By Jim Miller
While the biggest threat looming on the political horizon is a second Trump presidency with an even more authoritarian and deeply revanchist bent, unfortunately, that is far from the only thing we need to keep our eyes on.
As Doug Porter alerted us to last week, it’s not just the Republicans who spell peril for essential programs that benefit the American public, but neoliberal Democrats like San Diego’s own Scott Peters, who is looking to reboot yet another “bipartisan” effort to address the national debt and “save” Social Security.
Like similar efforts in the past, the fear is that compromising with the current Republican Party is likely to do little but crabwalk us closer to the cliff. But rather than speaking out against efforts to cripple America’s ability to raise revenue from the rich and addressing the billionaire class’s risk to our democracy, Democrats like Peters look to ally with the other side and find ways to put the squeeze on the program by cutting or limiting benefits rather than addressing the deeply entrenched economic inequality that afflicts us.
Even if Peters manages to find Republican partners more interested in governing than supporting insurrectionists and impeaching Biden, it’s hard to see how such an entity would provide anything other than the predictable, false austerity narratives that have been driving this discussion for decades. Alas, it’s the same movie we’ve seen before, repackaged.
In sum, no thanks, Scott.
Doug has also highlighted Carl DeMaio’s campaign for Assembly where he promises to bring his tired union-busting baloney and mania for privatizing everything to the state Capitol.
So if you are nostalgic for the good old days of DeMaio’s efforts to turn us into the Scott Walker-inspired “Wisconsin of the West” or the rightwing think tank dreamers’ vision of “Indy by the Sea”, watching DeMaio in the Assembly would warm your heart.
Hard pass on that rerun.
Fortunately, even if he wins his insurgent campaign, DeMaio would be part of a small minority in that legislative body in deep blue California where corporate interests have largely abandoned full frontal assaults like his in favor of simply supporting enough business Democrats to do their bidding in the Capitol to thwart taxes and kill bolder progressive measures in a variety of other areas. One need only look to some of the shape-shifting Democrats coming out of San Diego to find ample evidence of this phenomenon.
Out of favor in even local Republican circles after multiple nasty, losing campaigns, DeMaio may simply have to return to his radio show to await his next opportunity.
But, despite his many failures, he has served a purpose in San Diego politics where not being Carl DeMaio or like Carl DeMaio has been the very low bar over which local Democratic politicians have had to hop
Thus, rather than ushering in a sudden break from the past, the current Democratic supremacy in San Diego has come to mirror the one in Sacramento in many aspects.
One party rule in the city of San Diego has led not to a bold new day but to deep divisions. A case in point is the City Council, where rather than being heralded as a moment for celebration, Sean Elo-Rivera’s re-election to City Council President brought some harsh criticism from a few of his Democratic colleagues.
According to the San Diego Union-Tribune story on Elo-Rivera’s narrow victory, council members Jen Campbell and Stephen Whitburn criticized him for “voting against a new streetlight surveillance program and against the city’s crackdown on homeless people who camp on city streets.”
In addition to this, council member Marne Von Wilpert called Elo-Rivera out for his “offensive and hurtful” comments that implied that council members were “easily persuaded by lobbyists.”
His allies, on the other hand, according the SDUT, praised him for “focusing on efforts to fight climate change and boost equity for the city’s historically underserved neighborhoods,” with Monica Montgomery Steppe noting that divisions on the council were centered around Elo-Rivera’s and his allies’ desire “to assert the enormous power the council has under the city charter while his opponents think that would be disrespectful.”
Reading between the lines, Elo-Rivera’s biggest sins, in the minds of his critics, are that he is wary of the history of San Diego essentially being run by private interests, and that he has stood with the most vulnerable San Diegans when it comes to the issues of homelessness and police surveillance. That these should be points of contention within a Democratic supermajority on the council is both depressing and revealing at the same time.
It shows that despite San Diego’s move to solidly blue status, the old divides between more and less affluent San Diegans, NIMBYs and renters, historically empowered and disempowered residents persist.
Hence, particularly when it comes to his skepticism about the undue influence of lobbyists versus the input of ordinary San Diegans, Elo-Rivera should stay the course and view the kinds of criticism he is getting from some of his fellow Democrats as a sign that he may be doing something right.
We may have come a long way from the bad old days of Republican rule in San Diego, but it would be naïve to think that the recurring political scandals and deeply entrenched inequities that have marked our local history and continue to inform our politics and daily lives will just go away.
What’s called for is a long term, robust effort by progressives inside and outside of the local government to strengthen and deepen our democratic institutions in a truly transformative way that can serve as an antidote to the plutocratic, authoritarian turn in our national politics.
Elo-Rivera friend of workiing people?
Let's never forget that Elo-Rivera turned his back on seriously purusing a non-profit utility and instead cast was what was likely the pivotal vote for a franchise agreement with SDG&E, an agreement that gouges every utility customer in this city. Highest electric rates in the nation!!