[edrxty]

"Progressive Bad" isn't really the takeaway here. It turns out nuance is important. Questionable policies combined with a complex socioeconomic situation due to decades of perverse incentives isn't, in fact, an optimal strategy of governance.

[dude187]

What progressive policies would have helped?

Also, San Francisco is pretty much the quintessential example of such policies getting voted in place without challenge. So maybe you could argue that certain progressive policies were enacted that hurt so bad they significantly outweighed those that would have actually made things better. If that's the case, which progressive policies do you feel led to this situation?

[stjohnswarts]

Nah I think it's more "progressive needs the counterweight of some moderation and pragmatism" . Just completely ignoring "theft" as a whole category of crime because "you're likely locking up poor people who don't have a choice" is their game. They don't care about whether or not your get robbed, they only care about "poor people put in a harsh place and they didn't have a choice because they had a bad childhood and don't know any better" . How about we still arrest them and rehabilitate them. Instead of killing the police budget, why not rehabilitate and have some outreach to petty criminals. Just letting them run rampant helps no one other than the thief who will most likely end up dead at some point when he/she crosses the wrong person.

[throwaway1959]

I think it's hard to argue that the SF government is not comprised of people on the forefront of the progressive agenda. Am I wrong about this? Take a look at Chesa Boudin, for example [1]. All their policies are progressive (their voters would certainly hope so). Are you saying that San Francisco's progressive policies are not the right progressive policies? Which place has the right policies then? Chicago? Their crime rate does not seem much better. Or Chicago also implements wrong progressive ideas?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin

[edrxty]

To be honest, I think American progressivism as a whole is a bit compromised as it generally tries to accomplish its goals while first keeping the corporations pleased and second never truly taxing the rich. Further they need to consider the externalities they create. If a city or state is going to implement supportive policies, people from surrounding areas (areas not contributing to the tax base) may choose or be pressured to travel there.

This isn't to say progressivism is doomed in America or we must force socialist policies onto all outlying areas, just that the process of learning how to properly roll out socially responsible policies is still ongoing and one of the major issues is rapidly growing polarization with no interest in nuance.

[dude187]

> it generally tries to accomplish its goals while first keeping the corporations pleased

What goals are compromised to "keep the corporations pleased"? How would these goals be defined if the corporations were not be taken into account?

> and second never truly taxing the rich

You hold "taxing the rich" as some sort of high level independent goal to be done in and of itself. Can you quantify what the lack of funds are that available to SF from not "taxing the rich"? How much is the budget shortfall, and what would this extra budget go to if San Francisco were to "tax the rich"?