DIANNE FEINSTEIN IS DEAD

Amidst all the hagiography we’re about to be inundated with following the death this morning of Dianne Feinstein, allow me to tell you why I only ever voted for the lady once, in her initial run for office in 1969, before I became better-educated about her.

Her election in 1969 tells the perceptive observer a lot about her way of presenting herself politically, which is why there will be so much inaccurate hagiography slopping around the scene in the next few days.

In 1969, Feinstein became the first woman to run for and be elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Since San Francisco is the only place in California that is simultaneously a city and a county, the Board of Supervisors - which is the county government in California - is also effectively the city council in San Francisco.

It’s important to note that, at the time and until the reforms brought forth by the now nearly-forgotten George Moscone in 1978, members of the board were elected at-large. This allowed the dominant business-friendly faction of the San Francisco Democratic Party to control local government, since San Francisco has been essentially a one-party city for a long time. At the time, that wing of the party was led by Joe Alioto, the Mayor. He was no “progressive.” And Feinstein ran with his support and that of the Establishment, though in her case it was not as obvious as with other candidates.

San Francisco has long been on the leading edge of progressive Democratic politics, and the progressive wing of the party - the opponents of the Alioto wing - bought the Feinstein campaign’s implicit promise that here was the chance to finally elect a woman to office since she would “naturally” be a progressive. I hate to say this, but progressives then and now are among the easiest people to sucker-in with just a bit of political baloney. Feinstein however laid it on pretty thick and people like me and the rest were happy to go along with it and push the lever for her that November. That’s how she ran all her campaigns thereafter. It was the first and last time I ever voted for her.

It was quickly apparent once she was on the board that she was no ally of the progressives on the board - Ron Pelosi and my future boss, Bob Mendelsohn. She was a reliable vote for everything Alioto proposed, with her maximum contribution to “progressivism” being to water down the most objectionable conservative ideas without getting rid of their essence. When it was unavoidable that some progressive idea was going to pass, she was very good at making sure it wasn’t as progressive as it started out to be.

By the time I joined Bob’s staff after meeting him at San Francisco State where he was an adjunct professor of political science (then a part-time employment, since he had the primary job of Supervisor) and taking part in his re-election campaign in 1971, Feinstein was clearly the leader of the “conservative wing” of the Board - yes, “conservatives” do exist in San Francisco; they just don’t usually call themselves Republicans. The lines were pretty clearly drawn.

In 1975, just when I went up to Sacramento, George Moscone ran for and was elected mayor; had I known he was going to leave the legislature and run at the time I decided to move, I’d have stayed and gone to work for him - he was one of the best politicians I ever knew. Largely forgotten now by the people who owe him the biggest political debt for his work to open the doors for them to join in the political game, the introduction to his Wikipedia page lays out the essentials:

“... the 37th mayor of San Francisco, California from January 1976 until his assassination in November 1978. He was known as "The People's Mayor", who opened up City Hall and its commissions to reflect the diversity of San Francisco, appointing African Americans, Asian Americans, and gay people. Moscone served in the California State Senate from 1967 until becoming Mayor. In the Senate, he served as Majority Leader. Moscone is remembered for being an advocate of civil progressivism.”

Most importantly, George Moscone put everything he had behind the movement that had worked for years to change the system of electing Supervisors from at-large to districts, despite having come to power moving up in that system. This changed San Francisco politics profoundly. I can tell you for certain that not one of you would know the name Harvey Milk if not for George Moscone ripping apart the system that had given him his political career in favor of making democracy actually democratic.

Having moved to the Castro District in 1969, when it was a diverse community of long-time Irish working class, newer Latino working class, hippies and beatniks on the lam from Haight-Ashbury and North Beach, and a significant gay community, I got to know Harvey in 1970. He ran a camera shop on Castro Street between 18th and 19th streets (I lived with my wife around the corner up at 19th and Noe in a very cool one bedroom apartment behind the garage of the Victorian “2-flat” that had a panoramic view of the city from Twin Peaks across the city to the Golden Gate, the Marin Headlands, the East Bay, the Bay Bridge and Treasure Island, around to Portrero Hill - and the location was such, with a 12-foot dropoff from the garden, that we didn’t have to have curtains; everyone who ever dropped by was amazed.) That was right after I left Rolling Stone and was at loose ends about my creativity. Harvey was the guy who taught me to take my photography seriously; if you like what you’ve seen of what I do, thank Harvey for sending me down the right path.

Harvey Milk, elected to the Board of Supervisors in the election of 1977, would never have gotten there if George Moscone hadn’t championed district elections in San Francisco. The political power of Gays in California stands on George’s shoulders; and not just gays - George opened things up for all the other communities that had been marginalized, that ultimately transformed the Democratic Party in California.

But if you watch “Milk,” you’ll never know that. The screenwriter knew nothing of San Francisco politics (he’s from Utah), and he wrote The Myth. I remember the last time I talked to Harvey in his camera shop; he knew who he had to thank. It’s why he was George’s closest ally on the Board, and why he was targeted along with George for assassination by Dan White.

The assassinations of George and Harvey in Novemb er 1978 was the cornerstone of Diane Feinstein’s real success as a politician. By 1978, she was politically isolated on the Board of Supervisors by the new progressive victories; the conservatives were now the minority. By chance, she had the rotating position of Board President that November, and she made the most of it. She and George had politically been a pair of scorpions in a bottle for a long time. But she “grabbed the bloody shirt” and proclaimed herself the protector of the Moscone Legacy. In a moment of city-wide grief, people who didn’t understand the underlying truth of San Francisco politics, who thought a Democrat was a Democrat, grabbed onto that. She went on to replace George, first as acting mayor in the aftermath of the assassinations, and then elected to office. Just about the time even the low-information people in San Francisco began to figure out the truth about her, she got the chance to run for Senator to fill out Pete Wilson’s term after he got elected Governor.

The rest of the state decided - as I had in 1969 - that a woman Democrat from San Francisco had to be pretty progressive, and since it was “the year of the woman” in California politics with the great Barbara Boxer (my choice for one of the five best politicians California ever produced - the others being George, Willie Brown, Jesse Unruh and Nancy Pelosi - all tied for best) running for Senate, Feinstein won. Look at the difference between Boxer’s time in the Senate and Feinstein’s and you’ll see the difference between an actual California Progressive and a “character playing a role.”

Despite knowing personally what a despicable piece of shit Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington was and is, I didn’t vote for Senator in 1994. Feinstein got the full term without my help and remained in office thereafter without my help.

What’s going to be interesting now to California Democratic politics junkies - and others across the country - is what Gavin Newsom is going to do about replacing Feinstein in the Senate.

Newsom got where he is on the shoulders of the political groups who were invited into politics by George Moscone. He will need those folks for anything he chooses to do in the future. He wants to run for president in 2028; he’ll be happy to step in in 2024 if something happens to Biden. To do either, he needs the support of the political movers and shakers in California. Most particularly, he needs the political support of Nancy Pelosi; don’t think that sweet smile of hers means you can do what you want around her. As many have discovered, you cross her at your peril.

Back when it was more a “what if” than anything serious, Newsom said two years ago that if Feinstein died in office, he would appoint a non-white woman to succeed her. There are currently three Major California Democrats running for the 2024 Senate election. In order of where they are in the polls, that is Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee. Lee is the only one who fits the “what if” promise.

But now, with a serious plan to run for President, Newsom knows that Nancy Pelosi is very strongly behind the leading candidate, Adam Schiff (I agree with her), and he has to take that as a Major Point in whatever his decision is.

California Democratic politics has a strong “identitarian” element underlying the overall organization; the party is really a coalition of groups primarily organized by ethnic identification, with a multi-ethnic “establishment” led through the congressional delegation by Nancy Pelosi.

Newsom’s decision on who to send to the Senate - whatever it is - will definitely mean a run for president in 2024 would be difficult. Whichever part of the fractious coalition doesn’t get what they want here, there will be at least a significant minority of that group that is going to be gunning for him if he runs next year. His best hope is that Biden remains strong and he builds a national reputation as Biden’s Biggest Supporter. By 2028, whatever bad blood results from his decision now should be dissipated by later events.

Whichever choice he makes, the Feinstein Era of California Democratic politics is over and I don’t think there’s anyone who can recreate that.

As for me, I will follow the rule that one should only say good of the dead.

Diane Feinstein is dead.

Good.

(That’s a political “good,” not personal.)

I write That’s Another Fine Mess for you. Can you become a paid subscriber to support it?

Comments are for Paid Subscribers.