It seems that way according to this article.
This raises troubling questions about these cities. Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?
I think that most "progressives" give lip-service to idea of diversity but do nothing to encourage it in their own affluent neighborhoods. There is no rent control in Portland because these "progressives" are afraid it will knock down their property values.
You would figure that rent control would create an influx of diverse people that would seriously benefit from the top-flight schools in these "progressive" cities. Instead of pouring money down the rathole that is most inner cities what would be wrong with incentivizing these families to move to a "progressive" city like Portland? I mean these minorities would get a crack at prime opportunities and these cities can polish their "progressive" bona fides.
I guess you might have to chalk it up to liberal hypocrisy. You can vote for our "progressive" candidates as long as you don't share their cities or go to their schools. The Dems never have to worry about helping these people gain a better opportunity because there is no cost for taking them for granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment