Fletcher Floundering, Alvarez Ascending, and Other Tales of Fear and Loathing from the Campaign Trail

by on November 11, 2013 · 17 comments

in Columns, Economy, Editor's Picks, Government, Politics, Under the Perfect Sun, Voter Guide Special Election

By Jim Miller

alvarez jim 1This just in: it appears that Nathan Fletcher’s claims of inevitability have evaporated as the race to meet Kevin Faulconer in the run off is a dead heat leaning Alvarez heading into the last week. The internal polling in all three camps shows Faulconer having consolidated the Republican vote as Fletcher’s early name ID-fueled lead has collapsed, and Alvarez has continued to steadily trend upwards.

More specifically, the most recent numbers from the AFT tracking poll over the weekend have Faulconer at 37.2%, Alvarez at 21.7%, and Fletcher trailing but still barely within the margin of error at 16.3%. Mike Aguirre has 2.5% and a big 20.5 % are still undecided. Hence the trend we are seeing is one of Alvarez slowly tracking up and Fletcher sinking like a lead weight.

Those who follow politics closely know that the trend line is what matters most at this point in a campaign and this bodes well for Alvarez. Also of note is the fact that the large pool of undecided voters tends to be younger and more liberal and will most likely break toward Alvarez if they show up. Here’s the bottom line: this election will come down to who can get the vote out and the best ground game will win. Whether or not you show up really matters.

When Neighborhood Markets (Funded by Jacobs and Friends) Attack!

Surely, it’s numbers like these that have Team Fletcher rapidly transforming into Team Freak-Out as they toss his pious pledge of civility into the dustbin of history. Thus the Neighborhood Markets Association funded by the Jacobs, Plumbers, and Laborers committee, “Restoring Trust in San Diego,” are ending the primary with a blitzkrieg of attack mailers against Alvarez.

The first of these mailers directly mimics those of the Teachers’ that portray Fletcher as the definition of “opportunism” by calling Alvarez the definition of “inexperience.” This despite the fact that Alvarez has more experience in San Diego city politics than Fletcher, who has none and who is in his thirties just as Alvarez is.

Predictably, the plutocrats, proletarians, and corner shop crew also stick to the bamboozle and divide doublethink strategy used by Fletcher supporters on labor and environmental issues by trying to portray Fletcher as both bipartisan AND as someone who will stand up to big business and Republicans.

In a particularly perverse twist, the mailer also states that Alvarez has “pitted neighbor against neighbor” in Barrio Logan by helping to craft the Barrio Logan plan that the community overwhelmingly supports.

The second and third attack mailers continue this theme, making use of quotes from folks like Rachael Ortiz to show how Alvarez has “let us down.” Aside from clearly trying to mark Alvarez as a “south of 8” guy to the rest of San Diego, the use of Ortiz, who as Doug Porter has noted is a “proxy for Fletcher supporter Ben Hueso,” is a clear indication that these attacks are more about San Diego machine politics than any real rift in the community.

As Porter points out, “Ben Hueso [is] now ensconced in the State Senate and [is a] long-time political enemy of the mayoral candidate” [who beat his brother in a city council race]. His run for that seat was part of the seemingly choreographed shuffle following Congressman Bob Filner’s decision to run for Mayor.  Juan Vargas moved from Sacramento to take Filner’s spot, Hueso moved from Assembly to State Senate and Lorena Gonzalez moved from the Labor Council into the State Assembly [Gonzalez was a key Felipe Hueso backer in his failed run against Alvarez].”

But without this troublesome context, the mailers would lead the naïve reader to believe that the Anglo savior in waiting (who has no plan for Barrio Logan at all and probably has trouble finding it without a GPS device) would jump in and save the day if only his upstart Latino challenger would get out of the way.

Thus, the attitude in these mailers fits perfectly with the gaffe Fletcher made in a recent debate where he told Alvarez, “I want to help David become the first Latino mayor of San Diego. I’m hoping to keep the seat warm for him. …He can run next.”

When Alvarez responded that “wait your turn” or “It’s not your turn” were exactly the kinds of attitudes holding Latinos back in society, Fletcher quickly said that he “didn’t mean it that way.”

Apparently, however, his supporters do.

Despite their sentiment, if the current tracking polls are accurate, it just may be the six month-old Democrat and his friends in high places who’ll have to take a time out. We’ll all know in eight days.

Plutocrats and Populists in Paradise?

alvarez jim 2In the San Diego media landscape deeply influenced by the likes of “Papa” Doug Manchester and the Jacobs, there is not much discussion about class and power in local politics. Indeed such talk is frequently greeted as a kind of alien virus sent to our beatific shores to rudely harsh our mellow, a malaise brought to us by mean-spirited, bomb-throwing conspiracy theorists who just don’t get the groovy place that is America’s Finest City. Here in paradise, there is no such thing as a Democratic or Republican pothole, no less a rich or poor one. We don’t like to talk about moneyed interests in the place where happy happens; we just go surf together and have a “real conversation” afterwards.

Such is not the case everywhere, however. Indeed last week in the wake of a series of important national elections, there was some noteworthy discussion of this uncomfortable economic fact of American life by Robert Reich who weighed in on the plutocratic tilt of our national political landscape via social media with this:

Pundits who are already describing the victories of Terry McAuliffe in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey as a “return to the center” of American politics are confusing the “center” with big business and Wall Street. A few decades ago McAuliffe would be viewed as a right-wing Democrat and Christie as a right-wing Republican; both garnered their major support from corporate America, and both will reliably govern as fiscal conservatives who won’t raise taxes on the wealthy. They look moderate only by contrast with the Tea Partiers to their extreme right.

The biggest game-changer, though, is Bill de Blasio, the mayor-elect of New York City, who campaigned against the corporatist legacy of Michael Bloomberg — promising to raise taxes on the wealthy and use the revenues for pre-school and after-school programs for the children of New York’s burdened middle class and poor.

Those who dismiss his victory as an aberration confined to New York are overlooking three big new things: First, the new demographic reality of America gives every swing state at least one large city whose inhabitants resemble those of New York. Second, he won notwithstanding New York’s position as the epicenter of big business and Wall Street, whose money couldn’t stop him. Third, Americans are catching on to the scourge of the nation’s raging inequality, and its baleful consequences for our economy and democracy.

During the campaign, I had also commented on the significance of de Blasio’s candidacy both nationally and here in San Diego noting that de Blasio’s likely victory showed a lot about the growing divide over class and economics inside the Democratic Party. Recently The American Prospect entered this debate observing that what divides the Democrats today is “economics: Cory Booker’s Wall Street liberalism versus Bill de Blasio’s anti-corporate populism.”

Tom Hayden also commented on the significance of New York City’s mayoral election in The Guardian observing that de Blasio’s win was “the harbinger of a new populist left in America.” Specifically, Hayden believes that de Blasio won big because he campaigned on issues “considered too polarizing for winning politics” like the inequalities told in New York’s “tale of two cities” and the police harassment of young men of color.

What the de Blasio win does for America, Hayden argues, is open up a space for progressive policy on a national platform:

With American politics polarized between the Obama center and the thriving Tea Party, the only opening for the left is through state and local federalism serving as “laboratories of reform”, to paraphrase former Justice Louis Brandeis. After the Gilded Age and the Great Crash of the 1920s, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia (1934-47) and legislators like Robert Wagner created the first pillars of the New Deal before it become the national platform of the Democrats. They successfully fought not only Wall Street bankers, but a virulent and racist American right . . . De Blasio is positioned to similarly shift the nation’s dialogue, policies and priorities in a progressive direction

Let’s hope he’s right.

Il Quarto Stato by Giuseppe Pellizza da Volpedo, 1901

Il Quarto Stato by Giuseppe Pellizza da Volpedo, 1901

Continuing on the subject of plutocracy versus populism, the Sunday before the big de Blasio win, the New York Times ran a cover piece in the Sunday Review entitled “Plutocrats Versus Populists” where Chrystia Freeland makes the case that we may be at a place politically in America where plutocracy has found its limits as the Tea Party populists on the right and progressive populists on the left threaten the plutocrats’ grip on political power.

Interestingly, Freeland argues that despite the fact that, “Democratic and Republican politicians are more likely to agree with the views of their wealthier constituents and to listen to them than they are to those lower down the income scale,” those politicians may find it difficult to maintain power because the policies they are enacting have “yet to come up with a fully convincing answer to the question of how you harness the power of the technology revolution and globalization without hollowing out middle-class jobs.”

Thus both plutocrats like the Koch brothers who make use of “political lobbying strictly focused on the defense or expansion of their economic interests” and the more moderate “philanthrocapitalists” like Bill Gates whose form of “plutocratic political power offers the tantalizing possibility of policy practiced at the highest professional level with none of the messiness and deal making and venality of traditional politics” may eventually be forced to negotiate with “bottom up politics” or lose to the populists.

While I don’t share Freeland’s optimism that the more moderate wing of plutocracy offer us technocrats who are “smart centrists with clever, fact-based policies designed to fine tune 21st century capitalism and make it work for everyone,” her distinction between the two camps of plutocrats is a useful one for understanding our local politics.

The Plutocrats’ Triple Threat

You can see the first variety of plutocratic politics clearly in the way the local corporate community responded during Filner’s battle with the hoteliers, subsequent disputes over the Barrio Logan plan, and last week’s vote to impose a “development fee” that would help subsidize affordable housing.

In all three incidents, whether our disgraced former mayor was involved or not, the response of the local power elite to very reasonable policies designed to serve the greater public good rather than the narrow interests of the powerful was full scale political war. In the case of the Barrio Logan plan and the redevelopment fee the corporate crowd struck back with one well-funded referendum effort and the threat of another after losing the votes.

The message here is clear: cross us and we’ll use our economic power to go around the City Council. It’s precisely the kind of intimidation that Walmart used to force the Council to say uncle during the fight over a proposed economic impact study for big box stores. This is clearly plutocratic political muscle being flexed in the service of “defending or expanding economic power,” plain and simple. If we were back in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Knights of Labor would call it, “wealth versus commonwealth.”

If you want this kind of plutocratic rule, Kevin Faulconer is your man: friend of business rather than the barrio, the main man of the House of Manchester set who will fight any effort to constrain the power of San Diego’s elite.

As for the second kind of plutocratic politician, enter Nathan Fletcher, the point man of San Diego’s manifestation of “philanthrocapitalism,” Jacobs-style. While Fletcher will never stand up for Barrio Logan, he will “have a real conversation” about coming up with a more politically expedient solution that won’t offend the plutocrats. And all his talk of “getting people together” is free of the bothersome conflict that comes with a thoroughgoing progressive populism.

technocratIn short, Fletcher is the handsome smiling face of the newly converted socially moderate though still thoroughly establishment “philanthrocapitalism,” complete with a vague technocratic solution for everything. He claims to be able to “gets things done” though we just aren’t sure yet what those things will actually be. What we can be assured of, however, is that those amorphous “things” really won’t ever disturb the Chamber of Commerce. He is “moderate” in precisely the same way Reich describes Christie and McAuliffe.

And finally, you have David Alvarez, the only serious candidate for mayor not supported by a local wing of San Diego’s plutocracy. Alvarez comes from humble origins and still lives in a blue-collar community. And he doesn’t just talk the talk; he walks the walk. He knows the “tale of two cities” from the inside out and wants to unite us.

Alvarez is the only person running for mayor who has stood with Barrio Logan against the industries that want to run rough-shod over their community, the only one who stood outside City Hall with working class folks before the Council vote on the redevelopment fee and said, “Unfortunately, and just like we’ve seen over the past several years, the usual crowd of Downtown special interests are trying to get in the way of supporting working families.”

That’s not plutocracy speaking, that’s a man speaking the truth to power. Alvarez is the only truly progressive Democrat in the race for San Diego mayor. If we elect him, we’ll have our own game changer right here in San Diego. Yes, it can happen here too.

avatar

Jim Miller

Jim Miller, a professor at San Diego City College, is the co-author of Under the Perfect Sun: The San Diego Tourists Never See and Better to Reign in Hell, and author of the novel Drift. His most recent novel on the San Diego free speech fights and the IWW, Flash, is on AK Press.
avatar

{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar bob dorn November 11, 2013 at 7:58 am

There’s no question that a larger, functioning and sometimes even enthusiastic left/middle has come to exist in San Diego. True Democrats sit on the council and are part of a majority. They elected a mayor, and showed up for the TMD battle, and the neighborhood groups have altered the council’s harborside exclusivity.
The plutocracy will have to spend more campaign cash and enlist its leading voices, the Manlychester U-T and Clear Channel radio and Channel 10 (along with their fainthearted local CBS and NBC sisters and brothers) in restoring the faux decorum. They might succeed for a while. As in:
“The message here is clear: cross us and we’ll use our economic power to go around the City Council.”
But that will be an all too-transparent exercise of raw power obvious to a better educated middle. What’s missing from the plutocrats’ understanding is a recognition of that educated middle in combination with a newly active left. San Diego has become an an interesting place, and it’s tough to get back to boring and predictable from this point we’ve reached.

Reply

avatar Dana Levy November 11, 2013 at 9:19 am

It still surprises me that you can compare (and push your agenda on your readers as if it is and must be true) Manchester to Jacobs. The two are not similar in any manner except having a boatload of money, which is not a crime or even a reason to expect larceny or deceit from Jacobs (all the while well earned by Manchester, as his misdeeds are legend) . Then, to use innuendo by association that Fletcher is in anyway related to the dirty deeds of Manchester is a cheap way to try to prove your point. Then, to quote an AFT (totally biased and endorses Alvarez on signs and mailers) poll as if it wasn’t slanted towards your own desired outcome is bad reporting. Then, to slight the Plumbers Union and the Laborers Union as if they don’t actually represent thousands of normal everyday hard working people is even a low descent towards disparaging a difference of opinion into the political clap trap model you create.

Lastly, the overuse of the term “plutocrat” and ascribing that term to demean Fletcher is in no way accurate of his positions about how to fix San Diego or personally that being poor must be some sort of commendable badge that must make someone more that worthy to serve the interests of the rest of the poor or almost poor (a real slur on the population of Barrio Logan and its surroundings). If I remember correctly, JFK and family had plenty of money and power and still championed the ideals that were meant to raise the hopes and lives of the multitudes of all colors and all financial standing. Your article, although overly long and not easy from which to glean any real factual information, contains enough name calling and negative evasive non- truth telling that it merits only a cursory perusal glance and then dismissal as just another unsolicited hit piece of the political bent that comes in the mail everyday now. I do think that given a lot of time and work that Alvarez might grow into a credible candidate in the future to lead the entire city but he has lots of growing and experiencing to do before he will be ready for the heat and tribulations that come with the job. One can already get a glimpse of what not being ready can create in the short run 0f Todd Gloria as acting mayor. He is in way over his head and makes so many mistakes that it is trying our political patience to have to wait out the two elections before he will be replaced. Let’s not make that same mistake again.

Reply

avatar bob dorn November 11, 2013 at 10:52 am

Dang, Dana, you have to try to envision a world without FletcherNathan.
Also, it probably would be a good idea to find some forum “free of name calling and negative evasive non- truth telling.” If I were so unhappy with the SD Freep (“overly long and not easy from which to glean any real factual information”) I’d enter a monastery, or join the Republican Party, or maybe even read Manlychester’s newsletter.

Reply

avatar Dana Levy November 11, 2013 at 7:09 pm

I can envision a lot of stuff both with and without Fletcher (don’t know why you think it is so cute/cool to call him Fletcher Nation). He just happens to be my choice for mayor. If you can only subscribe to name calling and label assigning you are not much better than O’Reilly and Co., to which you fain displeasure. It is the San Diego FREE Press not the “have it only like I like it Bob Dorn press”, and apparently you don’t know the reason monastery’s exist. And, what does joining the Republican Party have to do with my support of Fletcher, a Democrat. Oh, he doesn’t fit your mold of what a Democrat must be! Are you the final judge as to who can actually be a Democrat? Or just because my union and I think Fletcher can do a superior job of continuing the progress started by Filner, you feel a great need to denigrate anyone of a different viewpoint from your myopic one. Lastly, again Manchester is the agreed upon major problem in San Diego, what with all his control of so much of the local news media, but why would you wish me to read his so called newsletter? Do you have an inside track to him and his thinking? I do just fine reading the SDFP and OB Rag and get enough other information from the airways on MSNBC and even CNN from time to time, that your digs don’t even make sense except to take cheap shots at someo0ne who is passionate about politics in MY hometown since 1946. Time will tell who will be best to beat that louse Faulconer and your derisive potshots won’t make any difference other than to again deminish your perceived stature in this venue.

Reply

avatar bob dorn November 12, 2013 at 9:18 am

Thank you for responses. Unfortunately, we here at the Have it only like I like it Bob Dorn Press cannot answer every enquiry readers send us. If you feel you’ve received this response mistakenly, ask for our ego-booster special, in which we will send you congratulatory notes every day encouraging you to vote for FletcherNathan. (Please note: some people are making the mistake of calling the candidate Fletcher Nation. He is not yet that successful.)

Reply

avatar Bruce Coons November 11, 2013 at 10:54 am

Having seen it first hand in ugly detail, Jacobs style is not in any way moderate.

Reply

avatar bob dorn November 11, 2013 at 2:23 pm

I’d say a lot of people would like to hear more from you, hero of Plaza de Panama.

Reply

avatar Dana Levy November 11, 2013 at 7:17 pm

Why would you think his (or anyone else’s should be) style would be moderate? I assume he was passionate about what he thought was the best resolution to his perception of the problem and he went for it. If not agreeing with you is a paramount “must have” to be allowed an opinion as to a solution to a problem we would never make progress. Now Manchester, and his one sided efforts to be a “gay basher” and “news slanter”, is a different question. But I can’t see how you can lump the two together as bad for San Diego and my point was, and is, that they are not similar except to be rich. No crime there. Jacobs does contribute to the health and welfare of our citizens and Manchester does not.

Reply

avatar Bruce Coons November 11, 2013 at 9:43 pm

Not that different, Jacobs does not care how he attains his ends, manipulating the process in every way way he can including elections, school boards, buying people and organizations, getting ethical people fired and threatening those that don’t agree with him for starters. He does not care for others who do not agree with him, even when it is most of San Diego. His is the very definition of what this article is talking about. It is true that some of the things he does are beneficial to others, heaven forbid when they are not.

Reply

avatar Frances O'Neill Zimmerman November 11, 2013 at 2:55 pm

Thanks to Jim Miller for this entirely accurate exposition of the powers-that-be in the San Diego special election mayoral race. Everyone who is registered needs to get out to vote by Tuesday November 19th.

Personally, I am taking heart in the excellent chances for our native son David Alvarez to become our next mayor. While the election of Bill De Blasio in NYC may be a harbinger for positive change in San Diego’s City Hall — despite the clash of titan$ Jacob$ and Manche$ter and their dependent boys FletcherNathan and Kevin Faulconer — I think Boston ‘s mayoral election of Marty Walsh bears a greater resemblance to the candidacy of David Alvarez.

Like Walsh, Alvarez is a public servant, self-starting, hard-working, tested by life, supported by Labor, and what in Boston is considered the highest praise — an honest “regular” person. David Alvarez will be good for what ails us.

Reply

avatar Dana Levy November 11, 2013 at 7:40 pm

What does home grown have to do with anything? The elections in New York have nothing to do with any aspect of what happens in San Diego. Both are separate and unique. Marty Walsh wouldn’t fit in San Diego either because he hails from a pro union, pro labor town that in no way resembles San Diego (not to mention the Irish dominance in that town). What San Diego needs is a more moderate person who can deal with a both sides of the coin and lead from the front and deal with all the many facets of citizenry and neighborhoods of the entire city. We have had Sanders and Murphy types leading for so long that it will take a person with Filner like qualities to keep us headed in the right direction again. I believe that Alvarez has neither the experience or guts to take on the power people and do what is right (just as Gloria has shown to be too weak to be a leader). Fletcher will not shrink from the task (as his backers who have his ear are quite passionate about what needs to be done) and Faulconer is a business as usual maven regardless of what he says in print or says out loud. And again, Alvarez only has limited support from organized labor and he doesn’t have the qualifications needed to be a Walsh or other type labor leader. Your are apparently mixing up your zeal for relief from the Republican lead religious based ignorant tyranny found in the rest of the country with your desire for Alvarez to be the next progressive political starlet on the West coast. Villaraigosa he is not and no where close.

Reply

avatar Frances O'Neill Zimmerman November 11, 2013 at 3:01 pm

I would also like to see the SD Free Press put up a different piece of art on Jim Miller’s positive piece on Democrat David Alvarez’s excellent chances to become Mayor of San Diego.
Try the excellent mailer put out by our local American Federation of Teachers in support of David Alvarez.

Reply

avatar Doug Porter November 11, 2013 at 3:45 pm

The artwork accompanying the article was requested by the author.

Reply

avatar Alice West November 11, 2013 at 8:35 pm

“what divides the Democrats today is “economics ” ~ Enter Elizabeth Warren v Clinton Dynasty 2016

“Hence the trend we are seeing is one of Alvarez slowly tracking up and Fletcher sinking like a lead weight.” ~ To Team David: tip of the Trilby hat. Well done.

To Team Fletcher: Ba.Bye.

Reply

avatar Elisa Brent November 11, 2013 at 10:39 pm

I do not know where those poll numbers came from or specifically what questions were being asked but MIKE AGUIRRE is gaining tremendous support. Those undecideds must be the pollsters way of trying to kick Mike down. Mike Aguirre is in it to win it, period.

Reply

avatar Bruce Coons November 12, 2013 at 6:43 pm

For anyone thinking of voting for Nathan, I just returned today from an appeal hearing in the Plaza de Panama MOU case. Jacobs is definitely planning to revive the Paid Parking, Bypass Bridge project for Balboa Park. A vote for Nathan is a vote for this project. Vote for David Alvarez!

Reply

avatar Dana Levy November 13, 2013 at 7:12 am

I already thought long and hard and voted for the best Democratic candidate Nathan Fletcher. Your reference by association that Jacobs has the power to push the plan through still, and thinking that Fletcher will roll over on the Balboa Park plan, is unfounded and patently false. If you went to the hearing what was the outcome? Did the judge roll over too as you suggest everyone else will? Did you make a lot of money representing your side? Are you just a one trick pony? Are you expressing sour grapes? It will be up to the city council to decide what to do and it must pass the council first and finally. The Dems have a majority on the council and if they actually act as Democrats (which isn’t always a lock) it will not pass ever again. The days of the Jacobs plan are over and it doesn’t have a prayer. But, you may be touting your candidate as you seem to want and/or have great sway with him to push YOUR agenda, no matter what. I suggest a thoughtful and pragmatic casting of one’s ballot in that the worst thing that could happen is to have Alvarez get swamped in the runoff election and then it is back to the good old days with Faulconer at the helm. Choose wisely and watch out for the results that we never could want or need!

Reply

Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: