Can you describe more of what you mean by that? What part of letting the richest companies on earth set up shop in your city and using little to none of that wealth to establish helpful social programs is progressive?
This is obviously farcical because SF does not exist in a vacuum separate from the federal government or the desperately poor conservative areas that siphon tax revenues from the progressive cities. Let alone the fact that SF hyper capitalism is about as far from progressive economic beliefs as possible.
But by the same vacuum-logic, Kansas under Brownback is what conservatism looks like in practice: a massive, unmitigated failure so big that even the conservatives themselves raised taxes. And that’s with all that free tax money from well run states helping out.
Well said, and great counter-example. People in this thread think "progressive" means "vaguely liberal west coast city," regardless of actual policy, economic systems or the broader context of what's going on in the entire country.