Who’s Still Sending Virtue Signals?

It seems that just about all San Francisco political leaders have lately acknowledged the need to rein in progressive policies—except perhaps the one running for President of the United States.

Compared to past elections, the mayor’s race in San Francisco this year has been striking for its focus on the need for law and order. Even many leftist politicos are sounding more moderate these days and offering fewer progressive virtue signals—perhaps because such signals don’t yield progress and lack virtue.

The San Francisco Standard’s David Sjostedt reports on the incumbent running for re-election:

How very Texan of Ms. Breed. Earlier this year she led a successful referendum campaign to cut off cash assistance to drug addicts who refuse to enter treatment programs. While she’s at it, perhaps she’ll consider turning off the subsidy spigot entirely for able-bodied adults.

Meanwhile across the Bay, there is a similar political hunger for a new approach to social problems. Rigel Robinson, a former member of the Berkeley City Council, opines in the Standard:

Back in San Francisco, another Breed departure from the kooky dogma of the extreme left is suddenly relevant to our national political discourse. Last December this column noted a Jose Martinez report for CBS News in San Francisco:

The office would have been a precursor to attempting to redistribute money from people who never owned slaves to people who were never enslaved. It isn’t just the principle of reparations plans that’s offensive , or the difficulty and destructiveness of government officials trying to precisely define the level of ancestral guilt or victimhood within the great American melting pot. It’s also the money.

In early 2023, after studying the work of San Francisco’s reparations committee, Lee Ohanian at Stanford’s Hoover Institution provided a ballpark estimate:

Pretty much everyone in San Francisco, even those who favor expansive social spending, recognized that this leap into the depths of progressive insanity wasn’t going to happen.

In February of this year, Aldo Toledo reported in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Opposing reparations plans—un-American efforts to punish or reward people based on their ancestry—is now a perfectly safe space for politicians on the left to show how reasonable they have become. If a massive reparations plan failed in San Francisco for goodness sake, politicians campaigning nationwide can be comfortable rejecting it, too.

But the Democratic presidential candidate from San Francisco still won’t do it. Curtis Bunn reports for NBC News:

Any gathering of journalists is likely to be deflated when a candidate refuses to stake out the leftwardmost position on an issue of public policy. But for the rest of America, it’s bound to be disturbing that Ms. Harris won’t repudiate an extreme position she held as a presidential candidate in the last election.

The logical conclusion is that she’s still just as radical as her record.