How Progressives (partially) took over LA politics
And how San Francisco could show the way forward for Moderates
A few weeks back, I wrote that LA’s elections had proven to be not very good for pro-housing candidates and that the biggest takeaway was that there widespread apathy about what is happening on a city level:
I think that analysis has held up well: even with late-arriving votes doubling turnout in some races, the turnout had started from such a low floor that the final numbers are still staggering low, with only 28.6% of registered voters in the county voting, about a third of the 74.6% that voted in 2020, and a little over half of the 51.7% that voted in Gavin Newsom’s 2021 recall.
What has happened is that the broader narrative has shifted. For example, many people drew a straight line on election night between the recall election in San Francisco and the election in Los Angeles, calling it a win for tough-on-crime politics in blue California cities. Since election night, late arrival ballots have put Democratic congresswoman Karen Bass into the lead in the mayor’s race over former Republican developer Rick Caruso. In addition, progressives have become leaders in other major city-wide races like city attorney and controller. City Council District 13 saw its long-time incumbent Mitch O Farrell running 10 points behind his challenger, Democratic Socialist affiliated Hugo Soto-Martinez, going into November's runoff. But the race that has belatedly gotten the most attention (and is most interesting to me) is in Council District 1, including where I live in Lincoln Heights. There, long-time politician Gil Cedillo finally conceded his city council in a stunning upset to progressive challenger Eunisses Hernandez. Why is this notable? For one, Gil Cedillo was once considered a progressive upstart in Los Angeles:
Who recently had become out of step with the leftward movement of the party:
Eunisses Hernandez's policy stances make her the most progressive candidate to hold a city council seat in LA. Hernandez has been a long-time organizer around criminal justice issues and has spoken of her belief in abolishing the police:
To be clear, I do not think Hernandez’s number one priority in the office is to get rid of the police; I think she is reasonable to know that this is not a stance as a long-term goal she wants to work toward incrementally:
Though Justice LA comprises reformist organizations as well, the coalition is guided by abolitionist principles. Hernandez told Bolts: “Some basic questions that we ask ourselves in doing this work: will this policy decision leave anybody behind? Will this policy decision build something we’ll have to destroy in the future? Will this policy decision give more money and more power to the systems that are harming us? If it’s yes to any of those questions, then we have to go back to the drawing board.”
Likewise, Hernandez has taken a very left-wing view of housing, stating on her website that she believes in “Decommodified Housing,” housing that is created and sold via the market but produced through alternative means:
An impactful and sustainable response to our housing crisis is to massively expand our stock of decommodified housing: housing that is taken off the speculative market so it can’t be sold for profit. My office would work tirelessly to make LA a leader in decommodified and/or social housing, using the tools currently available to us including… CLTs [community land trusts], utilizing publicly owned land and eminent domain.
I have thoughts about the specifics of these positions, but instead, step back and address a particular genre of progressive triumphalism that has been circulating in response to the election. In an article, last month, LA Times columnist Erika Smith contrasted the recall of Chesa Boudin in San Fransico with the election of very progressive candidates in Los Angeles. She suggested these results demonstrate that Los Angeles is becoming a full-throated progressive city, even more progressive than San Fransisco. Much of this rested on the assertion that while San Francisco’s high housing prices have priced out working-class people of color, Los Angeles County is more diverse in race and class, thus embracing progressive priorities.
While LA is more diverse than San Francisco, it's wrong to suggest that LA is more progressive. Looking at data, it's hard to see that Los Angeles is a bastion of progressivism. Here are the results of the last 20 years, with Los Angeles County and San Fransisco County compared:
2020: LA County: 71% for Biden, SF: 86% for Biden
2016: LA County: 72% for Hillary, SF: 84% for Hillary (Jill stein got 2.5% of the vote)
2012: LA County 69% for Obama, SF: 83% for Obama
2008: LA County 69% for Obama, SF: 84% for Obama
2004: LA County 63% for Kerry, SF: 83% for Kerry
LA has gotten slightly more progressive over time, but SF has consistently been at least 10-15 points bluer than LA over the last 20 years. Of course, San Francisco county is more urbanized than LA County, but in 2020, neighboring bay counties Marin, Alameda, and San Mateo all voted over 80% for Biden, almost 10 points ahead of LA County. Even Exurban Santa Clara voted at a higher rate for Biden (75%) than LA.
How about results from Ballot initiatives in 2020 that align with Progressive issues? Here are some comparisons:
Prop 16 (Affirmative Action): In SF, received 64% of the vote; in LA, it received 51%
Prop 17 (Voting Rights while on Parole): In SF, received 78% of the vote; in LA, it received 66%
Prop 20 (Harsher Criminal Sentencing): In SF, 72% of people voted against it; in LA, 66% of people voted against
Prop 25 (End use of Cash Bail): In SF, it received 56% of the vote; in LA, it received 45%
Across the board, there was a 10-15% gap in these measures in LA versus San Francisco. Compared to the broader country, it is true that LA is more progressive, but this does not mean progressivism is dominant. There remains quite a lot of political diversity within the city there is a lot of political diversity in the city.
The Organizing Gap
To best understand the 2022 results, it is worth diving into some history. First, to understand what happened in San Francisco, one must realize that San Francisco has been a one-party town for almost 60 years. San Francisco has not had a Republican mayor since the 1960s. Unsurprising, the 10-15% of the population who votes for the GOP in presidential elections is far too small to have a fighting chance in a mayoral race. This one-party rule escalated to the point that the 1970s were known as a decade of progressive excess in San Francisco. Nowhere is this better illustrated than the history of city leaders working closely with cult leader Jim Jones, seeing him a key populist leader in the city. This partnership lasted until Jones led 900 cult members to their deaths in a murder-suicide in the jungles of Guyana, which was maybe the low moment for the progressive left in San Francisco.
Moments of excess like this in American politics create pressure for a counter-mobilization, where the median voter wants to see a change in another direction to correct the excess. But because of how Progressive San Francisco remained, that backlash did not come in the form of a GOP takeover of the city, but instead, Dianne Feinstein was elected mayor as a “moderate” Democrat. Her reputation as a moderate was part of why the 2021 school board tried to rename the elementary school named after her, blaming her for not taking a harder stance on a city display, including a confederate flag. This may surprise people who only know her through national politics, as even at her advanced age, no one would mistake her for a Republican. But in San Francisco, the center-right and center-left were more than happy to unite around moderate Democrats if it meant creating an alternate power center to rival progressives. Since then, politics in San Francisco has re-oriented around two poles: a progressive pole, and a moderate pole, with the moderates holding power quite often, even in the progressive city. San Francisco Chronicle illustrates this by mapping the current board of supervisors on a scale of “moderates” to “progressives”:
The late 2010s had seen strong progressives take several political positions in the city, including DA Chesa Boudin and the school board. Boudin’s election itself was quite surprising, as his background working for Hugo Chavez would have probably been a red flag in any other city in America. As DA, Boudin implemented sweeping reforms aimed at reforming the criminal justice system, on top of the large reforms that outgoing DA George Gascon had already implemented. The Chronicle found that his office only charged 53% of those arrested on assault charges, down from 67% during Gascon’s tenure. Of those charged with assault, only 50% were convicted, down from 63% during Gascon’s term. Gascon’s more modest reforms had already gotten pushback: thus, it shouldn’t surprise us that Boudin pushing farther would land him in treacherous waters. Especially when stories like that of Troy McAllister seemingly kept resurfacing:
Recall supporters could never stomach the case of Troy McAlister, who was allegedly driving high on meth and alcohol when he plowed a stolen car into two pedestrians, killing them on Dec. 31, 2020. Boudin’s office hadn’t filed charges against McAlister despite several arrests in the months leading up to the collision — McAlister appeared to have been on a crime spree — and afterward the district attorney tried to shift blame to other agencies.
Likewise, the San Francisco school board, like most in California, was hesitant to re-open in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Again, much of this stemmed from progressive deference to teacher’s unions and a general embrace of COVID-zero policies. Yet even compared to LAUSD, which I thought was far too cautious, they seemed wholly uninterested in even trying to open schools, even after vaccines came online. Even as evidence showed that marginalized students were falling behind, their focus was on renaming schools and restructuring magnet programs, which angered many parents.
The central figures in organizing the recall of Chesa Boudin and the San Francisco schoolboard were not mainly the 10-15% of the city that identifies as republican. Instead, both recalls were vigorous efforts organized by moderate Democrats to seize back power from progressives who had pushed farther than the median voter was willing to go. The Bulwark's Tim Miller described the coalition of moderates thus:
Their coalition is made up of older black voters, elder millennial HENRYs, Asian Americans, working-class union Democrats, wine moms, and Gaybraham Lincoln drag queens. Together they have majority power in the city, and they are trying to put an end to the leftward lurch by reasserting the more practical liberalism of the late-aughts glory days.
And so far, it’s working.
Organizing does not happen overnight: moderates had to make a conscious choice to get involved and organize. I have observed that some of those organizers have taken nasty attacks from former allies, only to be vindicated by the voters in those two elections. But, without concerted moderate organizing, these elections never take place.
Paradoxically, I suspect that Los Angeles’ progressives have been able to rise to power because LA is not as progressive as San Francisco. The GOP was competitive in LA far longer than in San Francisco: Ronald Reagan won LA County twice, and George HW Bush got 47% of the vote in 1988. As recently as 1993-2001, Los Angeles had a moderate Republican mayor (Richard Riordan) and in the last 20 years has had half a dozen Republicans serve on the city council. This may not sound like much, but the threat of republicans mounting competitive bids for office has kept peace between “moderate” and “progressive” democrats, who are reluctant to compete with one another openly. Instead, you had establishment Democrats challenging other establishment Democrats, like in 2013 when Eric Garcetti won the mayorship against Wendy Gruel. Alternatively, you have many elections where no one challenges incumbent Democrats, and they win by huge margins in lightly contested elections with low turnout. Eric Garcetti won in 2017 this way, with over 80% of the vote and no prominent figure wanting to challenge him from his left or right flank.
This status quo has finally changed over the last 5-6 years. 2016 brought two massive shocks: the first was Bernie’s surprising showing in the 2016 Democratic primary, and the second was Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 general election. Trump’s victory radicalized some to more extreme progressive views, while the Sanders insurgency energized others who already had radical beliefs that they could win. As a result, progressives started organizing: The democratic socialist's chapter in LA has grown significantly, and progressive organizing groups like Ground Game LA have also risen in prominence. Internet-first publications like LA Podcast, Knock LA, and LA Taco have created unofficial media outlets for very progressive, anti-establishment thought. You would be hard-pressed to find much divergence between Knock-LA’s 2022 Voter Guide and the DSA’s 2022 voter guide. Progressive organizers were central in organizing the 2019 teacher’s strike and advocating the policy response of the city to COVID-19. They were pivotal in shifting the conversation around policing in the summer of 2020 from pragmatic reforms around police use of force to discussion of defunding and abolishment. They have also gotten the ear of many elected officials on housing, transit, and land-use issues through organizing progressive housing groups like ACT-LA. This infrastructure has helped them recruit and run a slate of candidates deeply tied to the progressive movement, and they have refused to compromise with the Democratic establishment. In 2020, this propelled DSA member Nithya Ramen to victory, and in 2022 it appears to be yielding even more success.
Meanwhile, the Democratic establishment assumed that their constellation of traditional special interests like unions, teachers, and business interests would carry them to victory through campaign donations. While this may have worked in the past, winning elections is about getting votes, something money cannot buy (Jeb Bush found out in 2016). No amount of funding can get people excited about you as a candidate, but the reverse is not true: If you get a bunch of people excited about you, you can raise enough small-dollar donations to be competitive. 2020 saw numerous candidates do this: Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders ran campaigns centered on exciting the extremes of their party and raising a lot of small-donor funds from those extremes.
To make matters worse, all of this is happening as the LA Times, historically a paper that lines up behind more moderate/centrist candidates, has suddenly pivoted to be increasingly supportive of progressives in recent years. Some speculate that this is due to the increasingly prominent role the publisher's progressive daughter has in managing the paper; I suspect, like many papers, their increasing reliance on subscribers coupled with their staff getting younger and more activist has more to do with their shift (I wrote about both issues in media in 2020).
This has left moderates significantly out-hustled by the progressive faction, with no real sense of being organized or center of gravity in the broader public. In the case of Gil Cedillo, his long-standing reputation for doing a lousy job of interfacing with his constituents, combined with a lack of voters who invested in his campaign, doomed him in the face of a progressive upstart. I do not think all elected officials will prove as vulnerable as he was. Still, I do believe that the existing establishment Democrats in LA should assume they need to work harder to actually articulate a concrete platform and not rely on tired political strategies.
As a moderate, I find this troubling: while there are particular progressive candidates who I think could do a good job, and there are issues where I would be happy to work with them, it is frustrating to feel like few elected officials are working to earn your vote on your policy terms. However, I think there is an upside to this: Progressives don’t have to get the last word on LA Politics. If moderates can develop a sensible strategy, they have a real chance to step into the void of the old establishment Democrats with a concrete strategy and a positive message; moderation has a real future. What could that look like? I have some ideas; they will be detailed in my next post.