Berkeley is actually less liberal than Oakland (and SF) (San Francisco: fit in, homes)

[BayDude]

Republican Ron Paul gets welcomed by crowd of thousands at UC Berkeley:


Ron Paul rocks UC Berkeley - YouTube

This is contrast with the Occupy Oakland movement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/ma...pagewanted=all

Even when walking through Berkeley the vibe is noticeably different from either Oakland or SF. Not bad just different.

When did Berkeley go from being America's most radical (left) city to showing huge support for a republican candidate?

This is an interesting development.

Thoughts?

[analyze_this]

The only reason he has any following is because of his virulent anti war stance and his lack of support for Israel.

[DocGoldstein]

Ron Paul isn't exactly going to be welcomed by stormfront supporters, and guys like Rush Limbaugh either.

His anti-war, anti-corporatism, and anti-government stance make him very attractive to those of the left.

Also judging from the destruction and rioting that occurred in Oakland during the Occupy riots, Oakland has become more of an anarchist playground than either left/right. San Francisco is left even now, but the city and its residents are more middle ground yuppies than the S.F residents of the 70s and 80s.

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Ron Paul isn't exactly going to be welcomed by stormfront supporters, and guys like Rush Limbaugh either.

His anti-war, anti-corporatism, and anti-government stance make him very attractive to those of the left.

Also judging from the destruction and rioting that occurred in Oakland during the Occupy riots, Oakland has become more of an anarchist playground than either left/right. San Francisco is left even now, but the city and its residents are more middle ground yuppies than the S.F residents of the 70s and 80s.

I agree with much of what you said, yet it still doesn't explain why the same candidate who would probably barely draw a few hundred in SF or Oakland, somehow drew thousands in Berkeley. It's unprecedented for a Republican candidate no matter his platform.

And Oakland is definitely far-left. SF is far left but increasingly less so, moving slowly to the middle. Berkeley has become something else entirely.

It's now suddenly pro-business and voting on laws (sit-lie for example) that simply would not have flown 20 or even 10 years ago.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by BayDude

I agree with much of what you said, yet it still doesn't explain why the same candidate who would probably barely draw a few hundred in SF or Oakland, somehow drew thousands in Berkeley. It's unprecedented for a Republican candidate no matter his platform.

And Oakland is definitely far-left. SF is far left but increasingly less so. Berkeley has become something else entirely.

It's now suddenly pro-business and voting on laws (sit-lie for example) that simply would not have flown 20 or even 10 years ago.

What's wrong with being pro-small-business? Berkeley still makes it exceedingly hard for chains to setup in the more accessible areas of the city, favoring small businesses and independents.

Also, the reason why Ron Paul wouldn't draw a huge crowd in Oakland is because compared to Berkeley, the general populace is more knowledgeable about Ron Paul's platform than people in Oakland would be. You would be hard pressed to find many people in Oakland who actually know what Ron Paul's platform is compared to your average UC Berkeley college freshman. Most in Oakland would simply write him off as some right wing tea party member and leave it at that. Just look at the reaction to the Occupy Movement in Berkeley compared to Oakland; it was measured, progressive, but generally peaceful. It also drew thousands of people without inciting outright violence.

Now look at Oakland; pregnant women pushed on the ground, veterans shot in the head with rubber bullets permanently disabling them, millions of dollars of property damage, burning police cars in downtown, and multi-million dollar lawsuits against the city for the conduct of the Oakland PD. It was straight up violence and anarchy, and frankly uneducated thuggery.

Basically when it comes to politics, Berkeley hasn't gone "more right" per say, but I find the response is less eruptive, violent, reactive, and anarchist than back in the 70s, where areas Oakland's response (especially during Occupy 2011) seems to be more based on destruction and violence.

Ron Paul doesn't really fit into the whole left/right political container, so he's hard to understand if you're not really educated about what he represents. Unfortunately, that's expecting too much out of your normal Oakland/S.F citizen these days.

[Podo944]

Originally Posted by analyze_this

The only reason he has any following is because of his virulent anti war stance and his lack of support for Israel.

Spent a day in Berkeley on a road trip with hubby not too long ago, and saw a display of bumper stickers. There was a stack of "****k Israel" bumper stickers among them.
I have to say I was pretty then

So yeah, Berkeley has it's share of militants and Ron Paul would probably appeal.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by Podo944

Spent a day in Berkeley on a road trip with hubby not too long ago, and saw a display of bumper stickers. There was a stack of "****k Israel" bumper stickers among them.
I have to say I was pretty then

So yeah, Berkeley has it's share of militants and Ron Paul would probably appeal.

That statement doesn't really make sense. Ron Paul is anti-war, but AFAIK, he's never supported an anti-Israel platform. He's only ever supported non-intervention in the issue, including not funding Israel with billions of dollars of military aid every year, especially when the domestic economy is teetering on the brink. That doesn't strike me as "militant".

This is what I'm talking about, Ron Paul's platform is misunderstood in general because he doesn't fit "stormfront right", or "Jesse Jackson left". At his base, Ron Paul can be called a "constitutionalist", not that most people can actually remember what the constitution actually says without going to Google or Wikipedia. That's how diluted politics has to be these days for people to grasp it unfortunately.

[Larry Siegel]

Ron Paul is a small-L libertarian, with some traditional conservative views mixed in. Libertarianism (live and let live; minimal government) tends to appeal to college students, of which there are many in Berkeley.

[BayDude]

What's wrong with being pro-small-business? Berkeley still makes it exceedingly hard for chains to setup in the more accessible areas of the city, favoring small businesses and independents.

Not pro small business but pro-business in general. The sit-lie law for example is an example of Berkeley attempting to create a friendlier business environment. It was voted down, but the fact it was voted in the first place is pretty unprecedented. BTW there are plenty of chain stores in Berkeley. Even in neighborhoods like telegraph.

Now look at Oakland; pregnant women pushed on the ground, veterans shot in the head with rubber bullets permanently disabling them, millions of dollars of property damage, burning police cars in downtown, and multi-million dollar lawsuits against the city for the conduct of the Oakland PD. It was straight up violence and anarchy, and frankly uneducated thuggery.

Oakland has (and arguably always has) a more militant vibe and it reflects in the types of things that occur in it.

Berkeley has always seemed more thoughtful, educated and (dare I say) civilized. This is for obvious reasons. Berkeley residents are highly educated, informed as well as affluent.

Basically when it comes to politics, Berkeley hasn't gone "more right" per say, but I find the response is less eruptive, violent, reactive, and anarchist than back in the 70s, where areas Oakland's response (especially during Occupy 2011) seems to be more based on destruction and violence.

I would argue it has maybe not gone "more to the right" but more tolerant of opposing views and open to accepting other ideas. There is a sense of moderation I get from Berkeley residents that I don't get from Oakland or SF. The city has wised up and laid off most of the radicalism.

This is not to say it's lost its "wackiness". It's just a more live and let live environment. Whereas on the flip side it can feel wholly uncomfortable being libertarian/conservative in SF or Oakland.

To sum up the types of liberalism in the three cities:

Oakland = Militant and angry
SF = Crazy and in-your-face
Berkeley = Wacky/Quirky but still within reason

[Carlite]

Ron Paul may draw a crowd on campus, but I think the Republican vote in Berkeley is something like 10%.

I'm not sure that Berkeley, Oakland, or San Francisco can be said to be "more" liberal. It depends how you measure. But they are three significantly different places. San Francisco is highly urban, increasingly affluent (with some poor areas) and largely White and Asian. Gays are a strongly organized political force in San Francisco. Oakland is urban but less than half as dense as San Francisco, with strong representations of White, Blacks, Asians, and Latinos. Oakland's residents are on the whole poorer than San Francisco's. Berkeley has an urban core around the UC campus, then belts of smaller and larger single family homes.

The size and role of the city matters. Berkeley is a city of approximately 100,000, with a strong influence of the university. Oakland is around 400,000 where the Port, the airport, and a concentration of government agencies are key economic drivers. Oakland is a secondary central city in the region. San Francisco is a city of almost 800,000. the most important (though not the most populous) central city in the Bay Area. Politics tends to shape itself around these characteristics. While many San Franciscans (not all) have worried about what they perceive as over-development, Oakland has largely welcomed development with open arms.

Berkeley not only voted down the sit-lie proposal (narrowly), it also voted down a proposal that would have made the zoning for some key sites in West Berkeley more transactional, more subject to negotiations and less governed by fixed zoning rules. That measure also lost narrowly and was also pitched as a way of attracting more business to West Berkeley.

Though Berkeley got more press, Oakland has a radical tradition that stretches back to the Black Panther Party in the 1960's and beyond that to the labor movement of the 1940's. Oakland had the last general strike in the United States in 1946. Occupy Oakland was not a fluke.