Summertime is slow news time, which is maybe a good thing, in that we can relax from intensely covering developing news and take a bird’s-eye view of things. What have we learned in the past year?
For one, we’ve seen public attitudes on “defund the police” change drastically. In 2019-2020, defunding was a “thing,” not just among dedicated cop haters, but it was even making inroads into more moderate populations. I closely followed the situation in Oakland, but all over the country, in blue cities, politicians were either actively defunding cops or talking about it.
Then came what I have called “The Summer of Murder.” As early as May, 2021, police nationwide were bracing for a “more violent summer.” Here in Oakland, by the time summer was over, the number of murders had reached 133, “marking the city’s deadliest year since 2006.” Even neighborhoods long immune to gun violence experienced spikes: Temescal, Rockridge, Montclair and the Oakland Hills “saw 12 fatalities and 46 shootings.”
Public attitudes naturally began to shift and harden away from defunding and toward hiring more cops. People understood the police are out there protecting and serving us. We saw politicians, like Thao and Bas, try to wriggle out of their previous pro-defund positions; by September, 2021, they were talking about adding more police. Like most politicians, they hoped that the public wouldn’t notice their flip-flops. Both were running for office: Thao dreaming of her mayoral campaign, and Bas her re-election. Both figured there was little risk of switching their positions, with the public so disengaged from politics. They were probably right.
But what they didn’t change was their attitudes. We have to face the fact that a majority of the City Council still thinks that the Oakland Police Department should be defunded. They can’t come right out and say so. But the leopard can’t change its spots. It is my belief that this City Council, as currently composed, wishes to deliver more blows against OPD, and is just waiting for the time when the politics is opportune.
We’ve seen the same phenomenon across the country, with New York City electing a former cop, Eric Adams, as mayor; he ran on a public safety platform. We watched as San Franciscans fired Chesa Boudin and Mayor Breed replaced him with a tough-on-crime prosecutor, Brooke Jenkins. I could cite further instances; together, they prove that the “defund the police” crowd vastly overplayed their hand. They failed to read the room: they assumed that, post George Floyd, they could cut police department budgets in nearly all big cities, with the firm support of the American people. What they didn’t expect was what happened, which we predicted: the American people rose up and said, Oh, no, you don’t.
No one, least of all me, has ever claimed that hiring more cops will stop murder and other crimes. But doesn’t it stand to reason that the more cops out there on the street, the more inhibited criminals feel? We need also for D.A.s like Jenkins to indict more criminals, which is something she’s already promised to do—unlike Boudin, who let so many of them go free. Jenkins blamed “lenient politics that criminals have become aware of” for the spate of crime in San Francisco, and it was so refreshing to hear a D.A. talk like that. We’ve become used to a non-response from OPD for shoplifting and other crimes that, while they may technically be non-violent, certainly violate the rights and sensibilities of law-abiding citizens and deflate our quality of life. We’ve seen repeat offenders pass again and again through the revolving doors of our Halls of Justice, set free to prey once more on an innocent public. We’ve seen cash bail revoked, so that more criminals are released from incarceration, and we’ve seen D.A.s refusing to charge violent, predatory youths as adults.
Jenkins has, at least, promised to end these harmful practices. But already—and for that reason--the local media is out to get her. The San Francisco Chronicle, whom I have long blamed for pushing a “woke” anti-police agenda, has started undermining Jenkins, as in this article, which cites unnamed sources within the District Attorney’s office as accusing Jenkins of being “horrible” and “insane.” The Chronicle, which editorially supported Boudin, is out to get Jenkins even before she’s been in office for a week. We should all be very upset about this, but not surprised. One of the reasons Americans no longer trust traditional media like the Chronicle is because of this biased, hysterical muckraking.
As we head into the all-important midterm elections, everyone’s wondering how things will turn out. There are vast forces at play, which I need not describe since we all know what they are. It’s clear that there’s an anti-progressive movement in this country that was unforeseen a year ago but has been gathering force. It’s also clear that Oakland is an outlier from American politics in general. It’s conceivable that radically leftwing politicians like Pamela Price will win locally in November, thrusting Oakland into another cycle, or a continuing cycle, of crime and violence. Somehow, Oakland voters always seem to stubbornly resist the more normal direction of American politics, which is why things are so broken here.
We, the Coalition, will of course be publishing our Voters Guide well in advance of the election. We’re studying the issues and researching the candidates, not all of whom have yet emerged. We are absolutely certain that things have to change, if our beloved city is to be rescued. The cabal that’s been running Oakland for years has led to its despoliation. They will never admit it, but we all know it’s true: anyone who follows the City Council must feel despair. The question is, can we turn out for the election with enough force to overthrow the people who have allowed, and even encouraged, this ruination? The answer depends on you. Vote as if your life depends on it, because it does.
Steve Heimoff