a healthy thing. Daly was a very polarizing figure and Kim is far more effective at getting things done. Likewise Breed is likely to be far more reasonable than the gruff Mirk. Chui ushered in a new mayor who is popular with the people, and there is a feeling now that the city government is closer to the moderate, liberal center of the majority of the people here, who disdain extremists of either hue and rigis doma's with equal ferocity.

If SF is going to have a government that is moderate and capable of listening to all parties rather than just their lobby groups and base constituencies, then it has to be a good thing for the city. The changing demographics of the city demand no less.

The old style progressive movement is a thing of the past, if you want to finger point aim it towards Redmond and Jones as they put the last of the nails into the progressive coffin when they destroyed the Davis campaign in D5

Moderate Progressives support social services to the poor, are pro-tenant, AND wish to foster more homeownership opportunities.

The progressives are now relegated to interoperating within politics under the proviso that they accept the neoliberal framing and work within it.

The squishy center is simply less circumspect about their embracing of corporate power, siding with it under the hopes of gaining political advantage over the long term. I don't see how one can ascribe an ideology, left, right, liberal, progressive to transactionalists.

The remnant progressives are relegated to the point where they accede to corporate imperative and simply decline to leverage what is supposed to be their comparative advantage--community organizing--to stop corporate dominance.

So they came up with the term "moderate" (why not call it what it is?). "Moderate progressive" is a non sequitur. Try saying "conservative progressive" to see how absurd it sounds. Neoliberalism, the better term, is just a form of capitulation to the terms set by the 1% and to the capitalist order. It is really just conservatism with an occasional bone thrown out to the poor so it doesn't appear so heartless. But the result is the same: Neoliberal actors who force austerity down the throats of the 99% to profit the large corporations (study the recent history of European "socialism"). People who capitulate to corporate rule are not progressive in any sense of the term.

There is also the notion that if one positions oneself as the perpetual swing vote that one gains more power for oneself. Peskin played this role but was fundamentally grounded politically. These new swing vote supervisors are doing so transactionally for their own self interest.

It is not like corporate power could function without the social services nonprofits, as these tools are critical to their continued dominance as they effectively neutralize any progressive challenge. If progressives hadn't adopted the nonprofit social services as political touchstones, corporate power would have had to have created them.