There’s a group within the Congress of the United States called the Problem Solvers Caucus, which describes itself as “an independent member-driven group in Congress, comprised of representatives from across the country – equally divided between Democrats and Republicans – committed to finding common ground on many of the key issues facing the nation.” The group believes “that there are commonsense solutions to many of the country's toughest challenges,” if only politicians will “break through the gridlock of today’s politics.”
There’s been some talk in the last 24 hours about why the Problem Solvers Caucus wasn’t more visible during the recent House of Representatives brouhaha concerning Kevin McCarthy. Where were they, some pundits are asking? Why didn’t they come forward with a commonsense solution to the dilemma? We don’t know the answer at this time, but the idea of a Problem Solvers Caucus is certainly a good one. After all, a House divided against itself cannot stand.
Is it time in Oakland for all the different sides to come together in a non-ideological way and find some “commonsense solutions” to such issues as homelessness, policing, and crime? The evidence increasingly suggests that this isn’t possible.
Even in the Congress, the Problem Solvers Caucus hasn’t amounted to much. Philosophical divisions—even within the same party—often make it impossible to agree on anything. Here in Oakland, we don’t have partisan politics, per se; all local politicians are Democrats. But we do have a gulf between moderate Democrats and Progressive, or woke, Democrats. And this gulf is as wide as any division between Congressional Republicans and Democrats.
It would be nice if, for example, moderate leaders such as Lynette Gibson McElhaney (Fife’s predecessor), Libby Schaaf and Loren Taylor could sit down with their Progressive counterparts, like Carroll Fife, Nikki Bas and Sheng Thao, and achieve a consensus of policies. The reason I’m skeptical that this could ever happen is because the Progressives have traditionally taken a “my way or the highway” approach. Their positions are so extreme, and they’re so entrenched in a paranoid interpretation of reality, that I can’t see them ever negotiating in good faith about anything. When you’ve convinced yourself that American history is nothing but an ongoing genocide of White people against people of color—that police officers hunt down and kill Black people for sport—that criminals are “our babies, our children,” who have been misunderstood—that racism lurks under every stone, inside every crevice, in the edifice of American society—that there are no solutions to the crime and poverty of Black people except to “fight the power”—well, you can’t negotiate with lunatics.
There are some signs lately that Oakland politics are changing, with a slight wing of the pendulum back to the center. The two most recent City Council members, Janani Ramachandran and Kevin Jenkins, so far seem less extreme than the other members, with Ramachandran in particular elevating common sense above ideology. But they’ve been in office for too short a time for us to truly understand where they’re coming from; it’s to be hoped that they perceive the damage that Fife, Bas, Kaplan and Kalb have done in the past, and are determined to repair it. Noel Gallo is a special case, as he always is; one day he’s a champion of public safety, the next he’s riding the woke train to oblivion. As for Treva Reid, she’s the quiet one, with no particular constituency or pronounced views. We could do worse than Treva, but she’s no leader.
Still, maybe Reid and Gallo could represent the moderates if ever Oakland has a Problem Solvers Caucus. But again, the wokes won’t permit this to happen; at heart, they’re anarchists, bent on destruction, not solutions. Blow the whole damned system up and rebuild it according to our dictates: that’s their political philosophy. It’s pitiful, it really is, that we’ve allowed them to come this far. The inmates are in charge of the asylum. It took a long time for Oakland to dig itself into this hole, and it will take a long time to dig ourselves out. But we have no choice. We can begin by recalling Pamela Price. The process won’t be easy. Signature gathering is hard, and then we’d have to win the election. I think, if the election were held today, Price would be recalled. But we need 72,000 valid signatures to get on to the ballot, which in reality means we have to get 100,000, because many signatures will be held invalid by the Registrar of Voters. I’m waiting for Carl Chan to begin his formal training of signature gatherers; it can’t start soon enough. Please volunteer to be one.
Steve Heimoff