So far this year, two prominent progressive Democratic volunteer organizations refused to renew their charters with San Francisco’s Democratic Party. Leaders of the groups claim it’s a matter of principle, but in reality, it looks more like the groups are picking up their balls and leaving as a matter of political convenience.
Late last month, the San Francisco Latinx Democratic Club announced they would “depart” the San Francisco Democratic Party and instead “affiliate themselves with other entities.” They follow in the footsteps of the Rose Pak Democratic Club, which announced its split with the local party in January.
Both groups claim their exodus is a matter of principle. In a letter to the Democratic County Central Committee, the party’s local governing body, Rose Pak club president Jeremy Lee said, “The party has failed to show it can meaningfully address the immediate needs and concerns of immigrant communities.” Meanwhile, San Francisco Latinx Democratic Club Vice President Michael Rouppert read a similar statement into the record of the Central Committee’s March 26 meeting, stating “We are the second Democratic club to intentionally not recharter, and the pattern of local clubs representing people of color leaving the San Francisco Democratic Party is apparent.”
That last statement especially begs whether two clubs, especially these clubs, leaving the local party constitutes “a pattern.” The committee currently has 21 clubs chartered, including the Edwin Lee Asian American Democratic Club; the Fenix Democratic Club, a new club representing the Latine community; and the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, generally considered one of the city’s leading progressive organizations. On the other hand, the Chinese American Democratic Club, one of the city’s oldest Democratic groups, has never chartered with the local committee.
Nor is it entirely clear that principle played a primary role in their departure.
Leaders of the groups claim it’s a matter of principle, but in reality, it looks more like the groups are picking up their balls and leaving as a matter of political convenience.
Another pattern can be seen in elements in local progressive operatives calling sour grapes on the local Democratic party ever since a more moderate majority took control of the Central Committee after the March 2024 primary election. It could be argued that it started happening as soon as the new committee’s first meeting the following month, when leaders of the San Francisco Labor Council staged an outrage kabuki performance over, of all things, a committee resolution restating an “unwavering commitment to stand in solidarity with San Francisco labor unions.”
Labor Council Executive Director Kim Tavaglione and six remaining progressive members of the committee criticized the resolution for having “toothless” language and the committee for not clearing the statement with the council in advance. They attempted to postpone the item, and when they failed, Tavaglione staged a walkout, telling reporters, “I think this is the official break of San Francisco Labor and the Democratic Party in San Francisco,” and that she would “destroy them.”
In the meantime, remaining progressives on the Central Committee, including Peter Gallotta, Connie Chan, Michael Nguyen, and Gordon Mar, have continued to poke the bear over another talking point, the fact that majority members received support from stratospheric tech CEOs who routinely donate to both Democrats and Republicans on the national level. They proffered a resolution slamming big tech for donating to President Donald Trump’s inauguration committee, and it still passed, albeit with some pushback.
Most recently, resolutions at the committee’s March meeting addressing the Trump administration’s abuse of its impoundment power to force massive cuts to federal services, and even targeting union-busting at crunchy outdoor retailer REI, were adopted with overwhelming majorities, nevertheless punctuated by passive-aggressive displays of shaming (including by local bad-faith news impressaria Julie Pitta, during public comment), long performative speeches (by progressive member and former Supervisor John Avalos), and requested roll call votes to demonstrate that there wasn’t any ideological schism on the issues that matter most.
Meanwhile, both the Latinx Democratic Club and The Rose Pak Democratic Club have reputations to live down in other areas, like being associated with affordable housing nonprofits that throw their considerable weight around, such as the Chinatown Community Development Center, where Jeremy Lee works, and the Tenants and Owners Development Corporation (TODCO) where Jon Jacobo, a former vice president of the Latinx Democratic Club has worked. These clubs are prominent in the activist-legislative aide-lobbyist pipeline that dominates the team benches in San Francisco’s development politics.
The other oversized donkey in the room is, of course, the allegations of sexual abuse against Jacobo, as well as the current Latinx Democratic Club president, Kevin Ortiz. Just as the Central Committee adopted new rules to deal with sexual abuse in the local political community, the Latinx Democratic Club bowed out of the local party, instead convening what some have called a sham process to try and evaporate the allegations around Ortiz.
Viewed from this admittedly complex perspective, it becomes easier to see that recent Democratic defections are more than about whether the local party still follows the liberal catechism. Sometimes the performance is all about what happened behind the curtain.
