Black and white

It's February 24 and you're black. Your choice is between Mayor Harold Washington and former Mayor Jane Byrne. It's really no choice at all. The 1983 election of the city's first black mayor was a spectacular event in the black community, and four years later, it still feels mighty good to have a black man on the fifth floor of City Hall.

Or you're white and you live on the northwest or southwest sides. You haven't felt very good these last four years about having a black mayor, though you'll have to admit that the city hasn't fallen apart. There is no way you'll vote for Washington, but you're no great fan of Byrne. You'll probably vote for her, but you might just stay home.

Or you're white, you live on the lakefront and you're liberal — at least, more liberal than the ethnic whites elsewhere in town. Washington's not your ideal, but he's a lot better than Byrne. Besides, you'd feel guilty if you didn't vote for him.

Or you're Hispanic. You're not very inclined toward either candidate. Maybe you'll toss a coin.

That, in very broad strokes, was what happened in Chicago's Democratic mayoral primary. Washington won it by some 75,000 votes — thanks to overwhelming black support, some liberal help and half the Hispanic vote, and a certain amount of white ethnic apathy.

And going into the April 7 general election, put your money on Washington again. If he could win a one-on-one with Byrne, he can certainly win an election in which three opponents will split the white vote. At this writing (March 9), the candidates are Republican Donald Haider and two Democrats running as third candidates, Edward Vrdolyak and Thomas Hynes. If the field is narrowed, one of them conceivably could have a chance, but only if he somehow attracted an enormous white vote.

Black and white. That's what Chicago politics of the '80s has come down to. The candidates discuss the issues, but there really aren't major differences. Regardless of their stands on issues, blacks vote for a black, whites vote for a white and Hispanics toss a coin, waiting for the day when one of theirs runs for mayor.

In the primary campaign, there was a great deal of media analysis of this racial politics, and invariably it was said either (1) that the blacks are just as racist as the whites, or (2) that neither is racist — that there's nothing wrong with wanting your own kind in power. I don't buy that.

Black people have been a downtrodden minority for centuries, and when they finally got a chance to get one of their own elected mayor, they jumped at it. There was nothing particularly anti-white about it, although it's no secret that many black aren't fond of whites. The point is, it was a positive, pro-black notion, grounded in pride for their race, which for so long has been the underdog.

A large number of whites come at it from a completely different perspective. They have been in control for a long time. They think of themselves as better than blacks, and to be led by a black is somewhat humiliating. Vrdolyak's slogan is "Anybody but Harold," but what he means is, "Any white is better than a black." It's a negative, anti-black attitude.

Some say it's no different from, for instance, an Irishman voting for an Irisman. But that, unlike the white-black thing, is not necessarily a negative feeling against non-Irishmen; it's simply a feeling that, all other things being equal, one would rather have one's own kind in office.

April 1987/Illinois Issues/22

Washington received 98 percent of the black vote. Byrne won big on the white ethnic northwest and southwest sides, but it wasn't big enough. In fact, Republican Berrnard Epton did quite a bit better against Washington in those areas in the 1983 general election. Byrne also failed to match the Epton performance on the lakefront; Washington won three of the six north lakefront wards.

Washington got a sympathy vote from some whites; he benefited from the fact that he has been attacked for so long and so vigorously by the Vrdolyak forces, who dominated the city council for three of Washington's four years in office. Byrne, meanwhile, had to run on her record, based on her own four years in office, and people remembered it as chaotic and, at times, of questionable integrity. That perception apparently was not offset by the fact that many people admire her "feistiness" and some resent Washington for discontinuing her ChicagoFest.

If Washington wins reelection, it is still an open question whether he will be dealing with a friendly or hostile city council. For the first three years of his first term, Vrdolyak controlled 29 votes to Washington's 21 and was able to stymie virtually every Washington initiative as well as block most of the mayor's appointments. After special elections last spring in seven wards, the split was 25-25, and Washington was able to get his way by casting tie-breaking votes. Aldermanic elections in the 50 wards on February 24 resulted in the election of 21 Vrdolyak supporters and 15 for Washington.

 In 14 wards, no one received a majority, and the two top votegetters will be in runoffs April 7. Seven of those runoffs are between two Washington backers and one is between two Vrdolyak backers, which will make the split 22-22. So the other six runoffs are the key. In each, someone likely to be sympathetic to Washington faces someone expected to be a backer of Vrdolyak. Washington needs to win three to hold his tenuous control. Who will lead the opposition remains indefinite. Vrdolyak gave up his seat on the council to run for mayor, and his brother Victor was elected February 24 to take his place.

April 1987/Illinois Issues/23