Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: RETAIL: The Largest Employer In Illinois
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
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.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 8:42 am
Previous Post: RETAIL: The Largest Employer In Illinois
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
And expect the intensity to ramp up if / when JB pursues his Presidential ambitions.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:04 am
Thank you. I think that is one of your best columns. It helped clarify my thinking.
Comment by Bigtwich Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:11 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.
Comment by Steve 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?
Comment by Telly Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:14 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!
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:29 am
Maybe because the feud is hurting Illinois residents and the election is in 2028
Comment by Johnny B Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:32 am
It wont and because,sadly, the two are a lot alike….
Comment by Red headed step child Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:34 am
Truth. Thanks for a good piece with that. Trump now focusing on Memphis is interesting.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Sep 15, 25 @ 9:53 am