Time for Johnson to replace loyalty with competency
Advisors are sending the mayor unprepared into the world
I am going to shift directions from the usual De Priest Digest offerings to give Chicago’s new mayor some unvarnished (and unsolicited) advice. Mayor Johnson, people who have known me a long time know that I often joke that I have a birth defect-politics. They understand where as most people avoid or run from politics, I run cautiously headlong (hope that isn’t an oxymoron) into politics and its first cousin-government.
Some might tell you that that interest borders on obsession. All of these decades of scrutinizing the campaigns of Coleman A. Young, Carl Stokes, Dennis Archer, David Dinkins, and of course, Richard M. Daley, and Lori Lightfoot; I learned it is not unusual for candidates to value loyalty over competency.
Mayor Johnson, generally that approach works throughout campaigns. Campaigns represent politics; however, once elected, a candidate must shift the balance to government where competency should trump loyalty. Yes, they can co-exist, but the former is more important once the candidate is in office
That’s because campaigns don’t require the rigorous regulations under which government must operate. Campaigns are almost the Wild West; aside from the financial constraints regarding spending, candidates can say and do some borderline legal or scandalous things.
In those instances, it is up to voters to determine whether they are willing to support and tolerate someone with depraved words and deeds. The candidate’s advisors are on board to temper the negative impact. They often put their own reputations at risk for the benefit of the candidate. Their other role is to make the candidate aware of potential landmines. If the cadre of advisors is in tune with the community that isn’t much of a challenge.
When the shift comes from the campaign to government, many of the advisors have to be shed-no hard feelings but they took you where you wanted to go-the fifth floor of city hall. It appears your advisors from the past are still on board and not necessarily delivering what you need -sound advice from an experienced perspective.
Of course, as the candidate and ultimately chief executive of the city, your ideas and thoughts should lead the way. However, they should only lead after you have consulted with your advisors-especially those on the communication/media relation side. It is painfully clear that you believe your ascent to the mayor’s office has given you communication skills and media relations acumen you didn’t have before May 15 when you took office.
It is imperative to remember that politics is part of government, but not vice versa. That translates into things you say, even after taking office, will be watched closely and used against you in a bid for re-election or when you are supporting someone for another office. Every mis-step or broken promise or unsubstantiad claim is added to the scorecard.
The evidence you are floundering on the media front is hard to miss, as 99 percent of your media appearances are reactionary. Seldom over the past couple of months have we seen you lead the way on any issues or programs, and garner media coverage. The pop-up appearances you have become so enamored with don’t address the most critical issues facing the city; and that is not lost on the citizenry.
Maybe your advisors are failing you, or or you are not applying the advice they provide. Surely, someone in your inner circle didn’t get caught up in the national “defund the police” euphoria.
If that person’s counsel had been taken, you obviously would not have had to walk back your statement about defunding the police until it was 180 degrees from the original declaration. I suspect you recall how adamant you were about ending the ShotSpotter contract, yet your administration renewed it. Fortunately, for you, one of your campaign/administration captains was willing to fall on the sword for you. However, it will still be a mark against your record when the unfulfilled promises are chalked up.
Like it or not, that initial jab at defunding the police won’t go away; as none of your advisors have found ways but to do anything other than scratch the scab those words created. Politically, it should be obvious you are creating an enemy for life among the 11,000 or so sworn officers.
Along the way to the mayor’s office didn’t anyone tell you that a police department can make or break an administration? They can blow up a budget beyond recognition. They can subtly campaign against you every time they stop a motorist or someone on the street. Maybe the largest and most accurate arrow in their quiver is the one they can use to garner the votes of family and friends against you.
It was a slap in the face to members of the CPD when you refused to offer them the 12-week paternity leave you unilateraly delivered to your puppet masters -Chicago Teachers Union.
Even when you are unequivocally and absolutely positive of the message(s) you want to convey; it would be wise of you to consult with others. Had you done that in discussing the murder of CPD Officer Ella French; it would have been virtually impossible for you to inject Adam Toledo into that scenario and face the outrage of her fellow officers and legions of city residents.
As recently as last week, you took issue with a reporter who used the word mob, in asking a question about the teens and young adults who went on a rampage at Roosevelt Road and Canal Street. Honestly, did you think for a second attemping to “correct” the reporter with your word preference was going to change his mind? Did it not occur to you when that person got back to the newsroom he was going to describe the crowd in his story the way he wanted to?
Your impact and the possibility to get that reporter to see your perspective would have been more likely, had you asked to speak to him post-news conference; and one-on-one shared your thoughts. Instead you chose to demonstrate you were in charge; however, you will never be in charge of reporting. Arguing semantics makes you look petty, not mayoral.
I am sure you gave a lot of folk a chuckle when you declared your adminstration “will do things differently” during a news conference. Why would anyone laugh about that? There are a couple of reasons. First of all, your administration is replete with department heads Lori Lightfoot appointed. Without having your own appointees in place, you really don’t know how much of your agenda these departments are carrying forth, or how much better they could be doing their jobs. Additionally, your demeanor of having all the answers bears a stark resemblance to your predecessor.
The second reason the “my administration” outburst is laughable relates to Dr. Alison Arwardy
Even before taking office, you put a target on her back as someone who definitely would not be part of the Johnson Administration. Did we miss then news of her replacement? I didn’t think so.
Again, capable advisors would have explained from the outset that your disagreement with her over a single issue- when students should return to school during the pandemic-didn’t constitute a solid reason to replace her. Think about it for a minute and you should arrive at the conclusion so many others did-her work and public demeanor were exceptional during that unprecedented crisis. Regardless of how dissatified with her, it wasn’t necessary to attempt to publicly embarass her by telling the world she would soon be out of a job.
I guess I have to be the first one to tell you this. Compassion has a place in government. Arwardy was, nor is she now a political opponent. She is a medically-trained and accalimed professional doing what she was hired to do, and a bit more. Though the possibility may seem extremely remote now, there may come a day when you need Arwardy to help you.
Mr. Mayor, municipal government is like golf. There are many nuances, and if you incorporate the wrong grip, stance or any other fundamentals early in learning the game; your chances at being proficient never materialize.
Did you send this to the mayor?