San Francisco's political spectrum: a primer


During yesterday's post-election wrap-up at the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, political consultant and analyst David Latterman cited the ideological breakdown of San Francisco voters: 19 percent are progressive, 36 percent are liberal, 39 percent are “moderate,” and 6 percent are conservative. I cited those figures in a post I wrote yesterday on the latest election results, and some people responded by asking me to explain those terms, so let me take a crack at that because I think it's important to understanding the city's political dynamics.

I even discussed the matter with Latterman – who self-identifies as moderate, whereas I and the Guardian have a progressive worldview. “That's a fantastic question and I don't think any of us can give suitable answers,” Latterman said. “These aren't hard lines. It's like: I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it.” Nonetheless, we agreed on the basic outlines and borders between the labels, even though we might frame them and value them a little differently.

In San Francisco, there is general agreement on most social issues among the moderates, liberals, and progressives, although we may disagree on political tactics. We all basically support gay rights, reproductive freedom, the value of diversity, environmentalism, and freedom of expression. That's why most people consider San Francisco to be a famously liberal city, because of our tolerance on social issues, which only that 6 percent who are conservatives don't share.

Yet San Francisco is still a deeply divided city on economic issues, including land use and the role of government. This is where most of the political conflicts and divisions occur, and it is here where our political spectrum is as wide as anywhere – perhaps even wider given the extreme wealth and poverty here, as well as the long history of political activism and the setting of national political trends. And it is in this realm that our labels come from.

A “moderate” in San Francisco – which is a real misnomer despite its widespread usage – is a fiscal conservative: anti-tax, anti-regulation, an almost religious faith in the free market, and a resentment of the poor (particularly the homeless and the jobless) and those who advocate for them. They want bare minimal government and see the role of government as primarily to facilitate economic activity in the private sector and to provide the basic infrastructure that the private sector needs to operate efficiently. They even believe social services should be provided by the private sector, such as nonprofits, rather than by government. On economic issues, they're almost indistinguishable from conservatives, with whom they disagree on social issues.

On the other end of the spectrum are the progressives, who don't trust capitalists and large corporations and believe they need to be heavily regulated and taxed to provide for the common good. We believe in progressive taxation and a redistribution of wealth, particularly from the richest 1 percent, and that government has an important role to play in leveling the economic playing field and playing referee. Progressives generally believe this country has been drifting to the right for at least the last 31 years and that this is a dangerous trend that needs to be addressed with fundamental, systemic reforms. And at this point, we're willing to adopt radical strategies for triggering that change, such as Occupy Wall Street or other forms of civil disobedience.

The liberals of San Francisco are somewhere in the middle. They're Democrats (or DTS) who don't believe in radical change or anything that might disrupt the existing order, preferring incremental reforms over long period of time. They accept the legitimacy of the two-party political system and an economic system governed by Wall Street and powerful corporations, and they believe we need to do what we can within that framework. They use neoliberal economic policies like business tax cuts and incentives to encourage private sector job creation and housing development, and they accept a shrinking public sector, which they expect to operate more like the private sector, and a waning labor movement.

The reactions to the OccupySF movement is an interesting illustration of the dividing lines. Moderates have voiced tepid support for the movement's critique of the growing gap between rich and poor, but they're appalled at the tactic of occupation, believing curfew and anti-camping laws are more important. Progressives have been the most enthusiastic supporters of a movement that echoes their core values and physically challenges the status quo. Liberals basically support the movement, but they've been very uneasy with the tactic of occupation and have been vacillating on how to deal with it.

Latterman and the moderates – as well as many liberals – see ideology as a dirty word, and he was happy that in this election “it was the least ideological race we've seen in a long time.” Mayor Ed Lee and Board President David Chiu – both of whom hover in the liberal to moderate range, depending on the issue – also treat the notion of ideology with disdain, claiming to support practical, pragmatic, or common sense solutions to problems.

But progressives see ideology as the essence of politics. They understand the world in terms of class struggle, and believe that the very rich have been aggressively exploiting the people and the planet for too long, and that the only real way to make progress is to fight them and win. They believe in the Occupy paradigm that the 1 percent – the greedy rich who have corrupted our political and economic systems – are actively hostile to the interests of the 99 percent. We know that's an unsustainable system and we're hopeful that this is the moment when progress – the core of our belief system, that it's possible to devise better economic and political systems than the ones we've inherited – could finally be attainable if we continue to organize and challenge the system.

That's my general analysis of San Francisco's political dynamics. What's yours?


definitionalism of what socialism means to you.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 1:58 pm

definitionalism of what socialism means to you.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 1:58 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 2:01 pm

Mike I read an article about this just a few days ago that I am trying to find but cannot seem to locate but will post when / if I find it.

But as I understand it, the lack of a true European central bank as you mention was a tremendous flaw which left the Euro vulnerable to what occurred in late 2006, what Alan Greenspan called a "once in a century shock."

The plan for the Euro seemed to be to slowly form a Europe wide bank, probably over a time frame of decades or longer while (falsely hoping) that the "great moderation" would isolate the world from the kind of turbulence that would destabilize the fragile Euro currency?

The Euro is (was?) only 10 years old before it suffered the massive shock of the global real estate collapse that had its origins in California and Florida.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 2:22 pm

My thesis is that Twitter and Zynga will collapse so who cares. That $2 billion will probably come mostly from places like Calpers by the way. Google Platinum Advisors.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 3:48 pm


An impressive, (pretty) straight explanation and I think close to spot on. The only two thing I would quibble with are:

1) That moderates are "almost indistinguishable" from conservatives on economic issues. I think SF moderates still believe in progressive taxation, but do believe in free market ideology and minimalizing regulation where possible.

2) You descend into rhetoric talking about liberals accepting "an economic system governed by Wall Street and powerful corporations." Governed by? A little much. More accurately, I think liberals are very much on the side of progressives when it comes to regulation of Wall Street excesses particularly when it comes to the financial sector, but believe that capitalism and, yes, corporations (even large ones) have a role to play in job creation and economic development.

Overall though, this was one of the more useful posts in recent SFBG history, so thanks.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 3:49 pm

Because its called long term planning.

Where you kick out scam companies before they can loot your pension funds.

China has a real point about some things.

-- China mocks U.S. political model --

"...Mr. Chan said U.S. political leaders are so focused on short-term gains that they fail to make the painful long-term choices..."

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 3:55 pm

You know, like, er, free elections and human rights.

Don't you hate that?

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

Little things like Rob Conway you mean?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 4:22 pm

Anyone who prefers their model is free to move there.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

We don't need to move there, they've come here and they're beating us at our own game. But the point was that long-term planning is more important to a strong economy than extraction of short-term profits, and that seems undeniable.

Posted by steven on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:40 pm

I don't know if you saw the GOP Prez debate last night but this specific issue was discussed.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:52 pm

Overall, this is fine. I do take issue with your description of the economic views of SF moderates. Most of us are still Democrats, believe in the role of government, and believe in some regulation of businesses. That's the difference between a San Francisco moderate and one on a more national scale. San Francisco is 'left-shifted' over the rest of country, a fact you can't ignore. We do, however, probably have more faith in the private sector to create jobs than the government. Not sure about the non-profit part for services, either, unless accountability is improved.

Posted by David Latterman on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

It would be hard to extract such an admission from many on the elft who, quite literally, have an aversion to business, particularly big business. They see it as an evil enemy, which puts them at odds with the majority of voters, with inevitable results.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

Actually, Anon, I think the moderates' aversion to government is stronger than progressive aversion to businesses. We accept the need to have jobs and the private sectors' role in providing them, but you, Latterman, and other fiscal conservatives discount almost entirely that the public sector provides jobs as well, usually jobs that have better benefits and which perform important functions in society. We all need good roads, emergency services, and regulators to ensure that our buildings don't crumble in our next big earthquake. I'm sure you can cite some government functions you'd get rid of, but I can guarantee you that my list would be far longer and more universally agreed upon, starting with telemarketers, the designers of mortgage-backed securities, and insurance company CEOs. The point is that just because a concerted corporate campaign to demonize government and celebrate capitalism has skewed the public's perception of the problems we face, that doesn't mean that you're somehow more reasonable than we are.

Posted by steven on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

Good article, Steven, except toward the end when you seem to buy into the "moderate" frame that "ideology" is something of the "left." In reality, everyone on the spectrum is ideological. It's just that the "default ideology" in America is the ideology of the center-right. Those who adhere to it claim that they're "non-ideological," "practical," "just interested in getting things done." In reality, however, their ideology is just as rigid as anything from Lenin or Marx, but since it's the dominant ideology of the ruling class, they don't have to be loud about it. It's a narrative designed to present themselves as the most reasonable, and discredit and delegitimize their opponents.

We saw that frame at work in the Sheriff's race, where Ross's opponents repeatedly sought to delegitimize his candidacy by saying that he would "politicize" the office. As if compassion and accountability are "political," but unchecked brutality and serving the interests of the 1% is just "doing the job!"

We as progressives should not buy into that frame, and in fact call out anyone who uses it.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 4:17 pm

Neither Lee nor Gascon are ideologs and they both won handsomely.

Ross, more so, but he will have a limtied room for manoever. He can hardly refuse to do evictions just because he doesn't like them.

In the end, voters want competence not ideology.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

Lee and Gascon are just as ideological as Ross -probably moreso. It's just that their ideology is the dominant ideology of the center-right ruling class.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

Lee is a centrist and a pragmatist. He's not trying to change the world but run a city.

Ross is much more an ideolog but he's now got an office with very little discretionary room for that to matter. His job is mostly a matter of following rules. 850 is a safe place for a liberal because he can't do much harm there. I doubt he will be releasing many prisoners because he likes them.

In fact, there will probably be more effect from the D5 Supe being a moderate.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

No, Anon, I think Greg is right. Lee and Chiu pretend not to be ideological, but they rigidly adhere to neoliberal economic policies -- cutting business taxes and regulation, hoping that it will stimulate the economy enough to make up for the lost tax revenue, even though it never does -- in a way that can only be called ideological. He's also right that most people don't see that as ideological simply because its part of the dominant ideology that the beneficiaries of those policies and the politicians they sponsor have helped to instill in this country. But anyone who challenges that ideology is dismissed as being ideological, a clever trick indeed. The whole point of my article was to define the ideologies of each of these subgroups because each of them adheres to their own ideology, some more rigidly than others (and again, I don't agree that the progressives are any worse than the moderates -- something I can prove by predicting how the moderate supervisors will vote on any given issue). That's not a bad thing, it's just about values and worldview, and it's a discussion that we should be having instead of trying to demonize and dismiss people with certain viewpoints.

Posted by steven on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

...and he out-polled all of them.

That reality is a pretty big fly in the ointment, of your argument.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 6:15 pm

He took plenty of votes from the low-hanging fruit of others who also could not compete with Lee.

But Lee's support was rock solid at 30-35 for months. Avalos could never touch that.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 8:35 pm

I am at a total f*cking loss how this crackpot business model will save San Francisco. We used to be a great city until the 'moderates' let their real estate controllers turn it into a giant economic crime scene....

Groupon's No Bargain

"The real reason Groupon exists is to line the pockets of a few early investors who have already been milking this company for all it is worth, selling off shares and even paying themselves handsome dividends even though the company has never generated a dime of profit.

Over the course of its history, Groupon has raised $1.1 billion in venture funding, but has paid out $942 million of that to insiders. Earlier this year, when Groupon raised $946 million in a venture round, only $136 million went to the company itself, while a staggering $810 million was used to buy shares from insiders.

In April 2010, Groupon raised $130 million in venture funding, only $10 million went to the company, and $120 million went to insiders. 

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

Much bandwidth has been wasted here by moderates saying that progressives/ Tim Redmond/ Bay Guardian/ whatever stand-in for progressives... always lose.

Well I want to point out that if H goes down as I now expect, SF voters voted the Bay Guardian's recommendation on every initiative down the line with the exception of G.

This is not just to gloat, or even to simply counteract an incorrect narrative, but this highlights another issue that this article didn't account for. I've noticed this before, where SF voters seem to be in agreement with progressives on the issues, but more reluctant to vote for progressive candidates. It's not "never" -let's not descend into hyperbole like some want to do, but it definitely seems much harder for progressives to get elected city-wide, than it is to get people to agree with progressives on the issues.

Why is that?

My theory is that it has a lot to do with money, but also that aforementioned meme of "ideological" vs. "non-ideological." San Francisco voters ARE progressive. Even if they self-identify as liberals, they vote progressive. But they don't want to be seen as "ideological." Well you can discredit a candidate as "ideological," but there's no way to discredit an issue that way.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:25 pm

Hardship, etc...

No, you're wrong, Greg. Consult last November's elections if you need a better example.

This election just didn't have too many highly charged, ideological ballot measures.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

I can list many other initiatives. More often than not, the Bay Guardian position wins.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 6:34 pm

Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 8:38 pm

There are almost no ballots left and it's ahead by around 400 votes.

A pretty momentous success when you consider that every single person on the useless school board was against it and used school district resources to publicize that fact.

Posted by guest on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 10:15 pm

Because only half of the very low turnout of the electorate who bothered to vote supported it.

It is a mere policy statement with no quorum to give it legitimacy.

H, has already failed, whether it wins by a handful of votes or not...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 12:00 am

It appears that now the election is over many of the trolls have slunk back under their rocks and some serious discussion and exchange of ideas can resume. This is a very interesting and informative thread, as always there are valid points from both sides of the spectrum, i enjoy reading and learning from divergent opinion, thank you.
We all have to try and work together and play the hand we have been dealt. In my opinion it doesn't look to promising, but we need to try and find ways to dig ourselves out of the muck we are mired in.
No, I haven't lost the radical fire in the belly and make no apologies for any rambunctious responses I have posted here the past couple of months, c'est la guerre politique.
I remain, openly and unabashedly,
Yours truly.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 9:55 am

I agree, Patrick, it's refreshing when online discussions offer light and not just heat. Thanks, everyone.

Posted by steven on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 11:01 am

That warms the cockles of me old heart matey.
Maybe now that Tiger Woods seems to be making a comeback, your choice of trousers will also !!

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 11:25 am

Record Low Voter Turnout and you don't mention it at all.

Record Low Voter Turnout, but Chron, SFBG and Bay Citizen Report Right-Wing Shift

Evidence of the claims I have been making that the Bay-Guardian, The Chron and The Bay Citizen are not only out of touch, but the worst sort of insider-journalists can be found in their ratification of the results of Tuesday’s election over the reality:

only a handful of people decided the political fate of the City.

By contrast, in the blogosphere, The League of Pissed off Voters (via tweet), SF Appeal, and SFist all noted the pathetic voter turnout in Tuesday’s election – which is the story of the election of 2011.

Chris Roberts at SFAppeal notes: “In other words, 112,275 voters — or less than 25 percent of the electorate — decided who became mayor of San Francisco. And of them, 68,721 — or about 14 percent of the electorate, and about eight percent of the citizenry — actually voted for Mayor Ed Lee.”

The absence of coverage of this single most important issue of the election by The Chronicle, The SF Bay Guardian and the newly minted Bay Citizen are exactly what I have been talking about this year. The reporters and editors of these papers are participating in a cliquish civic theater instead of reporting on the needs, thoughts and desires of residents of our City.

They are engaged in stroking a few candidates and ridiculing anyone who thinks outside the box. They lack courage, conviction and objectivity and cover elections so they can be near the winners and get invited to the party.

They not only avoid discussing the absurdly low numbers of voters who decided matters, they proceed to define them as the “voters of San Francisco” and to attribute this ridiculously small number of citizens in our town with the general opinion of San Franciscans.

In the Bay Guardian, Steven T. Jones spends a long column discussing the makeup of “SF voters” – with no mention of the fact that they were not even a third of those eligible to vote! He dares to title the piece San Francisco’s Political Spectrum: a primer – What balls!

The Bay Citizen, however, is the worst and with the furthest reach. The Bay Citizen purchased an arrangement whereby select pieces appear in print in the New York Times’ Bay Area editions. The Editors chose to publish a piece by two of their writers that claim that this election “Signals Shift to the Right” in San Francisco! With no mention of the lowest turnout ever! Again, what balls!

These aren’t journalists, they’re mediators.

This was a horrible election because wealthy vested interests manipulated millions of dollars to ensure a handful of viable choices would appear to wrestle for power, while Ed Lee was basically ratified in a confirmation election.

The Chron and The Bay Citizen snd The SF Bay Guardian show their true colors even as the Occupy Movement tells the real story of the disenfranchised. Pathetic.

Blame the media – do it. We’d never have such pathetic candidates if instead of gravy-training reporters at the Chron, SFBG and Bay Citizen, we had real reporters and caring journalists.

Posted by Karthik Rajan on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 1:18 pm

Whoa, so much for the love fest. I understand your basic point, KR, but many of your facts are simply wrong. This was not a record low turnout, even for a mayoral election. The turnout was about 40 percent, compared to 36 percent in that mayoral election of 2007. I agree with you that is still appallingly low, but I'd disagree with you that it is the story of this election. Less than half of the registered voters have cast ballots in just about every election since 1999. Frankly, I think there are serious problems with electoral politics in this country, as I written about countless times over the last 20 years, and that contributes to voter apathy. But it's not exactly big news that it is the people who choose to vote who elect our leaders, and I don't think it's a fair characterization to call 190,000 people who voted in this election "a handful." Of those, more than 80,000 listed Ed Lee in their top three choices -- again, an awfully large handful of "insiders" that we're supposedly mediating. Finally, my post described the politics of 94 percent of the electorate (those who voted and those who didn't), not less than a third. I think understanding the politics of those who choose to participate in the system is far more important than whining about those who don't or engaging in silly math tricks designed to delegitimize the election. As for your Occupy point, we've been covering that movement for longer and with greater frequency and empathy than any newspaper in the country, so again, get your facts straight because that will improve the quality of your rants.  

Posted by steven on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

The world just keeps letting you down.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 3:10 am

You're leaving out one of the central issues that defines local politics, especially in SF: attitudes toward development. What has me feeling alienated by SF 'progressives' is the opposition to almost all market rate residential and commercial development. I love a progressive tax system, inclusionary zoning, and a big public sector. But a law against tearing down buildings with more than fifty units? So idiotic.

More market rate housing (rental and condos) will help lower housing costs for everyone. The progressives' refusal to acknowledge that fact, more than anything else, is why I can't identify as one.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

We definitely need to put new construction under rent control.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 4:07 pm

But how will no-build bring down the cost of housing?

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

Ha ha ha. I'd love to see them stop building because of rent control.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

And build more owner-occupied hosuing which more be worth more because there would be fewer rentals.

Which in turn would increase the Ellis Act evictions to create TIC's.

You haven't thoight this thru, have you?

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 5:14 pm

Speaking of not thinking this through....

"With condo prices set at US500,000 to US$2,000,000, many critics have noted that the One Rincon Hill complex is too expensive for most San Franciscans"

rincon tower wikipedia

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 5:47 pm

If condo developers would reveal their ownership structure and rate of return publicly I think they would garner more support. Either that or their expense for personal security would greatly increase. Often these development companies are closely held and could easily have just a handful of owners, or even just one owner.

From the Rincon Tower wiki page the only estimate you can make is the developer (s) are tripling their money. With $290 million invested someone might be making $870,000,000 on that condo building. The is one super duper hell of a lot of money get it?

So why not rent control????

And the fact that the developer could throw in another $38.5 million to the South of Market Community Stabilization Fund, another 13.3%, to sweeten the deal for the city only makes me suspect the return was enormous.

For comparison, Bank of America is offering a generous .45% interest on their CDs. My poor retired mother.

(2,000,000 + 500,000)/2 = 1,250,000 avg price per unit.

avg cost per unit
290 000 000 / 709 = 409 026.798

1,250,000/409,000 = 3.05623472

The investor put up $290 million and tripled that. 300%.

Wonder why developers contribute so much money to election campaigns?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 6:13 pm

$580 million profit for Rincon Hill developer?

Put in that perspective rent control not so unreasonable?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 6:23 pm

The stupid, corrupt, corporate development agenda that you describe has a lot to do with where Ed Lee got the blood money to win his election, is destroying and gentrifying this this city, as well as poisoning and killing people in the Bayview, and evicting people in Parkmerced and elsewhere, forcing thousands to leave San Francisco.

So you'll have to pardon progressives, the local working class, and neighborhood groups who want to retain San Francisco's historic beauty, for fighting off your efforts to completely fuck over San Francisco and turn it into a strip mall so that you can get rich.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

I'll leave it to the rest of you detail oriented folks to argue and tell me that I'm full of shit but:- in all the reading that I have done I'm left with the following conclusions,eg.
In Denmark everyone, including 'corporations' pays their fair share of taxes.
The tax rate on 'income' is around 50%. Does that seem 'high'?.
Denmark is consistently rated in the top 3 of countries where people are 'happy' and have time to enjoy their lives, families, etc.
They don't have to worry about health care, housing, education, unemployment, re-training, aging and retirement, etc.
Just a 2c observation from a simple man.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 4:03 pm

their taxes are too high. Maybe it's the Carlsberg.

I read recently that the happiest people in the US are in low-tax Wyoming.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 4:56 pm

But I disagree, Carlsberg is about the same as Bud Light, tasteless. For a real beer check out Brother Theolonious, but you gotta love deep, rich, dark, brew, a manly beer; not a pussy Pilsner.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

Ooops Steve, I spoke to soon. Still a few many to many fatuous hagfish trolls blowing off. Back to basically focusing on vinyl, youtube, and musical reality for a while. Hasta la que carajo.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 6:03 pm

Why didn't progressives expand the coalition to include liberals?

The answer was that liberals would call shenanigans on the worst excesses of labor and the nonprofits. Thus the call was made to protect the transfer payments rather than grow and sustain the coalition. 19% of the electorate was entered into a suicide pact where it was only us who were to perish for now.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 8:28 am

Marc, you make a great point in that piece about how some sects of the progressive coalition have excluded potential voters. We should really all be sitting down and analyzing the newest census data, as well as other employment trends data, and asking ourselves, who among these new residents is likely to share many of our progressive values, and how do we make sure they're informed enough to know it?

I see the influx of tech workers as an opportunity. This won't be as radical a group as the progressive base, but it may still be a potent force in curbing the neoliberal/"moderate" movement.

Posted by SR on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 6:17 pm