Why?
On one level, I can understand Rio de Janeiro being selected to host the 2016 Olympics. Rio will do just fine. The Olympics have never been held in South America before. Brazil is the only one of the world's ten most economically powerful nations never to have hosted the Olympics. The United States had hosted them four times in the previous century, and maybe it was simply Brazil's and South America's turn.
But on another level, it's hard to understand the
decision. While it's true that a Chicago Olympics would not have had the resources of a national government behind them, this was never an obstacle for St Louis in 1904, for Los Angeles in 1932 and 1984, or for Atlanta in 1996. Even without government support, and even in these difficult economic times, I suspect thtat the resources available in Chicago would finally have been greater than those available to Rio or Madrid. True, Rio is hosting a World Cup beforehand, and many of the venues would already be in place. But Chicago has permanent facilities for two major league baseball teams and an NFL team, as well as NBA and NHL franchises, that would have served the Olympics well, too. While some improvements to facilities in Chicago would be necessary, most are already in place. And not least, Chicago excels at this sort of thing. Whether it be a World's Fair or a political convention or the Olympics, Chicago has always gone all out- and done itself, and the world, proud. No city in America is better situated to be an Olympic host.
Atlanta did a marvelous job. Chicago could have done a better one. Los Angeles- a far less substantial city- handled the Olympics well enough to host them twice in the Twentieth Century. Even relatively small and unprepossessing St. Louis did the job well. Chicago would have excelled them all, and it's unfortunate that it won't have the chance.
Hardest to take is the fact that Chicago was the first city eliminated. Given its massive advantages, this is hard to understand- harder by far than the fact that another city was finally chosen. The case simply can't be made that Chicago's was the least attractive of the available bids. A plausible explanation has not been forthcoming. In a process remarkably lacking in transparency (and yes, I'm well aware of the irony of using that argument in defense of a bid by Chicago), the most logical explanation is simple anti-Americanism. The early elimination of Chicago as a candidate city to host the 2016 Olympics is right up there with French "gratitude" for our saving their bacon in Worlds War I and II as a potential recruiting appeal for the armies of isolationist wacko Ron Paul. That, in itself, says a great deal; anything that can make the views of Ron Paul look attractive to any reasonable person is a remarkable development indeed!
Most disappointing of all is the petulant and silly decision of President Obama's opponents to oppose Chicago's bid as well- in effect, to root against their own country- as a way of expressing their disapproval of Mr. Obama. Whatever one may think of the President's trip to Copenhagen and his lobbying efforts on Chicago's behalf in recent days, rooting against America is more the style of his fans than his adversaries, and it becomes the latter even less than it does the former.
There is very little about this affair that doesn't leave a sour taste in my mouth. Will Chicago bid again for the 2020 Olympics? Influential Chicagoans are talking as it if will. Mayor Daley is apparently inclined to oppose a second attempt. He may be right.At least until the events of the past twenty four hours are better explained and understood, it would be reasonable to defer a decision about investing all that time and effort and money a second time in a process whose lack of transparency and whose very odd outcome this time out leaves serious questions as to whether such a bid would be judged on the basis of a reasonable analysis of its merits.
Atlanta did a marvelous job. Chicago could have done a better one. Los Angeles- a far less substantial city- handled the Olympics well enough to host them twice in the Twentieth Century. Even relatively small and unprepossessing St. Louis did the job well. Chicago would have excelled them all, and it's unfortunate that it won't have the chance.
Hardest to take is the fact that Chicago was the first city eliminated. Given its massive advantages, this is hard to understand- harder by far than the fact that another city was finally chosen. The case simply can't be made that Chicago's was the least attractive of the available bids. A plausible explanation has not been forthcoming. In a process remarkably lacking in transparency (and yes, I'm well aware of the irony of using that argument in defense of a bid by Chicago), the most logical explanation is simple anti-Americanism. The early elimination of Chicago as a candidate city to host the 2016 Olympics is right up there with French "gratitude" for our saving their bacon in Worlds War I and II as a potential recruiting appeal for the armies of isolationist wacko Ron Paul. That, in itself, says a great deal; anything that can make the views of Ron Paul look attractive to any reasonable person is a remarkable development indeed!
Most disappointing of all is the petulant and silly decision of President Obama's opponents to oppose Chicago's bid as well- in effect, to root against their own country- as a way of expressing their disapproval of Mr. Obama. Whatever one may think of the President's trip to Copenhagen and his lobbying efforts on Chicago's behalf in recent days, rooting against America is more the style of his fans than his adversaries, and it becomes the latter even less than it does the former.
There is very little about this affair that doesn't leave a sour taste in my mouth. Will Chicago bid again for the 2020 Olympics? Influential Chicagoans are talking as it if will. Mayor Daley is apparently inclined to oppose a second attempt. He may be right.At least until the events of the past twenty four hours are better explained and understood, it would be reasonable to defer a decision about investing all that time and effort and money a second time in a process whose lack of transparency and whose very odd outcome this time out leaves serious questions as to whether such a bid would be judged on the basis of a reasonable analysis of its merits.
Comments