Let's be clear about what AEI is: a free-market, center-right policy shop that's been around since 1938. It's not some shadowy cabal — it's a place where people debate tax policy and housing deregulation over coffee. The fact that SF politicos are engaging with these ideas should be seen as a sign of intellectual health, not corruption. When your city has spent decades under one-party progressive rule and has a $800 million deficit, maybe — just maybe — it's worth hearing from people who think differently about government spending.

But the real story here isn't the think tank. It's the mayoral race dynamics swirling around it. Scott Wiener, Connie Chan, and Daniel Chakrabarti are jockeying for position, and the ideological lines are blurrier than anyone wants to admit. As one local resident put it, "How does one differentiate liberal and progressive? Is progressive supposed to mean socialist?" That's not a dumb question — it's the question in San Francisco politics right now.

The progressive coalition is fractured. Chakrabarti, who's been positioning himself as the progressive standard-bearer, is reportedly tied with Wiener among self-described progressives. Meanwhile, Chan is pulling progressive votes despite what critics call a track record of prioritizing car culture over transit and parks. One SF resident didn't mince words: "NIMBY Chan winning with progressives just shows what a joke they are."

Here's our take: San Francisco doesn't need politicians who only talk to people they already agree with. The city's problems — homelessness, crime, fiscal insolvency, a hollowed-out downtown — aren't going to be solved by ideological purity tests. If a conservative think tank has good ideas about housing supply or pension reform, a smart politician listens.

The question isn't whether SF leaders should engage with AEI. It's whether they'll actually bring any useful ideas home — or just collect frequent flyer miles.