5 ms·

My wife has been getting into local politics here in California, and it has been really disheartening to see how thin the 'progressive' layer is for so many peo

My wife has been getting into local politics here in California, and it has been really disheartening to see how thin the 'progressive' layer is for so many people here. California likes to think of itself as a very liberal state, but that really only changes how we frame what are still conservative and insular policies.

bhawks 5y ago
What's conservative about corruption and kleptocracy? One of the ways politicians like Preston cement their power is by convincing their constituents that the 'other team' are literal demons. I can disagree with someone's politics but still be confident that they can govern reasonably. Just because you clothe yourself in the memes you think I like doesn't win my vote.
- nemothekid 5y ago
  Preston doesn't have to do any convincing - the national republican party might as well be literal demons, so you could the most reasonable republican ever and people would refuse to vote for them just to prevent the national republican party from even having an iota of more power. National strategy has effectively poisoned local races. You could run as independent but you would be a very uphill battle against very well funded opponents. Ultimately there seems to be little hope for progressive economic ideas.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  The California Republican Party has stances on issues that are past what SF voters in the majority will accept. He doesn’t have to paint them as demons because their stated positions on abortion and gay marriage will make them untenable to SF voters and place SF voters in vocal opposition. Any demonic painting is unlikely to move the needle. This is merely a claim of fact about the CA GOP and SF, not a position on whether they are demons. It is not a claim that the CA GOP are evil because of these stances.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't take HN threads into tedious partisan flamewar. It's predictable and therefore boring, and inevitably turns nasty. We're trying to avoid that kind of thing here. I know the GP started it, but there's a difference between dipping a toe and jumping in. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Huh. I genuinely didn’t think I was doing that. I had to look the issues up on the website to quote them. The point isn’t that I disagree or think they’re demons or whatever. The point is that SF residents are vocally opposed to CA GOP stances. “Painting them as demons” isn’t necessary because their stated aim is already past the Overton window for SF residents. It’s like saying “he’s painting non-vegans as demons to prevent them from being voted in at the vegan conference”. They’re vegans. You don’t have to paint the non-vegans as demons. The perfectly non-demonic non-vegan falls outside the window! Pointing that out isn’t flaming! It’s factual. Considering I’m pretty right wing, it’s a bit perplexing that you’ve gone and assumed I’m making a partisan attack on Republicans. I have a Gadsden flag, mate. And currently live in Texas. But whatever, it’s your site. Run it how you want.
      - dang 5y ago
        Ok, I believe you and I clearly misread your comment—sorry! But in terms of the dynamics of flamewar, it's likely a distinction without a difference because others would also misread it and we'd get the same effect. If you're posting something that might be mistaken for flamebait, the burden is on you (not you personally, of course—it applies the same way to all of us) to disambiguate from that: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... Edit: if you're going to edit a comment after someone has replied to it, it's best to make it clear where the edits are. Otherwise you can easily change the meaning of the reply, which can be unfair to others (not only to the user who replied, but also to readers).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
I don't see how regulating the supply of housing is conservative. If laissez faire treatment of markets is a conservative idea, then this cannot be.
- 2arrs2ells 5y ago
  Blocking new housing is resisting change. Maintaining the status quo is conservative. Pushing for change is progressive.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Pushing for change is progressive. Or regressive, depending on the nature and effect of the change.
  - Jach 5y ago
    Are you being serious with this linguistic game? One might just as well argue that stopping the construction gravy train would be the progressive push for change, while letting it continue even to absurd conclusions like empty skyscrapers and bridges to nowhere is the conservative position.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      I seem to remember a conservative Alaska senator championing a bridge to nowhere.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    So by this definition, if I want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare and let the elderly and sick fend for themselves - I'm a progressive.
    - Rapzid 5y ago
      You can't make an omelet without bankrupting a few old birds. Or is it "Move fast and bankrupt stuff". IDK.
refurb 5y ago
Or maybe this is just where progressive politics leads to? San Francisco really has no excuses. It’s been a solidly Democrat city for the past 40+ years. Voters are overwhelmingly left of center and typically vote for a selection of left of center candidates. There is no Republican representation in the whole city govt. The possibilities for passing progressive legislation are endless, yet what we end up with is a massively dysfunctional govt with a heavy dose of corruption.
- gotoeleven 5y ago
  Not trying to troll, but what are examples of progressive or soft-socialist governance working well, anywhere in the world at any time in history? Small european countries with massive sovereign wealth funds maybe?
  - rebuilder 5y ago
    Finland?
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    What? "soft-socialist" by American standards would include pretty much all of western-Europe.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    > Not trying to troll, but what are examples of progressive or soft-socialist governance working well, anywhere in the world at any time in history? I think if you want to find historical examples of success you're going to need to have a highly inclusive definition of "soft socialist" or consider cases where people are fed and clothed but living miserably under the thumb of the government as "working well" Historically blue cities in the US have been run by authoritarians with varying visions of what they want the place to look like who are supported by a bunch of boot lickers who believe in the vision. Examples abound on the US east coast. Recently it's become less fashionable to rule with an iron fist. This has lead to some serious problems where "crime with a victim" and "this behavior makes things seriously miserable for everyone around" laws and go unenforced but I think that some cities will see the West coast examples decide they do not want and then go strike a good balance between the extremes.
ashtonkem 5y ago
I always called it “performative progressive” politics.

bhawks 5y ago

What's conservative about corruption and kleptocracy? One of the ways politicians like Preston cement their power is by convincing their constituents that the 'other team' are literal demons. I can disagree with someone's politics but still be confident that they can govern reasonably. Just because you clothe yourself in the memes you think I like doesn't win my vote.

nemothekid 5y ago
Preston doesn't have to do any convincing - the national republican party might as well be literal demons, so you could the most reasonable republican ever and people would refuse to vote for them just to prevent the national republican party from even having an iota of more power. National strategy has effectively poisoned local races. You could run as independent but you would be a very uphill battle against very well funded opponents. Ultimately there seems to be little hope for progressive economic ideas.
renewiltord 5y ago
The California Republican Party has stances on issues that are past what SF voters in the majority will accept. He doesn’t have to paint them as demons because their stated positions on abortion and gay marriage will make them untenable to SF voters and place SF voters in vocal opposition. Any demonic painting is unlikely to move the needle. This is merely a claim of fact about the CA GOP and SF, not a position on whether they are demons. It is not a claim that the CA GOP are evil because of these stances.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads into tedious partisan flamewar. It's predictable and therefore boring, and inevitably turns nasty. We're trying to avoid that kind of thing here. I know the GP started it, but there's a difference between dipping a toe and jumping in. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Huh. I genuinely didn’t think I was doing that. I had to look the issues up on the website to quote them. The point isn’t that I disagree or think they’re demons or whatever. The point is that SF residents are vocally opposed to CA GOP stances. “Painting them as demons” isn’t necessary because their stated aim is already past the Overton window for SF residents. It’s like saying “he’s painting non-vegans as demons to prevent them from being voted in at the vegan conference”. They’re vegans. You don’t have to paint the non-vegans as demons. The perfectly non-demonic non-vegan falls outside the window! Pointing that out isn’t flaming! It’s factual. Considering I’m pretty right wing, it’s a bit perplexing that you’ve gone and assumed I’m making a partisan attack on Republicans. I have a Gadsden flag, mate. And currently live in Texas. But whatever, it’s your site. Run it how you want.
    - dang 5y ago
      Ok, I believe you and I clearly misread your comment—sorry! But in terms of the dynamics of flamewar, it's likely a distinction without a difference because others would also misread it and we'd get the same effect. If you're posting something that might be mistaken for flamebait, the burden is on you (not you personally, of course—it applies the same way to all of us) to disambiguate from that: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... Edit: if you're going to edit a comment after someone has replied to it, it's best to make it clear where the edits are. Otherwise you can easily change the meaning of the reply, which can be unfair to others (not only to the user who replied, but also to readers).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

I don't see how regulating the supply of housing is conservative. If laissez faire treatment of markets is a conservative idea, then this cannot be.

2arrs2ells 5y ago
Blocking new housing is resisting change. Maintaining the status quo is conservative. Pushing for change is progressive.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Pushing for change is progressive. Or regressive, depending on the nature and effect of the change.
- Jach 5y ago
  Are you being serious with this linguistic game? One might just as well argue that stopping the construction gravy train would be the progressive push for change, while letting it continue even to absurd conclusions like empty skyscrapers and bridges to nowhere is the conservative position.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    I seem to remember a conservative Alaska senator championing a bridge to nowhere.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  So by this definition, if I want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare and let the elderly and sick fend for themselves - I'm a progressive.
  - Rapzid 5y ago
    You can't make an omelet without bankrupting a few old birds. Or is it "Move fast and bankrupt stuff". IDK.

refurb 5y ago

Or maybe this is just where progressive politics leads to? San Francisco really has no excuses. It’s been a solidly Democrat city for the past 40+ years. Voters are overwhelmingly left of center and typically vote for a selection of left of center candidates. There is no Republican representation in the whole city govt. The possibilities for passing progressive legislation are endless, yet what we end up with is a massively dysfunctional govt with a heavy dose of corruption.

gotoeleven 5y ago
Not trying to troll, but what are examples of progressive or soft-socialist governance working well, anywhere in the world at any time in history? Small european countries with massive sovereign wealth funds maybe?
- rebuilder 5y ago
  Finland?
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  What? "soft-socialist" by American standards would include pretty much all of western-Europe.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  > Not trying to troll, but what are examples of progressive or soft-socialist governance working well, anywhere in the world at any time in history? I think if you want to find historical examples of success you're going to need to have a highly inclusive definition of "soft socialist" or consider cases where people are fed and clothed but living miserably under the thumb of the government as "working well" Historically blue cities in the US have been run by authoritarians with varying visions of what they want the place to look like who are supported by a bunch of boot lickers who believe in the vision. Examples abound on the US east coast. Recently it's become less fashionable to rule with an iron fist. This has lead to some serious problems where "crime with a victim" and "this behavior makes things seriously miserable for everyone around" laws and go unenforced but I think that some cities will see the West coast examples decide they do not want and then go strike a good balance between the extremes.

ashtonkem 5y ago

I always called it “performative progressive” politics.