Despite various issues like corruption and influence, America remains a representative republic, including the struggling city of Los Angeles. It’s true that Democrats have significant sway over public labor unions and utilize NGOs for their benefit, alongside powerful super PACs tied to Hollywood and the media.
But ultimately, individual members of unions, NGO staff, and those in the media and entertainment sectors have a say in the type of city they inhabit. Today, we may get a sense of that.
Well, perhaps not today. We might have to wait several days or even weeks for the city’s slow vote tallying process to reveal the outcome.
What we’re about to learn is crucial—it will indicate whether there’s any hope left for Los Angeles. If voters acknowledge the current state of their city and still choose to reelect the incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, well, that’s quite telling.
It’s disheartening to think that voters may overlook the devastation around them and opt for more of the same. The same goes for Democratic Socialist Party MP Nitya Raman; there’s little faith in that choice.
For Los Angeles to have a fighting chance, voting for Republican Spencer Pratt seems essential. If the citizens of this once-thriving city miss this opportunity to initiate change, we could be looking at a significant population decline and widespread despair.
Today marks a step towards that possibility. This primary will determine which two out of the three candidates will proceed to the general election in November. Even if Pratt hadn’t entered the race, choosing between Bass and Raman could be seen as a step toward self-destruction. If Pratt secures a spot but fails to surpass the polls suggesting he’s in the low twenties, that wouldn’t send a good message either.
If all goes wrong, it won’t be Pratt’s doing. There’s a narrative that Republicans falter in Democratic strongholds due to a lack of viable candidates. However, Pratt is a standout candidate—approachable, sincere, with a good sense of humor, and he prioritizes critical issues that decades of Democratic governance have neglected: access to water for firefighters, littered streets, potholes, housing, crime, and the like.
That said, I really don’t have a stake in this anymore since I don’t live in Los Angeles. It’s not my battle. But from an observer’s perspective, I’m intrigued to see if Democrats have managed to entrench their power in these urban areas.
The reality is, decline is a choice, and it seems Democrats have opted to damage once-vibrant cities (like Los Angeles, Seattle, and Chicago) as a strategy to push out everyday people. Those who are neither wealthy enough to escape the consequences of government mismanagement nor reliant on it for their livelihoods, like some unions and NGOs.
If you exacerbate the struggles of everyday citizens, they’ll leave—voting with their feet rather than at the ballot box—leaving behind the wealthy, the dependent, the misguided ideologues, and those who benefit without contributing.
So even if Pratt doesn’t move forward to the general election after tonight or doesn’t win in November, we’ll still understand the situation better.
Even when the choice seems straightforward, if we can’t rally enough people to push for sensible change, the escape of regular folks will only speed up, and we may lose Los Angeles for good.
