Get ready to fight for S.F.'s political soul (on moderate vs. liberal Democrats in San Francisco)

[alp227]

by C.W. Nevius, San Francisco Chronicle
April 24, 2010

Moderate Democrats in San Francisco often complain that far-left politicians don't represent their values. Middle-class families are frustrated that their concerns - like safe streets - are undermined by ideologues with wild claims of a "police state." Developers are exasperated when their projects are subjected to endless delays, even when the property has been a vacant eyesore for years.

Would you like to see things change?

Then I've got some bad news for you.

You're going to have to get involved - or at least start paying attention.

The next two months will see a battle for the political soul of the city. It will pit the progressives against the moderates in a face-off that will have huge implications in the November elections and, perhaps, the election of the next mayor. The key is control of an obscure but incredibly influential organization called the Democratic County Central Committee.

Rather than complaining about the direction of the city, middle-of-the-road Democrats have to get active. They have to vote in the June DCCC election and they have to do their homework on the candidates to learn if they represent moderate values.

"If you want to see change in the city, change to the culture of the Board of Supervisors, and bring some common sense and reason back to the city, it starts with the DCCC," said David Latterman, a local pollster.

--snip--

That's no surprise. San Francisco is a liberal Democrat town. When the official voice of the local Democratic committee sends out recommendations in mailers - and it has a nearly unlimited budget to do so - voters listen.

"But when Mrs. Jones receives her Democratic voter guide in the mail," said Scott Wiener, former chairman of the DCCC and candidate for supervisor in District Eight, "she's thinking of the party of Barack Obama, not the party of Aaron Peskin and (Supervisor) Chris Daly."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/24/BAU51D3PFU.DTL

"The party of Barack Obama?" You mean the president who is continuing the Primate President's wars, straight-up declined to put up a public option for health care reform, kisses up to zombie bankers, and appointed a secretary of education who plans on demolishing the public school system? I suppose that Mr. Wiener's statement tells a lot about the national status of today's Democratic Party now.

And Nevius's reference to "safe streets" refers to a recent controversy over a proposed sit/lie law that would make it illegal to sit on sidewalks in San Francisco.

[RandomThoughts]

1. I support more progressive programs then what has been happening.

Funny though, when I talk about need for primaries, I am talking about challenging Republican Democrats, and the DCCC goes after Progressive Democrats again. LOL

[pinto]

2. Article's a good glimpse at how local politics "get done" in many cities / counties...

Brief but clear. I'd like to read more of Nevius' pieces.

Thanks for the post.

[Uncle Joe]

3. I've never been to San Francisco, but these two phrases jumped out at me.

" Moderate Democrats in San Francisco often complain that far-left politicians don't represent their values. Middle-class families are frustrated that their concerns - like safe streets - are undermined by ideologues with wild claims of a "police state." Developers are exasperated when their projects are subjected to endless delays, even when the property has been a vacant eyesore for years."

I've never been to San Francisco and I don't know this author from Adam but this is B.S.

Liberals and/or Progressives want safe streets for their families, the question is which strategy best achieves that goal, lock everybody up and criminalize life or raise the society as a whole?

Furthermore there is nothing "wild" about the claims of the United States being a draconian police state, we lead the world as the nation with the highest number of it's citizens in prison, tens if not hundreds of thousands of them for non-violent possession charges. Many of those prisoners' families have been disrupted or destroyed as a result of these draconian policies and their children are then more likely to follow in their parents' footsteps.

We have even created a prison industry that profits from this!

This dead end, illogical, dysfunctional policy enriches organized crime and cannot lead to safer streets, so to my way of thinking "far left" values are ultimately the most family friendly.

Thanks for the thread, alp.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. The problems in SF are a kind of gentrification

The populace getting a little older and it is frightfully expensive to live there. Age and money lead to a more pragmatic if not conservative politics. The Castro is now family friendly. The Loin is starting to get cleaned up (though that is being protested). Any relatively low cost area is being bought into and upgraded. Residents are getting more concerned about trash pickup and safe streets than saving some obscure species. Its taking longer than some thought, but suburbs are moving to SF and soon not going to be SF of myth and fable.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Prove to me that there was a time that SF residents were not

concerned with safe streets and civic services. What 'obscure species' did SF save, putting that goal above other priorities? Please share.

[Hestia]

7. There was a study that came out recently - the more you age the more liberal you become

I'll try to find the link, though I think it is on my work pc.

[Cartoonist]

6. Nevius is devious

OK, bad title. Still, he's too conservative. What he means by middle-of-the-road democrats is conservatives like himself. He has never proposed any solutions, he just likes to complain about this and that. He also lacks a human soul. If you've read his columns over the years, you know he cares more about automobiles than people. Parking is his number one priority. Automobile access is number two.