[jordanb]

O'Neill Burke is no more competent than Kim Foxx, and is a member of an Illinois crime family, but she has the support of the carceral state including the FOP. The reality is that Foxx's tenure coincided with (and partially caused) an effective strike/work stoppage by the police in Chicago.

How do you as an elected official change the culture of a rotten institution, that the public wants reformed but is engaged in vital public service who can simply stop doing the work if you piss them off?

I don't know. I feel like so many of our institutions are rotten these days and attempt at reform are sabotaged and/or cause backlashes.

[scarmig]

Make small, incremental changes in the correct direction that will face minimal internal resistance?

A lot of people want everything, immediately, and seem to believe maximalist approaches are no more politically dangerous than more incrementalist ones. They're wrong: prioritization is a thing, and pragmatism and realism about what you can accomplish isn't a sign of selling out but of wanting to be an effective agent of change.

And once you succeed at the first tranche of easier wins, you've built up the trust, skills, and political capital to take on the second tranche. Rinse and repeat.

[watwut]

That works only with honest opponents and that is not situation the world is in.

Successfull minimalist beneficient reforms will be maligned as much as possible, to prevent subsequent beneficient reforms. Simple as that.

[tptacek]

If you're suggesting she's related to Ed Burke, no, she isn't. But I'm also not here to argue that EOB is doing a great job. I'm telling you why Foxx is widely viewed as a failure, including by reformists.

Lots of organizations are riven with corruption (exhibit A: every fire department). Doesn't mean you can fuck them up, at least not if you want to matter in public policy for long. This is a difference between message boards and reality.