Bay Guardian Letters

One of the big problems city progressives face is the severe shortcomings demonstrated by the SF Bay Guardian, the main source of leftist commentary, news, and analysis in San Francisco. The Guardian has been particularly bad over the years on the homeless issue, often failing to even mention the crisis on our streets while obsessing on public power.

The Guardian: Lame and Defamatory
Subject: Our Chronically Lame Left
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000
From: Rob Anderson
To: The SF Bay Guardian and List Suppressed

Once again the SF Bay Guardian has neatly illustrated how lame the left is in supposedly "progressive" San Francisco (they also rather casually defame Richard Hongisto, who has been a principled progressive for decades). After railing for months about the Brown-Burton Democratic Party "machine," the Guardian's endorsements this week are handed to members of---surprise!---the Democratic Party, including my opponent in the 5th District race for supervisor, Matt Gonzalez. Gonzalez is both a Democrat and a carpetbagger, since he only moved into the district late last year.

The Democratic Party plays a role in the city much like the PRI played until recently in Mexico: it completely dominates the political life of our city---the mayor and all our supervisors are Democrats---which has led to both complacency and corruption. Why can't city progressives do to the Democratic Party what the people of Mexico did to the PRI? The answer: because local progressives continue to play politics inside the Democratic Party box.

We need to build a progressive party of our own, and the logical vehicle for that is clearly the Green Party. We don't need "independent progressives," we need interdependent progressives joined together in a local progressive party of our own. Until then, we'll continue to allow the local Democratic Party to lead us by the nose. We need to reject the party of capital punishment, NAFTA, the War on Drugs, and, locally, the Bryant Square development and death on the streets for the homeless (1,271 homeless people have died on our streets over the last 10 years).

Overdue for a Self-Criticism Session
From: Rob Anderson
To: SF Bay Guardian
Sent: Sept. 12, 2002
Subject: Self-Criticism
Editor:
Surely the Guardian is long overdue for a self-criticism session. The most important local issue is homelessness, yet one can go for months without encountering the word “homeless” in the Guardian. When it is used, it’s invariably part of an attack on those, like Supervisor Gavin Newsom, who are actually trying to do something about it. After a year of essentially ignoring the war on terrorism, the Guardian now lamely tries to discuss it. What, according to the Guardian, was the invasion of Afghanistan about? It was about “taking revenge” for 9/11! Never mind that it was clear to everyone that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were based in Afghanistan and trained terrorists there, overthrowing the Taliban government was just another instance of “pointless military action” by the US.

The left in the US, including the sainted Noam Chomsky, are consistently underestimating the actual terrorist threat to the US. Fortunately, the American people---and, I suspect, even a majority of the people in SF---have a better sense of reality.

But the Guardian Cares…
From: Rob Anderson
To: tredmond@sfbg.com
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002
Subject: Ugly Facts
Tim:
“We live in a city where the major daily newspaper doesn’t really care much about local government…”
We also live in a city where the major “progressive” weekly doesn’t care much about the homeless issue, since it’s rarely discussed seriously beyond your cartoon “progressive” perspective. And of course public power lost because the big money against it. An alternative interpretation: you are simply wrong about both issues. Even a lot of so-called progressives disagree on the homeless issue. The fact is the left has dropped the ball on the issue, Ammiano included. Like Bush I, he’s weak on “the vision thing” and has played it safe since the runoff with Brown. Left, right and center owe Newsom a debt of gratitude for moving the city of dead---literally more than 100 dead homeless people a year---center on the issue.

And now the Guardian is pushing still another ballot measure for public power! You folks are poor at self-criticism; it’s almost as if you are parodying yourselves. Your smug, we-are-the-Good-People perspective is obnoxious and unacceptable to a growing number of progressives in the city. I voted for N, against R, against O, and against Public Power just because I’m sick of the Guardian left’s obsession with that Old Left bullshit while homeless people are dying on our streets.

Like the homeless issue, the Guardian has also been lame and timid about the War on Terrorism. Of course the left is split on the issue, which makes a complete debate even more urgent. Like the homeless issue, the Guardian goes for weeks without even mentioning it.

More Lamenesss
From: Rob Anderson
To: Savannah Blackwell
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003
Savannah:
Surely you jest re your latest about the mayoral campaign in the Guardian. It must have been difficult to do---write a longish story on the mayoral race without mentioning Proposition N or homelessness! You and your progressive comrades at the SFBG are coming close to self-parody on the homeless issue. The left in SF has dropped the ball on this issue and evidently doesn’t want to talk about it, which is understandable, though politically lame.

And More…
From: Rob Anderson
To: tredmond@sfbg.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Subject: Time to Step Up
Tim:
Willie Brown isn’t the only one who has “simply ignored the problem” of homelessness. Where have our progressive leaders been? Why did Ammiano run such a lame, issueless runoff campaign against Brown?
Given that progressives, along with liberals like Brown, have also been politically AWOL on this issue, your questioning Newsom’s motives (he “doesn’t really care about homeless people”) is preposterous. In any event, can you cite a single piece of evidence for that assertion?
So it’s all the fault of the Feds? Bullshit! It’s way past time for progressives to “come up with an alternative plan.” Progressive leaders have betrayed both the homeless and their own movement, such as it is.

No Credibility on the Left
From: Rob Anderson
To: Rachel@sfbg.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Subject: The N Factor
Rachel:
The chutzpah of progressives re the homeless issue is remarkable. Along with liberal Democrats like the mayor, progressives essentially ignored the issue until Gavin Newsom swept in with Proposition N.
“This is a critical moment for the San Francisco left.” The critical moment actually happened several years ago, when Ammiano ran a lame, issue-free runoff campaign against Brown. He could have effectively raised the homeless issue, thus laying a foundation for future campaigns. As it is, he’s history politically, since he clearly was defective in the Vision Thing.
Your questioning of Newsom’s motives re Care Not Cash is without foundation. What exactly are the motives of the progressive leaders who have ignored the issue for years?
And Care Not Cash won only because the campaign was well financed and “sleek”? Bullshit! People voted for it because they want something---anything---done about homelessness. SF voters are frustrated with their present leadership on this issue. It’s simply perverse of progressives not to see this.
Gonzalez is a nice, bright guy, but he’s clueless on this issue, a captive of the “homeless and welfare rights advocates” who are really part of the problem, not the solution. They are essentially defending a status quo that allows hundreds of people to die on our streets every year.
Gonzalez: “We’ll come out of this just fine, as long as we don’t stall.” What does he think the left has been doing for years?
It’s a shame, but the left simply has no credibility on this issue anymore. I suspect that many erstwhile lefties like me will vote for Newsom because at least he’s willing to act on the issue.

The Guardian Defends the Oppressed
From: Rob Anderson
To: Savannah Blackwell
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 8:50 AM
Subject: Campaigning for Care
Savannah:
Just got around to reading your June 25 piece, which nicely compresses a lot of knee-jerk leftist delusions re homelessness into a short piece.
* “The marriage of Care Not Cash and Newsom’s campaign for mayor is clear.”
Has anyone tried to hide it? The implication: that there is something sinister in the marriage. Of course Newsom thinks he has an important issue to ride to the mayor’s office. And why not? It’s an important issue, none of his progressive rivals addressed it before he did, and most of the city’s voters seem grateful. So what’s the problem?
* “…a microcosm of the broader war between San Francisco’s well-heeled inhabitants who chafe at the sight of poverty and those who suffered the most…”
This is the central leftist delusion on the issue: it’s just the class war being waged on a local level. The question is: why doesn’t the left “chafe” more at the sight of people living and dying on our streets? Where’s the compassion? And don’t forget that people were dying on our streets before, during, and after the dotcom boom.

The Guardian has been bad on this issue for years. Why is that? Is it Brugman? Redmond? When are you folks going to wake up? City progressives---and the city---need some consistent, serious leadership on this issue.

Note that the July 2 issue of the Guardian does not even contain the word homeless anywhere in its 120 pages. Here’s a simple idea that will go a long way towards redeeming your past lameness on homelessness: put a body count of the number of homeless who have died in the past week on the front page of every issue. I know the official body count isn’t being done anymore, but put an intern on the case to ferret out the number from Public Health or the emergency rooms, etc. This would be a simple way to remind everyone that we still have much to do re homelessness as long as people are still dying on our streets.

The Guardian Parodies Itself
From: Rob Anderson
To: tredmond@sfbg.com
Sent: December 19, 2003
Subject: Stupid on a Regular Basis
Tim:
The Guardian's politics are beginning to look like self-parody.
* "Political reporters identify trends and tell people which issues are going to matter..."
If so you and the Guardian are doing a remarkably poor job, as you completely botched---and continue to botch---the homeless issue. You didn't see it coming and still are clueless in evaluating it.
* "Gonzalez injected a whole lot of new energy into the mix and brought a whole lot of new voters on board..."
To what end? What was Matt's message? Sounded to me like it was, "We are young and/or groovy and thus deserve political power." Smugness and self-righteousness. This children’s army stuff was bullshit in the 60's and it's bullshit now.
* And guess what's the main priority for the Guardian now that the content-free Gonzalez campaign is over? Surprise! It's Public Power!
* "Since Newsom has made homelessness a huge issue..."
Wrong again! A majority of the city's voters think homelessness is a huge issue. Newsom simply recognized this reality and shrewdly capitalized on it, though he seems to have real compassion for the homeless, too, which the left oddly lacks. The real question is, Why is the city's left so clueless on this
issue? My theory: it's ideological confusion. The homeless are apparently seen as just another oppressed class that should be defended, not as tragically dysfunctional people who must be helped off the streets.
* Newsom is "a Democrat who acts like a Republican." Could you be more specific? Clearly he's a mainstream Democrat. Only your ideological blinkers prevent you folks from seeing that.
* Not surprisingly, your choice of letters to the editor reflect your peculiar smugness: "...every real person was supporting Matt Gonzalez..." You thus consign a majority of the city's voters to subhuman status. Great political move!
Your remarkable moral and political complacency is amazing to watch.