Greenberg: Kamala’s Defeat – We Dodged A Bullet

San Francisco still stumbles under the weight of progressive policies run amok. Homeless encampments, though greatly diminished, clutter its streets, crime still erodes public safety, and surprisingly empty downtown storefronts signal economic decay. Confidence continues to wane. The 2024 presidential election had offered a fleeting escape for the city’s embattled leaders—former Mayor London Breed, many Harris loyalists in city hall, even current Governor Gavin Newsom – who hoped a Kamala Harris presidency would shield them from accountability.

Harris’s defeat, however, was a triumph for taxpayers and a fed-up public, thwarting not only their potential federal bailouts but also their prized left-wing programs like Reparations and the continuation of divisive Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. From a San Francisco perspective — shared by a growing chorus of Americans — this Harris defeat demands local leaders face the consequences of their failures rather than hide in Washington.

Harris, Breed, and Newsom are products of San Francisco’s progressive machine, a political crucible that cultivates ambition but often delivers flawed governance. Their careers, intertwined over decades, were shaped by power brokers like former mayor and still influential Willie Brown, who once envisioned a “hotline” between Harris and Breed. This loyalty runs deep: Breed rallied for Harris in July of 2024, at San Francisco City Hall, while Newsom hailed Harris as “tough, fearless, tenacious” against Donald Trump. Yet public sentiment, reflected in polls, increasingly viewed those ties as cronyism, not simply camaraderie.

If Kamala was victorious, she would likely have rewarded her Bay Area allies with federal roles or funds, insulating them from their abject failures while imposing their deeply misguided policies on a larger scale: the nation. Americans, weary of elite favoritism, thankfully rejected this prospect at the ballot box, signaling a demand for results over excuses and the status quo.

London Breed’s ousting in the November 2024 mayoral race was a resounding rebuke from San Franciscan voters fed up with her tenure. Despite a massive, insane $16 billion city budget, homelessness surged, drug addicts still overdosed, empty office space grew, and crime persisted, all eroding public trust. Downtown’s vacant storefronts became a stark monument, a symbol of her inability to stem economic decline. A Harris presidency could have offered Breed a personal escape—perhaps as a deputy HUD secretary or White House advisor—leveraging her urban experience and Harris’s commitment to DEI diversity. Such a move would have infuriated a public already skeptical of rewarding failure. Echoing widespread frustration, we see this as elitism masquerading as progress: handing a failed SF mayor a D.C. lifeline instead of demanding accountability.

Governor Gavin Newsom, however, stood to gain the most from a Harris win. His current governorship, due to term out at the end of next year, is marred by policies many understandably call catastrophic, leaving California reeling. His $27 billion homelessness programs failed to clear tent cities (with funding that remains essentially unaccountable), a $68 billion 2023–2024 budget deficit strained taxpayers, and businesses like Chevron, Tesla, Oracle, Charles Schwab, Hewlett Packard, Phillip’s 66, and many more, fled high taxes and regulations. Proposition 47, which reduced penalties for certain crimes, fueled lawlessness, while Newsom’s 2035 gas car ban raises energy costs amid power grid failures. By 2024, his approval rating sagged to 44% (Berkeley poll). Californians and beyond lambast his leadership.

A Kamala Harris presidency would have been Newsom’s salvation. Federal funds could have propped up his Homekey housing initiative or green energy goals, easing his bloated, deficit-ridden budget woes. Harris’s housing tax credits and community policing plans aligned with Newsom’s agenda, allowing him to claim progress without addressing root causes. Her national stage would have recast his policies as visionary, not failing. Willie Brown suggested Newsom could serve as Secretary of Energy or Transportation. Yet public sentiment aligns with conservatives: a 2024 Rasmussen poll showed 60% of Americans opposed federal bailouts for blue states, reflecting distrust in leaders like Newsom leaning on D.C. to cover up local failures.

Harris’s loss also derailed cherished progressive programs like Reparations and DEI, which are divisive and fiscally reckless. In San Francisco, a reparations committee proposed $5 million per eligible Black resident, a plan clearly unworkable and unconstitutional. Newsom’s 2020 statewide reparations task force further fueled the push, while a 2023 Pew poll showed only 28% of Americans support cash reparations. A Harris administration, tied to Bay Area progressives, might have elevated such policies nationally, inflaming tensions and burdening taxpayers. Similarly, DEI initiatives—already under fire after 2024 (and continuing) corporate reversals and Supreme Court rulings against affirmative action—would likely have continued under Harris, given her administration’s equity focus. Public frustration persists today with DEI’s prioritization of ideology over merit. Harris’s defeat halted this momentum, aligning with voters’ rejection of her progressive overreach.

Today, California’s challenges continue, but a Harris presidency would have greatly worsened them. Her administration might have funneled billions into Newsom’s projects—homelessness grants, EV subsidies, urban aid—without tackling core issues like high taxes or overregulation. San Francisco’s economic stagnation would have been papered over, far from being resolved. Breed’s potential D.C. role would have signaled that failure carries no penalty, emboldening other mayors to mismanage cities and expect federal rescue. But we demand local leaders face voters’ verdict rather than be scooped up to hide in Washington.

Defenders might argue Breed’s experience suits her for federal work, but her record—rising crime, homeless encampments, huge mismanaged budget, a city in decline—undermines this claim. Her tenure was a disaster. Newsom’s allies insist a Harris win would have validated his climate and equity goals, but federal aid cannot fix a state crippled by bad policy.

Practical hurdles also loomed. A Republican Senate which indeed came to fruition post-2024, could have blocked Breed or Newsom’s appointments, scrutinizing their dismal records. Harris would have needed a diverse administration, not a failed San Francisco clique, to avoid alienating swing states. These constraints highlight the recklessness of her potential cronyism—elevating flawed allies at political cost.

Kamala Harris’ 2024 defeat was, among many things, a victory for accountability, thanks to a public tired of elite self-preservation. Breed faced the consequences of her mayoral loss, she couldn’t flee to a cushy D.C. post. Newsom’s policies, exposed without Harris’ federal cover, continue to falter, forcing him to confront California’s crises or risk his 2028 dreams. Other Bay Area figures, like Lateefah Simon, Barbara Lee, Eleni Kounalakis, even Nancy Pelosi, might have snagged minor roles, but the message is clear: In rejecting Harris, Americans chose accountability over cronyism.