Fake deaths rock San Francisco politics
The Point: The line between truth and lies – and even life and death – gets blurry in San Francisco politics. Avoid hasty conclusions.
The Backstory: It is a season of questionable obituaries in San Francisco.
First there was Richard Parina, the elderly pro-police law-and-order activist whose sudden death sent SF's "moderate" crowd running for their hankies in late January.
The highly-decorated veteran of multiple wars – an advocate for heavy policing due to having had his teeth repeatedly knocked loose by muggers – reportedly succumbed to old war injuries.
Next up on the slab: The progressive politics of SF, which reportedly died an untimely death in Tuesday's election, slain by tech billionaires and an apparent rightward lurch by voters, who approved measures to roll back police reform and punish drug users.
'Dead' SF 'moderates'
But it turns out that "Brigadier General" Parina is still alive and lying low in Mexico (maybe). The Standard broke the news Friday morning, capping off days of feverish speculation. Not only is Parina still alive, but he’s not a war hero and never even served.
It remains unknown whether he absconded with funds he claimed to be raising to support anti-progressive campaigns. The full list of his fabrications is too long to recap here, so do yourself a favor and read the story.
Hopefully, Parina has a support network to help him navigate this sad, complicated situation. But his status as a darling of SF's anti-progressive movement shows how any odd character with a shifty back story can suddenly gain prominence in right-wing politics here.
'Dead' SF Progressives
Alas, poor Richard. His shtick collapsed before he could savor the results of the March 5 election. SF progressivism has fallen! But, as with the demise of Parina, this conclusion may prove overblown.
Yes, voters did approve Republican-style measures to roll back police reform and punish drug users. But this was hardly surprising. Polls showed those measures winning by wide margins.
Then there was the takeover of the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) by a slate of anti-progressive billionaire toadies. This outcome seemed entirely possible. But I'm not the kind of political nerd who gets buried in the weeds of local committee politics. (I was on KQED for an hour on election night and the DCCC race didn't merit a mention. More on this later...)
To me, the big question on March 5 was whether voters would allow the tech billionaires to buy themselves a pair of local Superior Court judges.
SF judges beat billionaires
Right-wing tech billionaires intend to buy City Hall in November. But, in a bad omen for their ambitious plan, they failed to unseat two local judges on their target list. Despite heavy and unprecedented billionaire spending, Judge Michael Begert and Judge Patrick Thompson cruised to re-election, defeating the billionaires' handpicked replacements.
"Unprecedented amounts of money from wealthy investors have poured into the campaign accounts of two attorneys seeking to unseat San Francisco judges in next week’s election," wrote Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle.
The billionaires tried pull a "Chesa Boudin" on Begert and Thompson. They accused them of coddling criminals and spent lavishly on a smear campaign. As Egelko points out, it's unusual for Superior Court races to be competitive. Judges usually get appointed and then seek voter approval as a formality.
But now the billionaires have made it clear: They have a villainous plan to replace respected jurists with politicized "tough on crime" types who vow to start locking everyone up (despite the lack of available jail space, the U.S. Constitution, and all the other stuff the billionaires don’t understand about the justice system, etc).
I fully expected to see at least one of the judges taken down, given the amount of money and propaganda.
Yet SF voters rejected the billionaire BS. That's a big win. Fortunately for the idea of an independent judiciary, the Chronicle and Mission Local did a great job of highlighting these races and raising voter awareness.
Breed's Boom-Doom Loop
Progressive ideas took a hit on Tuesday, but this was a skirmish in a longer struggle.
On the bright side, the long-term fundamentals of the conflict do not bode well for the right-wing billionaires. London Breed, their chosen candidate, is highly unpopular.
In addition, Measures E and F, the "tough on crime/mean to poor people" laws, are as fake as Parina's military record. That’s because these policies have failed for decades – both here and in other places. They will yield no improvements to addiction, crime or homelessness.
But this was not their true purpose. They are nothing more than public relations package designed to make voters think that Mayor Breed – with her 71% disapproval rating – is a competent leader capable of actually doing something about the city's problems.
She isn't (we would know by now), but her billionaire backers need voters to think otherwise between now and November. (Just as they need voters to think the “doom loop” has suddenly become a “boom loop" – because they say so!)
Republican policy fails
There’s an existential problem with the billionaires’ campaign to enact Republican-style laws as a solution to the city’s problems:
If Republican-style laws work, why do Republican states tend to have the highest crime and drug overdose rates?
If drug testing poor people is an effective solution to addiction, why has it failed everywhere else?
If getting “tough” can solve the problem, why haven’t Breed's multiple crackdowns and threats made a dent on addiction and homelessness?
Orwellian vibes
Unfortunately, these questions are rooted in logic, reason and reality. SF politics is increasingly rooted in fallacies, vibes and tech-funded propaganda.
If crime is down, just say it's up! If a policy failed, just say it worked! If your politics are right-wing, just call them “moderate” or – why not?! – “progressive”!
It's quite Orwellian:
Ignorance is Strength
War is Peace
Regressive is Progressive
Doom is Boom
Breed 2024, baby!
Conclusion: SF progressivism may indeed suffer a death in 2024. But like the phoenix that is the symbol of the city – and like our local Lazarus, Richard Parina – it may also rise again from the ashes of right-wing (a.k.a."moderate") failure.
Mayor Breed just sold SF voters a bill of counterfeit goods. They approved a slate of failed Republican policies because Breed, grappling with terminal unpopularity, pushed them as solutions (at the behest of billionaires).
But voters also wisely rejected the oligarchs’ attempt to buy the judges, making this a split verdict.
The real answer will come in November. Given their failure to purchase a measly set of judges, will the billionaires be able to buy City Hall? Can they even take down progressives such as Elon Musk's arch-nemesis, Dean Preston? Remains to be seen.
In the meantime: While it’s tempting to screech about the cruelty of regressive right-wing policies, it’d probably be more effective to remind voters that visionless Democratic politicians have been playing these "tough" games for decades – and yet the problems keep getting worse (which is probably why voters started electing progressives instead).
