Having lived through and closely covered the Bruce Rauner gubernatorial administration, I’ve been getting a strong sense of déjà vu lately as several famous “wise old men” have publicly advised Gov. JB Pritzker to call President Donald Trump and make some sort of deal that settles their disagreements.
This effort by political consultant David Axelrod and others was highlighted earlier this month when a Chicago TV reporter asked Pritzker: “Don’t you think if you maybe called [Trump], you can lower the temperature?”
Those of us who lived through the Rauner era heard and even futilely asked that very question time after time for more than two years.
But the truth was Rauner was fighting an existential battle with labor unions. To accomplish that goal, he set out to damage and even destroy the state’s human services network and their clients by refusing to sign a state budget to force the Democrats to gut unions of their power in the workplace and the state legislature.
Then-House Speaker Michael Madigan, for all of his gigantic faults, recognized the dispute for what it was. This wasn’t a simple “budget impasse,” as the news media still prefers to call the fight.
The battle cut deep into the very fabric of the Democratic Party itself. There could be no real negotiations by either side, as evidenced by Rauner’s opposition to the then-Senate Republican leader’s attempts to broker a compromise with the then-Democratic Senate president.
All talk of a possible “grand bargain” was fake. The same holds true today.
Pritzker has made the point that if the president’s beef was really about crime, then the federal government would start by sending troops and cops to cities with higher violent crime rates than Chicago (like Memphis), and with more undocumented immigrants than this state’s largest city (like Houston).
Plus, he said, the military isn’t trained to fight crime in America and can’t legally be used to do that anyway.
The basic Pritzker argument is that Trump has been targeting Chicago and Illinois to please his base and set the stage for even greater attacks on civil liberties.
It’s always been difficult to see how either Pritzker or Trump could negotiate in this environment. They both clearly want capitulation, and they both say they believe they are the true patriots.
Trump has withheld federal anti-violence program money; he’s slashed programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, (which studies have shown reduce violence); and he hasn’t significantly increased federal spending on local law enforcement.
His alternative is massive immigration sweeps and deploying the National Guard and even (in the case of California) the U.S. Marines. And he has wanted Pritzker to submit to all of those things in the name of law and order, claiming Pritzker is anti-American for not standing with him.
Pritzker has demanded a restoration of federal anti-violence money, more funding for local police, a reversal of congressionally mandated social program spending cuts and increased cooperation with federal crime-fighting agencies. He has also opposed massive immigration sweeps and flatly rejected military intervention.
You can argue with credibility that Pritzker at least partially opposes harsh immigration enforcement to prevent the state from losing more than one congressional seat in the next reapportionment. But losing national influence can also be grounds for refusing to negotiate.
You can also argue that Pritzker is doing this to bolster his presidential ambitions. But that argument means surrender would destroy his ambitions. That’s not a policy argument or a justification, by the way, it’s just political reality.
So, as we saw with Rauner on a smaller scale, both sides lob powerful rhetorical grenades at each other in the hopes one or the other is vanquished. Total Democratic victory (which Illinois Democrats eventually achieved over Rauner) seems highly unlikely in the coming months.
That is definitely an argument for compromise, but it’s also the same one used here starting in 2015, the first year of the Rauner impasse that didn’t end until July 2017 when a bipartisan super-majority broke the impasse by passing an income tax increase and overriding Rauner’s veto.
Trump, for his part, spent weeks waffling over whether he would indeed send in the National Guard. On Friday, he said he’d skip Chicago for now and instead send troops to Memphis, where the Republican governor welcomed the deployment.
But this fight is far from over. Both Rauner and Madigan scored temporary wins back in the day, after all.
Expect more opportunities for another clash.
- RNUG - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:04 am:
And expect the intensity to ramp up if / when JB pursues his Presidential ambitions.
- Bigtwich - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:11 am:
Thank you. I think that is one of your best columns. It helped clarify my thinking.
- Steve - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:14 am:
I don’t expect much compromise. I don’t think JB and the Democratic party are used to compromising with the Republicans of late. I also think Trump like having Chicago as a foil for his base.
- Telly - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:14 am:
This impasse won’t end anytime soon because the two primary combatants are politically benefiting from it.
Trump is the personification of political conflict — he needs it like he needs air to breathe. And he loves having a foil like Pritzker. Pritzker is running for president and fighting Trump gives him the kind of national media attention that usually only East Coast and California pols enjoy.
Why end something if it’s giving you exactly what you want?
- Larry Bowa Jr. - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:29 am:
“They both clearly want capitulation”
US media still can’t help itself and this page is no different with this pathetic “both sides” framing. One guy, who has all the actual power and initiated the conflict, is openly destroying everything anybody pretended to care about back in civics class, and one guy isn’t sufficiently deferential when he answers questions from local journalists.
They’re both tyrants!
- Johnny B - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:32 am:
Maybe because the feud is hurting Illinois residents and the election is in 2028
- Red headed step child - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:34 am:
It wont and because,sadly, the two are a lot alike….
- Amalia - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:53 am:
Truth. Thanks for a good piece with that. Trump now focusing on Memphis is interesting.
- JS Mill - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 10:02 am:
In American presidential political history, there has never been a U.S. president with a more adversarial approach to citizens than the current president. Ever.
I don’t live all of Pritzker’s policies but his is correct in not negotiating with Trump.
- Merica - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 10:22 am:
lost from this is the fact that Rauner was a figurehead in a government where the general assembly encroaches on executive power, and faced a supermajority of the opposite party, where Trump holds all three branches of power
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 10:30 am:
There are less federal law enforcement officers focusing on violent crime since penny ante immigration enforcement is taking up so many resources. I do not fault the Governor for not compromising at all. In fact, I would fault him if he did compromise.
- Lefty Lefty - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 10:37 am:
“You can argue with credibility that Pritzker at least partially opposes harsh immigration enforcement to prevent the state from losing more than one congressional seat in the next reapportionment. But losing national influence can also be grounds for refusing to negotiate.”
You could argue this, but it’s demonstrably false. Trump is looking for headlines and chaos, not deportations at the level that would affect the voting population. Plus it’s a blue state so this is in no way polling well for Trump.
Maybe Pritzker is just doing the right thing? Like the governors of MA, CA, etc? Hard to write a both-sides article with that premise though.
- Mason County - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 10:56 am:
Your headline “No end in sight” sums it up
And does so for the future as well.
- Center Drift - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 10:56 am:
I will respectfully disagree on your characterization of the Rauner/Madigan mess. They both chose paths that could have been avoided. Rauner tried to set up a business approach to government funded services that was the worst I ever saw in 30 years of local social service funding. But he was right in that government employee unions were draining state funds in ways that were driving our state into financial ruin. Madigan was concerned with his power, that he could have used for far more good than he did yet it wasn’t about good. He eviserated Human Services with his refusal to compromise. Even today, citizens with developmental disabilities wait for adult services after high school. This is on Madigan and the Democrats.
- low level - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 11:03 am:
There is no “deal” to be had. Like Rauner, the only deal Trump is interested in is total capitulation. He is creating the chaos while JB stands for the rule of law.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 11:11 am:
Crime has gone down in many places. This is a hate show, the epitome of what Republicans have become. The law and order people love or excuse the president with his legal and political failures, but target urban populations and undocumented people. Maybe some can admit why, just be honest about it.
- low level - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 11:19 am:
==He eviserated Human Services with his (MJM’s) refusal to compromise==
Rauner’s starting point was no more public employee unions. No Democrat on any point of the spectrum was going to agree to that. Privately, many Republicans said it was short sighted as well. The impass was 100% on Bruce Rauner.
- Rudy’s teeth - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 11:34 am:
Would not expect the President to agree to lower the temperature. Conflict and creating chaos keep the President in the news cycle.
His twitter feed would blast (in all CAPS) any terms of a discussion. Of course, the commentary would reflect positively on HIMSELF.
- Excitable Boy - Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 11:40 am:
- He eviserated Human Services with his refusal to compromise. Even today, citizens with developmental disabilities wait for adult services after high school. This is on Madigan and the Democrats. -
Not even close. The democrats, and a few republicans, overrode Rauner’s veto to end the impasse. You don’t know what you’re talking about.