Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
I see what you are doing here: You try to turn this into a debate about urban renewal and the black community in general and in Chicago in particular. Arranging on one side Fitch, expert on the politics of urban renewal and on the other side poor me. Whose knowledge of present day Chicago is derived from reading V.i.warshawski novels.

I think that game is a bit unfair, even if arranging one-sided games is part of the Chicago tradition.

That said,  "The North Side is the area north of the Loop--Chicago's midtown central business district--where rich white people live; they root for the Cubs. They're neighborhood is called the Gold Coast."

that much even I know.(these crime novels) So I am aware of the situation too, just like Obama! Does that makes me responsible? I don't think so.

And that truism:

"For almost a hundred years in Chicago blacks have lived on the South Side close to Chicago's factories and slaughter houses. And Cellular Field, home of the White Sox. The area where they lived was called the Black Belt or Bronzeville--and it's the largest concentration of African American people in the U.S.--nearly 600,000 people--about twice the size of Harlem."

is a bit misleading. He makes it seem like the South Side isn't black today, thanks to Obama. But that is nonsense. Even the middle-class Hyde park is 35% or so black. And the rest of the South side, including parts of Obama's old senate district, are full of 97% black community areas.

So that is Fitch doing here? First he claims that Chicago is just like Manhattan, fitting Chicago, its history and its politics into his area of expertise. Then he makes very broad claims about the development plan in Chicago: turning the (entire?) South Side into Manhattan or the North Side. And then he blames State Senator Obama, because he did represent a part of the South Side.

But Obama wasn't the major or even an alderman. And a lot of the development was happening then Obama didn't have any office and was organizing tenants.

The actual state senator Obama was occupied with:

 "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee, after six years on the committee and four years as its minority spokesman. The new Democratic majority allowed Obama to write and help pass more legislation than in previous years. He sponsored successful efforts to expand children's health care, create a plan to provide equal health care access for all Illinois residents, and create a "Hospital Report Card" system, and worker's rights laws that protected whistleblowers, domestic violence victims, equal pay for women, and overtime pay.[28] His most public accomplishment was a bill requiring police to videotape interrogations and confessions in potential death penalty cases. Obama was willing to listen to Republicans and police organizations and negotiate compromises to get the law passed.[38] That helped him develop a reputation as a pragmatist able to work with various sides of an issue.[27] Obama also led the passage of a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped."  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama

I don't see anything about housing or urban development here. So Fitch, for all his expertise, is mostly doing guilt by association. "Some democrats in Chicago did this, Obama was was a democrat in Chicago too, so he is responsible."

I don't think that works; hang Obama for his own sins, not for those of the Daley machine.

 

by IM on Mon May 7th, 2012 at 03:33:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No. I was defending the integrity of Fitch and responding to this:
This article seems to make (Obama) into Daley senior and junior combined.

If Fitch is not credible then nothing he says is valid.

Fitch is arguing that Obama was furthering the interests of wealthy elites who made great profits out of community development - at the expense of his constituents - while ignoring the complaints of those constituents to his office - much as he now ignores the demands for investigation and prosecution of financial sector executives such as his major contributor and 'bundler' Jon Corzine of MF Global and the executives of Wall Street and the executives of the TBTFs.

Fitch noted that Obama has often left few tracks or fingerprints in the process. His public efforts were indeed concerned with interests of his constituents - the concerns that did not threaten the profits of his contributors - and he did indeed serve on the boards and was otherwise involved with organizations that pushed that redevelopment forward. Fitch is showing that Obama is clearly involved with and benefiting from people and organizations that were pursuing policies that were damaging to the interests of the poorest among his constituents. I have accused Obama of providing 'air cover' for looting by Wall Street and Fitch is showing that he learned that art in Chicago fronting for and protecting the interests of wealthy contributors at the expense of the poorest of his constituents.

Fitch's argument is much more robust than "Some democrats in Chicago did this, Obama was was a democrat in Chicago too, so he is responsible." He does what he set out to do which is to demonstrate that Obama favored the interests of large wealthy contributors at the expense of poor blacks by serving as the elected representative of those poor while  doing nothing about the complaints of constituents arising from the activities of his backers- all the while continuing to mouth soaring rhetoric and supporting his constituents in ways that did not impinge on the financial efforts of his backers. I think our UK contributors would easily recognize that behavior as they suffered from similar behavior from Tony Blair for over a decade.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon May 7th, 2012 at 09:40:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I said nothing about the integrity of Fitch. How could I judge? I just pointed out that his judgment of Obama during political career in Chicago rests on a lot of general history reaching back to the fifties, a lot of guilt of association and almost nothing particular to Obama. That is disagreement, not judging integrity.

"Fitch is arguing that Obama was furthering the interests of wealthy elites who made great profits out of community development "

Let's rather say he is asserting it. I can see no supporting evidence.

"Fitch noted that Obama has often left few tracks or fingerprints in the process. His public efforts were indeed concerned with interests of his constituents - the concerns that did not threaten the profits of his contributors - and he did indeed serve on the boards and was otherwise involved with organizations that pushed that redevelopment forward. Fitch is showing that Obama is clearly involved with and benefiting from people and organizations that were pursuing policies that were damaging to the interests of the poorest among his constituents."

Yes, he turns his involvement with Ayers on education into a proof that Obama is a right winger; that is a new one. (The teachers union supported him in the senate primary ,by the way). And the rest is guilt by association. And inference from Obama not doing things like (Fitch):

<Is Obama a minion of Richie Daley? It's true that Obama has never denounced<br> Daley.>

You have to admit that is pretty weak.

Then there is some work - three years or so as a lawyer in a firm with a long civil rights tradition. That also works for non-profit developers. Making a lawyer responsible for his clients is pretty nonsensical, but I admit speaking pro domo here.

And on his actual political work Fitch just says:

>How has Obama earned the support and allegiance of friendly FIRE? Where does
he stand on the Plan for Transformation? Generally speaking, he's been careful not to leave
too many footprints. If you google Obama and public housing, nothing comes up.<

In other word, nothing. That veers into "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence territory."

Fitch in the end did not say much about Obama. He did just take his complaints about urban renewal and did fit Obama in, like a square peg into a round hole.

by IM on Mon May 7th, 2012 at 10:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The rabbis had a joke about arguments like Fitches. The question is whether Moses wore a kippa (those little caps the Orthodox Jews wear). The argument is, of course he did and we can prove it because in Exodus it says "and then he [Moses] went out" and who can imagine that Moses, the father of his people, went out without wearing his kippa?
by rootless2 on Mon May 7th, 2012 at 11:16:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 23
39 comments

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
2 comments

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
11 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments

Occasional Series