There's a quote attributed to Harry Truman about Rafael Trujillo (the former dictator of the Dominican Republic). It goes something like this: “Sure, he’s an S.O.B., but at least he’s
our S.O.B.” In case anyone misses the meaning, it’s that -- no matter how unethical or wrong a political leader might be, so long as they serve your general purpose, it’s better to have them on your side than not. This sort of expedient thinking runs deep in the world of politics, and it’s a position embraced just as much by the Left as the Right. Truman had Trujillo who was, for being corrupt and brutal, at least an anti-Communist -- and therefore favored by the US Government. And San Francisco’s Democrats and others on the Left end of the spectrum have Chris Daly. For the past six years, the messages from them about Daly have ranged between “he’s the only honest politician in town” to “sure, he’s a jerk and a loose cannon, but at least he’s
our jerk and loose cannon.”
Daly has managed to become so embedded in San Francisco’s political landscape that it’s difficult to recall a time before his appearance. But in fact Chris Daly is far from being either a local boy or an accurate reflection of his constituents. He’s a native of Maryland (and a 4-H Star, according to his bio), who attended tony Duke University. He moved to San Francisco in the ‘90s, during the dot-com boom, which puts him squarely in the category of
arrivistes, relative to many of us who have been here far longer. His only political experience before 2000 was as an activist for a group called “Empty the Shelters” -- not exactly a stellar resume for a politician. And for being the darling of punks, anarchists and the poor, Daly lives a decidedly privileged life in a new condominium in the Upper Mission, on a $120,000-a-year salary.
His activist background (such as his few years can be called) has clearly never left Daly, and is evident in everything he does. For example, at the District 6 debate at the Main Library, the moderator asked the candidates how they intended to balance the different needs of their constituents from both ends of the economic range. Daly’s response? “The problem is the great disparity of wealth” between the two ends. His solution? To take from one and give to the other until everyone is equal. Robin Hood in City Hall. Of course Daly is politically savvy enough to know that the only people he has to concern himself with pleasing are the ones who can vote for his re-election, and that means the
residents of District 6, rather than the ten so f thousands of people who work (but don't live) in D6, or the relatively fewer moderates (and perhaps a handful of Republicans) who live within its boundaries. Daly knows that he can rally the far Left, the young and the poor by saying what they want to hear. And rally they do.
Other evidence of Daly’s activism can be found in the majority of resolutions he has proposed to the Board of Supervisors. For example, in March 2006, he introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush. Now, no matter where you stand on Bush (and I would gladly see him impeached, if not drawn and quartered), the notion of a city government passing a resolution calling for his impeachment must surely seem Quixotic, to be generous! Another resolution was to send $1 million of San Franciscans' tax dollars to the tsunami relief effort in the Indian Ocean; surely a project for charities and federal governments, rather than the discretionary spending of a board of supervisors. But beyond these being examples of political grandstanding, such activism saps time and energy from far more pressing (and realistic) goals, like fixing rutted streets or providing care to the elderly -- you know, those things that city officials actually
can accomplish. Daly’s resolution will not benefit a single one of his constituents, but it certainly plays well to the sensibilities of some of them.
Activism is, or should be, the role of citizens. Addressing the needs of those citizens is, or should be, the role of elected officials. Why doesn’t Daly understand this fact? It’s because he sees himself as an international activist rather than an official who is charged with the responsibility of looking out for the needs of those who specifically live and/or work in D6. Tilting at windmills on a global scale, while it does nothing for the real needs of his constituents, allows him to take on a virtuous -- even heroic -- role. It is a role he relishes, and one that a remarkable number of the residents of D6 accept. Daly claims to hold down the “righteous” end of the Left. His supporters are the “true believers”, and they will brook no criticism of their leader. Even their practice of wearing necklaces of green beads to identify themselves strikes me as oddly cult-like behavior.
True believers are distinguished by their irrational and slavish devotion to a leader or cause. Their attitude of "you're either for us, or you're against us". Such people are plentiful in San Francisco, a city with a long history of residents with more passion than good sense about causes, and with starry eyes about larger-than-life figures. For examples, one need look no further than the Reverend Jim Jones. Another son of the south, Jones came to town with a background in righteous social causes, leading a church congregation that was integrated; scandalously progressive for the time. When Jones moved to San Francisco, his firebrand rhetoric and championing of the causes of San Francisco’s minorities, poor, homeless, sick and elderly quickly gained him the support of most of Left.
Soon, Jones was appointed by Mayor Moscone to San Francisco’s Housing Commission (a role for which he had no practical experience). This was merely one hand washing the other, as the members of the People’s Temple had vigorously campaigned for Moscone’s election. But not everyone was convinced that Jones was the white knight of progressive causes. In 1972, the San Francisco Examiner ran an 8-part expose on Jones. Predictably, the Left rallied ‘round their man. Church members and others on the far Left staged vociferous protests outside of the Examiner’s headquarters, calling the paper’s owner and editors racists, anti-poor, Republican tools, and worse. Faced with this pressure and the threat of lawsuits, the paper pulled the series after only four segments. Where were the voices of sanity in the progressive camp? They were conspicuously silent. No one from outside of the People’s Temple wanted to appear racist and intolerant, and nobody within was willing to believe anything bad about their leader. It was a politically-correct whiteout.
Now, I am certainly
not suggesting that Chris Daly is going to poison hundreds of his followers in a mass murder-suicide. But the similarity in the way that both leaders were lionized by their followers is clear, as is the way that
any criticism of them is met with personal attacks. Case in point: the violent crime rate in Tenderloin has climbed during Chris Daly’s watch. Where is the Left when Daly does something stupid, like blocking badly-needed supplementary funding for beat cops in the Tenderloin? They’re closing ranks behind him and shouting down any criticism. The message from the far Left is clear: “Chris Daly is ‘our S.O.B.’; leave him alone”. If you doubt me, try saying anything negative about him. The vitriol you will earn will be far out of proportion to your criticism.
Case in point: a fellow I know who lives in Daly’s district (and who actually voted for him, in 2000) was so frustrated by the worsening conditions in D6 that he sat down at work the other day and made up a flyer that carried the simple message “Our neighborhood can’t survive four more years of Chris Daly”. Scattered around these words were some clip-art drawings of people passed-out on the sidewalk, rats, excrement, robbers -- basically everything that we have to deal with on a daily basis in D6. When he and another D6 resident taped up some of these flyers in the Civic Center, they were met with hostility by Daly supporters, who tore some of them down. The “Left in SF” blog claimed that the flyer-ers were “…paid political operatives (who) have been anonymously putting up street signs and walking hit pieces as well.” In another blog, the flyers were denounced as conveying “abject hate”. Curious interpretations, to say the least.
That brings me to a question. Nearly every candidate I have voted for over the past 25 years has been a Democrat; the remainder have been Greens and a Libertarian or two. I’ve been against the war from the get-go. I’ve long been in favor of gay marriage, and a host of other progressive causes. And frankly, I'm poor. I've chosen to be self-employed in such a way that puts my income below the poverty line. Does that mean that I
must support Chris Daly? After all, all of the candidates who are running against him are also progressive Democrats. Why Daly? It’s not due to his political experience; at least one rival has more of that virtue than Daly had when he sought office. It’s can’t be because of Daly’s ability to work with people with whom he disagrees; he’s woefully lacking in that skill. Nor could I justify supporting him because of any accomplishments over the past 6 years. A simple walk around my neighborhood or the mid-Market St. corridor will amply prove that he has done very little to address the problems plaguing D6. I have no reason to believe that any one of the other candidates couldn't do better in that respect.
This dogmatic support of Daly is both dangerous and downright undemocratic. We on the Left are quick to denounce the “ditto-heads” of Bill O’Reilly and other right-wing pundits. But if we don’t have sufficient integrity to question our own elected officials, how are we any better than those who selfishly voted for Bush? Aren’t we supposed to be the party of openness and critical reason? Can’t we call a “spade” a “spade” -- even if it’s
our spade? And why the refusal from so many of his supporters to engage in civil discussions about the issues? To resort to shouting? I can only surmise that it’s “true believer” syndrome. Chris Daly is “our S.O.B.” Voting for, supporting, defending, identifying with—him allows people to feel like they’re on the “righteous” side -- as defenders of the poor and downtrodden masses. But those masses have
not found their lives improved over the past 6 years due to Chris Daly’s efforts. And for the most part, neither has anyone else.
