NICK’S VIEW - Los Angeles` politics is undergoing a consequential shift—a quiet revolution—that is driven by a new generation of leaders with distinct styles, priorities, and governing philosophies.
These political players are sidestepping traditional party machinery, and legacy media by using social media, podcasts, independent platforms, and other direct-to-voter channels. This marks a move away from conventional politics and toward grassroots-driven engagement.
I see a gradual but persistent rupture taking shape, signaling a break from established institutional rules, norms, and systems rather than a smooth transition. The aim is to dismantle the old political order and establish a new framework for power, policy, and governance.
Their insurgency is the result of frustration with the ineffective establishment which lacks clear direction, new ideas and willingness to question the status quo.
This generation of leaders comes from local government, community organizations, urban planning, and economic development, and is reshaping how the city responds to its deepest structural challenges. Guided by collaborative governance, data-driven policy, and lived experience, they are shifting priorities across key areas.
This generational shift is not limited to LA. It reflects a broader national pattern in which younger leaders, new coalitions, and different governing philosophies are quietly reshaping our political systems.
They are not limited to one ideology, and they share a generational shift in style, networks, and governance philosophy. The initial focal point became Zohran Mamdani, mayor of New York City, who staged a major upset victory, and who represents a younger, progressive urban leadership wave.
Mamdani`s campaign adapted ideas associated with Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and framed them around affordability.
Is mayoral candidate Nithya Raman, associated with DSA, capable and credible to carry that message in Los Angeles, where, as in New York, life has become too expensive? What specific ideas does she have to make life affordable in Los Angeles? How specifically she proposes to fix the crumbling infrastructure, keep the streetlights on and pay for it? How is she going to keep us safe both in the streets and in our houses?
Same holds true for the establishment candidate, Mayor Karen Bass. What new programs she proposes for the next four years to improve the quality of life that has steadily deteriorated in the last four? We need to hear proposals for more housing, other than repeating the pablum "cut the red tape". How about improve city services?
I also see Los Angeles as an ideal case study for the advent of new generation of politics: its governance is fragmented and dysfunctional, its culture is changing rapidly, its old political machines remain deeply entrenched, and it struggles to define and achieve shared social and economic goals.
Of course, another major impetus behind the rise of this new generation of leaders was the 2024 adoption of Measure G, which created an elected County Executive position. The reform overhauled county government by dismantling a system that had concentrated immense power among a small group of incumbents.
For the city, a major key factor enabling this new ideological shift is a persistent progressive bloc on the 15-member City Council. Leaders such as Nithya Raman, Eunisses Hernandez, Hugo Soto-Martínez, and Ysabel Jurado have reshaped major policy debates, bringing once-radical ideas—such as unarmed crisis response teams, stricter limits on encampment sweeps, and taxes on high-value real estate transactions—into the center of the municipal agenda.
On the LA County side, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath often aligns with this group, especially in decentralizing executive power and in structural reform, as became obvious with the development of Measure G.
In the interim, they have redirected debate around budgets, focused heavily on criminal justice reform, provided alternatives to traditional policing, tenant protections, expanding affordable housing, and halting encampment sweeps.
This new wave supports fully independent redistricting commissions for both the city and county to end gerrymandering and prevent politicians from drawing their own districts. It also backs stronger authority and funding for independent watchdogs, including the City Ethics Commission and City Controller Kenneth Mejia’s office, to monitor city spending, hold council members accountable, and investigate influence-peddling.
They support giving residents a direct role in deciding how discretionary council district funds are spent, a process they call “participatory budgeting.” They support charter measures that would expand local voting rights, including proposals to let noncitizen taxpaying residents vote in local school board and municipal elections.
The passage of Measure G at the county level, and the independent redistricting commissions at the city level, are seen by these progressive leaders as dismantling an inherited system that previously concentrated power among a small group of incumbents.
The new generation leaders, on homelessness, frame the crisis as a structural housing and economic problem rather than a criminal justice or public order issue. This represents a clear break from traditional municipal policy. Therefore, they oppose restrictions on encampments near public sites such as schools and parks, arguing that those measures simply displace unhoused people without addressing the root causes.
Law enforcement and policing are central issues for these leaders in Los Angeles. They approach them through criminal justice reform, budget reallocation, and alternative crisis response, marking a clear departure from traditional “tough-on-crime” platforms.
Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martínez, for example, have repeatedly challenged the size of the Los Angeles Police Department’s budget and support redirecting some police funding to community safety nets, youth programs, park infrastructure, and affordable housing. Rather than hiring more sworn officers to address crime, they argue that investing directly in marginalized neighborhoods is a more effective way to address the root causes of safety concerns than expanded surveillance or policing.
Three weeks before entering the mayor’s race, Raman opposed the mayor’s proposal to hire 170 additional officers, calling it fiscally irresponsible and warning that it would strain the city budget. Jurado has similarly opposed expanding armed policing and surveillance, advocating instead for stronger oversight. She opposed the expansion of Flock Safety’s automated license-plate reader system and introduced a motion to halt further use of the technology.
A central priority for these leaders is sending unarmed social workers, mental health professionals, and healthcare workers to nonviolent 911 calls involving mental health crises, substance use, or unhoused people.
They also support strict law enforcement oversight, including independent investigations of police misconduct, greater transparency around disciplinary records, and limits on armed interventions during public protests.
Certainly, the debate to follow will center on whether progressive politicians should be considered leftists. While the terms overlap, the distinction lies in ideology, economic vision, and approach to governance. Progressives generally seek to reform capitalism through regulation, stronger safety nets, and wealth redistribution, while leftists aim to replace or fundamentally transform capitalism through worker and social ownership.
Their views of institutions also differ. Progressives typically work within existing constitutional and democratic systems to advance policy change, whereas leftists see capitalist institutions as inherently flawed and argue for systemic or structural overhaul.
In my view, progressive politicians can improve Los Angeles government only if they prioritize governance reform over ideological signaling. They must modernize departments and institutions, strengthen administrative functions, repair the failing project-delivery system, enforce accountability through rigorous oversight, and focus on long-term structural reform.
Conversely, they should not rely on symbolic politics, avoid necessary reforms, or use governance for political exploitation rather than treating it as a failing system in need of repair. They must coordinate across departments and agencies and recognize the complexity of Los Angeles’ political system.
The city’s failures stem from institutional design and execution, not political philosophy. Its broken machinery cannot be repaired by ideology alone.
(Nick Patsaouras is an electrical engineer, civic leader, and a longtime public advocate. He ran for Mayor in 1993 with a focus on rebuilding L.A. through transportation after the 1992 civil unrest. He has served on major public boards, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Metro, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, helping guide infrastructure and planning policy in Los Angeles. He is the author of the book "The Making of Modern Los Angeles.")
