Well, which is it?
but the leaders of SF very much want SF to be known as a progressive city.
This is beside the point, but whether a city is progressive or not is defined by its policies, who the people are voting out, etc., not by what people say about it.
To bring it back on topic, to point at SF and say "see, progressive cities are bad" (as people posting here) isn't really right because SF isn't as progressive as they claim.
If you want to explore who calls themselves progressive or not and compare the locales they run, you're on your own, because again, that's a different discussion.
Because either way, the fault seems to lie with progressive politicians, whether they are "real progressives" or not.
This sentence makes no sense. The only progressive politicians are real progressives, no? Why are you so intent on arbitrarily labeling people as something despite their actions? Or are you still stuck on this branding thing? Cause if so, I've got a bridge to sell you...
I am intent on illustrating my point that the leaders of SF have successfully labelled themselves as progressives so that the progressives that live there will vote for them. I get your point that they aren't really progressive, but people vote for them because they sell themselves as progressive.
I'm also not "stuck on this branding thing" - just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I'm dumb :)
You put "progressive cities" in quotes here, but everyone knows SF as a progressive city because that's how it brands itself. I agree that SF is probably not as "progressive" as some will claim, given the massive wealth inequality (among other things), but to say it's a "political agenda" to brand SF as a progressive city is nonsense. Sure, people will use that sentiment to paint it in a bad light, but the leaders of SF very much want SF to be known as a progressive city.