An Open Letter to Beyond Chron,
The main flaw in your coverage is that you never interview the subject when you launch attacks. This means that typically your analysis is based on conjecture. But, it is understandable that you would get your facts wrong. Usually when you sit in an armchair in Berkeley, things look different than they do in San Francisco.
As a person who is not part of the LGBT community, it is easy for you to misunderstand the community and for you to misunderstand the dynamics of the Harvey Milk Club. While I respect Alix Rosenthal and her candidacy, over the years, Supervisor Bevan Dufty has moved significantly to the left on key labor, progressive and tenant issues. Your unwillingness to see or understand that is telling.
As for the club, during our PAC discussion, longtime Harvey Milk Club leaders (people who had been members for decades) argued that the club should go no endorsement. I also argued that the club should go “no endorsement,” despite my support for Bevan. I and others felt that given the club’s history and philosophy, it made sense for the club to stay out of the race. On the night of the endorsement vote, 29 members who were supporters of Dufty showed up to vote. As per Bevan’s desire to respect the club’s wishes, most voted “no endorsement.” There were no clever moves by anyone. There was simply a gracious move by Bevan to respect the club.
In general, your column completely misunderstands the dynamic of LGBT unity that many have tried to create over the last few years after the divisive 2002 Britt/Leno race. These efforts have led to stronger community and more constructive engagement between different elements in our community, elements that have frequently disagreed. Both Mark and Tom have also been leaders in this effort. My thanks to them for their leadership and their continued effort to bring out the best in the LGBT community.
As a final note, your allegation that David Campos, one of the most progressive leaders in our community is a machine candidate is baseless. Have you ever even met or spoken to David? I would encourage you to do so.
I am a big fan of both David Campos and Mark Sanchez and they are both big fans of each other. As someone who hates to watch the left eat their own, I would ask that you stop provoking fights where there are none.
Robert Haaland
Editor,
In “Reformers Happily Join the San Francisco Democratic Party Machine”, Randy Shaw once again gets confused when dealing with the queer left. I’d prefer to stick with my club’s position of no recommendation in D8, but since Mr. Shaw is spinning a message about our votes (again), I feel the need to respond.
Alix Rosenthall failed to get the endorsement because of concerns from the left wing of the club, period. In discussion and lobbying, the actual concerns members had were worries about Rosenthall’s history on IRV and that they hadn’t seen her around doing left activism–there was a fear she was just showing up when it was time to get the vote. There were even some people hesitant to support a straight candidate in “Harvey Milk’s” seat. Different concerns, but different kinds of skepticism from the left. There are moderate votes in the club as there have always been, about the same percentage we had ten years ago, and I assume most of them voted for Dufty. But by the vote counts, if all the moderate votes had stayed home, Rosenthall would have still not gotten the endorsement. Neither was Dufty ever in much play for the endorsement. Although he’s swung hard to the left this year on tenant and union issues, this is a club that still remembers the grueling Hansen fights, when Castro misogyny went unchecked and rent control repeal was on the ballot backed by Dufty.
We applaud Dufty’s recent votes, but ultimately a radical club is going to need to see more proof before our club would really consider a Dufty Yes vote. You can argue whether the club’s positions are accurate, e.g. I think Alix is now a solid backer of IRV, and you can you can argue we should be more realistic and make some kind of pick in D8, but you can only have this idea that we’re making conservative votes in some fantasy world where Randy Shaw defines progressive for the rest of us.
Just as off is Shaw’s idea that we’re Democratic Party loyalists. Once again Randy Shaw seems lost in Matt vs. Tom, I guess still wanting to believe if we backed Tom in the general half a decade ago that must mean we’re anti-green. In actual practice this year we endorsed every green on our ballot, four candidates, one of whom, Kim Knox, is on our EBoard (a board which, by the way, is about half green). Randy even wants to blame us for not having a candidate in D8. Hey, I wish we could have gotten Tommi Mecca to run too, and I can testify about spending a long time trying to convince the few D8 residents in our club to run this year, but the bottom line is most of us don’t live in that neighborhood*maybe as a homeowner Randy can afford to live in that neighborhood, but most of us were priced out or evicted out of it long ago.
Ultimately, this idea that if we don’t support Randy Shaw we’re a bunch of conservatives is both insulting and a figment of Shaw’s imagination. It’s not like Randy actually goes to a Milk club meeting or I suspect can name a person on the current EBoard. He seems to know the names of some Alice board members, but not any of ours, which includes lower rent activist Greg Shaw, former Gonzalez aide Larry Roberts, Local 2 community organizer Kelly Dugan, Aids Housing Alliance’s Brian Bassinger, ACFA organizers Paul Mooney and Zwazzi Sowo, Cannabis Caucus chair Shona Gochenaur, and Green Co. Council member Kim Knox. The public record of the club has us consistently on the left on economic and identity issues. Three initiatives originating in club meetings this year were the transgender employment development initiative, the Skyline/CitiApartments campaign, and trying to get a tenant ballot initiative this year (which resulted in the relocations benefits initiative).
Most of the rest of our effort went to universal health care, Local 2’s contract struggle, cannabis club regulation, the drive to establish the right of democratic clubs to endorse greens at the DCCC, and a long list of other lefty initiatives. Honestly, I’m not too worried my club isn’t progressive enough.
Greg Shaw
Dear Editor,
Randy Shaw couldn’t have gotten it more wrong in his “Reformers…” article.
Problem #1: Shaw seems to suggest that the lack of a “serious” District 8 candidate is evidence that organizer Robert Haaland fanagled the outcome. In the first place, while no one doubts that Robert is an exceptional organizer who commands people’s attention, he hardly possesses the authority over the Milk Club that Randy suggests. Quite simply, as members of the Milk Club, we think for ourselves, thank you very much.
Second, the lack of additional candidates in the District 8 race is based on many factors, though none of them involve clearing the way for Supervisor Dufty. A more accurate assessment would have shown that a few others, including respected activist Tommi Avicolli-Mecca considered running for the seat but, for various reasons, opted not to. It would have noted that, as progressives, we need to do a better job of cultivating new leaders who can become viable candidates. It would have taken into account the fact that the changing demographics of District 8 has made it difficult for progressive candidates to win here. Instead, Shaw chose a divisive and wholly inaccurate assessment of the players and their motivations.
Third, rather than crediting the campaigns of either Dufty or Rosenthal, the outcome of the Milk Club vote on this race is a reflection of the discomfort the Club had with both candidates. With respect to Dufty, many found it hard to determine whether his recent left-leaning positions are indicative of his future votes, or whether his earlier and more conservative voting record is more likely to prevail. With respect to Rosenthal, people I spoke to hadn’t seen evidence of her progressive commitment, and what they did know of her didn’t allay their concerns. Consequently, I believe a No Endorsement vote was most responsible and sincere position the Milk Club could take.
Problem #2: Shaw seems unable to distinguish between machine politics that stifles democracy and is punitive, and that which is based on networking and organizing. Does Shaw actually forget how many people received and lost jobs and appointments based on their willingness to do ONLY what Willie Brown wanted? During that time period, I witnessed a machine in which there was no discussion, democracy, or disagreement. I saw people cower rather than proffer an opposing opinion. It was a machine, not simply because it included a few elected officials, but because these few elected officials controlled the democratic process at each and every level. That is a qualitatively different situation than exists now. To equate the situation today with the way things operated back then turns history into a work of fiction.
Problem #3: Shaw claims that Ammiano’s run for Assembly represents a machine-style “electoral lock” on the position. Anyone remotely interested in San Francisco politics has known of Ammiano’s interest in this position for the past few months. Yet, in order to accept Shaw’s claim, we must agree that any elected official who endorses another incumbent is engaging in backroom dealing. We must agree that, but for Leno’s anointment of Ammiano, Tom wouldn’t really have had a chance to win on his own. We must also agree that no other opponents have arisen yet, not because of Tom’s own record of achievement and name recognition, but because of the chilling effect that Mark Leno’s endorsement had on potential contenders. Not only is there no agreement on any of these assumptions; there is very clear evidence as to why each of these notions is patently false.
Problem #4: Seemingly to add insult to injury, Shaw suggests that a good fight in District 9 is what San Francisco really needs because it will be decided by the people rather than by political insiders. Not only is this conclusion based on the flawed logic outlined above, it assumes that voters are led solely by the endorsement choices of elected officials. This is easily refuted in several races. This argument also shows a real lack of understanding of what it takes to build progressive movements. Progressives are still healing from the Britt/Leno and Matt/Tom races. The fallout from these races created divided forces, the results of which we continue to experience in different ways. As though oblivious to this, Shaw suggests that additional in-fighting, rather than solidarity-building, is needed.
I consider both David Campos and Mark Sanchez my friends. I believe both are ethical and progressive. Had Shaw been willing to show support for one or both of these talented gay Latino leaders who have served San Francisco well, that would have been one thing. In fact, he doesn’t seem to care whether one or both of them become progressive casualties; Shaw just wants to see a fight. He doesn’t seem to care whether one or the other wins or loses, as long as Ammiano doesn’t endorse in the race.
In fact, the message from Randy Shaw’s article seems to be: don’t organize because only machines organize; don’t vote for or endorse incumbents, because they’re necessarily part of the machine; and when in doubt, encourage divisiveness to prove that you haven’t sold out.
Thanks Randy. Ain’t solidarity grand?
Esperanza Macias
Editor,
When San Francisco had at-large, city-wide elections for supervisor, the problem was you didn’t have someone in City Hall specifically accountable to you to answer your specific problems in your specific neighborhood. Supervisors could easily pass the buck and say, “Contact another supervisor more sympathetic to your plight.” But ironically, district elections have given us de facto gerrymandering by residual demographics. For example, not one of the 11 members of the Board of Supervisors is remotely anti-rent control. A few are mildly “sympathetic” to mom ‘n’ pop landlords, but that’s it. While some districts West of Twin Peaks might be construed as conservative, tenants still out-number landlords * both mom ‘n’ pop and larger apartment owners.
While landlords might be able to elect at least one pro-landlord supervisor city-wide, they will never be able to elect a pro-landlord supervisor within their district. Thus, no flat-out, pro-landlord supervisor will ever sit on the Board of Supervisor.
Understand, I use rent control as just one example, there are many others. We need to have 3 at-large supervisors and 8 district supervisors.
Brian Wallace
Editor,
I thought the article about lawyers citing a Vonnegut story to help justify unequal funding for school districts was very poignant. This is a nugget of present arguments between the Conservative/Libertarian theory of government and the Liberal theory. I intend to forward it to the “comment” section of the “leftist” newspaper Guardian in London, where I blog once in awhile.
John Burkitt
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: rshaw@beyondchron.org
or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
415-771-1287 (fax)
