In my previous essay, I showed how Democrats let 7.2 million people cross the southern border while claiming they lacked authority to act—then proved they were lying by using that authority the moment polls demanded it. The border crisis wasn’t about missing legal tools or Republican obstruction. It was about Democrats choosing coalition management over governance.
That essay focused on federal policy. But you don’t need to look at Washington to see this pattern. Just drive through any major Democratic city. Or attend a conference in San Francisco. Or take the highway to work in San Jose.
The governance gap isn’t abstract. It’s visible everywhere Democrats control government. And it’s getting worse.
What a Billion Dollars Buys You
The last time I visited San Francisco was for a conference at Twitter. I’m a liberal. I believe in compassion, social services, and treating addiction as a disease rather than a crime. I want progressive governance to work.
I couldn’t walk to the conference without navigating garbage, needles, and human waste on the sidewalk.
This isn’t a Republican talking point. This is what a billion-dollar homelessness budget produces in one of America’s most progressive cities. San Francisco spends over $1.1 billion annually on homelessness for a city of 800,000 people. That’s about $1,375 per resident, or roughly $61,000 for every homeless person in the city.
The result? I couldn’t attend a tech conference without stepping over needles.
It’s Not Just San Francisco
I live in San Jose. There are small villages of homeless encampments beside the highway—permanent features of the landscape you just drive past every day. In Santa Cruz, the last time I visited, there was almost a separate city—a parallel settlement of tents and tarps existing alongside the actual town.
These aren’t temporary emergency shelters. They’re not crisis responses. They’re what happens when Democrats mistake tolerance for help and call it compassion.
Across California, the pattern repeats:
Los Angeles: Skid Row expanding despite massive spending
Oakland: Encampments throughout the city
Sacramento: Highway underpasses lined with tents
Berkeley: People living in vehicles up and down every street
California has roughly 180,000 homeless people—about 30% of the nation’s total despite being only 12% of the population. The state has been under total Democratic control since 2011. Democrats hold supermajorities in both legislative chambers. No Republicans block anything. No conservative governors veto progressive policies.
This is what Democrats produce when given every advantage.
The Florida Comparison
Florida—which is hardly a home for modern thinking—at least has laws against camping in places that are not zoned for that. And they enforce them.
It’s not complicated. Designated camping areas exist: campgrounds, parks with permits, authorized shelters. Other areas are not zoned for camping. If you camp where it’s not allowed, enforcement happens. Public spaces are restored.
California has the same laws on the books. They just won’t enforce them.
The 2023 Florida HB 1365 banned public camping statewide. Police clear encampments quickly. Strict loitering laws are enforced. There’s limited tolerance for visible disorder—though the law also requires providing shelter alternatives.
The result: Visibly less street homelessness than comparable California cities. Encampments don’t persist for years. Public spaces stay functional. Fewer needles. Less visible drug use.
It’s not perfect. Some people cycle through jails. Some migrate to more tolerant jurisdictions. Some die, especially in brutal summer heat. But Florida residents can use their public spaces. Parents can take kids to parks without navigating encampments. You can attend a conference without stepping over needles.
Same country. Same Constitution. Same federal laws. Better results—because someone is willing to enforce basic standards.
The Research Nobody Will Do
Here’s something interesting: Studies consistently show that overall crime rates—murder, robbery, assault—don’t correlate much with the political party of your mayor or governor. Democrats cite these studies frequently as proof that progressive governance isn’t worse for public safety.
They’re right about crime. But notice what nobody studies: visible disorder, blight, and chaos.
Nobody’s doing peer-reviewed research comparing:
Encampment density by city political control
Needle counts in public spaces
Frequency of public drug use
Aggressive panhandling rates
Human waste on sidewalks
Why not?
Because everyone already knows what the data would show. Drive through San Francisco, then drive through Jacksonville. Drive through Portland, then drive through Nashville. Drive through Seattle, then drive through any city in Florida.
The hypothesis tests itself.
Serious crime doesn’t vary much by party because it’s driven by deeper structural factors: poverty, inequality, drug markets, demographics, regional patterns. No mayor controls these variables easily.
Visible disorder varies dramatically because it requires consistent enforcement of quality-of-life laws—and progressive Democrats won’t do it without getting attacked by their own coalition for being “cruel” or “criminalizing homelessness.”
So researchers study crime—where they get the politically convenient answer—and avoid studying blight, where the answer would be devastating.
This is selection bias masquerading as science. Democrats point to crime studies while ignoring the tent cities everyone can see. When voters complain about needles on the playground, Democrats respond with statistics about violent crime rates.
It’s definitional sleight-of-hand. And voters notice.
The Reagan Excuse
When you point out that many homeless people are severely mentally ill and belong in treatment, Democrats have a ready answer: Reagan closed all the mental hospitals and put them on the street.
This is both true and a deflection.
What actually happened:
In 1967, Reagan as California Governor signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which made involuntary commitment much harder. But this was a progressive reform, supported by the ACLU and disability rights advocates who documented horrific abuse in state institutions.
Deinstitutionalization happened nationwide from the 1960s through 1980s—across all states, red and blue. It was bipartisan. Kennedy started it federally in 1963. The promise was that cruel institutions would be replaced by humane community mental health centers.
The institutions closed. The community centers were never adequately funded. People ended up on the streets.
Reagan as president did cut federal mental health funding in 1981, making things worse. But by then, most institutions were already closed.
Here’s the uncomfortable part: California has been deep blue for 30+ years. Democrats have had total control of state government since 2011. They could have:
Built robust community mental health systems
Loosened involuntary commitment standards
Created state psychiatric beds
Funded long-term residential treatment
They haven’t.
California still has some of the strictest involuntary commitment laws in the country. The bar for forcing treatment is extremely high—you must be an imminent danger to yourself or others. Being “gravely disabled” by psychosis isn’t enough in practice.
Why? Coalition management. Progressive activists, civil liberties groups, and disability rights advocates fiercely oppose involuntary commitment. They call it warehousing and violation of rights. So Democrats can’t act without fracturing their coalition.
The result: Severely mentally ill people dying slowly on the streets while Democrats blame a decision made 60 years ago rather than governing with the power they’ve held for decades.
Florida, by contrast, expanded involuntary commitment through the Baker Act. It’s easier to mandate treatment. Result: Fewer visibly psychotic people suffering on sidewalks.
The Newsom Problem
Then people talk about Gavin Newsom running for president.
How is the country going to get behind someone who can’t handle something this basic in their own state?
Newsom has been Governor of California since 2019. Before that, he served as Lieutenant Governor from 2011-2019, and as Mayor of San Francisco from 2004-2011. He’s been in substantial California government leadership positions for over two decades.
What does he have to show for it?
San Francisco: You can’t attend a conference without navigating needles
San Jose: Highway encampment villages
Santa Cruz: A parallel tent city
Los Angeles: Skid Row expanding
Statewide: 180,000 homeless people, 30% of the nation’s total
He’s had every advantage a governor could want:
Democratic supermajorities in the legislature
Massive tax revenues from the tech boom
Total control of state government
No Republican obstruction whatsoever
Enormous budgets for homeless services
Years and years to implement solutions
The result is visible everywhere.
The Republican attack ad writes itself: Footage of SF streets, tent cities, and needles. Voiceover: “Gavin Newsom wants to run America. This is what he did with California.”
There is no good answer. He can’t say it’s complicated—he had over two decades. He can’t say Republicans blocked him—California has essentially no Republicans in power. He can’t say he needs more resources—California has the highest taxes in America. He can’t say it’s a big state—he couldn’t even fix San Francisco when he was mayor.
If Democrats can’t point to a single blue state that’s successfully handled visible disorder, how do they argue they should run the country?
The Truth Everyone Knows
The problem is that all of this is obvious to everyone.
But Democrats don’t want to admit that despite their higher moral values, they don’t govern very well.
Most Americans—including progressives, including Democratic voters—don’t want to see people suffering on the streets. Not because they lack compassion, but because:
Visible suffering doesn’t actually help the suffering person
It makes public spaces unusable for everyone else
It’s traumatic for children
It destroys local businesses and communities
Most people living on the streets need involuntary treatment, not “acceptance”
Even people with genuine compassion for the homeless, the addicted, the mentally ill—they don’t want to step over bodies on the sidewalk. They don’t want their kids seeing someone inject heroin at the bus stop. They don’t want to explain to a 7-year-old why that person is screaming at invisible enemies.
This isn’t cruelty. It’s human.
But Democrats treat normal human reactions to disorder as evidence of moral inadequacy. If you’re uncomfortable with needles on the playground, YOU need more compassion. If you want encampments cleared, YOU’RE criminalizing poverty. If you think public drug use should be stopped, YOU’RE attacking the vulnerable.
Meanwhile, Democratic voters quietly move to suburbs, send their kids to private schools, and vote with their feet—while claiming to support progressive policies.
The Two Key Differences
Republicans admit openly that most people don’t want to see visible suffering and disorder. They don’t apologize for enforcement. They represent what most residents actually want—including Democratic voters who won’t say it out loud.
Democrats moralize while doing nothing. They hold listening sessions, commission studies, increase budgets—and two years later the encampment is bigger. They’ve mistaken process for compassion and paralysis for virtue.
Republicans clear encampments, enforce laws, restore public spaces. It’s often harsh, sometimes cruel, lacks adequate services—but it responds to what residents are demanding.
Democrats spend billions, convene task forces, negotiate with activists—and residents still can’t use their parks.
One party acts. One party studies. Guess which one voters choose when they’re stepping over needles?
The Demographic Delusion
Democrats are in denial about all of this. They’ve convinced themselves that demographics will solve their problems. Older conservative voters are dying off. Young people are more liberal. The country is getting more diverse. “Demographics are destiny.”
Just wait it out and we win by default.
Then 2024 happened.
Trump gained significantly with young voters, especially young men. Latino voters shifted toward Trump across the country—even after years of “build the wall” rhetoric. Black men moved toward Trump in measurable numbers. Asian voters split more evenly than expected. Working-class voters of all races abandoned Democrats.
The demographics theory collapsed. Turns out people of all backgrounds want functional cities, controlled borders, and schools that work. They want government that executes, not just promises.
The Obama Paradox
Obama was supposed to be the proof of concept. The pinnacle of Democratic inspiration:
Historic first Black president
Soaring rhetoric about hope and change
Young, diverse coalition
The future of American politics
What actually happened during Obama’s eight years?
Democrats lost:
63 House seats in 2010
Control of the Senate
900+ state legislative seats
12 governorships
Most state governments entirely
By 2016, Democrats controlled fewer elected positions than at any point since the 1920s. The party was hollowed out at every level below the presidency.
Obama inspired millions with beautiful speeches about the promise and the future. Then he presided over the complete destruction of the Democratic Party and ushered in Trump.
Why? Because Obama governed like Democrats always govern:
Soaring rhetoric
Good intentions
Lots of process
Failure to deliver on the promised scale
The ACA passed but became politically toxic
No prosecution of financial crisis criminals
Continued inequality
Handed a broken, weakened party to Hillary Clinton
Then Biden—who won only because Trump catastrophically bungled COVID—proved even more incompetent. Couldn’t control the border for three years. Couldn’t address inflation. Couldn’t reduce visible disorder. Left office with Democrats losing the presidency, Senate, and House.
Two Democratic presidents in a row inspired people and destroyed their own party.
Still Learning Nothing
And now, having lost decisively in 2024, what are Democrats doing?
Soul-searching about governance failures? Asking why they lost Latino voters? Questioning why working-class families abandoned them? Examining why they can’t govern San Francisco despite a billion-dollar budget and total political control?
No.
They’re doing the “America has no kings” rant. They’re melting down over 200 National Guardsmen as if it’s the fall of the Republic. They’re warning about authoritarianism, fascism, constitutional crisis. They’re dusting off the Resistance playbook from 2017. Impeachment talk. Emergency rhetoric. Moral panic theater.
Every ounce of political energy goes into Trump outrage instead of self-examination. Every press conference is about what Republicans are doing wrong, never about what Democrats failed to do right. They’d rather spend four years screaming about authoritarianism than one hour asking why working-class voters chose a lying grifter over their governance.
None of which will:
Win back a single voter who left them
Improve governance in blue states
Clear a single tent city
Address why Latinos shifted right
Explain the needles on San Francisco sidewalks
Fix anything before the next election
The current shutdown fight shows exactly how childish they’ve become. If Republicans let the ACA subsidies expire and it’s as catastrophic as Democrats claim, then voters will oust Republicans in the next cycle.
The adult strategy would be: State your opposition clearly, vote against it, then let Republicans own the consequences of their decisions. If the policies are truly bad, voters will experience it and respond.
Instead, Democrats turn everything into maximum resistance, procedural warfare, and claims of authoritarianism. They won’t let Republicans fail on their own terms. They can’t think strategically beyond the next outrage cycle. They’re too busy performing moral righteousness to plan for victory.
This guarantees they learn nothing and change nothing.
The Unfixable Cycle
If Democrats somehow win the next election cycle, what will have changed?
They’ll have the same coalition:
Progressive activists who oppose any enforcement
Civil liberties groups who block involuntary commitment
NIMBYs who block housing in their own neighborhoods
Teachers’ unions who block education reform
Identity politics factions, each with veto power
So they’ll do the same things:
Spend billions while conditions worsen
Refuse to enforce basic laws without perfect alternatives
Let tent cities grow while calling it compassion
Negotiate legislation they don’t need so they can blame Republicans when it fails
Preside over chaos while claiming powerlessness
Until polls force them to act—too late, too little. Then voters will elect Republicans again.
Each cycle, Republicans don’t just win elections—they win the argument:
“Democrats can’t make government work” becomes more believable
“Progressive policies fail” accumulates more evidence
“Enforcement is necessary” becomes obvious to more people
“Liberal governance produces chaos” becomes conventional wisdom
Democrats are systematically discrediting progressive governance itself.
Every failed blue city. Every tent city that grows despite spending. Every needle on a playground where children should play safely. Every time voters choose cruel competence over compassionate paralysis.
It all reinforces the same message: Liberal values cannot produce functional societies.
The Choice America Made
The country just elected a lying grifter as president rather than accept more years of civic chaos and disorder.
Not because Americans don’t value compassion. Because they value competence more.
Because you can’t send your kids to school past an encampment while Democrats lecture you about your moral failings for noticing. Because needles on the playground are a governance failure, not a compassion triumph. Because a billion-dollar budget that produces worse conditions is insulting, not inspiring.
When voters have to choose between:
A party with better values that won’t enforce basic rules
A lying authoritarian who will at least clear the tent cities
They choose order over virtue. Not because they’re cruel or stupid, but because they’re human.
Until Democrats Learn to Govern
One party can’t govern. One shouldn’t.
The party that can’t is too fragmented to act, too afraid of its own activists to enforce laws, too committed to process over results. It would rather lose while maintaining moral purity than win by admitting enforcement matters.
The party that shouldn’t governs ruthlessly—but at least it governs. It acts. It delivers something visible to voters, even when those things are often cruel or corrupt or shortsighted.
And until the party that can’t either reforms its coalition or fractures entirely, America will keep choosing the party that shouldn’t—because at least they’ll clear the encampments, control the border, and make the machinery of government function.
If Democrats get another chance and nothing has changed—same coalition, same constraints, same preference for moral posturing over execution—they’ll mess it up again. And they’ll further allow Republicans to win the arguments.
Not just about immigration or homelessness, but about the fundamental question: Can progressive governance work at all?
The answer Democrats keep providing, despite their good intentions and higher values, is no.
America is stuck choosing between cruelty and chaos, between a party that executes terrible ideas and one that can’t execute good ones. Democrats, having proven they can’t govern even when given every advantage, have forfeited the right to complain when voters choose cruel competence over compassionate paralysis.
One party can’t govern. One shouldn’t. And until that changes, this is the cycle we’re trapped in.