The rise of the “San Francisco Democrats”

Thursday, January 31st, 2008
sanfran41.jpg

A farewell party for The Machine?

Twenty-four years ago, San Francisco hosted the Democratic National Convention. At the GOP’s gathering that same year, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick used the city’s leftist leanings to coin one of the most damning political epithets in history: “San Francisco Democrats.” Shortly thereafter Walter Mondale got creamed by Ronald Reagan, and so began nearly a quarter century of national irrelevance for the Bay Area.

But that long trip through the wilderness appears to be over. In 2006, Nancy Pelosi, a real live “San Francisco Democrat,” became Madame Speaker. And since California moved its primary up to Super Tuesday, we “America Haters” by the Golden Gate will actually have a say in who moves on to the general election this fall. That might scare the rest of the country, schooled as it is in Jeane Kirkpatrick’s famous meme about us. But in spite of the city’s reputation, San Francisco politics aren’t as out there as you might think. And the shifting tectonic plates of our local political landscape might just presage a political earthquake on the national scene.

For all of Kirkpatrick’s bile towards us and Bill O’Reilly’s rants about San Fran being the capital of “secular-progressivism” (whatever the hell that means), the city has always been more a Chicago-style Democratic machine town than an outlier of leftist radicalism. Mayor Gavin Newsom may have sent rightwing America into convulsions by legalizing gay marriage shortly after taking office in 2004. But, at his core, he practices good old Clinton-style money and power politics.

Newsom was groomed for office by our own “Slick Willie”—former Mayor and Assembly Speaker for Life Willie Brown. Newsom also knows something about creating a Hillary-like air of “inevitability” around his candidacy. Last year, he piled up such a colossal mountain of cash for his reelection campaign that the only people who dared run against him were a nudist and a man named “Chicken.” In 2003, when he found himself in a dogfight with a local Green Party candidate, he summoned Bill Clinton himself for a last minute push that many credit with putting him into office. Not surprisingly, Newsom threw his support behind Hillary last fall and even signed on as one of her national co-chairs.

In fact, Newsom’s mayoralty has been patently Clintonian. He’s charismatic. He represents the city well (aside from trysts with scientologists and an affair with the wife of his best friend and closest advisor). Most importantly, he takes care of “downtown” interests and major corporate sponsors like PG&E and the real estate industry.

Yet even as Newsom coasted through his first term and moved easily into his second, a more activist leftism has seen a renaissance in San Francisco. In the wake of the Willie Brown regime, self-styled “progressives” like Aaron Peskin, Sophie Maxwell, Chris Daly and others—almost all of them now enthusiastic Obama backers—won a working majority on the Board of Supervisors. They, far more than the mayor, have been driving city policy. Their biggest coup was passing a city-managed—that is, government run—health insurance program last year. Newsom had little choice but to support the popular initiative, even as many of his downtown backers tried, and are still trying, to squash it.

Now that Obama has proven himself to be a viable contender for the Democratic nomination, this local resurgence of a muscular, unabashed progressivism in the face of a deeply entrenched democratic machine looks an awful lot like a harbinger of Obama’s (and Edwards’) candidacy. But could the steady leftward pull on San Francisco politics over the last few years turn into a national phenomenon?

A lot of local rainmakers are starting to believe that might be the case. Some of the deepest pockets in the region—big Silicon Valley and venture capital donors who most observers expected to give exclusively to Hillary—have started cutting fat checks to the Junior Senator from Illinois. Even many “moderate” Democratic pols are switching over. Former state controller Steve Westly went after the “liberalism” of his primary opponent Phil Angelides when he ran for Governor in 2006. Now, amazingly, Westly is co-chair of Obama’s state campaign! Perhaps the most striking sign of a larger leftward shift, however, came just this past weekend. The usually Newsom-backing, ubercentrist San Francisco Chronicle endorsed Obama.

Californians like to brag that “As California goes, so goes the country.” In the coming weeks you might be able to substitute “San Francisco” for “California” in that phrase.

What would Jeane Kirkpatrick say to that?

——
JB Powell is a contributing writer and the author of The Republic: A Novel.

Denver 2008

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

obama-dnv3.jpg

In Denver this morning, something took place that seemed a lot like a time-warp flash-forward to the Democratic National Convention, which isn’t supposed to be coming here until the end of August. This morning the Obama campaign held a rally at the University of Denver that caused traffic jams that made the highways look like a mini-version of the nightmare Los Angeles 405! In the end, I parked in someone’s driveway. Others were just parking on lawns around the city campus. Preliminary reports were putting the crowd at something like 10,000 people. Lines started before 7 am and snaked all around the campus, literally around whole city blocks. It was clear by 8:30 am when they opened the doors to Magness Arena that we weren’t all going to get a seat. So they shuttled us into overflow sections. Half the overflow crowd— thousands of us—filed into the Arena gym and the rest were seated in the lacrosse field outside, snow piles from last week still rimming the edges of the grass.

Waiting for the doors to open, I started asking people why they came out, whether it was their first time to a political rally, etc. The response was always pretty much the same: “Are you kidding me, fool? Look around you?” People talking to one another in the crowd were all saying things like: “Can you believe this?” and “This is insane!”

(more…)

Pelosi Up Front

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008

pelosi.jpg

Hard to watch Bush’s State of the Union address without being distracted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, fidgeting in her seat as she decided which way she would go on each point. She alternated between squirming in her chair as she pretended to read the speech while the Republicans cheered on some conservative point like the fact that No Child Left Behind is a success, and lightly clapping to a statement she didn’t find too offensive like that we will defeat the terrorists.

It makes you wonder: does she decide ahead of time which points she will support? Are there meetings about it? What happens if she doses off for a second or gets distracted, does she stand and clap, or squirm and read? Maybe she wears an ear piece and political analysts in a room somewhere tell her which way to go.

Either way, watching Pelosi was almost as much fun as knowing that it was Bush’s very last State of the Union.

McCain in a moderate’s cloak

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008

mccain0508.jpg

One of the things the Democratic candidates seemed to agree on in the run-up to the South Carolina primary was that John McCain is the likely Republican nominee. It seems the seventy-one-year-old straight talker has more than resurrected his candidacy from the media-created grave it lay in just a few short months ago.

If the Republican party can mobilize its epic organizational prowess behind him, McCain may be unstoppable, despite the swamp of the Republican Bush legacy and the historic nature of the candidacies of the Democratic front-runners.

The key lies in how well he can continue to draw support from moderate Republicans, undecided centrists, and even confused Democratic fence-sitters.

Consider the following breakdown of the New Hampshire primary based on the results of an Associated Press exit poll:

(more…)

State of the union bait and switch!

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008

There was a man from Texas who apparently gave a speech in Washington yesterday in which he said absolutely nothing new but all the papers covered it as if it were something. One major story that didn’t make it onto the front page, though, the kind of story that should be front and center all the time and if it were could change our relationship to politics and our own governance, was the story of the filibuster held in the senate yesterday to prevent passage of a terrible anti-Constitutional dirty tricks surveillance act. It’s just the latest step in the dance of politics and journalism in the late mass-media era. The music goes up: lights, cameras, pundits and a fabulous Congressional Hill show draw the press to cover a meaningless speech because “news consumers want a spectacle” and because American news consumers “won’t tolerate nuts and bolts coverage of dusty procedural lawmaking” and so on. But this filibuster story is not dusty at all. It’s a web of intrigue! Whatever. Then we get delivered non-news about the meaningless speech by the man from Texas. Meantime, the business of lawmaking goes on without scrutiny. So congressman and woman play games and sign away our rights and lobbyists have their way. The result is that suddenly laws are on the books that facilitate all kinds of shenanigans and there’s not much we can do about it. Twenty years later scholars would write about how we all got fooled again and then we’d all grow more cynical and would be castigated by the press for “tuning out.”

Good riddance 20th-century-style mass-media news. Now there’s Glen Greenwald and the internet! Let the old media write for each other their bad stories about nothing. We’ve got the web to inform us!

Note: Greenwald does this Greenwald thing much better than I do. Go to the source!