Opinion | Democrats Need to Understand the Real Message San Francisco Sent

SAN FRANCISCO — The primary election in California last week conveyed a warning to Democrats about the political threat posed by rising public anger toward the increasingly visible poverty and disorder on city streets — in this case, San Francisco’s.

District Attorney Chesa Boudin became a scapegoat for the city’s social ills. His loss in a recall attempt had much to do with California’s chronic failure to deal with homelessness, mental illness and poverty. These issues will persist without him.

What his ouster was not, despite claims to the contrary, was a clear rebuke to the movement for criminal justice reform in California: State primaries delivered victories for that very movement.

Still, the conflation of criminal-justice reform with urban disorder is a threat to Democrats across the country. The recall made Mr. Boudin an emblem of the city’s dysfunctions, but its problems predate his election in 2019, and conservatives have long derided “San Fransicko” as a symbol of the Democratic Party’s excesses and failures.

Democrats should heed the signal sent by voters here who directed their wrath at a neophyte politician. This vulnerability will persist in the wake of the recall because the city’s problems provide an irresistibly visceral way to portray the shortcomings of Democratic leadership.

The city’s value as a political symbol has never been more potent. Some of the most powerful Democrats in the nation have roots here. Vice President Kamala Harris rose to national prominence in part by serving in the office Mr. Boudin just lost. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, represents the city in Congress. Senator Dianne Feinstein served two terms as mayor, as did Gov. Gavin Newsom.

No Republican has been elected here in decades. It’s a city controlled entirely by Democrats in a state controlled entirely by Democrats. And anyone with an iPhone can walk down Market Street collecting troves of anecdotal evidence to prove the horrors of Democratic governance.

Some depict San Francisco as a failed city. Conservative media outlets have consistently highlighted its problems by providing anti-progressive cautionary tales.

For some San Franciscans, there’s no better place to be than this Pacific peninsula with its amazing views, adorable neighborhoods and world-class culture.

But as Governor Newsom said after the recall election, “People want the streets cleaned up.” They want “a sense of order, from the disorder they’re feeling” in parts of the city.

Cities throughout California have struggled with addressing homelessness. San Francisco’s mayor, London Breed, recently reported that homelessness had actually decreased here since 2019, but the unsheltered population is still strikingly large and conspicuous.

The city has endured a shoplifting and auto theft epidemic. Public drug use and urination are common. It is not unusual to see mounds of car window glass and to hear of burglarized garages.

There seems to be a growing sense of impatience and exasperation, a general “feeling” that the streets are unsafe, regardless of what statistics say.

But the thing is, data and statistics also say that California’s crime rates are at historic lows. That’s why Mr. Boudin’s overthrow probably represented an expression of frustration, not a true referendum on reform.

A poll conducted by my paper, The San Francisco Examiner, shortly before the election found strong support for the recall — and strong support for the criminal justice policies he embraced. It also found that 66 percent of voters felt less safe than they did 10 years ago, with 64 percent indicating that the presence of homeless and mentally ill people on the street as their top concern.

As Governor Newsom put it, “And tag, the D.A. was it” — meaning that Mr. Boudin took the blame for the city’s woes, many of which are beyond his jurisdiction.

Mr. Newsom, as lieutenant governor, supported Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot measure that reclassified certain nonviolent felonies as misdemeanors and which some people have blamed for contributing to the disorder that has plagued San Francisco.

Yet on the same day that 55 percent of San Francisco voters chose to recall Mr. Boudin, 56 percent of primary voters selected Governor Newsom, who will almost certainly cruise to re-election in the fall.

Another progressive reformer, the state attorney general Rob Bonta, won 76 percent of San Francisco’s primary votes, vanquishing his “tough on crime” primary opponents. In counties neighboring San Francisco, criminal justice reformers racked up wins in races for D.A. and one race for sheriff.

And yet … Mr. Boudin’s defeat is being portrayed as a sign of ordinary voters’ outrage, but the campaign to recall him was fueled by donations from a Republican billionaire and Peter Thiel acolytes like David Sacks.

Republicans have now uncovered a rich vein of Democratic voter discontent. Our progressive state has the fifth largest economy in the world and a roughly $97 billion budget surplus, but its longstanding apathy toward its most vulnerable residents has produced a humanitarian disaster that is activating voter anger. With enough political funding and strategy, San Francisco’s voter revolt could spread, sending a powerful message to the rest of the nation about the failures progressive policy in this liberal bastion.

That’s bad news for California’s most ambitious politicians. In Mr. Boudin’s fate, they should glimpse their own. They have a short runway to prove that their big Democratic ideas to create more shelter, expand mental health treatment, reduce inequality and build a California for all can work.

If they continue to fail, it will solidify the impression that California is where progressive dreams go to die.

Gil Duran (@gilduran76) is editorial page editor at The San Francisco Examiner.