The backlash to the Chesa Boudin recall—which itself is a backlash to the “defund the police” movement—is in full force, with pro-Boudin forces claiming that the June 7 recall is “one of the single-biggest causes celebres for national right-wing media and wealthy conservative donors.”
That’s in the words of a Boudin defender, Adam Johnson, who wrote an op-ed piece in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle that strongly defends the embattled District Attorney. Adams concedes that there exists “genuine, organic opposition to Boudin in San Francisco outside of the right-wing media echo chamber,” but this concession is made only passingly and grudgingly. Adams quickly returns to his central thesis that the Boudin recall is “the logical outcome” of “current anti-reform” efforts by police critics. In other words, the people demanding Boudin’s recall are consciously or unconsciously aiding and abetting far right, rich white people who view the perpetuation of their own privileged status as threatened by such “police reform.”
This is a serious charge that needs to be answered. The Left always has been sensitive to being “useful idiots” who “propagandize for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who [are] cynically used by the cause's leaders.” In order that those of us who support the Boudin recall may “fully comprehend” whether or not we are indeed being used by the Trumpian forces of Fox News, it’s important to emphasize that on occasion, liberals may agree with conservatives on specific issues. Readers of this blog know that I strongly disagree with the far right on issues ranging from gay rights to abortion to the Big Lie about the 2020 Presidential election to the efforts to disenfranchise people of color from voting. Yet I fail to understand why support of the police—and a parallel objection to a District Attorney who is not keeping his constituents safe—can in any way be a partisan issue.
The most objectionable part of Johnson’s op-ed piece, then, is his insinuation that “liberals aligning with these forces”—that is, with the anti-Boudin forces—“do so at tremendous costs.” That cost, he asserts, is empowering “a foaming right-wing media machine.” I find that offensive. In essence, he’s accusing those of us who support Boudin’s recall of being pro-Trump. I suppose that, when Boudin is recalled (as I believe he will be), and when the three S.F. School Board members are similarly recalled tomorrow (as I believe they will be), Tucker Carlson will claim that even San Francisco’s far-left, feminist, progressive queers feel that woke politicians have gone too far.
But that is a risk we take when we espouse positions. Let the right rant; they will anyway. All we can do is insist that, while we support many of the aims of progressivism, there are limits to that support. The thing that remains paramount to remember is that “The first duty of the Government is to afford protection to its citizens."
Those powerful words were uttered by John F. Farnsworth, a Republican congressman from Illinois, in 1867, during Congressional debate over the Reconstruction Act, which formalized terms for the readmission to the Union of the Rebel states. Farnsworth’s point was that African-Americans and their property had to be protected by any State that wished to be part of the Federal union. The same truth holds today. Sadly, the anti-police crowd seem not to get the point that people of color will not be protected in their communities unless they are adequately guarded by the police. If believing this means agreeing with Republicans, then so be it. Let’s call it post-partisan politics and move forward.
Steve Heimoff