On May 3rd, I narrowly missed out on making the runoff for San Antonio City Council District 6 (<2% out of 1st). To make matters worse, the outcome yielded one of the most untenable runoff scenarios: two candidates from the far left.
One is a progressive, while the other is an outright socialist.
There are a couple noteworthy distinctions though. The progressive appears more susceptible to cronyism, and socialists on the local level (at least here in San Antonio) are a different animal than they appear to be nationally.
The progressive has the endorsement of the outgoing councilwoman, who joined 26 others in running for mayor. Her council colleagues who were also on the ballot could safely be referred to as corporatist.
In recent years my group InfuseSA has been able to draw several lines between political donors, and votes favoring their respective interests. The progressive in this runoff seems poised to assume that mantle.
For example, she reportedly has a “nuanced” view of taxpayer-funding for a proposed multi-billion dollar sports and entertainment district. It’s not a stretch to say that, if this project gets the greenlight, many of the builders, contractors’, et al will appear in campaign finance reports.
Worse yet, multiple attendees (including another candidate) alleged that she used an earpiece in one of our forums. She can also be seen constantly tapping her smartwatch. One could be forgiven for saying that she was literally having her strings pulled.
One of those candidates who noticed a marked improvement in the progressive’s forum performances is the socialist in the runoff.
When I met with him after the election, I told him his connection to the Democratic Socialists of America gave me serious pause. “How strong is that bond?” I asked. “I’m all in for ‘Medicare for All’, etc.”
Fortunately, given the nature of municipal government, much of that is irrelevant. His boss, a socialist currently on council, gives me a degree of confidence in that.
Two years ago, she voted against eminent-domaining a family’s business away from them for another revenue-generating party. She opposed dislodging apartment residents for a new stadium for our Double AA baseball team. All but one of her colleagues voted for those items.
Perhaps most shockingly, she was one of only two to push back on a suggestion to raise the city’s property tax rate to plug a looming fiscal deficit. Never in the name of Bernie Sanders did I imagine siding this much with a socialist.
To be sure, there will be many times her protégé and I will be on opposite sides.
Regardless of the aforementioned deficit, the socialist told the San Antonio Express-News in our candidate interview that paying for travel to other states for abortion is just a “drop in the bucket” of our city’s budget.
Despite all the evidence that it’s counterproductive, he believes taxpayers should fund more ‘affordable’ housing construction. He favors continued taxpayer funding of preschool regardless of shaky results for such programs.
A while back I had dinner with a local activist. The topic turned to one of those corporatist mayoral candidates and the socialist on the council. “Who is the lesser of two evils?”
The activist felt more favorable votes could be had from the corporatist. I countered that, while that may be true, you could still get some from the socialist. Plus, you’d more likely know, in all sincerity, where they stand.
In the arena of ideas, a proponent of freedom could certainly get the best of someone who believes in more state control. That’s generally a scenario where any subsequent fruit borne would be in the long-run.
The benefits of political backscratching, schmoozing, etc. would be more short-term.
That’s the choice we seem to be faced with in this runoff.
One is a progressive, while the other is an outright socialist.
There are a couple noteworthy distinctions though. The progressive appears more susceptible to cronyism, and socialists on the local level (at least here in San Antonio) are a different animal than they appear to be nationally.
The progressive has the endorsement of the outgoing councilwoman, who joined 26 others in running for mayor. Her council colleagues who were also on the ballot could safely be referred to as corporatist.
In recent years my group InfuseSA has been able to draw several lines between political donors, and votes favoring their respective interests. The progressive in this runoff seems poised to assume that mantle.
For example, she reportedly has a “nuanced” view of taxpayer-funding for a proposed multi-billion dollar sports and entertainment district. It’s not a stretch to say that, if this project gets the greenlight, many of the builders, contractors’, et al will appear in campaign finance reports.
Worse yet, multiple attendees (including another candidate) alleged that she used an earpiece in one of our forums. She can also be seen constantly tapping her smartwatch. One could be forgiven for saying that she was literally having her strings pulled.
One of those candidates who noticed a marked improvement in the progressive’s forum performances is the socialist in the runoff.
When I met with him after the election, I told him his connection to the Democratic Socialists of America gave me serious pause. “How strong is that bond?” I asked. “I’m all in for ‘Medicare for All’, etc.”
Fortunately, given the nature of municipal government, much of that is irrelevant. His boss, a socialist currently on council, gives me a degree of confidence in that.
Two years ago, she voted against eminent-domaining a family’s business away from them for another revenue-generating party. She opposed dislodging apartment residents for a new stadium for our Double AA baseball team. All but one of her colleagues voted for those items.
Perhaps most shockingly, she was one of only two to push back on a suggestion to raise the city’s property tax rate to plug a looming fiscal deficit. Never in the name of Bernie Sanders did I imagine siding this much with a socialist.
To be sure, there will be many times her protégé and I will be on opposite sides.
Regardless of the aforementioned deficit, the socialist told the San Antonio Express-News in our candidate interview that paying for travel to other states for abortion is just a “drop in the bucket” of our city’s budget.
Despite all the evidence that it’s counterproductive, he believes taxpayers should fund more ‘affordable’ housing construction. He favors continued taxpayer funding of preschool regardless of shaky results for such programs.
A while back I had dinner with a local activist. The topic turned to one of those corporatist mayoral candidates and the socialist on the council. “Who is the lesser of two evils?”
The activist felt more favorable votes could be had from the corporatist. I countered that, while that may be true, you could still get some from the socialist. Plus, you’d more likely know, in all sincerity, where they stand.
In the arena of ideas, a proponent of freedom could certainly get the best of someone who believes in more state control. That’s generally a scenario where any subsequent fruit borne would be in the long-run.
The benefits of political backscratching, schmoozing, etc. would be more short-term.
That’s the choice we seem to be faced with in this runoff.
RSS Feed