San Francisco needs Matt Gonzalez (11/03)

By Andy Slater

Nov. 25, 2003

Enough of the fruitless bickering and infighting. The time has come for the left to unite in support for Matt Gonzalez and oppose Gavin Newsom. Gonzalez is a superb candidate, a staunch opponent of Newsoms conservative agenda, and he deserves our vote.

Newsom has built his political reputation by attacking homelessness with his controversial Care not Cash and Stop Aggressive Panhandling measures. The business interests which bankrolled both those measures and his campaign have far outspent their opponents. Newsom owes his entire career from his restaurants and wineries to his prominent position in city politics to the largesse of his friends, the Getty family, according to an Oct. 29 article in the San Francisco Chronicle. It is more than a little hypocritical for Newsom to condemn the poorest of the poor for their dependency on welfare when he depends on generous friends himself. In addition to being a hypocrite, Newsom is a demagogue, exploiting peoples fears of the other for political gain. He gains support by scapegoating the homeless: blaming them for our citys ills even though they are these problems effects rather than their causes.

In less progressive times and places, demagogues scapegoated Jews and blacks, as well as other minorities. But San Francisco in the 21st century is too liberal to fall for outright racism. However, San Franciscans, especially the older and wealthier ones who are more likely to vote, still are prejudiced against one group: the homeless.

They are repulsed by homeless peoples grunginess and irritated by panhandling. Unfortunately, these rich liberals arent truly liberal: they arent willing to change the social system in a way that would end homelessness. Better to just lock em up.

While Newsom lives in style in the Marina district, Matt Gonzalez lives with a roommate in the Haight-Ashbury. He gave away his car. He doesnt own a watch. He played bass in a punk-rock band named after a resistance fighter against the Nazis. And, at 38, hes three years older than Newsom and at least as experienced.

Gonzalez is certainly ambitious, but he maintains a healthy skepticism about power. At an anti-war rally in October, he told protesters that building a lasting movement is far more important than electing a candidate. The fact that he was at a protest march is significant; Newsom opposed the demonstrations that shut down Market Street last March, calling them disruptive and bad for business.

Gonzalez has the capacity to build a coalition because hes left-wing enough for the true blue radicals, but also fiscally responsible enough for the moderates. For example, he favored property tax increases to pay for vital programs, and proposes to increase school funding at a steady rate of $4 million more each year, according to a Nov.12 article in the Chronicle.

At the same time, he vetoed a $60 million education spending measure because, without a commensurate tax increase, it would have put the city in a deep hole. Gonzalezs further bridge-building measures include appealing to the immigrant community by proposing to give non-citizens a vote in school board elections, as well as appealing to youth, seniors and the disabled by proposing to let them ride MUNI for free.

Some fear that Gonzalez will be ineffective because he might not compromise enough with big business interests downtown. But if the left has to compromise in San Francisco, just where are we going to fight against corporate power? A city in which Green Party candidate Peter Camejo got more votes for governor than Republican Bill Simon and in which Arnold Schwarzenegger and the recall both lost 4 to 1 should not have a collaborationist mayor.

The two candidates provide two very different visions of San Francisco. Gavin Newsom plans to implement programs from cities around the country, like Mayor Giulianis oppressive quality-of-life measures, according to a Sept. 30 article in the Chronicle, because he wants San Francisco to be like every other big city. Matt Gonzalez, on the other hand, sees San Franciscos streak of nonconformity and defiance as a good thing. According to an Oct. 18 article in the Chronicle, he has said, Our ideas are better. We dont have to water them down.

At its core, this election is for the soul of San Francisco.

Are we the city of sell-out Republicrat Dianne Feinstein, who voted for Bushs tax cut and for Bushs war, or the city of committed activists like Harry Bridges, Emmett Grogan and Harvey Milk?

Are we the city of the Hearst publishing empire, or the city of radical authors and poets like Jack London, Ken Kesey and Allen Ginsberg?

And are we the city of Clear Channels homogenized pop, or the city of the revolutionary sounds of the Grateful Dead, the Jefferson Airplane and the Dead Kennedys?

Newsom attacks the poor and will pull this city into the political center and the cultural mainstream. Gonzalez defends the dispossessed and is proud to live in San Francisco. The time for acquiescing to the right is over. We need to stand up for what we believe in.

Share this article