Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjtrowbridge | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

In what ways is SFO right wing? I don't see much representation of that type as far as elected officials. Is this a term used in spirit or something I'm overlooking?

SFO is an airport, so two wings generally..

Replace "right" with "those who doesn't want to do the right thing" and most political speech kinda makes more sense.

The Left/Right split of viewing politics is a false dichotomy that made sense only about a century after the French Revolution, in France.

>Replace "right" with "those who doesn't want to do the right thing" and most political speech kinda makes more sense.

>The Left/Right split of viewing politics is a false dichotomy that made sense only about a century after the French Revolution, in France.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. I don't think people affiliate with a certain party seeking to "not do the right thing". Saying it is a false dichotomy while still saying one side doesn't do the right thing is a bit two sided. I am, however, getting the idea that there is some subtle derision being conveyed when the term 'right wing' is used, which is unfortunate because at least to me I'm being pre-loaded with bias about people I don't really know yet.

It is not meant (I'd guess) as a characterization for people, but as a way to explain/read the words left and right, especially when one is criticizing the right

(i.e.: right is used mostly as a synonym for bad, for some people)

This comment makes more sense in that context, thanks for breaking it down for me. I don't know how we can have a meeting of the minds while people use the term for others as a pejorative. I hope it gets worked out some day when we mature as a species and global community.

People who are left wing w.r.t. the organization of the economy view democrats as right wing i.e. upholding the entrenched power structure. SF dems will happily support spending money on the homeless in principle, but they are still deeply conservative when it comes to how policies will affect them or their capital. They are pretty much the poster child of NIMBYism:

"I know X is something the community needs and I'm all for building it, just Not In My Back Yard"

This is some hilarious gymnastics. S.F. is basically a poster child for how left wing urban policy is easily turned into abusive graft and inherently prone to abuse and corruption and it’s just like, “no, more cowbell!” Just keep turning the dial up and I’m sure it will get better.

Of course, classic left wing policies such as single family zoning that somehow hasn't been removed after decades of the socialist iron grip on the bay.

In all seriousness, how do you differentiate between left wing policy that is "inherently prone to abuse and corruption" and policy with a progressive facade that is designed by and for those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Where are the left wing professors that are saying "actually we need more public hearings, stricter building codes, more environmental review, and by god we can't let anyone touch the zoning!"? Presumably they would exist if SF policy is what the left wing actually wants.

If something has problems, it's due to the right wing, naturally. The far right, because there's no such thing as being just a little right. Alt-right if it's citizen-led and not overly Christian.

Overall, it's just a manifestation of "if we were only just a little more left, things would work out!" you'll see.

> In what ways is SFO right wing?

I think the poster misspoke, SF is more like what those on the left imagine a right wing dystopia would look like (massive wealth inequality, homelessness and litter everywhere, crime, everyone is a NIMBY, etc.).

Are we going to talk about the cognitive dissonance in there? Nobody can argue that SF hasn’t had every advantage (for many decades) in implementing a left wing utopia - a pure monopoly in politics, high taxes on high earners to fund policies - and at this point we’re saying it turned out looking like a right-wing dystopia. Why isn’t it a left-wing dystopia? Probably because in some people’s minds, left==utopia, right==dystopia, and that’s where any analysis stops; but this is just someone incapable of acknowledging any error in their own policy prescriptions. “I don’t suck at tennis, it’s this shitty equipment.” From the outside, it’s almost comical. It couldn’t possibly be that the systemic criticisms had any merit to them.

https://www.commentary.org/noah-rothman/would-you-believe-sa...

"a right-wing dystopia?" Seems like you'd prefer to redefine what it means to be left or right wing rather than admit that this is the outcome of left-wing governance.

The specific issues here are: tight control over building standards leading to red tape; high levels of process to ensure community review and involvement; paying more than market price for labor in order to support unions as a political value; supporting restrictive zoning to keep renters and homeowners in stable homes.

"Right-wing" imperatives did not create these issues.

Put another way, if a city elects left-wing politicians exclusively for 50 years, and those left-wing politicians enact policies and values consistent with their platforms -- it's probably not the case that negative results are because they're actually secret Republicans.

I assumed it was an attempt at ideologically shirking accountability for the outcomes involved in elected officials doing what they were elected to do.

Could it be they meant a dystopia as right-wing might view or describe it?

As in "I'm right-wing; this is my idea of what a dystopia would be; SF seems like that."

Rather than "this dystopia is the result of right-wing policies." which clearly doesn't fit the facts, eh?

what is 'fact' and what is anecdote are unclear here, I've observed none of this personally, until then it is me suspending disbelief and relying on the words given to me for the interpretations and observations of those that I assume have more familiarity than me. I have no idea if it 'could be' that they meant X. I'm asking to know, not because I have an agenda.

No, I think the comment was meant to mean "this is not left-wing, this is late-stage capitalism, the problem is that we have too many right wingers in SF that are cosplaying progressivism"

In government, the continuum is not a line, it is a circle. If you go far enough left, or far enough right, you end up at the exact same place.

I don't think there are many ways in which SF is similar to a "very right wing" city. First of all, "right wing" politicians do not control any city governments in any real way, but if you were to compare SF with say, Houston -- which has radically different policies along these lines -- you wouldn't find that the results are the same.

In the American context, an extreme right-wing city government would theoretically provide very few public services, allow all property to transact in open marketplaces with very little red tape, allow for any use of property to meet market demand. In other words, you could build a gigantic high rise in Noe Valley but the city wouldn't pay for public toilets in any case (but someone could feel free to make pay toilets if they own or lease the land). Left wingers imagine that this sort of arrangement would lead to worse or similar outcomes for the poor than SF currently, but... I don't know, honestly.

> In the American context, an extreme right-wing city government

My businesses is in Carmel, Indiana. It is the definition of far right wing republican. There are often races where the only candidates are Libertarian or Republican. Here’s what it looks like:

* Constant growth driven by tax incentives.

* More roundabouts per capita and a corresponding low injury accident rate

* Fantastic public parks and commons (that drive up real estate values)

* best or near best public school system

* consistently in the top 10 places to live in the US

It’s been this way for 20 years. The city is expensive to live in and safe, and public transportation is minimal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com