Civics Lessons at Voice of San Diego’s Politifest
I met former Mayor/then-candidate Bob Filner at a Politifest in 2012. He sought me out to say he wasn’t the asshole as I’d described him in an earlier essay. It wasn’t my best moment; I was overly grateful that just anybody would speak to me. Three months earlier my cancerous vocal cords were ripped out; I couldn’t speak at all, so I wrote notes and he worked me like a champ.
A dozen years later at Politifest the contest for Mayor of San Diego wasn’t on the agenda. Incumbent Mayor Todd Gloria said no, thanks for an opportunity to debate insurgent candidate Larry Turner. Hizzoner flew off to Las Vegas for the day to canvas for the Harris/Waltz campaign.
Candidate Turner cried foul, and his people issued a press release saying he’d been barred from attending the event. Oh, what drama! Carl DeMaio couldn’t do better.
Some of our local unironically negativist media played up the story. Turn’s campaign had been told that Gloria had dropped out, and apparently he interpreted this as an invitation to have a session all to himself. Instead, the word was that the candidate would be hanging out front, should anybody want to watch him play victim.
If Larry Turner showed up for a media opportunity/pity party, I missed it. His candidacy, indicative of dissatisfaction with the status quo, is one of two local ballot contests that aren’t tweedledum vs tweedledee, i.e. “We’re Democrats and that’s all you need to know,”
He’s a terrible candidate for mayor, who lacks the chops to accomplish much more than saying “no” a lot. The entirety of the establishment political spectrum has chosen not to support his candidacy for the simple reason that the quid pro quo Gloria gravy train meets their needs. Should he be elected (it will be closer than people think) Turner will lack relationships with the expertise needed to staff an effective administration.
Question: Why do some of Mayor Gloria’s critics think there’s something wrong with taking weekends to support his party’s national ticket? As far as the conspiracy-supposition that the mayor is hoping for an appointment in the Harris administration, wouldn’t critics be happy if that happened?
***
Politifest, for those of you who are not either a politics nerd or a senior citizen, is a well-meaning promotional event hosted by a non-profit news organization. It gets Voice of San Diego some attention from the people they hope to reach and gives attendees a chance to see some in-person discussions related to electoral politics and impactful local issues.
It’s decidedly middle of the road, a plane of existence that’s hard to experience these days. In the building housing the Joan Kroc Institute for Peace there are conference rooms where issues and campaigns are discussed. It’s mostly civil and rarely exciting enough to get ye olde blood pressure up. The pace is more like college classes with a hint of a politics trade show.
Various non-profits set up tables on the way in, looking for engagement on their issues, and, I suspect, more volunteers. People are polite in ways you might not expect to see in these days of deep divisions and performative nonsense. No trolls and limited probably untruthful claims were the order of the day.
***
I attended three sessions at Politifest, one with attorney/advocate Genevieve Jones-Wright and Chief Deputy DA Patrick Espinoza debating “tough on crime” Proposition 36, and the other between District 3 Council candidates Stephan Whitburn and Colleen Cusack.
Later in the day, I visited sessions with Supervisor Tara Lawson-Remer & Scott Lewis (caught just the end) and a panel on civility, featuring Carl Luna, David Loy, LaWana Richmond, and Supervisor Lawson-Remer.
To be clear: I am long-time friends with Lawson-Remer’s father, and have donated to her campaign, because I think she’s exactly the kind of County Board member San Diego needs.
At the heart of the discussion of Proposition 36 was discerning the motive for placing it on the ballot. DA Espinoza articulated the proponents’ arguments about crime and drugs, interspersed with anecdotal stories to bolster the notion that there was real science behind the measure.
Attorney/Advocate Jones-Wright took the long view about Prop 36, putting it in the context of political forces seeking revenge for voters taking away incarceratory power via the 60% voter approval of Proposition 47 a decade ago.
Proponents for Prop 36 like to say that it’s a mere modification of the current system focused on repeat offenders. We got to hear the old saw about law enforcement officers feeling like their hands are tied when it comes to dealing with offenders. There was no mention of the absolutely horrible record of crimes getting closure by arrests, regardless of what state they’re in.
In reality, Prop 36 is selling punishment as a cure for society’s ails. The premise of court mandated treatment for addicts is absolute folly; the facilities, the caregivers, and the protocols for addiction treatment don’t exist. And no matter what anybody tells us, there isn’t enough money in the pipeline to fund such programs.
***
The debate between District 3 candidates should have been –on paper– a slam dunk. The primary issue in this contest is the homeless population. Incumbent Stephen Whitburn wants voters to think the city is doing the best it can; Attorney/Advocate challenger Colleen Cusack says “no way.” Pick your side.
My observation is that people in the urban core and surrounding neighborhoods would agree with Cusack’s position that local governments aren’t close to resolving the day-to-day issues observed on the streets.
What gets done once one accepts that premise is where viewpoints diverge. Confronted with the reality of paying for our economic system’s shortcomings, I suspect that “rounding ‘em up and throwing away the key” would merit serious consideration.
No politician is willing to advocate for such a “solution,” but that’s because we’re still in an early stage of where inequity is headed.
Whitburn (et.al.) is about slapping bandaids on this societal wound and making promises. He says that electing Cusack would mean allowing massive encampments all over the city. As much as I agree with the D3 challenger that a human rights-first approach is needed, I didn’t hear a realistic plan for getting there.
Stopping the financial drain caused by 101 Ash Street, revoking the licenses of many short term vacation homes, and converting unused office space sound great in theory. In practice, you’d need political power that any one council member simply is incapable of acquiring. And legions of lawyers to fight the lawsuits.
What’s worse, Cusack came out against Measure E, the one cent sales tax that could enable better treatment for unhoused people. Because the measure was crafted as a general sales tax (requiring majority approval) no specific promises on where that revenue would be spent have been made, other than pointing out the city’s structural deficit needing to be fixed.
Spending the $200 million in income annually over and above plugging up the deficit are decisions that could be made by elected officials, who could be pressured via public demands to spend it where it should be spent–on humans.
Having said all that, I stand by my endorsement of Colleen Cusack. She’s human and capable of growing into an effective elected official. Whitburn, on the other hand, was simply an asshole, treating his opponent as an abomination upon his righteousness.
I agree with the local daily that, on a council with close to a singular perspective, she would be a force for reason. My opinion might not hold if this year’s election for council portended a major ideological shift, but it’s mostly the same-old, same-old with one or two exceptions.
I ended my day at Politifest watching some smart people I’d always been curious about. The discussion on civility, while acknowledging technology and a social order, presumed continuation of the present day economic and political reality.
Lawson-Remer correctly noted that we’re in a moment not unlike that encompassing the disruptiveness of the invention of the printing press. Pundit/Pollster/Professor Luna also sensed that something different in the ways humans interact politically was on the horizon. Afro-futurist Richmond talked about the need for a cultural shift. And First Amendment Attorney/Advocate Loy warned the panel to be careful about what they wished for.
Yeah, yeah, yeah… The wannabe socialist in me thinks the present stage of capitalism and the reverence for patriarchy (including racism/otherism) should have been in the conversation.
I do, however, recognize the practical pitfalls of discussing what we see but do not comprehend. God forbid Kevin Faulconer or Carl DeMaio see a transcript of a discussion about the predatory nature of late stage capitalism.
Anyhow, everybody seemed at least not opposed to public institutions setting reasonable limits on public input. These were reasonable people taking a reasonable approach to tolerance and restraint in discourse.
It all sounds well and good until you comprehend that nihilism is afoot in the land; a vengeance-based desire to commit national suicide and replace the system with a Dear Leader. I guess that’s a discussion for another day.
***
I want to take a moment here to express my appreciation for our city’s non-profit media. In a day and age where sources of information and analysis are lessening, they have real human beings asking questions in places that could be providing the public with answers. Truth be told, I am uncomfortable about their “vanilla-ness” at times, but I also have appreciation for the accommodations that are made for these institutions to exist.
KPBS, inewsource, and Voice of San Diego have shared resources to bring people a more comprehensive picture of our region in this election year.
***
Monday News You Should Read
***
GOP spending more than Dems on political ads in San Diego by Kate Burns at Axios San Diego
Republicans are outspending Democrats on political ads in San Diego as the November election approaches but not by much.
By the numbers: Campaigns and committees spent at least $2.7 million on ads from Aug. 1 through Sept. 20, according to data from analytics platform AdImpact.
Republicans have spent $1.4 million, compared to $1.3 million by Democrats.
Nearly all of that money is coming from candidates' campaigns, and it includes presidential, congressional and down-ballot races.
***
California is first state to banish Froot Loops from school cafeterias via Blake Jones at Politico
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed first-in-the-nation legislation on Saturday that will prevent public schools in California from serving food dyes that color Froot Loops, Flamin’ Hot Cheetos and other processed snacks.
The blue, green, yellow and red additives affected by the ban have been linked to hyperactivity and other behavioral issues, particularly in people who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.
The signing marks the second time in as many years that Newsom has endorsed nutritional rules opposed by the food industry. He also signed legislation last year that outlawed the sale of foods containing other additives.
***
Bad Climate Socialism - The opening salvos of the interstate insurance wars. by Hamilton Nolan at How Things Work
Instead, due to the nature of our political system, which rewards cowardice and punishes anyone who might dare to tell coastal homeowners that they are fucked, we are going to get a blend of the worst aspects of both options.
Politicians will demand federal bailouts of the costs associated with each disaster, and they will introduce various regulations and financial schemes to artificially hold down the price of insurance—well below its true price, meaning a price that would allow insurance companies to fully pay for all of the costs that climate change will impose. These costs will continually increase.
Eventually, the costs to the nation of subsidizing the ability of people to live in unwise locations will be so enormous that all the rest of the citizens will revolt. “Save our homes!” one side will cry. “Why should I pay for you to live at the beach?” everyone else will cry. A vicious political war will ensue. It will be brutal. All the while, climate change will continue apace. The only real question is how long we will spend dithering on our unproductive and childish bickering before we are forced by nature to address the root causes of this problem. Knowing America, I suspect that we can dither deeper into disastrous territory than you might imagine.
