What I Learned This Week

This week I had eight guests over for dinner — a mix of San Francisco Republicans and politically moderate No Party Preference voters. Our conversation clarified three things for me that, taken together, point toward a more persuasive style of Republican politics in the Bay Area.

First: If we want to matter in San Francisco, we have to speak not only to people’s minds but to their hearts. Republicans often assume that if we explain the facts, make the argument, and point out the failures of progressive governance, people will eventually come along. But politics rarely works that way, especially in a city like this one.

San Franciscans are moved by compassion, kindness, and a sincere desire to help others. Republicans make a serious mistake when we leave that entire emotional register to the left. We need rhetoric that is not only truthful but big-hearted. People will listen more closely if they believe we genuinely care about addiction, bad schools, unsafe streets, loneliness, and the dislocation that is likely to come as AI transforms the economy. At the same time, we need to say, gently but clearly, that what feels kind in the short run is not always what is truly kind in the long run. Our path to success involves blending empathy and honesty.

Second: We need clear principles, and one of the best I heard this week was the old adage: give people a fishing pole rather than a fish. I like this idea because it points toward a form of compassion that does not merely relieve immediate discomfort, but tries to help people become stronger, more capable, and more free.

That principle can travel a long way. In public safety, it means restoring order so people can live, work, and raise families without fear. In education, it means helping students master the basics and igniting their love of learning so they can go as far as their talents can take them. In homelessness, it means offering treatment, structure, and a path back to independence rather than simply providing housing while continuing to tolerate drug abuse.

We need to make the case that generosity detached from a realistic understanding of human psychology often creates moral hazards and leaves people weaker rather than stronger. If we are going to offer the Bay Area a real alternative, it cannot simply be “less progressive” or “less woke.” We should aspire to become an idea machine rooted in conservative principles and honest about human nature: equal opportunity rather than equal outcomes, content of character rather than identity politics, and tolerance that is broad rather than selective.

Third: Education may be the best place to begin, precisely because it is where heart and principle can come together most powerfully. If we want to demonstrate that we care, there are few better ways than becoming passionately devoted to improving public education. And if we want to show that our principles lead somewhere constructive, education is one of the clearest places to prove it, because strong schools remain the most reliable path to upward mobility.

One guest suggested a core principle for our work in education: schools should take students as far as they can go. That simple idea has clear implications. We should support the science of reading, defend merit and academic excellence at schools like Lowell, and insist that equal opportunity is not served by lowering standards. It also means caring just as deeply about students trapped in bad schools as we do about preserving excellence in the schools that are working well.

My takeaway from this week’s conversations is that many Bay Area voters are dissatisfied, but they do not yet see a second voice that is humane, principled, and serious. If we can become that voice, people will listen and respond.