> I wish San Franciscans would stop defending themselves and admit that things are actually worse and whatever politics they're advocating hasn't worked. This extends more generally to California (and other west coast states).
> I voted for Shellenberger for Governor of CA. Felt right.
FWIW, people like Newsom openly admit the scale of the problems and the roadblocks which radicalized "progressivism" present to California. Newsom has even openly admitted that some of his own policies as mayor of San Francisco were somewhat foolhardy and naive in retrospect, including his housing and drug policies. (And he did so not as a sound bite to impress voters, but buried in speeches and interviews and backed up by substantive reasons for why they were so.) Mayor Breed has also expressed mea culpas of her own. And both have expressed extreme frustration with many of the (invariably) Democrats they must work with.
Breed's become so frustrated recently she event started swearing--"less tolerant of all the bullshit that has destroyed our city”--and almost seemed to lose her composure in an interview when asked how she felt about Boudin's policies.[1][2]
My voting strategy is two-fold: 1) Any politician that can admit they were wrong about substantive policy issues deserves my vote, period, especially when such admissions come with potential cost, are unforced, and relate to relatively recent policies. 2) As politics is the art of the possible, I appreciate that I need to vote for someone who knows how to play the game. Newsom and Breed are both savvy players, and they're career players. That turns alot of people off. But that's politics. Being a savvy player is a sine quo non of a good politician. (And by savvy I don't mean being good at soundbites or playing to voter sentiment, but know how to wheel and deal and pull triggers in smoke-filled rooms--palace intrigue type stuff.)
When a candidate demonstrates political savvy while also credibly expressing some honesty and sensibility, then the choice quickly becomes easy. Both Newsom and Breed have done that, IMO. It's difficult for me to expect more out of them at this point. One of my benchmarks for a virtuous politician is Senator Russ Feingold. But Senator Feingold lost Wisconsin in 2010. He couldn't match his virtuousness with his savviness. Both Wisconsin and the U.S. as a whole probably would have better off with a little less virtue and a little more savvy from Feingold.
Ideas are cheap. We don't need people like Shellenberger in office. They'll be ineffective. We need people who are capable of hearing what people like Shellenberger are proposing, and then to the degree its possible (and often it won't be possible at all) translate that not just into effective policy or literal legislation, but a sufficient number of actual legislative votes.
Regarding Newsom's privately sensibilities on energy policy, he's personally far more conservative than you'd think. Circa 2005 Newsom mothballed a donated gas power plant in San Francisco, but that wasn't his first choice. He was coerced into it--coerced by a lawyer friend of mine advocating for the surrounding community and who defly threatend (in person, from across the table) Newsom with a scorched-earth public relations campaign which Newsom knew he couldn't win. Newsom, understanding that politics is the art of the possible, relented. It was battle he could never have won if forced out into the open. By relenting he built capital--environmental policy credibility--that could come in handy one day. Like, for example, today: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-04-29/califor...
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/mayor-breed-orders...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/sway-kara-swisher...