will still apply. But has anything really changed?
For most of Chicago’s rank and file, “turf” has had very little to do with political ideology. It has everything to do with survival: Who gets what? Or, more realistically, who gets not? For a paycheck and a retirement package, they’ll believe anything you want. Global warming. Carbon credits to erase your carbon footprint. Government-run healthcare. Rights for garden vegetables. You name it.
Chicago-style progressivism also helps keep other disparate ethnic, racial, and other politically challenged factions toeing the line. Ultimately, the end-game is the same: consolidation of power into one government ruling class. That’s why Democrat elites have never had a problem with classism. It’s the politically correct form of discrimination…
…This is the way it has been here for almost a century, ever since Anton Cermak, a Bohemian immigrant, defeated William Hale “Big Bill” Thompson, the last Republican mayor of Chicago, back in 1931. It is still the same machine of Richard J. Daley, the “Father,” who ruled Chicago with an iron fist and a tangled tongue for 21 years from 1955 to 1976. The old school cops who live in Mount Greenwood, and who still keep the Old Man’s photo on their mantels (along with JFK and the Pope), will tell you that. Outwardly, it’s Barack Obama’s machine. It’s Rahm “Deadfish” Emanuel’s machine. But it’s really just the same machine.
The big difference now is that machine has gone global and, in 2012, the stakes are higher than they have ever been before. In order to defeat the Machine, you need to understand its components and its modus operandi.
So what are the lessons of the Chicago Way?…
Read the entire article at The American Spectator.
Update: Power Line offers a related article, Hoyer Opposes Obama’s Thug Tactics
President Obama wanted legislation that would force any company that does business with the federal government to disclose political contributions by its officers and directors–not just those where disclosure is required by law, but contributions to advocacy groups where disclosure is not required. He couldn’t get that legislation passed, in part because it is obviously unconstitutional, but the effort speaks volumes about the Obama administration’s desire to suppress free speech and bully its opponents into submission.
Having failed in Congress, the Obama administration announced its intention to promulgate the same rule by executive order. So far, the administration hasn’t actually issued such an order; it seems to be testing the waters. Obama may want to reconsider, based on Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s opposition to his thuggish tactics…
