Progressives Sacrifice Pittsburgh's Prosperity for Activist Politics
This article originally appeared at RealClearPolicy.
The Republican National Committee recently narrowed down its list of cities to host the party’s 2024 national convention to two: Milwaukee and Nashville. But the original list from earlier this year included Pittsburgh. What scared the GOP off the Steel City?
Considering its outsize role in U.S. politics, Pittsburgh would have been an obvious choice to host the RNC. In the next presidential election, middle-class and grassroots issues will take center stage: reshoring jobs, fixing gas prices and supply chains, reopening and reforming schools, and rebuilding America’s shattered economy and small business community. Such concerns are especially pervasive around metro Pittsburgh, its surrounding counties, and neighboring Ohio and West Virginia – the epicenter of Republicans’ blue-collar future.
When your city becomes the national center of attention, even temporarily, that’s a good thing, no matter what political team you play for. In 2016, for example, Cleveland’s RNC brought a nearly $200 million windfall to local businesses. With its far broader base of support eight years later, the GOP could have garnered even more for Pittsburgh. The city’s picturesque surroundings would have dominated national news for a week, while half the nation’s political apparatus set up shop in the Lawrence Convention Center or PPG Paints Arena.
Pittsburgh’s local Democratic leaders, such as Mayor Ed Gainey and Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald, understood these benefits, but their openness to the RNC came under attack from the city’s left. After Gainey affirmed Pittsburgh’s interest to RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, City Councilman Ricky Burgess attacked Gainey for making nice with “the party of hatred” and predicted “hostility, protests and counterprotests, and … violence.” Allegheny County Councilwoman Bethany Hallam focused on “the negative consequences of bringing in people who deny legitimate elections and are full of hate,” saying that she was “sure” Gainey would retract his letter.
Progressive state legislators, journalists, and local officials in the Pittsburgh region then piled on, calling Gainey, who is black, an ally of “white supremacist gangsters” and blaming him for “welcoming this spectacle of aggrievement to town.” Progressive leaders’ profanity-laden opposition to the RNC also carried with it an ominous subtext: the threat of left-wing violence like Pittsburgh saw during the summer of unrest in 2020.
Similar warnings of hostility and violence were made in 2016, but they fell flat as the Cleveland convention proceeded peacefully. Nevertheless, four Allegheny County council members joined the fray with a motion to rebuke Fitzgerald and “strongly encourage” Visit Pittsburgh (Allegheny County’s official tourism organization) to withdraw its RNC bid. Their gambit worked, and Pittsburgh was removed from consideration in February. Even Mayor Gainey has started to recast his initial support as “a matter of procedure.”
It might be puzzling to watch Pittsburgh progressives cut off their noses to spite their face, but their behavior is a hallmark of far-left politics. Middle-class livelihoods, public safety, national unity, and economic growth must all be sacrificed at the altar of their radical ideology.
Skyrocketing crime and homelessness is one visible result of this short-sightedness. Progressive attacks on police have created a public-safety crisis in many major cities that is worrying even liberals. Burgess, the city councilman, claims he is worried about violence, but he criticizes proven policing methods that prevent shooting deaths. The Pittsburgh Cultural Trust has highlighted the decline of downtown, where crime and homelessness are growing to unsustainable levels, but city progressives continue to tout “solutions” like drug-needle amnesty sites – or allowing pets in homeless shelters.
Education is another example. Several progressive candidates took the Pittsburgh School Board by storm last year, winning three seats and a board presidency on a racial equity platform. Then, in January, superintendent Wayne Walters closed Pittsburgh Public Schools and transferred many students to virtual learning – again – “as part of Covid mitigation efforts.” How does keeping children home and disrupting work schedules for many parents who live paycheck-to-paycheck help racial equity? It doesn’t, but in an age where public health hysteria is a political platform, it’s a predictable choice.
There are many more examples. Pittsburgh progressives push energy regulations that kill local natural gas jobs and raise families’ utility bills. They want to force Pittsburgh employers to offer paid Covid leave by city ordinance, long after federal pandemic employment-leave programs have expired. They advocate new accessibility regulations that would disproportionately burden small businesses in the downtown district’s historic buildings.
This small but loud group of activists are the same people who intimidated Mayor Gainey and soured the RNC on Pittsburgh. But stirring up outrage against Republicans can’t replace small business growth, functioning schools, or safe streets. Pittsburgh progressives should stop beating the partisan drum and start working to make the city an attractive home for families and businesses.
