The San Francisco Chronicle has come up with a new name for the broad spectrum of political leaders and activists who make up the San Francisco left. We're now "ultra-liberals."
The term first appeared in Heather Knight's Aug. 15 article on the changes in the local Democratic County Central Committee. Her lead sentence was almost breathtaking in its drama: The party, she wrote, "has veered dramatically to the left, telling voters that on Nov. 4 they should elect a raft of ultra-liberal supervisorial candidates, decriminalize prostitution, boot JROTC from public schools, embrace public power, and reject Mayor Gavin Newsom's special court in the Tenderloin."
There's no question that the progressives made significant advances in winning control of the DCCC in June. And I think it's entirely fair — and a good thing — that the party has veered to the left. It's "dramatic," though, only because for so many years the Democratic Party in one of the world's most liberal cities wasn't particularly liberal at all: it was controlled by political machines and friendly to real estate developers and big business.
It shouldn't really surprise anyone that San Francisco Democrats support public power and decriminalizing sex work and oppose military recruiting in the public schools. Those are pretty basic San Francisco values. What's surprising is that it took a wholesale organizing effort and a huge battle to get the party to where it is today.
But I still cringe at the term "ultra-liberal."
David Campos, a Police Commission member (and generally a fairly even-minded guy) who is running for supervisor in District 9, called me this weekend to tell me he was laughing about the new tag: "It's a badge of pride," he said. And of course, on one level, I agree with him.
But there's something more to the story here. The way the Chron uses it, "ultra-liberal" is supposed to be a derogatory term, just a bit short of "radical" (or in another era, "commie." It suggests candidates who are out of touch with the mainstream, who don't represent the majority, who can't entirely be trusted.
I asked Knight what she meant by that term, and she had no comment. But here's what I think is happening: Newsom's political operatives are mad that the progressives have seized control of the term "progressive" — which is, in fact, an accurate and historically valuable term. They'd like to call Newsom a progressive mayor — which is inaccurate and historically invalid. But since they can't get away with that, they've pushed the Chron to use another term for people like Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin, and the best the editors could come up with is "ultra-liberal."
Weak.
Speaking of progressive issues: the move to reinstate JROTC in the public schools is really a wedge campaign that will be funded by downtown interests and used against progressives like Eric Mar, who is running in a more moderate district. The issue itself is a no-brainer. Do we want military recruitment programs in the public schools? The progressive candidates for school board need to stand up on this one and make it clear that they aren't going to back down — JROTC has to go.
JROTC does not recruit for the military.
JROTC teaches students about community service and government. When my son took JROTC, he participated in activities such as cleaning up Ocean Beach and learning about the U.S. Constitution.
Any student who doesn't want to take JROTC is free to take PE instead. The SFUSD cannot legally force a student to take JROTC.
Bottom line, do we want politicians or parents and students making the decisions on educational choices?
Petra Meyer
San Francisco, CA
I have to challenge a number of your assertions. First, the use of the term "progressive" in SF politics is more complicated than you let on. While language is constantly being redefined, political beliefs are made most clear when considered paired with their opposition.
In San Francisco politics, it is not "progressives" vs. "regressives" - most voices that are heard at all believe in some sort of movement "forward" through changes to how we structure our society, and what we consider our values. Instead, within liberalism the meaningful use of the word "progressive" is in opposition to "radical." Progressives advocate incremental change over time; radicals want things changed greatly all at once. I'm not going to take a stance within that spectrum now, but let's at least agree to make the words mean something. In the spirit of calling the black kettle black, I think the term "progressive" is, on many issues and at many times, inappropriate to the group of supervisors and board of education members who are currently bandying the term about; they are much too hasty to be considered incrementalists, and are better called radicals. The term may carry some unwelcome baggage, but it's the reality of the situation.
Second is the issue of the JROTC. I agree a great deal with the previous commenter, Ms Meyer. Mr Redmond, I believe you may be committing the same fallacies that many who share the anti-JROTC position commit; that of correlation implying causality, and that of assuming guilt by association.
That is, because some who go into the JROTC also go into the military (and it seems most statistics thrown around about this point are unsourced claims), it is assumed that the JROTC must be ascting as a recruiting tool - not that the JROTC would appeal to the same people who were already more likely to be interested in the military. That is, of course, a ridiculous claim. While I cannot state conclusively that the JROTC does not have some effect on the decision-making of its members, I can withhold judgment until some more conclusive evidence is available.
Lastly, I'd like to touch on this point of "guilt by association." Yes, the US Armed Services maintain a policy toward homosexuals that I, and many others in this community, find unconscionable; we await eagerly - and often work for - a change in that policy, as well as a great shift in policy on the appropriate use of military force by our nation. That does not mean, however, that every organization at all affiliated with the military shares those same principles; nor does it mean that we should withdraw from those affiliated agencies because of our objection to the policies of the Armed Forces. The JROTC is not homophobic in its practices, the JROTC is not occupying foreign lands, and the JROTC is certainly not costing American lives; instead, it is mentoring young people and instilling a spirit of civic responsibility in a way that is sympathetic to the involvement of the military in the American experience. I believe we cannot truly consider ourselves an open and pluralistic community if we cannot at least tolerate the presence of others who express dedication to the well-being of their community, and enrich the quality of their own lives, in a way that is different from how we ourselves would pursue those same goals and ambitions.
If we wish to see the policies of the US Armed Forces change, what better way than to show our philosophical opponents that San Franciscans share a common sense of civic values despite our differences about other sorts of values? Certainly we will have a greater impact on the national discourse regarding these issues about which we care so deeply if we are seen as lovers of civic virtue rather than as an angry fringe community.
Jordan Phillips
I'm a candidate for School Board. I believe I'm the only veteran running. In fact, I think I'm the only retired teacher running. And, certainly the only former firefighter. In short, I have a macho background and ROTC sucks. I have actual experience and credentials. Marching in circles and learning jingoistic chants does no good for the community.
Now, learning to find your neighborhood fresh water cistern after an earthquake? That's a nice skill to teach in freshman year of high school. More points for knowing where to get buckets, ropes, pulleys and tri-pods from NERT storage.
In second year of high school learning how to do CPR and clear an airway is much better than learning how to threaten young female school board members with death. You can take that one to the bank.
In your third year (you're 16-17 now) you're strong enough to learn to shore up a crumbling building and use the 'jaws of life' and to raise a 45' groundladder.
In your last year of high school the cops can teach you how to set up a perimeter around a disaster site and how to drive emergency equipment and use more power tools. Beats the hell out of screaming homophobic remarks.
And, Campos is mocking you about being a Progressive. He donated $250 to Kimiko Burton when Jeff Adachi was on the ropes. He approved the emergency meeting at which a lame-duck board gave Arlene Ackerman her golden parachute. He's a creature of Louise Renne and voted for her over Theresa Sparks (who is also no Progressive) in the first Police Commission Showdown.
Who's funding the pro ROTC forces? Warren Hellman. His people put Kimberly Wicoff in the race. Trace her Bridgespan Group and you'll find it's funded by Baird Capital of Boston. Check their Board of Directors. Did you know that half of the candidates for school board want to sell 'surplus' property? Where'd they all get the same idea? Seems they gave a contract to CBRE to sell 8 properties for them for over 100 million. Who's the chair of the board that picks up the commission? Why it's Richard Blum.
As Phelan says, follow the money. Follow the money.
For a critical and independent voice on School Board?
Vote for me.
h.
ROTC and JROTC are two distinctly different programs.
My son and I, along with many many other students and parents, see value in this worthy program. Anyone who feels differently is free to choose PE instead.
The school board should not be spending their time and energy attempting to take away a popular program from students and parents.
I will be voting for who should serve on the school board based on who believes that parents and students should be the ones who decide whether JROTC has value, not politicians with an anti-military agenda.
Petra Meyer
Of course. ROTC is at the university level. My error. I do oppose JROTC and I do support ROTC. You call me a politician with "an anti-military agenda"? I assume you're a veteran? I am. How dare you presume to question my service.
I assume you have earned several teaching certifications and haved over 40 years experience working with students? I do. How dare you presume to question my knowledge and objectivity.
Throughout its history the U.S. military has practiced discrimination against pretty much every single minority group. And, women as well. I don't think it's wise to allow the military to indoctrinate young susceptible minds.
"Oh snap the fife and still the drums
and show the monster as she is."
Archibald MacLeash
thanks for your reply,
h.
If you don't like people questioning your military service or knowledge and objectivity, what are you doing running for public office?
Now to your points.
First of all, JROTC does not discriminate.
Secondly, history is full of examples of the problems that occur when people with a political agenda have the power to indoctrinate young susceptible minds at will. A "progressive" political agenda is just as dangerous as any other political agenda when it is backed up by authoritarian power.
Commonly held beliefs and our legal system in America say that it should be the PARENTS who decide on what influences are appropriate for their own children. Me and many many other parents think a program such as JROTC which teaches students about community service and their constitutional rights is a good thing.
The function of the school board is to SERVE, not to force a political agenda down a community's throats. Taking away a popular voluntary program such as JROTC against the wishes of parents and students is not serving parents or students.
Bottom line, no one can be legally forced to take JROTC. So live and let live and leave us alone!
Comment on: Editor's Notes
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
