Detroit? Democrat Party machine since the '40s. Baltimore? Since the '60s. Chicago? With one exception that I can recall, pretty much a Democrat city since the '20s. Philadelphia? Democrat since the 1950s. St. Louis? Democrat. Washington, D.C.? Democrat. Atlanta? Democrat. Los Angeles? Democrat. You want a bright spot in America's large, urban centers? New York - but for about 25 years, New York had Republicans in the mayor's office [NB: 20 years, actually: 1994-2013]. As Mr. Williamson puts it:
American cities are by and large Democratic-party monopolies, monopolies generally dominated by the so-called progressive wing of the party. The results have been catastrophic, and not only in poor black cities such as Baltimore and Detroit. Money can paper over some of the defects of progressivism in rich, white cities such as Portland and San Francisco, but those are pretty awful places to be non-white and non-rich, too: Blacks make up barely 9 percent of the population in San Francisco, but they represent 40 percent of those arrested for murder, and they are arrested for drug offenses at ten times their share of the population. Criminals make their own choices, sure, but you want to take a look at the racial disparity in educational outcomes and tell me that those low-income nine-year-olds in Wisconsin just need to buck up and bootstrap it?If this is what happens at the local level when Democrats are in charge and able to implement their ideas, what would happen at the national level? Well, have a look at California. They are experiencing a drought and a severe water shortage. No, it is not caused by global warming. It is caused by systemic mismanagement of the state's water resources over decades - much of it at the behest of liberal environmentalists who are now complaining about the results of their folly. California is also heavily in debt, losing population, and thus the taxpayers necessary to pay for all this silliness. Or have a look at Illinois, another state nearly bankrupt because of Democrat policies and with a history of corruption that is about the only bipartisan aspect of the state's politics.
Or take a look at the mess created by Obamacare.
Liberalism doesn't work, and it doesn't work because it requires somewhere, somehow the government and society transcend original sin and human limitations. Its basic premise is that there can be a person or persons not only able to know enough that he or they can manage the details of 350 million lives, but that he or they will be so righteous and moral that they can be trusted to do this.
This was Hayek's point (Road to Serfdom), one repeated in Thomas Sowell's Quest for Cosmic Justice. No government official or committee or bureaucracy is capable of possessing, much less correctly interpreting and processing, the sheer volume of information necessary to do what liberalism requires government to do. And even if they could, no individual, committee, or human organization has the moral character to be trusted with either the knowledge or the responsibility for it.
The results of putting this burden on government are always catastrophic. The only thing that varies is the shape that catastrophe takes. Sometimes it looks like Moscow in 1985. Sometimes it looks like New Orleans in 2005. And sometimes it looks like Baltimore in 2015.
Point this out, though, propose a better solution (penultimate, mind you) - as conservatives and Republicans have been doing for years - and you are instead blamed for the problem Democrats created.