Politics in Action: The Year of Foie Gras

Back in April of 2006, Chicago Alderman Joe Moore managed to get the rest of his cronies to vote on a ban of foie gras in Chicago. The measure was passed by a 48-1 vote. A pretty lopsided victory for anything being voted on by these fellows.

Yesterday, those same gents reversed their stance, making foie gras legal once again. Of course, this upset a number of people. PETA for instance. I'm not going to get into the ethical debate here. You can see the anti-foie gras sentiment or arguments on the other side of cruelty, such as this clip of Bourdain all over the place. There's even a Spainish company (Pateria de Sousa) producing "free range foie gras" that eliminates the force feeding aspect by using the natural inclination of geese to be greedy eaters. This certainly won't satisfy the hardcore anti-cruelty element, as ultimately the bird gets the axe.

I really don't care to argue these points with anyone, even to the level of overall eating habits and the need for sustainability and efficiency. Really, I bring this up as an exercise in political analysis.

I'll start out by pointing out that the ban was not effective. People could still buy foie gras, restaurants outside the city limits still served it openly and restaurants within the city limits worked angles to get it on diner's plates or flat out flaunted the law and paid the resulting fines.

The reversal of Chicago's foie gras ban came due to some deft paperwork maneuvering by Alderman Thomas Tunney, who just happens to be a restaurant owner. Now, this seems a bit sketchy and propenents of the ban were hopping man, but Tunney used his knowledge of the system to force a vote. There shouldn't be anything devilishly wrong in that. The problem for organizations like PETA is that the Chicago ban was used as a shining example of "moving in the right direction". From a purely strategic view, this would be a blow to their efforts in more ways than just the situation in Chicago.

Moore was not allowed much in the way of debate by our Great Leader the Grand Poobah, Richard M. Daley. This was taken by Moore to be a political muscle job harkening back to the "glory" days of The Mayor's father. While this may be so, I can't help but agree with the point that this issue has been debated ad nauseam locally and nationally. Not to mention that the original vote was just two years ago. How much more is going to be accomplished by more tongue wagging.

Now, I never really got behind the ban in the first place, and it didn't seem to matter anyway (one of The Mayor's points). Nonetheless, the Chicago Tribune reported, "many aldermen who voted for repeal said they changed their minds because they agree with Daley's assertion that they have better things to do." This chapped me a bit.

The concept that they had better things to do than deal with this the first time somehow leaves me wondering how that equates to forcing another vote on it. A vote with drastically different results than one year ago. The reversal was passed with a 37-6 vote.

I know these people are addle-brained, that's not at issue. The real question is which mental misfire caused this great shift in attitude. Did they suddenly realize they voted previously without the facts? Did they hear whispering in the hallways of goverment? Is The Poobah really trying to make a heavy point about opposing his plans for the proposed Chicago Children's Museum? Did the gang of shitting geese on the local golf course finally cross the line and steal beer from someone's cart? Whatever the reason, nothing in this episode increases my opinion of the players or the political landscape of my fair city.

Only those privy to the smoky back rooms of Chicago's politicians, lobbyists and restaurateurs know for sure. I suppose they aren't smoky any more, but who knows what parliamentary magic may change that.