Having lived there for many years myself, I very much appreciated Chuck's thumbnail sketch of Berkeley political history.
It does, however, pose a rhetorical problem for me in that I'm trying to convince others that the major issues in local government are not just sewers and sidewalks-i.e. problems that are specific to the management of one or another city. Often these are local manifestations of the imposition of the same neo-liberalist austerity which we are more familiar with on a national and trans-national level. The difference, and this is in part a response to Jon's post, is that we are not in a position (yet) where we can effectively combat the latter. The former we can do something about if we pay attention and, as Adorno notes, "think" about how we direct our action.
Furthermore the alliances and coalitions one establishes on a local level, can, as you point out, form the basis for developing political power at larger levels. If there is another way to develop national power, I'm all ears. That it can be done in the absence of a partisan infrastructure seems doubtful as it does that this infrastructure can be developed "top down." I'm also all ears as to how Adorno and Althusser et. al. fit into this picture--I'd be intrigued to receive a minimally comprehensible explanation as to how.
Chuck's absolutely right that privatization of city services is the most familiar and probably most odious manifestation of neo-liberalism on a local level. Here in New Haven, even in my brief tenure, this was going on full speed ahead. Janitorial services in municipal buildings, debt collection, parking enforcement were all being subcontracted out and more will probably follow. In many instances the city appeared to received very little benefit from these arrangements. The reasons why they sailed through are 1) often the firms who ended up receiving contracts were donors to the mayor's campaigns and 2) a tacet, but absolutely unshakeable belief among the liberal Yale technocrats who advise the mayor in a Gore/Clinton "efficiency" driven model of government function.
So, what you do as a progressive in local government is (obviously) to expose and fight against these sorts of arrangements, while making note of their connection to the imposition of a larger corporate agenda. If you want a discussion of my effectiveness in this respect, I'll provide that on request. Short answer-it was slightly better than mixed.
But even better than fighting privatization, you can call for setting up municipal utilities. As Chuck probably knows, Matt Gonzalez in San Francisco is leading the fight for public power-something which got a big shot in the arm from the Enron induced blackouts of a few years back. Here I tried talking it up when a second power plant was close to being opened in the city (largely to serve the suburban market) and when the infamous Cross Sound Cable was being rammed through. It seemed viable but I couldn't recruit enough people who knew the business well enough to advise me on how it needed to be implemented. Same with municipal cable television which could be a real big political issue-given how much everyone hates the cable companies here. It has been done in several cities already. I can provide references for those interested.
The bottom line: there is a seemingly infinite array of what you can do once you're in office. The limitation is not issues which are directly relevant to a broad progressive agenda but one's time and energy.
The difference between being on the outside versus the inside is that once you're in, what you talk about actually matters.
If you have any doubts that it matters to THEM, a six million dollars check cut from a Hydro-Quebec subsidiary to the local white shoe law firm to lobby the New Haven Board of Aldermen should answer any questions along these lines. (That's the subject of another story.)
Best,
John
--