They want you to glare at the union worker asking for a cookie while they walk away with the whole jar.
By Jim Miller
Last week over at the SD Rostra they posted an interesting commentary entitled “Electing Kevin Faulconer: Make a Clear Distinction on Fiscal Conservatism” that outlined the path to a Republican victory. While not particularly surprising, the strategy suggested there is revealing in some important ways.
What, according to our friends on the right, needs to be done?
First of all, it appears that the early polling has awakened them to the fact that the guy who the Lincoln Club yearned to face is “a serious candidate” who should “not be taken lightly” despite the fact that he is “a sycophant for the same people (labor unions and progressive activists in the Democratic party) who gave us Bob Filner.” Thus, the theory goes, a GOTV effort needs to make use of Jerry Sanders and Carl DeMaio to appeal to Democrats who voted for pension reform.
The message, according to the Faulconer folks, should be as follows:
- Faulconer helped San Diego recover from the Murphy era–he puts pragmatism over party.
- Faulconer was a key ally in the reform agenda which the voters approved.
- The same people who backed Filner are trying to defeat the reform agenda with a surrogate candidate (Alvarez).
- San Diego can’t afford to go back to the union-influenced ways of the last century.
Interestingly, you’ll note that none of this has to do with “neighborhoods” and the non- partisan potholes that Faulconer championed fixing in the primary and everything to do with the tried and true message that unions are the root of all things evil in San Diego and the world in general.
On this point, the folks at SD Rostra are careful to note that it would be a bad idea to even attack Alvarez himself because “attacking Alvarez, as a person, is a losing proposition. Attacking the people behind Alvarez is fair game, however. Alvarez is a bright young man who has a life experience which has been limited to the public sector union-controlled world, while Faulconer is a more well-rounded, experienced leader.”
What will the evil folks in the “union-controlled world” do to poor Kevin? They might, it appears to the Faulconer crowd, stoop to calling him out as a conservative: “The labor unions are going to try to paint Faulconer as a ‘tea party candidate.’” This, however, is “not necessarily a negative. Faulconer shouldn’t shy from speaking with conservative groups to explain why their support is the key to winning this election. Voters are looking for some distinction between these two candidates and, in my mind, Alvarez and Faulconer have much different world views on governance. Faulconer should make the clear distinction that his fiscally conservative record and a fiscally conservative vision is the right path to prosperity in San Diego.”
While none of this should shock anyone, what is centrally important to underline about it is that the entire strategy relies on tossing the actual history of San Diego down the memory hole and trying to sell enough gullible Democrats a version of San Diego based on doublethink and conservative mythology to win it for the Republican. Specifically, team Faulconer wants to:
- Present Faulconer as a pragmatist who is above party ideology to the rubes while assuring the conservative base that he is a solid conservative Republican who will toe the party line in all cases.
- Talk of caring about “all San Diegans” while aggressively union bashing and blaming all the city’s problems on workers and their unions who might stand in the way of the agenda of the downtown insiders. If only the rest of San Diego history can be transformed into one big Proposition B campaign, all our troubles are over.
- Appropriate the “Neighborhoods First” agenda (in rhetoric only) that got Filner elected while demonizing the majority of San Diegans that supported it.
- Convince voters that San Diego has been dominated by “union-influenced ways” for the last century rather than the moneyed interests that have served as a shadow government for most of our history.
Of course this last bit of mythology is the key to the whole bamboozle. Anyone who knows even a little about the history of San Diego understands that the suggestion that our city has been run by a union machine is a joke. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth, but the forces behind Faulconer are counting on folks being easily misled.
In “Under the Perfect Sun”, Mike Davis, Kelly Mayhew and I observe that San Diego is a city that “many conservatives extol as a utopia of patriotism and free enterprise.” Indeed it was Nixon’s “lucky city” but, as we note, “San Diego has too frequently been a town wide open to greed but closed to social justice. Like its Sunbelt siblings—Orange County, Phoenix, and Dallas—it has a long history of weak and venal city halls dominated by powerful groups of capitalist insiders. ‘Private Government’ has long overshadowed public politics.”
More recently in “Paradise Plundered: Fiscal Crisis and Governance Failure in San Diego”, Steve Erie, Vladimir Kogan, and Scott MacKenzie similarly illustrate how San Diego’s political and business elite have done a fantastic job of “using public resources to maximize private profit” with little to no oversight from our “shadow governments.”
And that, at base, is what this election is all about: whether we want to hand San Diego back over to the same old “shadow government” that has run things for the city’s entire history or whether we want a city where the doors to city hall are open to all. So, just as the folks at SD Rostra invite you to think about who is backing Alvarez, I suggest voters do the same for Faulconer who was literally anointed at a backroom meeting featuring Doug Manchester, the Chamber of Commerce crew, and a host of other conservative moneyed interests.
Thus when Faulconer talks about neighborhoods, know he’s not thinking about yours. When he says “reform,” think about outsourcing city services to moneyed special interests. If he talks about jobs, imagine a taxpayer-subsidized Charger stadium and big giveaways to developers, hoteliers, with an accompanying race to the bottom for local workers. When Faulconer talks about “integrity” remember how he is shamelessly supporting the malicious efforts of the maritime industry to roll over a working class community of color. Think back room deals for the downtown insiders and America’s Finest Tourist Plantation for the rest of us.
That’s why the forces behind the curtain promoting Faulconer want to scare up as much anti-union hysteria as possible—it’s a bait and switch.
They want you to glare at the union worker asking for a cookie while they walk away with the whole jar. Follow the money, dear reader, and you be the judge.
Jim Miller
Latest posts by Jim Miller (see all)
- The San Diego Free Press Was a Gift - December 10, 2018
- Democracy Unchained: How to Win the Future - December 3, 2018
- Oligarchy Sucks: Billionaires Are Undermining Our Democracy and Killing the Planet - November 26, 2018
Thanks for the counterpoint view. A few thoughts:
1- Your friends on the right (of which, I count myself) value individuals. To that point, the ideas offered in my article are solely mine. Many Republicans disagree with the ideas I offered (as you’ll see in the comments attached to that article).
2- I have thought Alvarez was a very serious candidate. While many of your friends on the right were rejoicing that Fletcher was losing, I was trying to get them focused on the real candidate. I’ve always thought Alvarez mirrored the heart and soul of the local Dem party’s volunteers and activists (with which I disagree)
3- I’ve always thought Alvarez to be an honest and decent man…who is VERY inexperienced and has limited (if any) exposure to the real (private) economy. That’s a tough sell in an environment where those of us in the real economy are getting destroyed by a community organizer’s centrally-planned, health insurance scheme. The real economy operates a little differently from the theoretical classroom economy and I don’t see Alvarez deviating from that (the linkage fee is a good example of that).
4- The fact that Alvarez is backed by the same individuals who backed Filner, and endorsed him knowing of his sickness, is fact. One only needs to look at my exchanges with Lori Saldaña, these past 4-5 months, to see that. This alone should question their judgement.
5- You bring up an excellent point about downtown crony capitalist types. Like the unions, I guess they have to have a horse in the race as well. Frankly, I’m sick of both those anti-capitalists (unions and cronies)…but y’all know that here.
In conclusion, San Diegans have a choice between two honorable people. Both of those men would govern differently than I might like but Faulconer is closer to my world view (government should be limited to core functions). The good news for San Diego is this— because both candidates are honorable people, this election will be about values and governing ideology. That’s a win for San Diego no matter which candidate advances to City Hall.
I think who leads San Diego, for the next 3-7 years matters. While I think Faulconer is a much more qualified candidate, you won’t see me crying if it’s Alvarez. Character matters in this election and both men have it
You mean the “centrally-planned, health insurance scheme” devised entirely by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation and implemented in its entirety by the Republican nominee for President in 2012? That “centrally-planned insurance scheme” that is based entirely on private insurance companies, with not even a whiff of the public option that the majority of Democrats desperately wanted?
Tell me, Brian: Why do you hate the Heritage Foundation and Republican politics so much?
Oh, and by the way: Don’t let good rhetoric get in the way of, you know, FACTS. Our economy isn’t being destroyed by “Obamacare.” Far from it. The overwhelming majority of U.S. businesses are unaffected by the Affordable Care Act. Rather, it’s Republican politics and obstructionism, and an illogical, overzealous reverence for trickle-down economics that is destroying our economy.
FACT: Budget deficits go UP during Republican administrations, and DOWN during Democratic administrations.
FACT: George W. Bush oversaw the largest explosion of our national debt and deficit in this nation’s entire history, despite GOP attempts to put it all on your “community organizer.”
FACT: It was Ronald Reagan that made deficit spending the normal way of doing business for the U.S. government.
FACT: It was Dick Cheney that said “Deficits don’t matter,” and yet it’s Republicans who, upon the election of a black Democrat as POTUS, suddenly decided that deficits were the ONLY thing that mattered. This despite Republican economic policies over the last three decades that have explicitly put the American economy at a decided disadvantage in the global economy.
FACT: It was Republican leadership and Republican policies and Republican backing that put the City of San Diego behind the eight ball economically in the first place; that has led to record low levels of service and a struggling, underfunded and overburdened school system; and it is Democratic policies that have begun to dig us out of it.
You can sell us your version of a private economic utopia all you want, but your version of economic “success” only happens under the circumstance of perfect competition, which does not exist in the real world, and never will.
And if by “anti-capitalists” in reference to the unions you mean people who demand economic fairness and a decent wage and standard of living for their members instead of an “I’ve got mine and screw all the rest of you” economy, then thanks, but I’ll be siding with the “anti-capitalists” every. single. time. We’ve seen all too well how your version has worked out. Our version worked pretty well for decades in the post WWII era, so maybe it’s time to give it another shot.
You write: “The fact that Alvarez is backed by the same individuals who backed Filner, and endorsed him knowing of his sickness, is fact.”
Is this really about bad judgement, or are you just attacking anyone who doesn’t support Faulconer and trying to link Alvarez by association?
Do you have the same opinion/criticism of the many people who endorsed Filner in 2012 and were aware of his bad acts, and then supported Fletcher in the special election primary?
As for this: “One only needs to look at my exchanges with Lori Saldaña, these past 4-5 months, to see that. This alone should question their judgement.”
You are reading much into very little; we’ve had limited “exchanges” on Twitter, or Facebook.
As I’ve said to you and others who have asked me about this: I will provide additional details after the special election, as part of writings I’ve been doing on San Diego politics overall, not just this episode.
“Is this really about bad judgement, or are you just attacking anyone who doesn’t support Faulconer and trying to link Alvarez by association?”
Based on what you revealed last Summer, it’s bad judgement.
” I will provide additional details after the special election, as part of writings I’ve been doing on San Diego politics overall, not just this episode.”
That’s not what you said on July 19, 2013. You said it would take more than 140 characters but you will discuss it shortly. Scott Lewis offered you a forum to publish it.
That was over five months ago, Ms. Saldaña– a whole football season is nearly over. That’s almost 25% of an Assembly member’s term (but you know that)
I can understand that the San Diego County Democratic Party may have asked you to delay this but that delay makes me wonder about the answer even more? Did the SDCDP threaten to withhold your House endorsement if you revealed the extent of your Filner whistle blowing?
The answer matters. The answer speaks to the judgement of the people endorsing any local Democrat.
I’m no PR guy but biting the bullet, while the Filner fiasco was happening, would have made page F48, below the fold in the U-T. Now, it’s front page news
My own self, I think it’s a waste of time to address the general and abstracted questions of capitalism and, in the present case, unionism; very few partisans of either the left and right will change their minds after such a debate. Jim, you haven’t change libertarian Brian on anything, right?
I really believe elections can best function when significant issues are raised, and candidates are forced to reveal their positions on them. What does Kevin Faulconer say about providing the Chargers a new stadium, and what does Kevin Faulconer say about the effort to overthrow City Council’s decision on Barrio Logan’s plan to insulate residents from heavy industrial pollution? These are what might be called major, practical question dividing the two candidates and as such will inform an intelligent voter whom they most agree with.
The problem with Faulconer is that his supporters are most likely to attack his opponent, allowing him to survive on generalized, vaporous promises of putting neighborhoods first and getting city finances into some order. Is he going to put Logan, North Park, City Heights, South Bay or Encanto first? And exactly how is he going to increase the revenue of the city so it can match the demands for services that are put on it by giving money to the Chargers?
And… Brian Brady, where do you stand on devoting city money to a private NFL ownership? And do you think government has an obligation to protect people from the infusion of dangerous chemicals in their neighborhoods?
Ideologies can’t explain everything and are mostly used to confuse.
As usual, good question, Bob.
“I really believe elections can best function when significant issues are raised, and candidates are forced to reveal their positions on them. ”
We agree… again. World view does matter to me because it informs me how a candidate might handle future problems but the current and past issues matter…a lot. The debates can really probe into these current and past issues and every question you offered is fair game.
“The problem with Faulconer is that his supporters are most likely to attack his opponent, allowing him to survive on generalized, vaporous promises of putting neighborhoods first and getting city finances into some order.”
You won’t find that from me. I disagree with Alvarez’ policy prescriptions but I respect the man for who he is.
“where do you stand on devoting city money to a private NFL ownership?”
I think Doug Porter and I agree on this issue: http://sdrostra.com/?p=36738
“And do you think government has an obligation to protect people from the infusion of dangerous chemicals in their neighborhoods?”
Absolutely. I see most, if not all, “environmental” issues, as a property rights violations. Bob, while I love talking about this stuff, I’ll leave it at that because Jim and I started a conversation about the campaign on this post. My personal opinion doesn’t matter–the candidates’ opinions do.
We agree that these candidates should “get into the weeds” on policy debates
So far as these two SuperQuestions reach (the Barrio and Industry, plus Chargers’ stadium), you agree with the positions taken by the left and David Alvarez, Brian. What might get you to change your vote to David Alvarez?
“What might get you to change your vote to David Alvarez?”
That’s another good question, Bob. Those two issues do not a campaign make for me.
I don’t know that Alvarez’ stance on the stadium is solid (I think he could be swayed by the promise of “good union jobs”). I agreed with Filner on the TMD position but he sold that seemingly principled stance for the promise of a union concession.
I also think Alvarez’ position on Barrio Logan is anti-property rights. If the ship yards are indeed poisoning residents, the residents should sue for relief. I don’t know that a “buffer zone”, after the fact, is necessarily the right approach. Watching the Labor Council flip sides makes me think this was a shakedown like Filner’s TMD opposition.
It would be interesting to see one (or both) of the candidates argue each of these positions on principle and divorce the appearance of arguing for special interests. I’d sure like ONE of them to say “That’s not for me to decide”
Brian, what in the world are you saying?
On the question of Alvarez’ opposition to public subsidies of the Chargers you say, first, that you “don’t know that Alvarez’ stance on the stadium is solid” and that you think he could be swayed by the promise of “good union jobs.” That comes down to saying you don’t believe him, which is pretty much what The Lincoln Club will be doing (as well as a hell of a lot more character slams) in four color mailers to every resident in the city.
Then, asked whether government should protect people from heavy industrial damage to their neighborhoods you offer that they should “sue for relief.” How many cases of asthma and how much more damage will be done to Logan values before the victims can get to court?
Wouldn’t it just be better to change your vote?
I think Alvarez supports a taxpayer-funded stadium:
Like the other candidates, Alvarez is interested in looking at options for ensuring the Chargers remain in San Diego but said the team’s current proposal is not defined enough for him to render an opinion.
“I think their approach is very reasonable, and they’re probably right about the environmental concerns,” he said. “Should the (expansion) project not be successful, we should look at that and look at a way to keep the Chargers in San Diego with the support of the voters.”
It appears the Faulconer is less inclined to hit the taxpayers with the Stadium tax:
“It’s up to everyone to come up with a package that makes sense,” he said. “I will have an open dialogue with the Chargers but any financing plan has to protect the taxpayers.”
SOURCE:
You’re jivin’, Brian Brady. I clicked on your little blue link and the story in the SD-UT (admittedly not a reliable source) shows Alvarez quotes strictly opposed to public funds for a new stadium. I won’t bother responding to your boo sheet from now on, not until you start talking honestly.
Maybe I should have used a question mark. I am genuinely confused about each candidate’s respective position on a taxpayer-funded stadium. I honestly think both would be in favor of putting that initiative on a public ballot.
If that is the case, then you and I have our work cut out for us.
Brian Brady – As a former reporter, I have watched mayors of both parties come and go, and with them their various constituencies (in fairness, most have been Republican). I have also watched the heavy onset of partisan apparatuses. Over the years, these partisan machines have polarized this city and hijacked its legislative agenda. In its place, they have pressed agendas that have little if any affect on the quality of life of the citizens this government is supposed to serve. But underneath that cyclone of hyper-partisanship, this city has slowly rusted. Streets have all but crumbled, sidewalks turned to rubble, sewer pipes spew their stew and traffic has slowly ground to a state of molasses. We have seen our city’s reputation tarnished and our credit rating trashed. Our treasures have either been plundered or are crumbling in disrepair. While John Moores, Corky McMillan, Doug Manchester and Dean Spanos prospered, San Diego’s small business community has received less attention than a stray dog.
It is quite true the party I have, and still hold fidelity to, looked sideways at the picadillos of a troubled man. While Filner’s past public career was indicative of some of the better virtues of public service, underneath that was something few could believe was more than shop talk and rumor.
But the story of San Diego’s fall from “finest” is not has not been written by him, or even the unions who are much maligned these days. San Diego’s future has been hobbled by a corps of greed that operates under the guise that what is good for them is good for San Diego. To whit, they have received an expanded stadium, an entirely new one, an expanded convention center (now on the verge of yet another expansion) all promoted as vital to San Diego’s future, and all of which we are currently still paying off the bonds for. By all rights, San Diego should be rolling in cash. We have done virtually everything that has been asked of us be these mavericks of capitalism. We have encumbered this city’s budget greatly in support of their visions of avarice. In order to afford these fancy baubles, we even underfunded our pension system (to our great peril). But the only ones who have prospered in this grand vision have been the ones who sold us this bill of goods.
We are now asked by these same people to place in power one of their choosing who will lead us to this oft promised land.
It is in this moment that experience is indeed instructive. Because it is the experience of Kevin Faulconer in delivering all that San Diego has not received to this point that must be of supreme importance. It is to Kevin’s own district that we must look to seek the evidence that will guide our votes. Because it is in his district that San Diego’s problems are most acute. This district is his resume, and it is as accurate a measure as any recent candidate for mayor has had. And what that resume shows is an utter neglect of the issues most prominent in San Diego. Whether it is streets, sidewalks, crime, or empowering local communities to reform and rebuild from this neglect, Faulconer has shown a complete lack of attention.
It is no surprise that this is his affect. One need only look at the company he keeps. His cosy ties to the SD Regional Chamber of Commerce speak volumes of his view of what our economy needs. Any small business owner will tell you that the only thing the SD Chamber cares for in terms of small business is their membership dues. Kevin’s posture is indeed ironic for someone whose wife runs a small business. But from Kevin’s Point Loma perch, the world that everyday San Diegan’s face is indeed far from view.
But this election is not about class warfare, because at the end of the day, the future of all San Diegans, rich or poor, is inextricably tied together. We rise and fall together. If San Diegans cannot earn a living wage, if they cannot afford reasonable healthcare, and if we continue to underfund our government while lavishing support on “capitalists” and all the while neglecting small business, San Diego will face a long slide into further decay.
David Alvarez has already shown that he understands what this city needs, what our neighborhoods need. Kevin Faulconer has already shown that he is not interested.
Timothy Holmberg, I agree with almost all of what you write, above. However, I disagree that past agendas “have [had] little if any effect on the quality of life of the citizens this government is supposed to serve.” In fact, you go on in that paragraph to clearly describe many of the negative effects on the quality of life of the average San Diego and the neighborhoods.
As for David Alvarez’ “inexperience”, it’s a mistake to assume that because someone has put in fewer years in government, he or she has insufficient experience to govern effectively. David’s past work experience and, more importantly, his life experience in a long-disadvantaged neighborhood and the first in his family to graduate college, have informed his work as a City Council member. That experience is far more diverse and far closer to reality than experience gained as a “public relations” specialist & lobbyist representing those who already have a great deal and want more, often at our expense (viz. Qualcomm Stadium, Petco Park, the Convention Center as beginning examples). I’ve worked with Kevin on the Mission Bay Park Committee, and I like him as a person, but I don’t believe that he will represent the “have-nots” of our city as well as David Alvarez will.
Evidently, Kevin Faulconer has supported and even mouthed the lie that 46,000 San Diegans will lose their jobs if the Barrio Logan plan goes through although there are not even 46,000 jobs there to begin with.
On a related topic, I received my first political “research” phone call a few days ago. As the “survey” progressed, it was easy to tell that the questions were written to get respondents to support Faulconer over Alvarez. And, btw, the call center was in Texas, near Houston.
Let the games begin.
michael-leonard: I think the industry term is a “push-poll” and actually a clever campaign trick to pull during the “holiday cease fire”. It will be important to point out who is paying for what in the next 8 weeks. Yeah that’s it: only 8 weeks (might only be 7 !) to decide chief exec and leader of what hizzoner Pete dubbed “Americas Finest City”.