Elected in 2019, Lightfoot was practically a benchmark in the eyes of followers of inclusivity – the first black woman to lead Chicago, and even with a non-traditional sexual orientation. His overwhelming triumph with 75% of the vote sparked jubilation in the liberal camp.But Lightfoot’s manager proved mediocre. She is credited with building the city’s first casino and a program to develop areas where African Americans and Latinos live. But the list of failures is much longer.During the pandemic, Lightfoot has been unable to find a common language with teachers’ unions, causing schools to stall.When racially motivated protests and pogroms engulfed America in the summer of 2020, Lightfoot echoed the most advanced and popular anti-police slogans among the left — she accused law enforcement of violence and resistance to reform, and supported the idea of cutting off their funding. Under his rule, Chicago patrol officers were prohibited from chasing fleeing citizens if they were suspected of petty crimes. And as part of the fight against the racist past, by personal order of Lightfoot in Chicago, they tore down two statues of the discoverer of America, Christopher Columbus.
But, as it soon turned out, singing along with activists, toppling statues and even the mayor’s correct skin color and sexual orientation did nothing to make Chicago safer. The metropolis remains one of the most criminal cities in the United States, and under Lightfoot, as evidenced by police statistics, the number of serious crimes has increased markedly. Due to violence and taxes, several large companies (Boeing, Caterpillar) have closed their offices in the city.In the elections held at the end of February, for the townspeople, all this proved to be more important than the conformity of Lightfoot’s personality with the liberal agenda. As compelling as his triumph was four years ago, his defeat was equally crushing – the Chicago mayor won just 17% of the vote, leaving two contestants in the lead at once.On the one hand, it may seem unfair to somehow attribute Lightfoot’s failure to deal with the Chicago gangs to his gender, skin color, or sexual preference. After all, the increase in crime in recent years has been seen in almost every city in America, whether the mayor is white or black, male or female.On the other hand, Lightfoot herself, despite numerous rather specific claims to her reign, even on the side of the allies, has repeatedly reduced everything to the fact that she is unfairly evaluated because of her sex and her color of skin. Thus, answering a question about the reasons for the defeat in the elections, the mayor of Chicago declared: “Of course, I am a black woman in America.”And it’s not just about Lightfoot — liberal politicians and the media in high-profile appointments regularly point to people like her belonging to various minorities, as if that were a guarantee of their professionalism. And just as regularly criticized are organizations whose workforces are not inclusive enough, as if that automatically makes them ineffective. Sometimes it’s almost quotas based on gender or race.
For example, here are some recent headlines from the liberal agenda axios.com: “Video game industry in no rush to hire black developers,” “Jonathan Capehart quits editorial board of Washington Post, which counts more than employed white developers.”Lightfoot is not the progressives’ first disappointment. Late last year, a scandal erupted around Sam Brinton, who became the first genderqueer (a person with an unfixed gender self-identification) in a high leadership position in US federal agencies. Brinton was whisked off to the US Department of Energy, where he handled radioactive waste, which liberal publications proudly trumpeted. But Brinton didn’t even work a year when he was accused of stealing other people’s suitcases during baggage claim at airports, which was repeatedly recorded on video cameras. On trial, he was fired. The progressive fairy tale didn’t work.
