Spencer Pratt’s Make L.A. Great Again acolytes and their dark vision of the city

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

• The article argues that Spencer Pratt has chosen to campaign from within an insular echo chamber of friendly podcasters, flattering media and hardcore supporters rather than engaging skeptics across Los Angeles, raising doubts about whether the candidate intends to represent the whole city.
• It contends that Pratt’s rhetoric is relentlessly insulting and polarizing, citing the routine use of nicknames such as “Basura” for Mayor Karen Bass and “Bassholes” for her supporters, language that Pratt’s followers amplify online instead of offering a constructive or inclusive message for the future.
• The piece suggests that Pratt’s political brand rests on a dark, apocalyptic portrait of L.A., promoted by supporters who describe the city as a kind of “West Coast Chernobyl” and create AI fantasies of Pratt as a superhero battling cartoonish depictions of Bass, a framing that ignores or dismisses data showing homicides at their lowest levels since the 1960s, burglaries down 30% from last year and unsheltered homelessness declining for two consecutive years.
• The column criticizes Pratt’s most fervent acolytes for describing unhoused residents struggling with addiction as “zombies” and “bums,” and for romanticizing a supposedly problem-free past Los Angeles that, in reality, included segregation, smog, gang violence, white flight, riots, earthquakes and anti-immigrant politics.
• It argues that Pratt regularly elevates the most extreme and obnoxious voices in his coalition and shows no inclination to rein them in, reinforcing the sense that the campaign is rooted in humiliation and grievance rather than solutions and coalition-building.
• The article maintains that Pratt’s loudest supporters only began loudly demanding reform once problems like homelessness, crime and housing costs began affecting their own neighborhoods, after years of relative silence when those same issues were concentrated in areas such as South L.A., the Eastside and Skid Row.
• It situates Pratt’s message within a long tradition of reactionary middle-class politics in Los Angeles, likening his demonizing style to past campaigns that used fear of crime, race and ideology—from Sam Yorty’s mayoral runs in the 1960s to the San Fernando Valley secession movement and recurring accusations of “communism” against the City Council’s democratic socialist wing.
• The column underscores that skepticism about City Hall is warranted and that Angelenos legitimately feel anger and malaise, but insists that a Trump-style politics of mockery and division is ill-suited to a progressive, multicultural city and unlikely to produce the broad consensus needed for lasting reform.
• The article notes that other commentators have questioned Pratt’s fitness for office based on the candidate’s own memoir, which describes episodes of selfishness, financial irresponsibility and blame-shifting; critics in that piece characterize Pratt’s current mayoral bid as an “angry, name-calling campaign” inconsistent with the discipline and seriousness expected of a mayor of Los Angeles^[2].
• The column is particularly troubled by Pratt’s repeated suggestion that he will abandon Los Angeles if voters do not choose this “factory-reset” vision, pointing to a recent podcast appearance in which Pratt said he would be “done with trying to live” in the city and move his family elsewhere so his children would not “have to see naked zombies,” a conditional commitment that the piece portrays as incompatible with genuine civic love or long-term responsibility.
• Ultimately, the article concludes that while Pratt has proved to be a savvy media operator capable of tapping into anger and raising significant money, the campaign appears driven more by a desire to avenge personal slights and validate a dark view of the city than by a credible plan to improve the lives of all Angelenos.

Different views on the topic

• Supportive coverage portrays Pratt as a vocal champion for residents whose lives were upended by disaster, emphasizing that the former reality TV star lost a home in the deadly Palisades wildfire and subsequently emerged as a leading advocate for fire victims^[1].
• That reporting notes that Pratt launched his mayoral bid with an explicit promise to oust Mayor Karen Bass over what the campaign characterizes as mishandling of the 2025 fires, casting the race as a referendum on establishment failures in emergency preparedness, response and recovery^[1].
• In this narrative, Pratt’s critics are framed as out-of-touch elites or “media sickos” who downplay the daily realities of crime, homelessness and disorder, while his supporters argue that only an outsider unafraid of confrontation can force change at City Hall^[1][2].
• Some sympathetic voices stress that Pratt is not simply importing national “Make America Great Again” politics into Los Angeles, instead promoting a tailored slogan to “Bring Los Angeles Back Again,” which is presented as an effort to restore basic public order, affordability and quality of life rather than fight cultural battles for their own sake^[1].
• Coverage friendly to Pratt emphasizes his pledge to hold powerful institutions accountable: the candidate has vowed to pursue and win lawsuits over the wildfire—targeting, among others, a state park overseen by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power—and to use any resulting funds to rebuild and improve the city if elected mayor^[1].
• Those same accounts highlight Pratt’s argument that current leaders have failed to protect families from street disorder and visible addiction, citing his claim that he wants to find “somewhere that my kids will not have to see naked zombies,” which supporters interpret as a blunt but honest way of describing conditions they see daily in their neighborhoods^[1].
• In sympathetic media appearances, Pratt has used his celebrity and communications skills to make the case that lived experience, anger channeled into activism and a willingness to defy political norms can be assets in a crisis-driven city, not disqualifiers, and that a nontraditional candidate can better connect with disillusioned voters than career politicians^[1][3].
• Some commentators aligned with Pratt describe the candidate as a “factory-reset option” for Los Angeles politics, arguing that a jolt from an outsider is necessary to break what they see as a complacent, one-party governing culture that has presided over surging housing costs, prolonged visible encampments and a sense of urban decay.
• Supporters also point out that the mayoral election is officially nonpartisan even though Pratt is registered as a Republican, saying this structure allows voters to judge the candidate on local performance and problem-solving rather than on national party labels, ideological litmus tests or past reality television fame^[1].