The Curley Effect: Why Democrat-Run Cities Are Collapsing

In this photo, Seattle’s first Marxist mayor, Katie Wilson, recently waved goodbye to the 54,200 millionaires who are a major part of the tax base in her city. While most have not left yet, many have or are making plans to do so. Her remarks since election make it clear that she plans to use taxes to shore up her base, not for the benefits of all Seattleites. She openly protects certain lawbreakers and threatens journalists who report on them. Whether she knows it or not, she is implementing the “Curley Effect” which, if she remains mayor long enough, will eventually bankrupt the city. NOTE: The last Republican mayor left office in 1969.

BOSTON

Boston’s Democrat Mayor James Michael Curley (Born November 20, 1874, Died November 12, 1958) used wasteful, aggressive redistribution to his poor Irish constituents and incendiary rhetoric to encourage “richer” citizens to emigrate from Boston, thereby shaping the electorate in his favor. As a consequence, the city stagnated, but Curley kept winning elections. Called the “Curley Effect” modern-day Democrats are using the same technique to maintain & increase their power. New York City’s and Seattle’s Marxist mayors are openly using this method, but Portland has been quietly using it for a long time. THAT is why it is collapsing sooner.

Curley served four separate terms^ as the Mayor of Boston between 1914 and 1950 so he had lots of time to implement and perfect the “Curley Effect” which is the type of politics currently being used by Democrats in major cities such as Portland, Oregon and explains why these cities are dying. The term was popularized by Harvard economists Edward Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer over two decades ago to describe a process where leaders use redistribution policies to favor their core supporters, while intentionally driving out those who oppose such policies, which consists of much of the city’s tax base. He was so corrupt he even spent part of his final term as mayor in federal prison after being convicted of mail fraud. They called Curley the “Rascal King.”

During Curley’s long reign the City of Boston declined dramatically, the population stagnated while other major cities grew exponentially, manufacturing jobs left the city (like in Portland), and Boston’s finances collapsed to near bankruptcy.

POLITICS OF EXCLUSION: THE CURLEY EFFECT

The “Curley Effect” is essentially a “politics of exclusion” designed to ensure long-term electoral success and ever increasing power. It follows a distinct cycle:

Targeted Redistribution: The leader taxes the productive or wealthy sectors of the city (often his political opponents) and uses that money to provide jobs, fake jobs, welfare, social services, public works and special status for members of his base. Sound familiar? Nowadays, much of this “redistribution” is accomplished by funneling tax money to and through NGOs which are closely tied to Democrats.

Encouraging Emigration: By increasing taxes and focusing services only on specific neighborhoods (much like Democrats have been doing in virtually all major cities), the leader makes the city less hospitable for others, especially the well-educated, high earners.

Shrinking the Opposition: As the “out-group” (the traditional, wealthy, and highly educated Protestant elite that dominated Boston’s social, economic, and political life for generations) moves to the suburbs or other states to escape high taxes, the percentage of the remaining electorate that supports the mayor grows.

Resulting Stagnation: While this secures the leader’s power, it often leads to the long-term economic decline of the city, as the tax base shrinks and human capital flees which causes the “Urban Doom Loop” currently happening in Portland. SEE ARTICLES LINKED BELOW

LIKE TODAY’S DEMOCRATS, CURLEY ONLY CARED ABOUT POWER, NOT HUMAN BEINGS

Curley was a central figure in the Democrat Party in Massachusetts for decades, serving as the Mayor of Boston (four separate terms between 1914 and 1950), twice a US Congressman, and the Governor of Massachusetts. How did he keep getting elected and re-elected?^ How did James Michael Curley hold onto power for so long when he was doing such a disgustingly horrible job?

Answer: By dramatically raising taxes and using taxpayer funds to hire poor Irishmen for fake government jobs, Curley drove many of the productive people out of the city. As a result of the mass exodus of middle class, upper middle class and wealthy, the share of low-income residents, Curley’s core demographic of supporters, grew substantially.

If you want to retain your grip on power, even though you are doing a horrible job, your best course of action is to drive all your political opponents out of town, allowing you to simply loot the treasury for decades before the city goes bankrupt. THAT is what Curley did, THAT is what Portland has been doing for some time and THAT is what NYC and Seattle have started doing as evidenced by remarks of their mayors.

“The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living.” Author Unknown. “ . . . the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, 1979-1990.

THE “CURLEY EFFECT” CREATES THE “URBAN DOOM LOOP”

^U.S. Congress (First): 1911–1914; Mayor of Boston (First): 1914–1918; Mayor of Boston (Second): 1922–1926; Mayor of Boston (Third): 1930–1934; Governor of Massachusetts: 1935–1937; U.S. Congress (Second): 1943–1947; Mayor of Boston (Fourth): 1946–1950. His funeral was reportedly the largest in the history of Boston, with over one million people visiting the Massachusetts State House to pay their respects while he lay in state.