Mayor Lurie can’t help S.F. by ripping Trump, yet. But he could help himself.

Love what you read? Love that it was free?

Mission Local will never have a paywall. All our articles are free for everyone, always. Help us keep it that way — donate to our end-of-year fundraiser to make Mission Local free for your neighbors.

Donate today!

If you’ve ever discussed your problems with Mayor Daniel Lurie, he is an empathetic man. He maintains eye contact. His questions — Who is your insurance provider? Who is your doctor? — are subtle. They give him a gentle in to do more than just listen, if need be. He wants to help. 

So Lurie’s reticence to forcefully criticize President Donald Trump’s cruel and provocative behavior, and address the intentional pain and distress it has caused the Bay Area’s vulnerable immigrants doesn’t come from a lack of empathy. It doesn’t come from an inability to process or comprehend human emotions.

Unlike other current and former San Francisco politicians, Lurie isn’t a borderline sociopath with an inability to relate to fellow human beings on an individual level. 

Rather, Lurie is sticking to the script. Monomaniacally, perhaps, but that’s what people voted for. Lurie is in office because of the deep unpopularity of his predecessor and his prodigious ability to self-finance, but also because of his promise to address public safety, street conditions and the hollowing out of Downtown.

You can argue about how well he’s doing these things, but he’s trying to do them. This, along with being a hype man for San Francisco, is what he is in office to do. Nobody — noooobody — voted for Lurie because of his policy chops, his ties to influential government figures or his sterling oratory. San Francisco is not lacking political leaders who possess those things, and Lurie is rendering it unto them. 

This is not satisfying. This is not satisfying at all. We can’t help but look to our elected leaders for moral clarity, even though history, going back to the dawn of civilization, reveals this to be perhaps the most ill-suited place you could look. You can’t legislate morality. And you can’t beget effective legislation by being moral. 

Would voters reward Lurie if he gave the president hell? Maybe. Would it be good for San Francisco? Maybe not.

“If I were mayor of a major city and I needed to have enduring popularity? I’d want people to believe I was fighting this guy,” sums up a longtime city politico. “Your power is based upon, to some degree, your popularity. Unless you had a pretty goddamn good reason, why would you sacrifice your popularity?” 

But opinions differ here: “Maybe it’s a wise strategy for the people of San Francisco, and maybe it’s chickenshit,” says another longtime city mover and shaker. “And maybe it’s both.”

Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. And among those who’ve sat in Lurie’s chair, there is an understanding around how he’s handling himself here. Following the earthquake in 1989, Vice President Dan Quayle landed in Marina Green in a helicopter and was photographed making speeches and shaking hands, and took off without meeting Mayor Art Agnos. Agnos decried this as a “publicity stunt” and said he was “ticked off.” And, suddenly, that was the story, imperiling both Agnos and, more crucially, San Francisco.

“That started a cross-country argument. I started to see political missiles coming back at me. How do I protect this city? How do I protect the FEMA funds? I toned it down,” says Agnos, 36 years later. 

“Everybody likes to see a fight. But I did not want that. So I understand what Lurie is doing. What’s the impact going to be? You can’t just mouth off.” 

Gov. Gavin Newsom might be an example for Lurie, in more than one way. His political star has rarely been brighter. 

Once again, Newsom has been anointed the leader of the resistance. God help us. 

It is, when you think about it, amazing how many media observers are claiming that our governor has “found his mojo” or his “voice” or whatever now that he’s calling out the president instead of platforming fascists on his dopey podcast.

In case you missed it, this week Newsom urged federal officials to come arrest him instead of abducting toddlers, a moment eerily reminiscent of Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy excoriating the media for an article critical of his quarterback by bellowing, “Come after me! I’m a man! I’m 40!”

Was this the right thing for the governor to say? Yes. But, for Newsom, the Rubicon had been crossed: Trump had already usurped the governor’s rightful authority by provocatively federalizing the National Guard and sending in the troops over Newsom’s objection.

The barbarians aren’t at the gate, they’re through it. There is no downside to talking like this for the governor (or, for that matter, for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass). At this point, it’s kind of de rigueur. 

So, no, Newsom didn’t find his mojo or his voice or whatever. This is opportunistic behavior, just as it was opportunistic for him to host Charlie Kirk or Steve Bannon on his podcast and punch down on trans people. It doesn’t become less opportunistic just because you agree with it, or even because it’s the right thing to do. 

Say what you will about Gavin Newsom, he’s an equal-opportunity opportunist. 

It’s one thing for Newsom to talk tough after troops are already on the ground. And it’s another for our state-level legislators to call out Trump’s authoritarianism.

But there are not troops on the ground here in San Francisco. Not yet. Lurie “has a different role than independent federal or state legislators,” said Agnos. “He has to worry about 800,000 people.” 

Lurie is working in real government now, not “The West Wing.” Politicians, in reality, might not say the morally upright thing when it can bring no tangible positive benefits to their constituents, but could bring negative ones. They also don’t walk half-marathons while having discussions. 

There is presently no tangible benefit for San Franciscans to Lurie talking tough about the president. There is nothing a mayor can do about the manipulative and inhumane immigration actions of the sort taking place in this city. 

Lurie is attempting to walk a tightrope here . There are clowns to the left of him who clearly desire to slash and burn this city during protests, and jokers to the right, itching to send the National Guard to San Francisco because of images of slashing and burning emanating from “largely peaceful protests.” 

Add to this combustible mix Lurie’s desire not to have the city’s improving vibes ruined by conceptions of violence and lawlessness, real or perceived. So: It’s a lot. 

But Lurie’s reticence to speak the president’s name, in a manner, has become the story as well. City officials made the all-too-obvious Voldemort comparison in the New York Times, where the mayor also refused to comment on whether Newsom should be arrested, as Trump has suggested. 

This was silly and untenable, and Lurie has evidently started to loosen his script. In part, that’s because the situation in California has worsened. Sen. Alex Padilla was manhandled by federal agents, and federalized troops are still on the ground in Los Angeles. This week, Lurie decried the treatment of Padilla, and called out immigration actions as “inhumane” and “intended to terrorize people.” 

Those itching for our mayor to criticize the president by name may well get their wish, and right soon. It is hard not to foresee more and more Rubicons being crossed by an authoritarian president pushing the limits of federal power. It is hard not to foresee that path leading into San Francisco city limits. 

And then we’ll all have problems to discuss with Mayor Daniel Lurie.  

Additional reporting from Jessica Blough and Margaret Kadifa.