If you haven’t heard, former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is seeking to become the next mayor of Chicago. As well publicized controversy surrounding his eligibility captured the attention not only the city, but of national news outlets. The Illinois Supreme Court ended the firestorm surrounding his residency, deeming him eligible to pursue office.
Having many republican-minded friends, my Facebook feed erupted in anger on Friday as the court’s decision was made public. The most common reaction was immediate, off-the-cuff anger stemming from the policies of the Obama administration and that somehow the Illinois judiciary system was corrupt. Those who disagreed furiously and condescendingly typed how Emanuel was a crook; that Chicago was getting the type of person they deserved. Of course, if Emanuel had worked under former President George W. Bush, the tone might have been different.
My friends, who coincidentally were reading the same news reports, were certain that Emanuel had bribed somebody to gain eligibility.
Let me first say that this is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.
The underlying opposition from my Republican friends to Emanuel, and that of the court’s decision, is due to the sheer fact that he worked under President Obama. Obviously, if you don’t agree with somebody’s policies, it’s attractive to eliminate that person from the running altogether despite his or her legitimacy. The outrage over the court’s decision was not in the decision itself, but the fact that a person with opposing beliefs was declared a permanent resident and therefore eligible for office.
If you didn’t follow Emanuel’s legal battle closely, let me recap the chain of events that unfolded.
1.      The Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago dismissed the objections raised by Walter Maksym and Thomas McMahon.
2.      Maksym and McMahon appealed to the circuit court of Cook County, upholding the Board’s decision.
3.      The petitioners appealed to the appellate court, which reversed the Board and Cook County’s decision, declaring Emanuel ineligible.
4.      Emanuel appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court that overturned the appellate’s decision, declaring him a permanent resident and able to seek office.
At no time throughout this entire process were the facts of the case in question; rather, Maksym and McMahon sought for the courts to clarify the legal definition of residency.
The appellate court (the only one to rule against Emanuel) agreed with the Board and Cook County’s factual findings, but still managed to overturn their decisions by saying, “The court noted that the Board had used the definition of residence that is used in voter qualification cases (permanent abode). Moreover, the court acknowledged that using the same definition for voter qualification and candidate qualification was an approach that was supported by all of the published appellate court case law on the issue. However, the court was unconvinced that this was the correct test because it could not find a published supreme court opinion ratifying, adopting, or directly addressing this approach.”
The only reason why the appellate court overturned the previous two decisions was because there wasn’t a specific precedent and took it upon themselves to create a definition of residency. The appellate court’s decision was a perfectly legitimate course of action in our legal system, just as the action the Illinois Supreme Court took overturned such a decision.
There was nothing corrupt about this legal case. Those who don’t agree with court’s decision to allow Emanuel to run for mayor simply don’t agree with the legal definition of residency.
The problem, then, isn’t the judiciary system, but the unrelenting, knee-jerk rhetorical attacks spewed from the opposition based purely in political ideology. There is no basis, no need to claim that a person is corrupt other than for political slander.
And this is the problem with American political discourse.
We have reached a stalemate in which neither side is truly trying to compromise and make concessions. We ignore the facts, instead crying foul from the tops of our lungs. We shut ideas out based purely on if it’s a Republican or Democrat making the proposition. Our slighted opinions have caused us to dig trenches and turn away from meaningful debate. We are getting nowhere.
If you want to attack a person, do so on policy and tell me why. What’s your reason? Is it logical? Are your sources credible? Tell me why you’re right in a manner that allows for genuine debate.
Don’t form an opinion based on your parent’s beliefs. And don’t, for heaven’s sake, create elaborate lies to advance your personal agenda. We’re not on the set of Jerry Springer with security guards to maintain the peace.
There are going to be differences that cannot be bridged; however, the goal should always be to understand opposing ideologies and have healthy, civil debate that advances the goals of this country.
The Illinois Supreme Court made the correct decision by declaring his eligibility. The 7-0 ruling clarified the legal definition of residency that applies to much more than Emanuel’s political candidacy, which was somehow lost in this political cage match. If you don’t agree with his policies, vote against him. But, please, don’t post nonsensical messages on Facebook that have nothing to do with the validity of an unbiased court decision. It’s simply irresponsible.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. To see the full transcript of the Illinois State Supreme Court ruling, please visit: http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/111773.pdf
This will likely be the last time I read this site.
Travis, this entire column is asinine and disingenuous. Furthermore, I’m disappointed you have decided to make veiled personal attacks on your friends’ intellect and the basis for their beliefs.
First and foremost, I agree with your statement that the courts have settled this issue and were legally just in doing so. While I certainly feel the spirit of the law requires an individual to live in the town they wish to lead, the letter of the law has allowed otherwise.
You mention of the deterioration of public discourse in this country – you needn’t look far for a prime example. You are one of the most egregious purveyors of inflammatory and vitriolic rhetoric, especially when it comes to those who you feel are on a lesser intellectual plane than you. I have never once heard you talk about Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell without working in a snide comment about their intellectual capacities. I have never heard you talk about the issues they promote and how you feel about them – you simply proclaim your disdain for their intellect and write them off as know-nothings who should not be taken seriously. Your backhanded and condescending comment about your friends developing their political beliefs through their parents is especially insulting to me and others. It’s no secret that my folks are conservative, however they do not think for me – I would argue much to the contrary. I have had almost 10 years out from under their roof to formulate my own opinions and beliefs based on my experiences in the real world. My experiences have helped shape my view of politics, rather it be from working in London for the NHS, to picking myself up off the ground after my November 2008 layoff, to simply paying my taxes each April. Moreover, I fail to see how it is less virtuous to form opinions based on watching my parents over the years vs. learning, say, from an intellectually bankrupt college professor who’s never set foot outside of academia.
The arrogance and hypocrisy displayed in this column delegitimizes your entire argument.
Well, Scott, I’m sorry you feel that way. The underlying theme of the post was not a personal attack; rather, exploring political discourse through a recent example of making an erroneous statement based purely on bias. The example was simply used to illustrate that when making an argument there should be facts presented to support a claim. The example was used to simply speak about a larger topic. Furthermore, saying not to form beliefs solely based on your parents sought to encourage people to think for themselves.
And yes, personal experience falls underneath that category.
This was certainly not a veiled attack on personal beliefs; it was an argument against unhealthy political discussion. Perhaps you immediately thought I was speaking to you because your parents have played an influential role in your life. There’s nothing wrong with that; my parents have done the same. Parental beliefs should not be discarded, but understood and explored. As I state in the post, if you believe in something I don’t, that’s completely legitimate. Tell me why, though. Not all differences can be bridged – and I hope that everybody understands that.
I think you missed the point of this entire post and subsequently conjured a personal attack against yourself. This was not an indictment against people with opposing beliefs, but a plea for reason from anybody who discusses politics. It was meant to bring people together to voice their differences. That’s all.
Your point about my personal beliefs creeping in this column is wrong. Not once did I make any reference to Republican or Democratic ideals. There were not any snide comments about any political leader throughout the post. I reported the facts of the Rahm Emanuel’s legal case and used an example of a friend’s political bias to talk about discourse.
Obviously people get caught up political rhetoric and say things before thinking through their thoughts. I don’t hold anything against the person who said that because it was a pure emotional response – something I feel your present thoughts are. I’m guilty just the same as the vast majority of making sweeping generalizations of political figures I find ridiculous. Nothing in this argument (post) does that, though. As I said earlier in this response, I was using a reaction to the court’s decision to talk about the larger issue of civil debate.
Could I improve in my political discourse among people? Yes.
Everybody can.
U-S-A!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!! I enjoyed your article Travis. Keep up the good work! Fight the good fight!
Please take what Jackie Moon says to heart… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0spFY1I2NQ
This will be the last time I read this site as well. It is clear you are attempting to remain not taking any sides while in your arguments you do just the opposite. It appears to be the attempt of a naive journalist. When you have people like Jesse Smith making statements such as he “hates the religious right” and then supporting your article with words such as “keep up the good fight.” I feel the site is nothing more than garbage.