Saturday, October 03, 2009

The Night Chicago Died

Chicago's humiliating loss in the first round, coming in dead last of the four finalists-behind Tokyo, Madrid, and the eventual winner, Rio de Janiero-came as a shock to me, not being one who keeps up on the ins and outs of all the various political wrangling that goes on every four years with the Olympics. I figured, well, Michelle went to Copenhagen to lay on the charm and will spend her time softening the International Olympic Committee members up, so now it's up to Barak to make an appearance and seal the deal. That deal would have probably involved potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts doled out to various construction and other companies, much of which would make it back into the pockets of some of Barak's various assorted Chicago political allies and cronies. I won't hazard a guess as to what he might have promised any of the individual members. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall, until I started making myself sick thinking about all the shit I would have ended up gorging on.

Then there's Obama. What would he have gotten out of it, other than an opportunity to add some by now much needed political capital such a success would entail, along with the chance to reward old friends and allies and endear himself to newer ones? I would almost bet they pressured him into making the trip and the sales pitch, frankly. But there is one more thing to consider.

It occurred to me that 2016, the year of the games in question, will be Obama's last year in office if he is re-elected. The games held in his home city, possibly with him giving a welcoming speech and possibly even appearing prominently throughout the games, might be an attractive prospect to him, a way for him to showcase what he imagines might be the new America that he has fostered and developed, and to appear as the new "founding father" of a fairer, more just nation, the new envy of an admiring world community.

Note how I am going out of my way to avoid comparing the prospect of Obama appearing at the Chicago games to Hitler appearing at the 1936 Berlin games in an attempt to showcase what he proclaimed the "master race" of which he was the implicit grand champion.

Well, no I didn't avoid it, did I? Shit.

Had Chicago been awarded the games, however, I have a strong idea there would have been no Jesse Owens moments to raise Obama's ire in the face of an unexpected upset and embarrassing defeat. To the contrary, Obama might have been conspicuous by his absence, depending on his state of denial by the time that year rolls around. The nation might have been spared a great deal of embarrassment at any rate. And of course we will all be spared the predictable montage of Olympic athletes in various Chicago settings with Sinatra's Chicago playing in the background.

All of these are good enough reasons feel some relief that the games will not be played here, but the question remains, why did Chicago miss out?

Some claim it is because of the violent nature of the city, and many point out the recent savage beating death of a young honor student by gang-bangers.

This is overlooking the fact that Rio, the victorious city, has a reputation as one of the most violent and crime-ridden cities in the world. From the report just two years ago-

It is no secret that Rio is crime-ridden and quite violent, and becoming more so: the heavily-armed gangs that control the hillside squatter slums known as favelas are growing increasingly bolder in their assaults and threats, even in the city’s most elite neighborhoods.

Perhaps a better explanation might be the antagonism that exists between the International Olympic Committee and its member American Olympic Committee. There has been bad blood between the two for years, for a variety of reasons, a great deal of which seems to involve disputes over media coverage and advertising revenue.

The report linked above, in fact, suggests that, due to this, Chicago never really had a shot to begin with.

There might be a more important and compelling reason that this, however. It seems that, according to one Chicago group who actually traveled to Copenhagen to lobby for the games to NOT be in Chicago-the majority of people there did not want the games. In fact, the numbers cited is something like 84% of the city's population who either did not want the games at all, under any circumstances, or who did not want public, taxpayer funds to be spent on the Olympics.

I won't pretend to know just how much of a factor the groups lobbying efforts against their own city was, but it is at least an attempt at democracy in action. I do have to wonder if it might ever occur to Obama, or to anybody, just how out of touch he is with such a large majority of the people in his own home city.

I seriously doubt that he is that clueless-he just doesn't care, or perhaps more to the point he has other concerns-other, let us say, obligations. If he's not careful, by the time 2016 rolls around, that might well be not the fringe perception of him, but the all too common one. And it just might become his political epitaph.

9 comments:

Rufus said...

Politics plays a role in it, of course. But, probably a big factor was that Brazil's rapid economic growth makes it a very imporant country right now. Economists are sort of making a big deal right now about the "BRIC" countries- namely, Brazil, Russia, India, and China- as the nations to watch in the next decade or so. And then add the fact that South America has never had an olympics, and Latin America hasn't had one in over 60 years. So, probably Brazil just had a really good sales pitch.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I don't doubt that Rio would have won, and I don't doubt that they deserved to win. I don't think there was any chance actually that they would lose. The main question here is, why did Chicago lose so quickly, and so badly? I don't think, like many have stated, that it has anything to do with any anti-American sentiment. I think it was mainly because of the bad blood between the American Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee

Plus, it can never be good when citizens of a prospective city make it a point to engage in international travel for the purpose of advocating AGAINST their own cities selection, particularly if their polling date is accurate. For 84% of the people to be against the idea must have given pause to whatever leanings any of the committee members might have had towards pushing Chicago up into the next round of contenders.

It should have come in at least a distant second, not dead last.

Frank Partisan said...

Obama didn't lose anything, only Chicago. Political risk is not on Obama's agenda.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Then you don't think he's taking much of a risk pushing this health care initiative, even though polls show an increasing majority of Americans are opposed to it, and that opposition seems to grow every day?

I'll grant you, he might not feel he's in danger. He might honestly feel that history is on his side, if he will just persevere. He does have that kind of ego, it seems.

Rufus said...

Yeah, well only in the US would the idea of giving public health insurance to like 5% of the working poor be considered political suicide.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Rufus, I honestly don't think anybody would mind that, or for that matter all of the working poor, and beyond. Trust me, I would be fine with it myself.

Most people that have a problem with it are just wary of the government, with good reason. The more power and control you give them, the worse they get, the more corrupt they become, and the more incompetently they behave.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the Social Security Trust Fund. Now, take a look at the US National Debt.

Who do we owe that money to? If you put two and two together and guessed the Social Security Trust Fund, go to the head of the class. We owe at least half of the debt to the fund. Actually, before Bush and the Iraq War, we owed almost all of it to the Social Security Trust Fund, which has been systematically raided for the last forty years, if not more, by the government.

If you want a poster child for why the vast majority of people like me distrust and to an extent despise the government, and especially those politicians in it who are always looking for ways to increase it's powers, the perfect poster child for that would be-the government.

Rufus said...

Sure, people would have no problem with the government doing anything, so long as they don't have to pay for it. They want social security, and wars, and drug wars, and prisons, and a wall across Mexico, and any other entitlement their little hearts desire. But suggest that it's going to cost them money, and they get indignant about government corruption. And tell them that they're paying tax money that will go to any other group in the country, aside from the military, and they hit the roof. In Buffalo, I used to listen to them bitch that their hard-earned tax money was going to fund public libraries and trash pickup in the poor neighborhoods. "And why should I pay for someone else's kids to go to school?!" So, sure, I understand they have plenty of good reasons to distrust the government. But, you're not going to convince me that a bit part of this isn't the average American's fear that they might be chipping in money for some "welfare bum" to get regular doctor's visits.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Well, okay I'm sure that's a big part of it too, but only because of the other factors I mentioned. If the government actually did these things in ways that were fair and, most importantly, effective, in a way that didn't add to the debt (again, usually by way of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund), then I honestly believe the other stuff wouldn't be half as much of an issue with people as it is now.

Rufus said...

Yeah, the government definitely shouldn't give its critics so much ammunition. And, I don't know- to me, the Democrats are completely hopeless and the Republicans have no ideas whatsoever and say nothing that interests me in the slightest. So, sure, they'll no doubt screw up health care reform.

But it's not like things will get better otherwise. My father lives in a state where there are two insurance companies and they really don't want to insure the working people who live there- they're fishermen mostly, which means they make little money and it's a dangerous job. So, the cheapest insurance he can get is about $500/ month. The result is that about 30% of the state is uninsured. And the premiums just keep going up every year. And nobody believes that the trend is going to stop. Eventually, people are just going to wait until they get sick, buy insurance, and go to the doctor to find out what's wrong. A lot of them do that now.

So, for Obama, even if the government just makes a few tweaks here and there, and the system gets 1% better, he can say it was a victory. I don't think they're going to make anything but cosmetic changes that fix nothing, and take no real risks- he's too much of a politician to stick his neck out.

And then, when he runs again, he can say, "okay, health insurance sucks, but it sucks 1% less. So, vote for me!" I don't think it's going to be that risky, when all is said and done.