Thread by @somethingfishie

I need to think through something here, indulge me if you will.

I think we can agree that cities like Portland, Seattle, and Chicago - among others - are kind of a mess right now. And also run by liberals/leftists.

I'm not yet drawing any conclusions, just baselining. 1/

I'd think it would be pretty difficult for a conservative, or maybe even a moderate, to effectively challenge the mayors of those cities for the forseeable future. I'm making that assumption based on the firmly liberal/leftist/Democrat makeup of the voting public there 2/

But I'm also noting the anger of activists at these mayors over policing issues, even as some of these cities turn around and bounce folks arrested during protests/riots/looting/whatever. 3/

There was one video today, saying to Lightfoot "We are not asking anything. We are telling you what's about to happen, with your permission or not."

That's a real pickle, innit? 4/

Folks like this aren't going to vote for a conservative or moderate candidate to take down Lightfoot. They're going to go shopping for candidates among other radicals like themselves or allied with them, right? If getting 'ran over' is an electoral consequence, that is. 5/

If I read this right, she's mad Lightfoot isn't as progressive as she wants. She thinks the mayor is using her office and police to protect rich white people.

True or not, if she's in the market for a replacement, she's got many liberal/left/progressives to choose from. 6/

So Lightfoot and similarly-situated mayors have some rough waters to navigate.

They can't restore what we (used to) think of as order if it keeps these activists agitated, or they risk losing their office.

They can't continue to let chaos reign either. 7/

If they keep giving in, letting mobs destroy property, block traffic, and pull people out of cars to beat them, people who can are going to nope right out of there. And take their dollars with them.

You can be king of Shit Mountain, but it's still a mountain of shit. 8/

So I guess what I'm wondering is whether these cities start churning mayors and other elected officials in a series of one-term, ever-more-progressive attempts to punish each mayor for not delivering on these activists' wish lists. 9/

Emanuel not good enough for you? Here, let's have Lightfoot.

Lightfoot not delivering? Here's Libby McLefterson.

Lefterson too right for you? Spanky Wokehowicz will take it on.

See what I mean? 10/

My other question is whether this eventually collapses on itself.

Do these cities have enough loud activists and allies to control elections? Or are they simply a very loud, in-your-face minority that are throttling and silencing more moderate voices? 11/

If these voices are the majority, isn't it possible they'll keep pushing for things that fewer and fewer people can get behind, pushing them into becoming a minority?

And once a minority, how much longer can they project power and call the shots? 12/

ARE they calling the shots in these cities now? Or are they being pandered to by these mayors, jollied along by elected officials who are pragmatists more than idealists, and who will turn on them the moment it's safe to do so? 13/

I'm not too interested in the donor class and the wealthier residents of these cities. Those guys can go vacation out of reach of the mobs and hire extra security to cover their property.

The middle class, though, and the poor have to be feeling the sting of these events. 14/

The poor especially have to be taking it on the chin. Middle class folks at least typically have some resources to pick up and move if they can't tolerate events on the ground.

But the poor still get left behind to wallow in other people's messes. 15/

I'm just trying to think about whether this becomes a political spiral of progressivism taken to its logical conclusion.

I don't want our great cities to fail. It depresses me to think of the boarded up main streets no longer bustling with commerce, by virus or riot. 16/

The collateral damage from current events is staggering, and I'm just trying to make sense of this part of it, and think about where things go from here. 17/

Another part of it I think is the nature of city elections v. the nature of the presidential election.

Cities can more easily be homogenous, or nearly so. Mayors know how far their cities lean left, and campaign accordingly. 18/

A national election, though, has to deal with the vast diversity of thought and experience across thousands of miles.

So the D presidential candidates seem like they will always lag behind the progressive cities and their elected officals. How great will that divide become? 19/

That also makes me wonder whether Team Biden is trying to communicate to these mayors about the optics of the demonstrations in these cities. It can't be helping. And I don't know how they would be able to quantify the damage until it's too late. 20/

Anyway, I'd love to hear others' thoughts on all this, on whether the progressive pressure on mayors will alter the dynamics of cities and their governance one way or the other. Or whether I missed something vital in thinking about this. /end