That’s a bit of a cop out. The Bay Area had some of the most progressive politicians and progressive policies in the country.
I’ve seen plenty of progressives claim “they aren’t true progressives” but that comes across as a bit of a “no true Scotsman” argument that you hear from defenders of communism.
And it begs the question - if no one has been able to attain “true” whatever, is it really even an option?
"Extreme inequality ruins things" is more of a progressive belief than a conservative one. Enter SF!
How a place is governed is different from the party people run on, and the lack of accountability on results is the current failing of SF. Execution matters, not just ideas.
What is it that people think the TX government is better at? What similar challenges has the government of, say, Fort Worth faced as SF, and what solution did it have? NIMBYism and other such fun aspects are alive and well there, so if you throw the rapid change and influx of huge money at it, you're going to see some shit. Show me the policies existing in a TX city you'd use to fix SF.
You'll be helped by the massive amount of land still available to sprawl into... but that's a natural difference, not a political one!
Any examples you'd like to bring up? It's far more common for politicians to claim to be progressive up until the point of assuming office, only to revert to status-quo business as usual afterwards. Obama is the most famous recent example that comes to mind. Ending wars, closing Guantanamo, restraining police state spying, making college more affordable, and implementing socialized healthcare were all campaign agenda items of his that were never achieved even when his party had a super-majority (most never even mentioned again once he was in office).
This seems to be a statement on the level of "cruelty is the point of conservatism." It's non-serious, even if we pretend that there's never been a conservative policy enacted that didn't deliver it's promised goals. It's noteworthy for how it completely fails to give an example of a conservative city or state in the US that faced and solved similar problems.
Well considering the failure of the SF BOS to effectively address any of the cities challenge yet still get re-elected time and time again (even after showing they do the same things their voters complain about) goes pretty far in backing up that claim. As long as politicians in SF say the right thing, that’s all voters seem to care about.
To add to this, there is little to no evidence that diversity initiatives we see today actually helps diversity. It is a big charade and they attack those who don't want to play along with it.
This seems to be a lot of excuse making. If you dig deep enough you can find that SF - despite the growth and huge tax revenues - has failed to effectively deliver even simple government services like policing and keeping the community clean. And in terms of addressing the challenges of growth I’m not sure SF has done anything at all. They certainly haven’t built more housing, improved transit or anything else. And this is in a city entirely run by Democrats in a state where the Democrats have full control of all levels of Govt.
If you had given an example where a really effective policy was instituted that at least made some small aspect better I might agree but even that’s not apparent.
So laying it solely at the feet of politicians is the real answer? SF has seen a massive accumulation of capital and influx of wealthy residents to its housing market over an incredibly short time span. Huge changes in material conditions like that have infinitely more effect on a city than the stated policy agendas of its figureheads.
EDIT since you added more: it's not about a purity test for different shades of progressivism, it's that a hyper-capitalistic corporate investment market converging on one city is literally the opposite of anything progressivism has ever claimed to be.
No true Scotsman is only a fallacy when you are never given a definition of what a true Scotsman is. That's when the fallacy appears. When the person saying it can always retreat to an ambiguous never stated definition. He won't tell you what a real Scotsman is, but he will have the authority to tell you any examples you show him are not it.
For communism and socialism you are given the definition time and time again but people in your position always choose to ignore it and repeat the no true Scotsman meme.
I can tell you the definition, in exchange of you not using that meme anymore. Sounds fair?
I’ve seen plenty of progressives claim “they aren’t true progressives” but that comes across as a bit of a “no true Scotsman” argument that you hear from defenders of communism.
And it begs the question - if no one has been able to attain “true” whatever, is it really even an option?