The right-wing American Enterprise Institute held a forum in San Francisco last week, and somehow, I wasn’t invited. But I’m glad that Mission Local was there, and Yujie Zhou reports that the audience loved Mayor Daniel Lurie and District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, both of whom have supported old-fashioned, racist, widely discredited tough-on-crime solutions to social problems like substance use.
Old news.
But I was a little surprised (although maybe I shouldn’t be) to see Sup. Rafael Mandelman making what seem to be anti-labor comments and praising the billionaires who are trying to turn this city into an oligarchy.
The moderator asked what has changed in city politics. Mandelman’s response (transcript of the taped session courtesy of Mission Local):
Actually it was about, I think in San Francisco, individuals and relationships and people who were very frustrated about the direction the city was going in, and decided and some folks got so frustrated that they left and they beat in the door, clanged loudly on their way out as they headed for Texas, to Florida or wherever else they thought they wanted to be. Other people decided that they were going to commit to San Francisco and spend significantly on our politics … The relationship between the mayor and the Board of Supervisors for the first six years that I was there was toxic and bad for the functioning of the city and our ability to do anything. But during the pandemic, various folks, many of them with resources got together. They started a lot of different organizations.
They started organizing regular San Franciscans who were not attached to labor or nonprofits, but just cared about their city. And they started expressing themselves in our politics and showing up to our meetings and their money started expressing itself in our elections.
And San Francisco, and I am a very progressive Democrat. I am probably on the right rightward edge of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. That is, after they have spent money to sort of recalibrate and get me sort of closer to closer to the center of the board. But there was a period when I was probably the second most rightward member of the board, and that’s not a healthy conversation and doesn’t lead to a place where, like the mayor and the Board of Supervisors can come together to do potentially politically challenging things that may be necessary or support public safety as an extremely important priority, or think about reducing business taxes. Like that’s the environment that we’re in now. But it is only because folks decided that they were going to engage in our politics and spend a lot of money on it.
In some ways it started with the 2022 recalls. We had had a ten-to-15 year experiment with drug decriminalization. As a good progressive, I think that drugs should be a public health challenge that we manage through our public health system. It shouldn’t be the basis for mass incarceration at a municipal level. Drug decriminalization was a failure in San Francisco and a big bad one. And so it was, you know, the recall of the DA was a big deal and a significant change. The elevation of a prosecutor into that position has made a significant difference
Let’s be honest here: The rightward shift in SF politics happened because a tiny number of billionaires went out and bought candidates and paid for astroturf groups (although to be fair, the mayor was already too rich to need their money). San Francisco is becoming an oligarchy, and “regular San Franciscans,” nearly all of whom lack $1 billion and many of who struggle just to afford food and rent, have nothing to do with it.
Labor organizations are one of the few forces fighting back, and to say that the billionaires organized people “who are not members of unions” is a pretty strong suggestion that labor is a problem.
And I don’t get it: Substance use should be a public health concern, but “drug decriminalization” was a failure?
Mandelman told me:
When I was first elected I was struck by the total disconnect between the voices and perspectives I was hearing at city hall (often nonprofit and city employees) and those I would hear in meetings with my constituents. I think more different kinds of San Franciscans have gotten engaged in politics during and since the pandemic, and I think that’s a good thing. Plainly, though, I also think it is important for city hall to hear from workers and have held many hearings specifically focusing on worker issues.
I think City Hall today is closer to reflecting the electorate than it was five years ago. Some billionaires played an important role in that, but they were one factor among many.
I’m not sure that’s true; the electorate is indeed changing as the city gets richer and working-class people are forced out, but it hasn’t changed that much in five years.
What has changed is the billionaire money. If that hadn’t played “an important role,” City Hall wouldn’t be drifting so far to the right. Let’s face it: Nearly unlimited money has an impact on politics. There are no progressive billionaires in this city; the only force than can even come close to funding progressive causes is labor.
The new, AEI-friendly “moderate” politics has been very bad for people who are members of labor groups and nonprofits, and who are “regular” San Franciscans.
And when city leaders start making nice with the American Enterprise Institute, we are going down a disturbing path.
