IS SAN FRANCISCO MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?
Or Just Trying to Keep Pols in Office?
Following Tuesday’s election, San Franciscans supported two measures that may help to reverse the steep declines in this once-famed city’s reputation. Mayor London Breed proposed both initiatives, a turnaround from her previously hyper-progressive stance on most issues. Sadly, her declining approval ratings were likely the cause of her decision. Breed has to find more voter support to gain reelection in November.
Proposition E allows the police to install public surveillance cameras and use drones and facial recognition to do their work. While this sounds good, the current laws permitting thefts of up to $950 per incident means that even with more evidence, the police’s work will still be hampered by this law and lax DAs. It’s a start, but not nearly enough. Real progress on crime needs to be made in Sacramento, but Governor Nuisance is too busy running for President.
The second proposition, F, requires drug screening for city welfare recipients. This is long overdue, as too many people use public money to sustain their drug habits. Breed’s stance is to help addicts. "We can't just keep giving people money to overdose and die on our streets—we have to do more." One would think this was obvious, but it has taken years for politicians to connect welfare to drug abuse.
SF Less Progressive?
The hype in the press is that SF is trying to move towards less progressivism, but I’m not convinced. Breed is desperate. Businesses are hightailing it out of the city, as workers become increasingly unhappy to have to work there. Aggressive panhandlers, feces everywhere and crime running rampant have made the city toxic to many. I haven’t been there in a long time; I only passed through on the freeway to the airport.
Voters clearly are unhappy with the status quo, but it isn’t clear that they will go far enough to turn the city around. The arguments are between progressives and a more moderate Democrat party, but even the moderates still are in thrall to many progressive aims. There is no move to end the city’s sanctuary status. Welfare is still generous enough to attract people from all over. And nothing has been done to fix the laws that free people after they have committed crimes. It simply isn’t a pleasant or safe city to stroll around anymore.
What Makes the Progressive Side Appealing?
I’ve done some thinking on this. Many people like to think of themselves as good, nice people. This means caring about the poor and downtrodden, worrying about the fate of drug users, wishing illegals to have a better life. Being a Democrat means being a nice person to many supporters. However, is that even true?
Being a “kind person” means being personally involved in helping people that you consider in need of help, not voting to tax others to pay for this. We’ve seen the reality of this when various mayors (in Oakland and in Michigan) have asked residents to take homeless people and illegals into their own homes. It should be noted that the mayors didn’t offer to do this themselves, despite having larger mansions to house people. When asked to personally help, many Democrats shy away from the challenge.
Republicans believe in families and self-sufficiency. Helping means getting people educated so they can work and raise their own families, getting of the government dole. This sounds less “nice,” but is, in fact, the humane thing to do. After Clinton reduced federal welfare significantly, many single moms came out to speak to their pride in coming home to their kids with a paycheck they earned. Kids who get a chance at a good education (difficult in CA with our unions), feel pride in their accomplishments and the wealth of opportunities that are now open to them.
What is more humane and more loving? To make someone eternally dependent on the government or to empower them to be their best selves? I worked with quadriplegics when I was at Cal. We were assigned to help them in tasks they struggled with, but what shocked me is what they could do. None of these people wanted to be reliant on anyone, even as they did need help in fewer ways than I imagined. We destroy people by being too generous. We damage them by ignoring their sins/crimes.
“Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime.”
I maintain that the Left is on a campaign to try to destroy our individuality, our self-esteem and our freedom. The mantra of the WEF is “you will own nothing and you will be happy.” This means you have to wait for the government to give you that which you didn’t earn. I think if Dems could only understand that true compassion for the poor, the drug-addicted and otherwise “helpless” people is to help them become productive, proud citizens. And to punish criminals, making it a less desirable way of life. In its best sense, this is the Republican message. And even more so, look to the Libertarian Party, which has long espoused self-sufficiency and the need for a much smaller government. Until SF and other blue cities gets it, they will continue to see declines in population, visitors and revenue.
