Do I understand your argument correctly? Since philly is controlled by democrats and philly has systemic education problems, the democrats must be anti-education and therefore anti-american dream?
Obviously a powerful argument! 
I think he was using Philly as an example of his argument, not as part of some form of if-then logical clause. Take it with a grain of salt, I did.
The fact of the matter, however, is that liberal leaders often view themselves as an educated elite charged with looking after the unwashed masses. That was basically how Castro viewed himself.
Gwiz seems to be arguing that these liberal leaders have a vested interest in proving that the "unwashed masses" exist and in-fact need their help and constant nannying. If we were to create a system of true socio-economic mobility, it would be harder for these people to gain power (what they are really after), and therefore, they pursue nanny-state policies, instead of attacking the problems that really affect our ability to better ourselves in any meaningful way.
Why do you think the Democratic candidates always line up to perform fellatio on the president of the AFL-CIO? It's about power. Really though,
both parties are about power, and the sooner we realize that none of them really out to help us, the better off we'll be.