Even among Blacks, Price’s support is eroding

Justin Phillips, the race columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, whom I’ve referenced often in this space, has done something surprising. He appears to be backing off his support of Pamela Price.

Normally, Justin’s column is entirely predictable. He’s constantly on the lookout for racism, and finds it everywhere. He’s reliably woke, with anti-police tendencies and a penchant for celebrating all-things Black while denigrating anyone he perceives as part of the White power structure. You’d expect Justin to be a huge supporter of Pamela Price. He’s celebrated her since her elevation to District Attorney earlier this year. Price “is delivering…as a victims’ rights champion,” he wrote in February, adding, “Price…could make the justice system fairer.”

Two months later, attempting to defend Price against mounting criticism of her, Justin wrote, “It’s apparent that Price is being subjected to a familiar playbook by opponents of progressive district attorneys” who portray her as “criminal-first, victim-last.”

But then came last Thursday night’s disastrous performance by Price at that Montclair neighborhood town meeting on crime; and now, Justin’s position on Madame D.A. seems to be shifting. The headline of his Saturday column surprised me: “It’s too early to say if DA is a hero or villain.”

That statement almost approaches the ideal of objectivity we expect in our journalists, and objectivity is not a quality Justin Phillips has been known for. He’s a race provocateur; for Justin to write, as he did in his column, that Price suffers from “a weakness” is telling. The weakness, in Justin’s telling, is “her repeated failure to read the room correctly and handle contentious public settings.” The “room” Justin referred to was the Montclair town hall; her “failure” to read it was proven by the smug, dismissive attitude she took toward her audience, who were clearly freaked out by crime and were looking for answers from Madame D.A.

They got no answers, only self-serving chichés that angered them.

Justin concludes that Price “is an imperfect public servant.” This is a significant move. Justin can’t quite bring himself to overtly criticize Price for her lenience on criminals, especially Black criminals; but in his mild admonitions of her, Justin is coming out of the closet just enough to let us know that he, too, is troubled by Price, even though he’s not ready to join the Recall movement.

Is Justin Phillips a canary in the coal mine, warning us (and Price) that even his support for her is shaky? It’s worth noting, in this context, that the Oakland chapter of the NAACP has been scathing in its denunciation of the D.A. In a statement the other day, the organization referred to “our District Attorney’s unwillingness to charge and prosecute people who murder and commit life-threatening serious crimes, and the proliferation of anti-police rhetoric have created a heyday for Oakland criminals"—a heyday that, of course, hurts Black people far more than White people. The statement—which is as much a fulmination against Cat Brooks as it is against Price—shows that a serious split has occurred within the Black community itself, a split further exemplified by Seneca Scott’s denunciations of Price. The NAACP is a moderate Black organization; they more than anyone perceive the danger of the kind of radical, Black Panther-inspired hate politics that Price, Brooks and (for that matter) woke politicians like Nikki Bas and Dan Kalb practice.

We should welcome that split. The important thing now is to encourage anything that weakens Pamela Price and her dwindling cadre of Black nationalists. One by one, we’re convincing voters that when the time comes to sign the Recall petition and do the actual voting, it’s their duty—to themselves, to their families, to Oakland, and to America—to fire Madame D.A. and send her back to where she came from.

 Steve Heimoff