You can see the schism in any developing story in San Francisco, and California for that matter. Be it safe injection sites or safe streets. Housing or crime. The political discourse is largely split between left and lefter, with neither side giving any ground. You’re either with us or against us, which is exactly what’s been happening on the national stage since the days of Newt Gingrich.
The result of this constant bickering? A lot gets said. Little gets done.
You saw it this week when a bill that would establish safe injection sites in San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles made its way to Gavin Newsom’s desk. The far left fell all over itself encouraging the governor to sign the bill and embrace his progressive roots, referencing his bold stance on gay marriage as mayor back in 2004. A more moderate brand of liberals pointed to a potential presidential run, warning that signing a bill helping addicts inject drugs could be political suicide among a national electorate. Nobody stated the obvious: Safe injection sites will do nothing to solve our drug epidemic. We need a massive increase in drug addiction services and a statewide mental health system. Full stop.
In most cases, both left and lefter make valid points. But there’s no conciliatory ground. No compromise between X and Y. Consider the criminal justice debate in this town. You’re on Team Brooke or Team Chesa. It’s an ideological battle. No one seems all that interested in the massive problems at hand. And don’t get me started on the endless debates over street closures. We’ve been fighting over where we can roller skate for years, while The City falls apart around us. Everyone’s dug into their ideological trench, and the war drags on with no end in sight.
It’s all or nothing on the front lines of the left. Consequences be damned.
Now, this is nothing new. In a way, it’s the definition of politics. And ideology overtook achievement in Washington years ago. We’d rather fight than negotiate. But at least our federal disaster represents a defined difference in philosophy. The distinction between Democrats and Republicans is a serious chasm, rather than a silly schism.
So I’d like to ask our readers to think about this local schism. It’s basically a fight for the soul of San Francisco. We want to be a compassionate, progressive city. Yet we have a growing desire for common sense solutions to complex problems like homelessness and public safety.
We’re in a deep, muddy and ugly struggle to find the middle ground. Can we move forward in this challenging time if everyone’s entrenched ideologically? How do we maintain our progressive ideals while cleaning up our struggling city?
Writ large, I ask you this: Is ideological warfare the path to recovery for San Francisco?
To me, the answer is no. The clear path is solutions-based, results-driven. Let’s find answers that work, even if it means compromising a few inches of philosophical territory.
Former Mayor Willie Brown said it best last year when asked about San Francisco’s troubles by the New York Times: “San Francisco is plagued with idealism. We really do want to care for everybody that can’t care for themselves. Whether they are addicted, whether they are emotionally challenged by any means or whether they are financially challenged. We’ve always wanted to make San Francisco a place where you could be comfortable. But that’s created a problem. Because suddenly the people enjoying the comfort are the people who have decided they can define how they can enjoy the comfort. And that might be an intrusion on the people who are paying for it — the taxpayers.”
I turned to the halls of academia hoping to find higher understanding. Jack Citrin, a longtime political science professor at UC Berkeley, was brilliant on the subject. When asked about our “left vs. lefter” conundrum and the resulting stasis San Francisco endures, he referenced psychology.
“It’s what Freud used to call the ‘narcissism of small differences.’ Where the bitterness and the conflict between them is far greater than the objective differences between them,” said Citrin. “That’s certainly what it is. Each (side) has their set of outside supporters in terms of interest groups, and funders and so forth. And so that plays itself out in all kinds of policies, whether it’s criminal justice, or how to deal with the homeless, or development and housing. They all basically espouse the same general position, right? We need more housing. We need more affordable housing, etc. But then, when it comes to implementation, they start to differ to some degree.”
Ex // Top Stories
City leaders and climate activists will continue to call for action on climate despite The City’s fiscal challenges
The mayoral candidates wants The City to prioritize 311 calls near schools
Local officials and food advocates are pushing California legislators to save the funding for a program low-income San Franciscans rely upon for access to fresh food
And that’s where things come grinding to a halt in San Francisco. Just this week, the California Department of Housing and Community Development announced it would investigate The City for its inability to build new housing, despite a mandate to do so. It’s the perfect example of The City’s paralysis by analysis. Every liberal in town would agree we need more housing. We just can’t agree on how to do it, so we turn up the finger-pointing volume and do nothing.
Upon hearing of the state’s discontent, Supervisor Dean Preston tweeted, “It’s disappointing that rather than collaborate with the City to fund and create more affordable housing, @California_HCD seems to have adopted a trickle-down, All Housing Matters approach to housing in San Francisco.” He wants more state funding for affordable housing, which is admirable. But he’s not interested in much compromise on the matter.
It's disappointing that rather than collaborate with the City to fund and create more affordable housing, @California_HCD seems to have adopted a trickle-down, All Housing Matters approach to housing in San Francisco. Here's my letter today to HCD. 🧵https://t.co/Gpzk5TYTpe
— Dean Preston (@DeanPreston) August 11, 2022
The public appears fed up with that approach. The thread of commentary from disgusted San Franciscans resulting from his tweet pretty much sums up where we’re at.
Citrin’s not surprised by the discontent. And the root cause: our ineffective leaders.
“It’s a lot of very ambitious people playing in a pretty small pond, really,” he said of San Francisco’s ruling class. “And so there’s a lot of gotcha stuff going on. It’s sort of like high school. I think back to the cliques when I grew up. It’s not so different.”
So, while our leaders are playing “Pacific Heights 94115,” where does that leave the rest of us? Frustrated.
“Ordinary people, they don’t really have an ideology,” said Citrin. “They want good schools. They want public safety. So when you get into the nuances, and all of the business about degrees of inequality and how you overcome them, it becomes very, very difficult. But the bottom line, when push came to shove on those issues, the progressives lost. And they lost because I think the Asian American communities and middle class community is in many ways more conservative.”
Which brings us to the end of the sermon. How do we get out of this mess, professor?
“Hopefully you solve some of these issues and things objectively get better,” said Citrin. “And then the people who’ve worked to make things get better get rewarded, and reelected and so on and so forth.”
Imagine that. Competent governance, supported by an engaged electorate. It could just work.
Enough of my soap box. Let’s head to the ballot box. Elect effective leaders, not ideologues.
