I actually think it's even more specific.

The most important quality is never, ever being Owned, in the dril sense.

The thing is that being earnest and devoted to a fallible thing basically always makes you in danger of being Owned.

It's easy to dunk on liberals with something like 'why can't liberalism build anything as interesting as Soviet towers or Mussolini's monuments' but the more interesting question is the opposite, why does everyone with strong opinions on monumental architecture turn out to be politically insane.

In retrospect McMansion Hell focusing entirely on aesthetic choices instead of how the houses are an extremely inefficient use of their land was a bad sign.

I'm confused as a logical leap she makes about halfway through, that ideological unity - defined here is having sufficient toadies to bulldoze a historical building (which, show your work), is inherently successful.

they don't even have plans!