The November 2006 elections were a resounding defeat of the
Republican Party, attributed by many to an overzealous, entrenched
government that overstepped its mandate to govern. Today’s city
election offers Chicagoans the opportunity to send the same message
to their City Council members, who have similarly betrayed
them.
From a nanny state standpoint, Chicago has become the
laughingstock of the nation, and its City Council is largely to
blame. Once home to Al Capone and Bugs Moran, who scoffed at
Prohibition, it has become one of the most prohibition-friendly
cities in the country. Smoking ban? Got it. Ban on driving while
holding a cell phone? Got it. Ban on foie gras? Not even the
European Union, whose onerous regulations are the stuff of legend,
has seen fit to ban foie gras.
Virtually every trendy ordinance proposed across the country has
been introduced at one time or another in City Hall, where aldermen
apparently feel it is within their mandate to legislate arcane
elements of citizens’ lives. A Google search for “Chicago City
Council useless law” results in over 2,400 hits. “Chicago City
Council stupid law” results in almost 10,000.
In the past six years, the City Council has passed a “Positive
Parenting Resolution” that “encourages non-violent discipline” for
children — enforcement and funding aside; mandated that the City
Council (look, they even pass laws about themselves!) recite the
Pledge of Allegiance before each meeting, despite the objections of
several aldermen; attempted to determine how anyone in possession
of an elephant must store and discipline the animal — a regulation
that applies only to the Lincoln Park Zoo and traveling circuses;
and further limited the behavior of homeless panhandlers — who,
given their situations, seem to not care too much about societal
conventions anyway.
Nor are the City Council’s concerns limited to the confines of
the city limits. In 2002, the Council condemned the nation of China
for its persecution of Falun Gong, tossing diplomatic issues to the
wind and pre-empting the State Department. In 2003, it condemned
the USA Patriot Act, a federal law. In 2005, it passed a resolution
demanding the removal of troops from
Iraq…which, last time I checked, was not
within the City Council’s mandate.
Alderman Ed Burke’s proposed trans fat ban — which, if passed,
would make Chicago the first major city in the country to limit
trans fats — assumes that residents are unable to make proper
eating choices. He would prefer the city make those choices for
you. Essentially, he knows better than you what you should put in
your body. At this rate, it’s only a matter of time before they
tell you when to eat, and how much.
Most frightening, however, is Alderman Burke’s conviction that
such a move is not only his duty, but his right as an elected
representative. In an interview with Jim Lehrer’s “NewsHour” in
August 2006, Burke asserted that “if the restaurants won’t
voluntarily change their policy and adopt a healthy means of
preparation, then I think it’s clear that municipal government has
the right to step in and legislate.”
Where does the city’s “right to step in and legislate” end?
At this point, it seems like the only loony law that hasn’t hit
Chicago is the ban on size-zero models, and that’s probably only
because Chicago doesn’t have a fashion week. Unfortunately, that
isn’t necessarily an impediment to the law being proposed. The foie
gras ban passed, despite the absence of foie gras facilities
anywhere in the city of Chicago.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a nation characterized by strong
local governments and a decentralized federal government to oversee
matters of mutual interest — those too complex or costly for any
one state or municipality to address, like national defense. I
doubt, however, that they intended municipal governments to enact
volumes of feel-good legislation. For the City Council to pass
edicts on elephants and foreign policy while ignoring education,
infrastructure, and the economy is an insult to Chicagoans.
In November, Americans took a stand against a government that
ignored their wishes, electing a new class of politicians they
hoped would be more in touch with their interests. It’s now time
for Chicago to elect aldermen who realize that holding office is a
privilege, not a right, and respect the limitations of their
mandate to govern.
