November 26, 2003

THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY of Harvey Milk's assassination, overlapping as it does with the current mayoral race, offers a particularly apt opportunity to look at what Milk's legacy can mean for the future of San Francisco.

Like Tom Ammiano in 1999 and Matt Gonzalez this year, Milk was the dark horse – the Seabiscuit, even – of his electoral era. His campaigns galvanized not only the queer community but also the entire progressive movement as he ran against the machine's candidates three times. He believed queers had to elect our own, but he also understood that the struggle for justice was multifaceted, and he embraced coalitions with other movements.

While it takes some temerity to speak for the dead, it's a dead certainty that Milk would have been outraged by some aspects of this election: The Castro bar named after Harvey sported a gigantic Gavin Newsom sign – when three queer candidates of various political stripes were in the running. Male progressives pushed and putsched for a more "electable" candidate than Ammiano, disregarding his 30 years of broad-based radical activism and arguing instead that he was "past it," downright passé, too centrist(!), and, oh yeah, other people didn't think Ammiano's voice and mannerisms were masculine enough. Leftists failed to understand the insult inherent in the last-minute insertion of a straight candidate into a race against three queers without even talking to queer leaders.

The right is resurgent in this country, in part because of the ability to come together even after a bitter primary. Given the recent KPIX, channel 5, poll showing Gonzalez and Newsom nearly dead even, the participation of alienated progressives not just in voting but in organizing for Gonzalez over the next few weeks could make the critical difference. And of course, if Newsom wins, unifying the left will be even more vital. So Gonzalez must demonstrate – prior to Dec. 9 – that he knows he can't afford to take progressives, especially queer progressives, for granted.

In a convoluted way, Milk's solidification of gay power has led to a "postrevolutionary" political climate in San Francisco. Both mayoral candidates do have queer advisors. But here in the queerest city on earth, in the year 2003, neither felt it necessary to include the words gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, or transsexual anywhere on their official Web sites.

At the Harvey Milk Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club last week, Gonzalez not only refused to promise support for Ammiano if Ammiano runs for supervisor again, but he also announced that "Tom needs to come to me and make his case as to why I should support him." This is the much touted "reaching out to the other candidates"?

I believe Milk would have supported Gonzalez in the runoff because someone with Newsom's corporate allegiances poses a real threat to the diversity of our community and the character of our city. But I also believe Milk wouldn't have done so without demanding some assurances of inclusiveness. (Hint: a bust in City Hall is not enough.) He would want Gonzalez to acknowledge that, however good his intentions, the lack of respect shown not only to Ammiano but also to the queer community has created a political rift.

What will help? Apologizing to Ammiano and his supporters and acknowledging that some of Gonzalez's actions were at least perceived as insensitive. Including queer issues when speaking to primarily straight crowds, rather than just at those events where Gonzalez comes to us for votes and donations. Committing to supporting other progressives. Giving his word that he'll appoint women and queers from beyond his inner circle.

Matt, we'd be thrilled for you to prove a worthy successor to Harvey. You gotta give us that hope (if you're going to have a hope).

Jack Davis and other Newsom operatives are respectfully requested not to selectively excerpt and thereby distort quotes from this piece. Lest there be any misunderstanding: Gonzalez is the better candidate. Thank you.