From slugfest to lovefest in Chicago

In the finest American tradition, the winner and loser in the April 2 mayoral contest met in a gracious, postelection moment of unity. May other politicians take note.

AP
Chicago Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot, left, holds hands with former mayoral candidate Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle during a prayer at a postelection press conference April 3.

In an act rarely seen in a democracy after an election, the winner and the loser of a mayoral contest in Chicago met on April 3, the day after a fierce campaign in which the two candidates shared plenty of name-calling. Their joint postelection appearance – so different than the usual late-night phone call to concede or congratulate – was notably friendly. The two held hands in prayer and promised to work together.

“Our differences are nothing compared with what we can achieve together,” said Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot of her defeated opponent Toni Preckwinkle, both of whom are black women and progressive Democrats in the nation’s third-largest city.

The moment of harmony was not entirely voluntary. The Rev. Jesse Jackson of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition had asked the candidates to sign a pledge to hold a “unity” news conference after the vote when, he said, “the healing must begin.”

Still, for Americans accustomed to 24-hour divisive politics, the lack of overt animosity in the Chicago event was a welcome break. So too was the promise to seek solutions despite the harsh nature of winner-take-all elections.

Campaigns are rarely genial when candidates focus on personal rather than policy differences. In the best democracies, the victors and the vanquished must find a way to avoid retaliation. They should express charity, respect, and even friendship to the other side, renewing society’s unwritten rules about civility.

“We belong to different parties, not different countries,” former presidential candidate John McCain said of his 2008 opponent Barack Obama.

One tradition in American politics is for new presidents to extend an olive branch to former foes by meeting with them soon after the election. Another is for a president to appoint at least one Cabinet member from the opposite party. Such actions send a signal that politicians should serve a cause larger than personal ambitions.

The tiny state of Delaware carries on such traditions with a postelection ritual known as “Return Day,” which began in the 18th century. The winners and losers in the state gather in Georgetown and literally bury a hatchet and declare unity. The event is useful in marking a necessary transition from campaigning to governing.

The politics of reconciliation can help dampen the politics of recrimination. It can also broaden political support for joint ventures. The United States is famous for having its ex-presidents often meet at public events or to work closely for a humanitarian cause.

It can be difficult, of course, for any candidate who portrays an opponent as a villain to quickly turn around and see the person as an ally. Yet the purpose of divided government, like divided politics, is to force consensus and rediscover the bonds of a political community. Politicians seeking the common good must see the common good in each other – even when they are pushed to pledge to do so after a vicious campaign.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.