Thread by @ShellenbergerMD

It’s hard to overstate my joy at seeing “San Fransicko” on the best-seller table at @CompassSFO at San Francisco airport!

The book received 5 out of 5 stars from Britain’s @Telegraph, & strong reviews in major newspapers in Denmark & Spain

Local media have all but ignored it

When I walked up to the table, a woman was looking at it

“Great book,” I said, slyly

We were masked so she just said “Oh, it looks interesting.”

Her name is Lynn. She said she was in SF dealing with a family member addicted to fentanyl & living in homeless housing in San Fran

Lynn asked me why I wrote it

“Because I’m heart-broken by the destruction of a city I love,” I told her, “and horrified at the destruction of our shared humanity by the city’s use of mentally ill and drug-addicted people to destroy it.”

She nodded and pointed to the second to last line on the dust jacket: “The real problem is an ideology that designates some people, by identity or experience, as victims entitled to destructive behaviors.”

Lynn said, “That’s exactly right.”

She then told me her story.

After Lynn told me how she had been directly impacted by SF’s grossly irresponsible policy toward addicts, I told her we were building a movement of family members trying to get their loved ones off the streets

I signed her book with my email and phone #

californiapeacecoalition.org

I thanked the staff @CompassSFO for carrying “San Fransicko” & placing it where they did — few stores in SF are willing to do so, despite high demand; there’s a months long wait for it at SF Public Library.

Compass asked me to sign the remaining 3 copies.

I did so with pride.

I also did so with gratitude, not just to Compass Books but also to my readers and to social media, which allowed positive word to get out about the book, despite the local media blackout, and the concerted misinformation effort by some, including @nytimesbooks, about it

The person who reviewed “San Fransicko,” @wesenzinna, brazenly lied, repeatedly, about the book in order to caricature me as a heartless, right-wing culture warrior who never actually interviewed any homeless people.

nytimes.com/2021/11/23/boo…

I interviewed hundreds of homeless people for “San Fransicko.” I devoted long passages to their diverse voices & stories.

Anyone who reads the book can see Enzinna is a shameless liar, but that obviously didn’t matter to him. His goal was to convince people not to read it.

https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1490130669875253250

“San Fransicko” debunks the Big Lie, invented by progressives promoting subsidized housing in the ‘80s, that the people are on the street “are just like you and me” except they can’t afford the rent

They couldn’t debunk the “San Fransicko,” nor the videos, so they lie about me

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1491418120086454278

In the span of a few weeks my critics have gone from attacking me for supposedly not interviewing homeless people to violating their privacy by interviewing them

They thus reveal that their goals are discrediting me, distracting attention from the real issue, & avoiding scrutiny

https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1494290776909508610

Most liberals & progressives don’t even know “San Fransicko” exists much less that it’s not the right-wing culture warrior book the @nytimesbooks told them it was

But I believe that is starting to change thanks to a growing number of brave liberals encouraging people to read it

https://twitter.com/glukianoff/status/1497632000752209930

When liberals finally read it, most will see that there is nothing liberal either about either victim ideology or the way progressive cities are treating the homeless mentally ill and street addicts. In fact, both are deeply illiberal, dehumanizing, & disempowering.

My critics say I’m “conservative,” in part because they know simply labeling people as such is enough for many liberals to ignore them, but also because they genuinely view things like policing, and mandatory treatment as an alternative to incarceration, as right-wing.

But if one is “conservative” for supporting the institutions that make our liberal, democratic civilization possible, then most everyone is conservative. If by “conservative” my critics mean that I support law and order, then I’m guilty as charged — but so is most everyone else

I believe in love and compassion and not just rhetorically. At the heart of “San Fransicko” is a demand for shelter as a right and universal, centrally-administered, psychiatric/addiction care.

But the Beatles were wrong. Love is not all we need. We also need law & order.

Labels like “Left” and “Right” or “liberal” and “conservative” are totally unhelpful here

Are most liberals really against law and order? Are most conservatives really against psychiatric care for the mentally ill?

Of course they’re not. Far from it.

What “San Fransicko” and my colleagues and I are proposing is so obvious & common sense it should be boring. We are proposing a modified Dutch approach, a version of the same approach used by all civilized nations

Instead it’s made to seem controversial

californiapeacecoalition.org

Ideology makes us stupid

There’s a right and wrong way to help homeless addicts and mentally ill get the shelter, care, and recovery they need

Yes, Netherlands does it slightly differently from Portugal

But the same program of police & social workers is the same

I believe the basic vision of “San Fransicko” can become reality, and not just because the chaos on the streets demands it, but because we’ve passed peak Wokeism, the post-Cold war period is over, and the pandemic is over. Everybody’s sick of the bad old dogmas.

https://twitter.com/glukianoff/status/1497653918192611333

Let’s hope the new era inspires readers and book sellers to consider a wider range of ideas and perspectives than many have of late. We know social media can make us more dogmatic. But it can also make us open-minded.

❤️✊🏼

/END