[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"?