I am especially glad for your comment. I wish we could get that word out about that to others. There are plenty of parties in Europe who are perfectly good calling themselves Democratic socialists. People freak out in this country over these terms and I’m not sure why we have not become more adult about it.
Never thought I'd live to see a POTUS under the control of a foreign intelligence service.
Trump was recruited by the KGB; probably in the 1980's. Since 2016 he's been the GOP party head, and FOX News--aka "GOP TV"--accordingly gives him, and his Russian-controlled backstory, 100% support, sanewashing Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
You needn't just suspect. We know it. You can take the tyrant out of the KGB, but you can't take the KGB out of the tyrant. His entire mode of ruling is more like Stalin's than any other dictator's.
The strange thing about the "left" image of communism is that its' practices are authoritarian/totalitarian just like the extreme right. Why communism is not considered right wing is puzzling.
Communists are "totalitarian", as are Fascists. That means they support government by one party to which membership is strictly controlled. But they aren't identical.
How they differ is in their approach to economics. Fascists practice a restricted form of private ownership of industry and commerce. The economy is recognizably capitalist, but certainly warped by party cronyism. There is often an "old time religion" element to Fascism, as well.
True Communists are Marxists and believe that "the proletariat" (which functionally means "the government") owns the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Communists are implacably opposed to religion unless completely co-opted as a government mouthpiece.
Interestingly, both Russia and China today are more Fascist than "Communist", because the Marxist version of economics has proven itself absurdly impractical. The opportunities for gaming the system are widespread and fatal.
Further, religion proved impossible to stamp out or co-opt completely, so both Russia and China have elevated historically important forms of religion to "approved" expressions of faith.
China under Xi still follows the way set by Deng "communism with Chinese characteristics". A compromise version of Marxist which is closer to State controlled capitalism. It has many totalitarian characteristics but is not Fascism even tho the Nazis chacterised themselves as National Socialists.
Democratic socialist are clearly a subset of socialists committed to using democracy as the main way to achieve (and maintain) socialism.
Rather than the political emphasis that Horseshoe Theory makes, I consider it a shared mindset of absolutists as opposition to the difficult rational task of thoughtful, balanced, nuanced behavior and governance.
Communism, in practice, turned out to be a non- heredity based form of feudalism. As North Korea, the only long lasting communist government, shows, it eventually turns into hereditary feudalism.
The point is the GOP always will do this, because it works!
They have used this nonsense pairing for decades and it is ingrained in the psyche of voters.
If you have to take time to explain (like for terms like Dem Socialist)- you have already lost in a game like politics as the saying goes
I think Dem Socialists in the USA need a new term - I AM SERIOUS!
Since the term "socialist" has already been hijacked - they need a new term. "Liberal" has also already been hijacked.
The GOP used "compassionate conservative" as a rebrand (makes me sick like breadcrumbs under the table for the needy if they work)
How about Dems use "compassionate capitalist?"
In other words, capitalism is fine and good where it works but not where it does not work, like for some areas of healthcare, etc. where we need intervention by government.
How about Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party like in Minnesota? It covers the FDR coalition and puts the Republicans a little bit on the back foot out of the starting gate. It probably wouldn’t help though. The media outside of Minnesota just uses Democratic and Republican, regardless of actual party name and agenda, so unless the media starts accurately reporting it’s a moot point.
In Europe they call it "socialism with a human face". The funny thing about this, is that European govt & political structure was remade by US influence after WW2. But it didn't happen in an enduring fashion at home.
That Rs do this and quite successfully is why I believe calling oneself a Democratic Socialist is counterproductive. I would prefer a Progressive Democrat ... I am a lifelong (left leaning) independent and the last R I voted for was Charlie Baker.
Because a dedicated group of "libertarians" and employees of the very rich have been working hard for more than fifty years to make sure the average American thinks socialism leads directly to Stalinist camps. "Ignore Denmark. Look at Cuba." Ironically, we now have Stalinist camps, but they're in other countries.
Their "love" is a mile wide and an inch deep. They love the power to send other people's kids to kill and die when they want to teach the wogs a lesson. But look how little they like taking care of those who come back maimed. Trump doesn't want them at his events, eh?
Communism is as far LEFT as one can get. From each according to his/her abilities, to each according to his/her needs. Of course, in practice this ideal does not work without an authoritarian leader, such as in China, because this goes against the natural dog eat dog nature of our species.
But it is the opposite of the Darwinian, survival-of-the-fittest beliefs of the right
Marx actually got that idea from the Bible, particularly Acts 4:32-35. If Jesus & Marx AGREE on something, then it can’t be all bad. Even a stopped clock is right once day, and “from each according to ability, to each according to needs” is the one—and perhaps only—thing Marx got right. Communism isn’t the way to do it, though: Social insurance through “social democracy” socialism is. BTW, when American liberals say “socialist” that’s what they mean—something like Canada. When the right says it, they mean authoritarian socialism—like Cuba. Big difference!
Yes- and that’s proven by how much the swivel-eyed extreme right nut jobs hate him.
He’s standing down at the next election- I’m really interested who’ll replace him. Although London probably favours left of centre candidates, mayoral elections seem to favour big charisma candidates too, which kinda opens it up a bit.
Well, I do like Khan’s green policies . But why can’t mayors who are left lea king and do some nice policies not care about fighting crime ? Maybe because British law (back to London now ) is non existent or not exercised . I don’t know .
London is a lot like New York you say, well sure, in one way - its housing is as extravagantly expensive and unaffordable as New York's. I'm not sure how you believe that translates into "excellence", but I imagine you have your reasons.
To my mind, Smith's analysis is not encouraging and that's my main concern (Mamdani's a personable enough guy with a good TV presence). New York City's central and overarching issue is housing affordability (i.e. being constrained by systemic NIMBYISM), and Mamdani's proposals redistribute a modest amount to the lower income quintile, not a sin, but hardly any grasp of policy or initiative to actually increase housing builds for all.
I said that Sadiq Khan is an excellent Mayor, as I think is shown by his having been re-elected twice. All large cities - New York, London, Dublin, Tokyo, Shanghai and more - have housing problems but that is a national issue not a city issue.
Tokyo very famously does not have a housing problem, in part because Japan makes housing a national problem. New York’s housing problem is a city issue and it will not be fixed until the mayor makes supply-side housing policy the one thing they care about.
London is different in that housing is a borough issue—not a city nor a national issue. It probably should become a national issue and power should be taken away from the local authorities, but it hasn’t—so Sadiq has neither succeeded nor failed on housing because he doesn’t have the authority to.
Only one candidate in this race was serious about addressing housing in NYC—Zellnor Myrie—and his proposal for 1 million homes is likely insufficient.
YIMBYism is *the* issue that matters in urban American politics. Everything else is a rounding error and will not fix anyone’s problem.
New York needs to likely *double* the population in the five boroughs for housing to become remotely affordable. That requires land reclamation, relocation of industry to the suburbs, mass upzoning of residential neighborhoods, and replacing old walk-ups with modern high rises.
"YIMBYism is *the* issue that matters in urban American politics. Everything else is a rounding error and will not fix anyone’s problem."
Perfectly said and as cities are our engines of productivity, in turn, our national economic success is riding on defeating the NIMBY's.
So that said, my concern is that Mamdani's "housing policy" will be ineffectual and, assuming he's elected, his term becomes net net, an opportunity cost fueled by vibes.
It is absolutely a city issue, bc the majority of NIMBY road blocks are set on a city level, whether zoning, or the various holds and permits that need to be obtained on every level from the state to the city down to the neighborhood and across the breadth of the bureaucracy. That's why a place like Austin is able to build much quicker and cheaper (discounting land cost difference).
A lively discussion and international too! I live in Boston and affordability is a big deal here too. But there’s a lot of not in my backyard here as well.
Not just building housing (because there’s more available than you might think) but also access to what’s there. A lot of landlords hold apartments off the market to do better with AirBnB, which was donating to Whitney whatshisname.
Airbnb is objectively a rounding error in NYC. And Airbnb only exists because there’s also a shortage of hotel rooms. The solution remains the same: build more.
As long as you don’t read Telegraph reader comments! Who probably don’t even live in London. All countries seem to be growing deeper political fissures.
Sadiq Khan has been an exceptional mayor and a very necessary counterbalance to a corrupt Tory Government under Boris Johnson. New York, like London, is a tolerant, centrist city. Boris, as mayor of London prior to Khan, will be remembered (among other things) for his Bendy Buses which killed pedestrians and cyclist alike.
As far as I can tell, Mayor Sadiq Khan doesn’t describe himself as, or propose policies widely associated with, democratic socialism. He seems to be in the mainstream, center-left wing of Labour, a shade left of the centrist Starmer.
Knightsbridge, Kensington, Holland Park, Mayfair, Westminster, Chelsea, Highgate, Hampstead, South Kensington and Belgravia are constituent parts of a "shithole"?
Not really. Yes, the knife crime is a concern - it's rising, and is essentially back to pre-Covid levels. But there were a total of 262 knife-related homicides in England & Wales in 2023/24 - if you compare this to the homicide rate in any US state of comparable size (and yes, Americans use guns, not knives, so exact comparisons aren't straightforward) then you'll see why those of us who live near London have no few worries about "drowning in crime" when we visit the capital.
Well well well - comparing to evil America makes it easy , doesn’t it ? How about comparing to other large European cities ? Oh, right .. Britain is not Europe anymore
Well, in Anglo-Saxon societies like America and Britain you don’t want to live in cheap housing anyway . In those class societies with a tiny thin sliver of sophisticated elite with culture and a very nice taste you MUST live in an expensive place to be protected from the unwashed masses who indeed are just vulgar , loud and cultireless . So cheap housing won’t save you in London (except you want to listen to gum shots or hip hop from the neighbor the whole day or have a smudgy and unsafe surrounding. Low salaries IS a pain , though. Britons prefer to be born rich - not to get rich
Well, in Anglo-Saxon countries like America and Britain you anyway do r want to live in cheap housing . In those class societies - with the elite being refined and sophisticated and tasteful
Mamdani calls himself a *democratic socialist.* Not the same thing as a socialist. Bernie and AOC also call themselves democratic socialists. They want to make the system better, not overthrow it. They have demonstrated the capacity to work within it. Let's not fall into the trap that both the right wing and centrist Dems would like to lay, particularly since both of them want billionaires to be in charge.
Uh... what exactly is NOT "socialist" about a "democratic SOCIALIST"... ?
The only problem is that in the US, people falsely imagine that socialism is a synonym for fascism. It's not. Today's GOP is a synonym for fascism.
And centrist Democrats are, just like Mamdani, pro-democracy. That means that today, there is NO equivalence between them and right-wing politicians at all. Centrist Democrats are always pro-democracy, for instance, and they always support higher taxes on billionaires.
If I may, “socialist” is a relative term, not an absolute term, so it is negative in the mouths of some and positive in others. I live in Vancouver BC (Canada) where we have a “socialist” Premier, and we’re good thanks. Compared to the “conservative” (and here I mean “idiot”) Premier in Ontario, we are far, far better off - just look at the economic data for the last 20 years.
It's hard to prevent a word or phrase adopting a pejorative connotation, even if—and maybe especially if—the term was meant as an alternative to previous slurs. (British soldiers had "worthy oriental gentlemen" imposed on them, to no avail, as soon they were making references instead to "bloody wogs.")
Any normal descriptor can be expressed in a pejorative way, too, with the right undertone of disgust: "Women!" "Academics!" "Influencers!"
I agree, Gerry. I hope there will be many others who point to their examples of 'socialist' as successful and efficient. For my state, it's Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist. Above all, we must stem the tide of oligarchy and the inherent cruelty of the current administration. Earlier today, I read a comment that Trump and Project 2025 supporters intend American genocide by the removal of social supports.
With respect, I think it’s important to use words correctly. For example, slashing the welfare state is very bad but it is not actually a genocide.
Socialism means a specific thing, which can be fine under certain circumstances, though I would argue it is in fact less adept at addressing problems than liberal capitalism.
This would all be much easier if people exaggerated a bit less.
It is USED in many different ways, but it is DEFINED in one way. Even if the entire world would use it incorrectly, that still wouldn't change its definition...
Socialism has different types. So the definition it has to be very broad. Our government is socialistic here.. medicaid, medicare,social security, public education, infrastructure projects.
Zionist is used in different ways and means different things. The meaning of words change with usage. Language is dynamic.
Socialism has different types. "types of socialism that are fascists?" example? What do you mean? That's an oxymoron. The types of fascism are identified as such, just as types of socialism. Fascists are not socialists by definition.
Language usage is dynamic. You cannot say black is white though.
I am oversimplifying things for the sake of brevity in the comment section, but there are plenty of places where the difference is explained. (I don't necessarily agree with the New York Times' take, but they have just published an explainer that's an OK start.)
A socialist wants to replace capitalism with socialism. A democratic socialist wants to work within the capitalist and democratic system to curb excesses and ensure that the government benefits more people.
There are socialists who have a whole lot in common with DOGE -- the main difference is what they would do after the government is sufficiently broken to remake. Most of those who consider themselves socialists without the democratic modifier would never run for office or be able to make the necessary compromises to govern effectively.
Sure, centrist Dems give some lip service to having billionaires pay more taxes. But they don't really mean it. It's just a way to get them elected since tax increases on the most wealthy are so politically popular. People see through that, as they did when they voted for Mamdani.
Also briefly: "socialism", as invented by Marx, refers to the taking over of decisions about how to invest capitalist profits by the workers/employees of a specific plant, and by extension, by the people voted for in Congress.
So no, socialism is never about replacing capitalism with socialism. It's about replacing SAVAGE capitalism, that only enriches CEOs (the "owners of the capital" and means of production), with an economic approach (inside democracy) that distributes the profits made much more fairly.
In other words, you're confounding different POLITICAL regimes with different ECONOMIC regimes (as most Northern Americans do today).
The opposite of "democracy" (a political regime) is "dictatorship" or fascism. A democracy is defined by the constitutional independence of the three branches of government, where fascism "bundles" the power of the legislative and judiciary branches into the executive branch's power.
The opposite of capitalism (an economic regime) is communism. In capitalism, private ownership is defined as allowing CEOs to do whatever they want with the profits generated. In communism, only the government decides what to do with them, while all private ownership is abolished.
Socialism is an ECONOMIC regime in which private ownership is still the case, but more and more, workers/employees use a democratic government to pass laws that distributed the wealth generated by society as a whole more fairly.
As to DOGE: that's a fascist attempt to illegal destroy and defund government agencies while installing an AI surveillance system inside government computers. There are NO socialists in the US who ever advocated for something like this. They all reject it.
As to centrist Democrats: they have ALL voted, again and again, for bills that actively increase taxes on the wealthiest. Just fact-check your belief and you'll see that it's false.
After that treatise, can we move on? Regardless of whether it's appropriate to conflate a political and economic system, the American voting public does. Which is why we shouldn't reinforce that in our messaging.
The individual who identifies as a socialist comes down in a significantly different place politically than a democratic socialist who embraces that term as a politician seeking elective office (beginning with running for office in the first place).
And if you don't think socialists have a problem with government bureaucrats and wouldn't mind eliminating a significant portion of them on a short timeline, then I don't know what to tell you.
As George Orwell said, the day we give up objective truth is the day when fascism gets installed.
So no, we can't move on. The US needs to understand, once and for all, what "socialism" means, rather than cultivating demonstrably false ideas about it.
As to socialism having a problem with "government bureaucrats": how exactly does that work?
You don't think that a firm belief that what we have currently needs to be replaced or overthrown, however you want to define it, doesn't mean dismantling what we currently have? And that dismantling what we currently have doesn't require removing the governmental employees that support that system? If you want to model "objective truth," you can start there.
I consider myself closer to the center and really mean it when I say billionaires should pay more taxes. I also support a progressive tax system. don’t think I’m unusual.
Social democracy and democratic socialism are related but distinct political ideologies. Social democracy, often associated with the Nordic model, focuses on achieving social justice through a mixed market economy, strong welfare state, and democratic governance. Democratic socialism, while also committed to democracy, envisions a more fundamental transformation of the economy, potentially including greater public ownership and worker control, with the goal of moving towards a socialist society.
Look up the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website for more information. We are a real national political party, with chapters all over, and real people and New Yorkers who volunteered for Mamdani. We want everyone who agrees with our *values* to join in the fight against oligarchy. We want a better United States of America, and are sworn to uphold the republic that we love.
DSA is very clear that it is *not* a political party, and is not on the ballot in any state as such. I am very very familiar with DSA, and that's an ongoing organizational debate, but it is firmly on the "not a party" side of that debate at the moment.
Thank you! The happiest countries in the world have social democracies which make governmental decisions on the basis of what's best for their people, not their oligarchs. Democratic socialists are not communists and we should correct anyone asserting that they are.
The happiest countries in the world are much less socialist than both the left and the right claim they are. And the most *functional* countries in the world (Singapore, Switzerland) aren’t socialist at all.
I didn't say they were socialist. Social democracies are very different. Exercise your Google and discover! My definition of "functional" is happy and free, not authoritarian.
She is in one of the most gerrymandered safe Dem districts in the country. Of course she is popular. They could run a ham sandwich on the Dem ticket and get a 55-45 win.
Of course she won the primary. With 16,000 votes to Crowley's 11,500 out of a population of 750,000. It was a D+29 district where no one bothers to show up for the primary except the cookiest fringe, GOP doesnt bother campaigning, and lets crazy ppl get nominated.
As I said elsewhere, progressives are only able to do this crap in deep blue districts. Its not a reflection of their popularity but a reflection of the gerrymandering.
Its and AND not an OR lol. Crowley was overly hubristic in that primary for sure. But winning by 4500 votes in a primary election where turnout was 7% of registered voters in the district doesn't scream "popularity" to me. Her appeal to the mass of the voters was never tested in a competitive election.
Sure. Progressives can underperform and still win in deep blue districts, but embracing that progressive vision is a path towards national irrelevance for the party. Her popularity is not a sign of the competitiveness of her position but a reflection of the massively gerrymandered electoral map.
I wasn't commenting on national relevance. I was noting that being a Democractic Socialist is not a problem in NYC and that the AOC endorsement did a lot for him, especially with younger voters.
Socialism is one of those words that has been twisted around and vilified for political reasons. Not reason - political reasons.
It's like entitlement. If you paid into Social Security you are entitled to be paid when it's your time for eligibility. A contract. Just as you are entitled to receive your coffee at the coffee shop after you pay for it. (OK - some coffee shops expect payment when you're done; in that case, they're entitled to their compensation for serving you your coffee. I guess in some circles, like for example a famous politician who played around being a wannabe Mafia don while doing a bad job at real estate development, that contract idea is only a one way street.) Entitlement sure has been redefined.
Anyway, the socialism thing probably became a bad word when the USSR started up - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Of course, the DPRK is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, too.
If you have a fire department, if you have public schools open to everyone, if you get your electricity from a not-for-profit…this list is longer than most Americans think (do they?)
Actually, oligarchs, the wealthy have been smearing socialism as the big boogey man since about the civil war. The horror of former slaves and poor white folks running for office and not dying in penury and all…
"Socialism is one of those words that has been twisted around and vilified for political reasons. Not reason - political reasons."
The word has been used in so many ways and by so many people, not just enemies but supporters too, that it has so many definitions it's increasingly hard to use the term in any capacity. Depending on who you're talking to, "socialism" can refer to the USSR or modern-day Sweden.
(For that matter, depending on who you're talking to, "capitalism" can refer to the Belgian Congo or, well, modern-day Sweden).
Modern-day Sweden is "capitalist," in that the means of production remains in private hands (albeit subject to a far higher marginal tax rate than here).
The USSR was "socialist," in that the means of production (factories and farms) were publicly owned and controlled. By contrast, the current Russian Federation is capitalist.
The foregoing means that Bernie Sanders is at most a "Social Democrat" in the West European political tradition. Last I checked, Sanders was not calling for Ben & Jerry's to be nationalized, i.e., publicly owned and controlled, nor was he calling for expropriation of the oligarchs' wealth. (1% of this country controls 40% of its wealth and 10% of this country controls roughly 80% of its wealth.)
Everyone is confused about Social Security. My understanding is the Republicans want to eliminate the benefit, not the tax. Otherwise, how would cuts in Medicare and Social Security offset tax cuts to Mr. Bezos? Or Mr. Elon? Can you imagine the public’s reaction if that were down? Or would they even know?
True, but perhaps they should not use the word "socialist" when they are not actually socialists.
Using it gives the GOP immense fodder to win elections outside of blue states and that means the White House. Even Bernie and Warren began to lose primaries when they left blue states and Bernie ended up down by 11 states and 2 million votes and Warren had to leave earlier.
That is simply the makeup of a large share of our electorate and you can't make any progress if you can't win.
Dems often complain that the GOP use the word wrong, and they do, but so do the liberals who use it.
If one were to look up the word "socialist" they probably would say, no that is not what I mean.
Even you had to explain and justify.
What is that old saying? If you have to explain you have likely already lost the argument.
Even the people of Denmark liked to point out that they are not what Sanders claims and to the right of him, same goes for places like Germany, etc.
You also cannot make progress if you capitulate every time. People respond to authenticity. Bernie and AOC have demonstrated they can challenge the status quo and still be effective, and have successfully identified as democratic socialists and respected legislators.
Mamdani is not running for president, and he's in a mostly blue state. If the Dems don't want to learn anything from his victory, they can keep funding the Cuomos and Schumers of the world and the super PACs, while wringing their hands over losing entire generations of young men.
I mean, no matter what you call him, how can Mamdani do worse than Eric Adams and Bill DiBlasio? The more you attack Mamdani and call him something he isn't, then the more you harm the Dem brand and encourage people to stay home like they did in 2024.
I don't think it's effective to trivialize centrist Democrats. Away from deeply Blue regions, there's no way to realize Democratic Socialism without these very voters, and it may require incrementalism, which shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing.
The only time they have backed off or paired down some plan was to get enough votes to pass something otherwise they would have gotten nothing.
So, give me an example of capitulating?
In addition I agree that for a large blue state, no problem winning with that language of Dem Socialist, but in reality, how is a Dem Socialist really different than a regular Democrat?
The only thing I can tell is that they want to do big things faster, but the problem with that is that those types of plans often can't get the votes needed to pass congress.
For example, M4A has never been remotely close to having the votes in congress, so no one capitulated, they simply chose a way to move forward that could pass with the needed votes.
Even when the Dems had a supermajority for a few months in 2009, this was also made up with some Independents who caucused with them and they could not lose 1 single vote because it was a policy change and not a budget matter.
If you demand your way or the highway, nothing gets done and the GOP keep winning.
Another thing I would like to point out is that although AOC and Bernie have good idea in my view even if I prefer more incremental paths from point A to point B) they are used in every single attack add against every single Dem candidate in swing states with the heading that says this candidate is too liberal and "socialism" even the background is a red hellscape color and pictures of Bernie and AOC. And guess what? The GOP do it because it works. Even if the public does not like their candidate, they can scare people into voting for them.
Part of the reason the attacks are successful is that the people who should be standing behind them don't. Look at how popular Bernie and AOC's post-election tour was. Huge crowds, even in dark red states. He called Fighting Oligarchy what it was. It was genuine, and people loved it.
Even in dark red states, there are a often a good percentage of Dems.
In TX, a very red state, often a presidential candidate or candidate for Senate will only lose by 4-10%. That means that although the state is red, something like 40% + are probably Dem + Dem leaning Independents plus those who do not like the current GOP position on things.
So, yes they are going to draw large crowds, in TX during times like this even in red and purple states, but that does not mean a majority, only that they are appealing to the choir or that TX 40% who are angry and frustrated.
In a Dem primary, in such states, the more moderate candidate in those states tends to appeal to far more voters even those who vote in a Dem primary.
I’m not sure Eric Adams can be considered ineffective—rather, corrupt.
The problem is that while the democratic establishment is rather feckless, moving left is not really the solution to the substantive policy problems that have gone unaddressed. Zohran’s policy proposals are solutions in search of problems, while real issues are ignored. We need reformist technocrats, not the establishment or left populists. New York needs Kathryn Garcia, not Cuomo or Mamdani.
I would simply like to make the point that the Dem track record of winning elections AND making meaningful policy change is much worse from 2017-2025 than from 1992-2016. Charismatic technocratic centrism (Bill Clinton, Obama) actually wins elections. We can just…go back.
Please, what word would you suggest Mandani use in refering to his political leanings? I agrtee he does not fit the dictionary definition of capital S Socialism, that being defined by state ownership of capital. But what shall they call themselves?
He calls himself a democratic socialist. So does Bernie. So does AOC. At least in blue states, people know what those terms stand for when they are used. We can capitulate in advance and continue to allow Republicans to call people communists, or we can take the opportunity to educate people about what democratic socialists stand for. Blue politicians should not be participating in red scares.
There are very few exceptions, but even Manchin had agreed to support a version of BBB until Biden went to Europe and some progressives started to add more back in and he backed out again. Then Sinema supported it but not the taxes so they did not have enough payfors.
Those 2 killed it, but so did those who got too greedy and did not accept a compromise with Manchin that was still pretty progressive. It was almost a done deal. They would not "capitulate" and so we got nothing at all.
Who is actually more progressive? Someone who compromises so we can make needed progress or someone who digs their heels in and gets us nothing at all?
The people in group 2 who added more in and refused to compromise are nothing but talk and addicted to righteous indignation and who then sit their armchairs quarterbacking in defeat saying "if they only listened to me." It is pure arrogance, and who gets hurt? The poor get hurt who could have benefited from the compromise but who got nothing at all due to progressive arrogance, so they could be righteous and smug and say they did not give in.
They may give themselves fancy titles like "Dem Socialist" but do they EVER accomplish anything at all? Typically no, NEVER just smugness and a sense of superiority. What good is it to feel right if nothing ever happens and you help no one? How does that help anyone? How is that making progress of progressive?
No one in the GOP would have come close to supporting all that was in that BBB bill even before the progressives added more and sank it, but the moderate Dems did and it could have helped a lot of people.
Dems (so-called centrists or progressives) and the GOP are nothing alike.
Do you think that Bernie and Biden are/were equivalent?
If Dems were all in for Bernie rather than spending countless dollars to keep him off the ticket and publicly attack him, I am confident he would have prioritized and been able to accomplish different things than either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. I say this as someone who never voted for Bernie.
Part of the reason you can say that they never accomplish anything is that they are so feared by their own party and hamstrung the moment it appears they might be getting somewhere. The GOP doesn't like the Freedom Caucus, but they're not expending tons of effort to defeat them either. They may privately laugh at Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert, but they are not publicly undermining them or primarying them or gerrymandering their districts.
Those who identify as democratic socialists can move the Overton window back towards the left, which is still so far right of center as to be what was considered Republican in prior decades. And can normalize some positions that might be considered extreme, such as student loan forgiveness or reining in drug prices.
And centrists are not progressives. Progressives are much closer to democratic socialists than centrists. You may be confusing "liberal" with "progressive." Someone like Elizabeth Warren is progressive, and the primary campaign she ran was unlike what Kamala Harris ran, for example.
Explain Rashida Tlaib then. She also identified as a democratic socialist, and makes the Dem establishment really twitchy for her Palestinian identity and support for pro-Palestinian causes. Dems go after her all the time, accusing her of saying things she didn't say and voting to censure her.
Yet she continues to win in a purple state at best. She doesn't even get primaried any more. It's the Dem establishment who works to minimize her influence in Congress.
People can fit a congressional district well, and I do not know of any Dem putting false words in her mouth. The GOP, sure.
My argument is that when it comes to a national election like for president, one needs to be aware of the political leanings, desires and fears, and the to do and not do list of the nation, and this is especially true of the swing states.
The more general the election, typically the more in the middle the candidate needs to be.
Trump got around this by appealing to every fringe and minority group he could find ranging from racists, far right evangelicals, to vaccine skeptics and on and on.
Very well said;,thank you! This is the issue both politically and economically! I’m not a “Democratic Socialist” but I certainly support any Democrat who will make a legitimate effort to make life more livable for the average working class! Enough expanded tax deductions for those who don’t have to worry about paying the rent this month or how to support grandma and at the same time pay tuition for two college students. Mamdani will be one of many on the city council so let’s welcome him, his fabulous smile and his optimistic program to improve this city for the working class, seniors and even those out of work!
The problem is that we have actual, technical policy problems to solve. I just don’t see any evidence that Zohran’s vibes-based lefty platform will do anything to make New York meaningfully more affordable for average people. You have to get the details right, fabulous smile and optimism be damned.
It's not a question of what he calls himself--it's a question of his ethics and policies. Regarding the latter, as John Lave noted above, Noah Smith did an excellent job of debunking the major "crowd-pleasing" ones he's announced--e.g., rent controls will actually restrict the supply of housing; government-run groceries will be expensive to run, are likely to be inefficient, and will drive family groceries out of business, free daycare is a decent idea, but where will the money come from, other than taking the well-to-do so heavily that many of them leave and take their productivity and financial contributions to New Yorkers with them. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/zohran-mamdanis-policies-will-mostly
As to ethics, his virulent stances against Israel and in favor of "globalizing the intifada" are despicable, fundamentally antisemitic, and threatening to the vast majority of Jewish New Yorkers.
He's charismatic and a superb speaker--so were Hitler and Mussolini, as well as a U.S. President of very recent memory. That's not to say Mamdani is in the same league, only to illustrate the point that one can be elected based on charismatic demagoguery, without a constructive ability to enact policies and processes that will improve the lives of most in the body politic.
My understanding is that democratic socialism accepts democracy as the right political structure, whereas communist socialism rejects democracy as incompatible with socialism. As far as I know both approaches advocate public ownership of the means of production and both disavow the legitimacy of markets.
Agree. There is no mention of taking over the means of production. But the simplistic story remains in rhe popular press and even more in the conservative press.
In Europe the term is social-democrat as in the Nordic countries. Wonder why they picked the US term that they did, which seems might be more threatening to the one-third ill-informed.
Because democratic socialists have been organizing in their communities since the 1980s, and while it was long thought that democratic socialists had no path towards electoral power, Bernie showed that this was not the case. Then there was AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Summer Lee, and Greg Casar who identified as democratic socialists, (and also Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman who were primaried by those more closely allied with the Democratic establishment.)
There are many more who are winning local elections like state legislature, city council and school boards, and yes, mayoral elections. Democratic socialists are considered to be further to the left than social democrats, but most do not embrace the term socialist without the democratic modifier, particularly as it is often associated in the public mind with revolutionary socialists (whether that's true or not, and is exploited by those who want to defeat democratic socialist candidates, either as Republicans or centrist Dems.)
I just wish we would embrace what already exists. In a world full of Andrew Cuomos, be a Brad Lander. Build bridges, respect differences, fight ICE, don't try to use super PACs to crush authenticity and good ideas. If Mamdani isn't the next mayor of New York, it will be because Dems pulled out the stops to crush him. And do not support a single politician who sexually harasses people, OK?
People have been brainwashed. Communism= Socialism= Marxism= Dictatorship. Guess what folks, you're sliding into an far right Christian Nationalist autocratic oligarchy right now. Enjoy!
Thank you Paul. As a Democrat and Jew, I share your viewpoint and am angry at the reaction by the establishment. Mandani is a great candidate with a vision who excited young people. Isn’t that exactly what we need to take this country back from MAGA and technocrats? I’m 67 and hoping this is the beginning of a new wave of democratic candidates. I saw an interesting quote yesterday “to run for the Democratic Party you have to run against the Democratic Party.” I think this is true.
Running against the Dem party may sound appealing to very liberal voters, but one can't win swing states that way.
In addition, this is the exact opposite of what Krugman just said.
He said we should support whoever is the nominee and not trash Dems.
Bernie lost by 11 states and a couple of million votes against Hillary in the Dem primary and he did as you suggested and trashed the Dem party and as a result of his bashing, Hillary's approval ratings sank when they had been over 57% before the primary race began and he gained his Bernie or nothing followers by trashing centrist Dems even using a Trump troupe "rigged."
Instead we got Trump and the GOP
How is that making progress? How is 3 conservative justice appointments progress?
As Krugman points out, no Dem is like the GOP and the courtesy needs to be extended both ways and in both directions.
You seem to be suggesting the opposite.
D's and R's each make up less than 30% of voters each and Independents make up over 40% The only place this is not true is in big blue states.
This is why the liberal Dem primary candidates always get creamed when a Dem primary leaves the big blue states which is exactly what happened to Bernie and Warren.
One can't win the presidential election with blue states alone.
So, by trashing centrist Dems one only makes it far more likely the GOP will stay in power because it is far more likely a moderate will will win a primary. This even happened to Al Gore where liberals claimed he was not "liberal enough."
We could have started addressing climate change decades ago!
Yes, I will support whoever the Dem candidate is, but what good will that do when less than 30% of voters are Democrats?
We have to have a candidate who can appeal nationally to win the White House.
The only presidential candidates who have won in a national contest since Reagan have run as moderates, Clinton, Obama, and Biden.
Harris was branded as a CA liberal and could not shake the label and Kerry and Mondale were considered liberals as well as Al Gore, etc.
However, this did not always stop the father left of the party from running 3rd party challengers and syphoning off even more votes, as well, helping the GOP to victory. Carter was also considered pretty darn liberal, as well, gaining rock and roll cred from what I recall. His was my first election, but after Reagan....the tide shifted even more conservative.
Clinton made the switch to appeal to a more moderate base and that combined with southern credentials helped and he started the trend so that Dems could get back to the WH. He learned to navigate this middle appeal as a governor of Arkansas, I think. He even won AZ, as did Biden.
Feminism is dead in NYC. Democrats had the opportunity to vote for a serious, qualified, reasonable, unifying Black businesswoman, Adrienne Adams. Where were the people wanting to elect qualified women? They just get marginalized again when two macho candidates are jousting with each other.
She’s been a great council speaker. I ranked her high. She also got in the race late with little money, struggled to fundraise (it was actually Mamdani’s appeal that his maxed out donors should donate to her that qualified her for public matching funds) and never clearly articulated why she was running.
I am not a NY resident. I was mostly here to talk about centrist Dem vs "leftier" as Krugman put it.
However, the news we did get from afar here in CA simply mentioned those with more hoopla attached to their names like the "Dem Socialist" and "Cuomo" - so she may have been lost in all that hype for those who do not pay close enough attention. I only discovered her when I was reading about the winner. Having the name Adams prob did not help for those not tuned in enough, beats me not being a local.
And those moderate wins did nothing to retain working-class voters, but instead made them desperate not to lose any more economic or social ground; and so we have MAGA.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Dems did not achieve a lot for working class voters, etc?
Not only did we get the ACA, but Medicaid was expanded and we got the IRA, etc and expanded Pell Grants and 2 verson's of the pay as you can afford student loan programs from Obama and Biden, and some negotiation on drug prices and on and on.
In fact, Trump is trying to undo all of it.
If we now have MAGA, it is from disinformation, not from a lack of Dem efforts to do as much as they can when they can get the votes.
All policy changes to social programs require a 60 filibuster proof supermajority. Only budget items can be done with simple majority reconciliation when a party holds both houses and the WH, so it is rare.
Thus, even with more progressives, more could not have been done, especially if they did not win or win a majority. That simply is the nature of how congress works, so you have to try to get as much as you can done, when you can, and that often means compromise in order to get enough votes.
When we have a majority and fail to make progress it is often due to progressives and then we get nothing at all. Biden had the votes for BBB and Manchin was a yes and then progressives kept adding more in and he balked and then with more added in, we could not get Sinema to approve more payfors with taxes to fit the requirements. Greediness killed the whole bill and the poor are the ones who suffer, not the progressives in congress.
Fortunately we were able to get the IRA done which had the green incentives and credits as well as prescription drug, etc. in a smaller later bill.
When has a Sanders or AOC passed anything to actually help people? They just talk and don't do anything and criticize others for trying to actually get things done. They can't get anything done for anyone because that would require a compromise. How is doing nothing at all progressive?
I'm seriously stating that Democrata have *failed* since Clinton to slow or reverse the migration of 50 trillions of dollars in wealth from the bottom 90% upward to the 1%. Delivery crats have failed to unpair from special interests, failed to even reach unity on no stock trading. Sure, Biden was the most progressive president in 50 years, but I don't see anyone else other than the AOCs recognizing that economic and policy choices inevitably led to MAGA populism and the social rupture of economically and socially downwardly mobile middle class that fed it.
It is one thing to sit back and say what Dems have not done and ignore what they have been able to do whenever they are given a chance and it is quite rare to have the numbers needed.
Even merely changing the min wage would require a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate now that the GOP oppose just about everything. The Dems only had such a number with the help of a few independents and only for a few months in 2009, so they did healthcare and expanded Medicaid, etc. The only other time was with a budget resolution which can only address budget matters and requires Dems control the House, Senate and White House, also rare and no one can even raise the min wage with that or change policy. Sadly, the Dems only had 50 votes requiring they could not lose a single vote and still needed the VP as a tie breaker, and policy changes can't even be made with this approach only budget matters. Yet later that year they got the climate bill done called the IRA
So, the point I am making is that Dems do all that they can whenever they can and if a person in the WH was a progressive rather than a centrist, it would not have changed this math one bit.
It is not so much who is in control, but simply how the system works. Dems (centrist or progressive) are generally not the ones standing in the way, the GOP are.
In fact, BBB had all but one or 2 Dem senators on board and at one point it looked like it would pass, for that very progressive bill, and most senators are actually considered moderates with only Bernie being a member of the progressive caucus. So it was certainly not "most Dems" or moderates standing in the way. Clinton faced a GOP congress that was quite extreme with Gingrich in charge.
When the GOP are in power they try to undo all progress Dems make
There were times when Dems had the House & Senate, but nonetheless, did nothing to address those policy and economic choices. It is not just in the time of MAGA that moderation has failed, it's since Reagan. We need an FDR-like transformative candidate, a progressive, to sweep back the oligarchy, or technofascism is our future. Full stop.
Look at the primary map by precinct. The ones that went for Mamdani are predominantly richer, more college educted and whiter. He didn't do as well with the working class or poor or most minorities, who are the exact demographics that national Democrats have been steadily losing to the GOP. If anything, this is yet another data point showing that the modern progressive vision is a minority view of the educated elites and out of touch with other parts of the Democratic base.
TLDR: just like AOC, this proves that progressives can only win in very blue places, and underperform everywhere else.
My inclination would be to get through the general election before drawing too many conclusions about Mamdani's voter base. For starters, does he actually win?
My sense is that sometimes those of us who hang out in social media spaces such as this one can get pretty focused on labels and policy litmus tests. While there may be some value in hashing things out, I have noticed a tendency to want to pigeonhole both political leaders as well as movements. The danger in doing so is that real life can be more complex and dynamic than our arguments.
For example, now that Sanders is presumably too old to run for president again, we will all but inevitably see a changing of the guard in the 2028 primaries. That could result in shifts in both how candidates self identify and what policies they emphasize.
As a corollary, I would suggest that the progressive movement in the U.S. may be maturing. One sign of a young movement is that it focuses more on running "symbolic" candidates who champion its ideals with the recognition that they have no realistic hope of winning. But as the movement gains experience and builds strength, that can lead to a more pragmatic approach to electoral organizing.
An avowed democratic socialist like AOC may only be able to win election in a blue district, but someone with a similar policy vision but a more mainstream political persona might plausibly find success in more purple districts.
I suspect that we are moving through a threshold period where the tectonic plates of the American political system are shifting. That could change at least somewhat the relationship between the progressive and more moderate wings of the Democratic party.
Agreed. The next few cycles will be interesting. Dems seem to be in a struggle between a geriatric centrist establishment and young firebrand social media shit posters. Neither really appeals to the conservative 10% in the middle of the electorate who swing national elections. They do have young dynamic politicians with broad appeal like Shapiro and Gov Pete, but that doesn't seem to be where the party wants to go at the moment.
Do we have enough data points to say where the party wants to go right now? For example, the rallies held by Sanders and AOC have been well attended, but I wouldn't read too much into that. In-person events seem to be a popular way of channelling fear and frustration with the Republican assault on democracy.
Part of the problem may be that more moderate Democratic leaders aren't putting themselves out there as much as Sanders and AOC. One exception is Walz, who has been doing town halls in Republican states. Buttigieg, Newsom and Khanna have been making a lot of media appearances, and I assume they will ramp up their live events if any of them decide to run for president.
Where are the other potential 2028 candidates? If Shapiro or Whitmer want a shot at it I don't think they can get away with sticking to their knitting until a year before the primaries. I also wonder whether some other folks may make a play for the nomination such as Chris Murphy.
I suspect that once we get to primary season that the political dynamics may shift. For one thing, the power of the progressive wing of the party may be balkanized because -- at least at this point -- it doesn't have an obvious heir to Sanders. If Khanna runs, he strikes me as smart enough to not run as a purely insurgent candidate like Sanders did in 2016 and 2020. Can Khanna still appeal to the more lefty types or does an AOC-type candidate enter the race?
If that happens, then splitting the vote could undercut the power of progressives to influence who is the eventual nominee. So normies may thus hold more power than even in 2020, when they largely backed Biden. At least that's one scenario.
Normies winning is the probable scenario, as long as they don't get damaged by the lefties like Hillary and Kamala were, Dems have a shot. The big question to me is, what sort of positive vision for the future they will settle on. That winning vision will in large part determine how the shakeup in the coalition works out. If they stick with "not Trump", it won't go well.
Easier than thinking…in truth, if you look at American ideals, the first ‘Election’ should have been, based on American values, between Sanders and Clinton. Center right/center left…the winner should be president and the ‘loser’ VP. Teamwork is always better! You just have too many folks would to be the chief not work in the kitchen.
"he" who? It's the Republican president who is rounding people up (largely chosen by the color of their skin) and stuffing them in camps (latest version surrounded by alligators in deSantisLand) and sending them to various foreign hellholes.
I suspect the would-be mayor of New York does not want to do that, even if he had had the power (and I am pretty sure he does not.)
and I don't see any of "his ilk" at the national level who want to do that either, outside the MAGA bullies.
There’s an unsigned editorial in today’s Washington Post decrying Mamdani’s nomination. Bezos fears seem to fairly overblown. What if Mamdani improves the quality of life and business climate in NYC to the extent where it is a more desirable place to invest and live in. Think of Amazon employees and their customers having affordable child care, which is liberating and employee friendly along with a free or reduced fare bus service to their workplace. If as they claim that marginal tax rates are the Bezos and the billionaire classes sole concern then why isn’t Mississippi a wealthy paradise for business where the quality of life is good and the poverty rate is low?
Yeah, this has always seemed like the elephant in the room when people discuss unaffordable cities: "oh no, my city is so desirable that property values are skyrocketing!" is the definition of a first world problem.
Unlike many, I don't consider that term an insult; first world problems are still real problems that need to be solved. But let's be clear that what we're talking about here is places like NYC being victims of their own success. You know when cost of living was cheap in New York? In 1985, when it actually WAS a crime-ridden hellhole and anybody who could afford it was fleeing to the suburbs.
Well, not exactly. New York in the 80s was in a boom cycle—think Bonfire of the Vanities. Living in NYC was definitely not cheap, though certainly more affordable than it is now. Yes, crime was higher, but it didn’t deter millions of people from wanting to move there (myself included).
The go go” 1980’s economy became ingrained into political and economic policy and life in general in NYC. A lot of it came to for when the nature of the economy started to change after WWII. The economy over the past several decades that was nurtured by many in and out of government as more focused on FIRE. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, and less on the manufacturing sector. When the ports where folks like longshoremen and clerks worked became containerized and needed far fewer workers. The ports eventuality had to be redeveloped and reconfigured for new uses like parks as well as the existing freight facilities and cruse ships. The garment industry, automation and outsourcing took place however the fashion sector is a several billion dollar industry in the city. From design to modeling etc. The displaced workers in many of these fields, they became our Hillbilly elegy. Urban elegy? Hence the rise of Trump.
Bezos is simply using his Washington Post propaganda outlet to speak up on behalf of his newfound BFF, Donald J. Trump, and Trump's New York interests.
Affordable housing? Free services for the workers? Not in Trump's New York.
Bezos has made it clear what he wants and expects from the Washington Post.
Or are you unfamiliar with why Jennifer Rubin, Ashley Parker, Ann Telnaes, Alexandra Petri and tens of thousands of Washington Post subscribers have all left the Washington Post?
Places with very low or no tax rates tend to be authoritarian petro-States (Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, Brunei, Bahrain).
On the other hand, places with the highest rates of taxation tend to have the happiest citizens and rank at the top of the world's happiest places (Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and the Netherlands).
It’s funny how Texas has a very socialist institution. The Land Commission who are responsible for the administration of public lands as well as mineral rights which are used to fund education and other needs in the state.
From Wikipedia:
“The Texas General Land Office is a state agency of the U.S. state of Texas, responsible for managing lands and mineral rights properties that are owned by the state. The GLO also manages and contributes to the state’s Permanent School Fund.“
Don't forget Norway! I seem to recall its citizens have the best per-capita standard of living in the developed world and are the "happiest," Ibsen notwithstanding😊
Exactly. Free buses, child care, and frozen rent have all been found to increase economic activity, pouring more money into neighborhoods - a good thing. In what universe is that considered "radical"?
Bus fare and rent relief represent money that will circulate in the economy paying bills, buying food, medicine, and so on. If that money is simply held as profit by the landlord or it goes into the city coffers that's much less likely to happen. That's a net economic loss.
There’s an old joke that—despite being a bit crude—offers some useful insight here:
A visitor at a pub finds the establishment’s owner frustrated about his reputation. “Do you see the fences around town? I built those fences. Do they call me John the fence-maker? No. Do you like this bar? I’ve served thousands of pints here. Do they call me John the barman? No…”
He pauses and takes a deep breath.
“But you fuck one goat…”.
And that too applies the Muslims you refer to - a few do something cruel and stupid and you start your generalizations. Honesty requires we face it. Israel has fault too in its apartheid and slaughter of citizens. The fighting didnt arise from love, it was the direct result of the UN taking lands from one people to give to another, and Isreal's subsequent failure to work from that perspective. Drop the broad and inaccurate brush of hatred, and black listing of all for the actions of a few. Please.
I'm so glad I canceled my subscription. The NY Times is pretty bad too. I look at the headlines and see only manipulation. At least, I know the articles are factual, and the writers are professional journalists.
I don’t live in New York, but what I do notice is that when a Republican wins an election there’s a faction of Democrats who instantly say “We need to listen to that guy and do what he does” and that when a leftist Democrat wins an election that same faction’s response is very much not that. (The Lamont-Lieberman race comes to mind.)
And no, that’s not to say you can plug Mamdani’s platform into any election anywhere and win in a walk. But still, Democrats are supposed to want Democrats to win elections. We’ll see.
Democrats spend more time fighting progressives than Republicans. In the 1940s, when the Japanese were in China, there were two separate Chinese armies. One was supported by the US and fought the communists. The other was Communist and fought the Japanese. What might have happened if they joined together to fight the fascists?
Dear Paul Krugman, I appreciate that you counter the Fox narrative of NYC as dystopian hellhole, but I think you are paying less attention to, and ought to pay more as an economist, is the fact that NYC's safety seems to have come at the expense of its affordability for a vast number of New Yorkers. This is what makes Mamdani so necessary. Also, I know it's not your area of expertise, but I think it's worth you mentioning, as a fellow Jew, that much of the attacks have been resurrecting an old Islamophobia, circa 9/11. Mamdani was forced, again and again, and not just by the likes of the Post but by your own former employer the NYT, to defend himself against charges of anti-semitism because of his anti-Zionism and his insistence that Netanyahu be held to international law. It was a very ugly campaign, and he won anyway. That says a great deal about New Yorkers' excellent values. I miss the place--having been outpriced. ~current Philadelphian
"I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain - especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state. ... "
- Albert Einstein, 17 April 1938
Obviously this Einstein guy was an anti-semite. </s>
OK for all the indigenous Arabs to have a state, but not the indigenous Jews? the majority of Jews in Israel aren't from the European diaspora. After Workd War II there were 750,000 - 1M indigenous Jews from Arab countries who were expelled or fled horrible persecution and confiscation of their property. Read the history of the Jews in Iran, Iraq and Morocco.
Jews were not expelled from Morocco (source is a documentary with interviews with Moroccan immigrants to Israel some of whom have moved back). They were recruited in the 1960's. This is another broad brush used to paint all of the middle east as Israel's enemy. Just because other countries do a bad thing doesn't mean Israel has to sink to their level. You are deflecting from the issue of the occupation of the territories and the oppression of the people who live there as well as the refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return home. I am not sure a state where the majority of the residents are ethnically Jewish but they are violating a commandment repeated 36 times in the Torah is in fact a Jewish state. And yes I am Jewish and so are my children.
This just isn't true, and it does the Jewish people no favors to pretend that it is. There are anti-semitic anti-zionists, and there are more of them than there probably are in the general population. But many anti-zionists are Jewish, and many anti-zionists simply believe that creating a state that is required to be majority one ethnicity is wrong on its face.
No, the two are not equivalent. Its just not true. The UN took Palestine to create Israel because anti-semitism was rampant in the controlling UN nations. "Put the jews over there" was the quiet undertone behind that decision. Today, Jews can easily live in many nations. The need for Israel is just not what it once was, when Jews were denied the right to own homes in white neighborhoods, attend certain schools, celebrate the Sabbath and generally thrive as full citizens in the larger community. Show me where this is happening now in, say, the US?
The hate now comes from Israel treating the Palestinian people as underlings and dogs from the early days of denying work, water and travel freedoms to the savage bombing of civilians today.
There are plenty of Arabs living peacefully in Israel 40% of Israel's medical school graduates in2023 were Arabs. There is an Arab supreme court justice in Israel. But there are alomost no Jews living in the Arab countries.
Do the Jews from Arab countries get to have the land back that was cofiscated from them? Is this a land swap? But I'm not sure Jews want to go back. But would Iran and Iraq and other countries give the jews compensation for the land that they confiscated? Also, why did the Palestinians reject every proposal for the two-state solution? They would have gotten all of the currently disputed land in Clinton's plan plus more that Egypt was going to give them.
Again, do you want Israel to sink to the level of other countries or be better then that? That proposal did not include all the currently disputed land. It did not include the removal of the settlements from the occupied territories of the West Bank. It was a map that looked like Swiss cheese and assumed roads between Jewish settlements that Palestinians would not be allowed on.
"The UN took Palestine to create Israel" that is not true. Historian Jonathan Wyrtzen wrote a book about that. it was based on where people actually lived. Remember that the majority of the Jews in Israel are not from Europe. They were indigenous in Israel and all over the Middle East through the millennia. Then there were the emigres fleeing expulsion and violent persecution and property confiscation in Iran and Iraq and years of horrible treatment in Morocco. These are the Mizrachi Jews. they are the majority.
I want your answer. I think you and I have a different experience of that target. Also I wasn't born with that target on my back. I converted. I chose it. I don't feel like any one is papering it over.
If you were born with it, you'd have experienced it. I'll give you just one small example. I've been told - more than once - that I don't "look" Jewish. What does that mean? It means I don't fit the stereotype. It also means I've heard a lot of people talking about Jews in ways they wouldn't have in front of someone they knew to be Jewish. They were invariably shocked when I would divulge that I'm one of "those" people.
Totally agree. My daughter went to an elite college and they were all in on racial issues, but definitely not class. They didn't talk to the security and food service workers even though they saw them every day. When we went to visit she introduced us to them.
As a New Yorker, who ranked Mamdani number one in the primary, and was overjoyed to see him push Cuomo off the ticket, I deeply appreciate this article. This summarizes how I feel to a T.
Yes- Lander is a great politician and in the very beginning it was hard to say who would speak to the people, but his campaign just never grew the legs that Mamdani’s did. I was really happy to see Lander and Mamdani support each other so that they could push Cuomo down even as he got more endorsements. Creepy Cuomo is right 🤣 that would have just been depressing news . Hard pass on him.
Great read. I just got off the phone with my 47 yr old son living in NY. He’s very cynical about politics in general and he mentioned that the vibe among the people on the street was light and perhaps even upbeat. I’m holding my breath for the next act.
Well at the rate the centrists are going They will nominate Diane Feinstein-- after all she was a mayor -- and has real connections now with the "higher ups"
I am a Democratic Socialist and often feel as if most Democrats treat us with great disdain instead of viewing us as countrymen and party members that want to look out for the interests of the working class. I am greatly appreciative that you treat us with respect and am always looking for your insights. Thank you Krugman.
London, a city which is a bit like New York, has re-elected its Democratic Socialist, Muslim, Mayor for the third time. He’s excellent.
I am especially glad for your comment. I wish we could get that word out about that to others. There are plenty of parties in Europe who are perfectly good calling themselves Democratic socialists. People freak out in this country over these terms and I’m not sure why we have not become more adult about it.
The republicans have made certain that pot remains well-stirred as they continue to equate socialism with communism.
While the cozy up to the KGB Putin.
Never thought I'd live to see a POTUS under the control of a foreign intelligence service.
Trump was recruited by the KGB; probably in the 1980's. Since 2016 he's been the GOP party head, and FOX News--aka "GOP TV"--accordingly gives him, and his Russian-controlled backstory, 100% support, sanewashing Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
I used to think they weren't poisoning our food to make us sick,... "𝙗𝙪𝙩" this changed everything....
https://t.co/mG1eU3NIxd
Putin's a crony capitalist dictator, not a socialist. That's why the cozy-ing up is happening.
I suspect Putin's role in the USSR's KGB provided him the power and corrupt income that paved his path to post-Soviet power.
You needn't just suspect. We know it. You can take the tyrant out of the KGB, but you can't take the KGB out of the tyrant. His entire mode of ruling is more like Stalin's than any other dictator's.
The strange thing about the "left" image of communism is that its' practices are authoritarian/totalitarian just like the extreme right. Why communism is not considered right wing is puzzling.
Communists are "totalitarian", as are Fascists. That means they support government by one party to which membership is strictly controlled. But they aren't identical.
How they differ is in their approach to economics. Fascists practice a restricted form of private ownership of industry and commerce. The economy is recognizably capitalist, but certainly warped by party cronyism. There is often an "old time religion" element to Fascism, as well.
True Communists are Marxists and believe that "the proletariat" (which functionally means "the government") owns the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Communists are implacably opposed to religion unless completely co-opted as a government mouthpiece.
Interestingly, both Russia and China today are more Fascist than "Communist", because the Marxist version of economics has proven itself absurdly impractical. The opportunities for gaming the system are widespread and fatal.
Further, religion proved impossible to stamp out or co-opt completely, so both Russia and China have elevated historically important forms of religion to "approved" expressions of faith.
What religons has China elevated as you describe?
China under Xi still follows the way set by Deng "communism with Chinese characteristics". A compromise version of Marxist which is closer to State controlled capitalism. It has many totalitarian characteristics but is not Fascism even tho the Nazis chacterised themselves as National Socialists.
Democratic socialist are clearly a subset of socialists committed to using democracy as the main way to achieve (and maintain) socialism.
The pro
Communism is state capitalism. Fascism has always been a mix of state & private capitalism.
Apparently you see that as a significant difference. I find it a rather tenuous difference.
Communism was supposed to be a path to socialism. In practice, it never arrived.
In constrast, many democratic capitalist societies haved evolved to a form of socialism, especially in northern Europe.
So evidently democracy is a better path to socialism than autocracy and dictatorship.
However, a notable exception is the US, which is very far from providing basic social needs for all.
Extremist ideologues share certain traits.
Rather than the political emphasis that Horseshoe Theory makes, I consider it a shared mindset of absolutists as opposition to the difficult rational task of thoughtful, balanced, nuanced behavior and governance.
Communism, in practice, turned out to be a non- heredity based form of feudalism. As North Korea, the only long lasting communist government, shows, it eventually turns into hereditary feudalism.
Excellent. I never thought about it that way. all three of those terms form a hodgepodge of political and economic concepts.
The point is the GOP always will do this, because it works!
They have used this nonsense pairing for decades and it is ingrained in the psyche of voters.
If you have to take time to explain (like for terms like Dem Socialist)- you have already lost in a game like politics as the saying goes
I think Dem Socialists in the USA need a new term - I AM SERIOUS!
Since the term "socialist" has already been hijacked - they need a new term. "Liberal" has also already been hijacked.
The GOP used "compassionate conservative" as a rebrand (makes me sick like breadcrumbs under the table for the needy if they work)
How about Dems use "compassionate capitalist?"
In other words, capitalism is fine and good where it works but not where it does not work, like for some areas of healthcare, etc. where we need intervention by government.
How about Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party like in Minnesota? It covers the FDR coalition and puts the Republicans a little bit on the back foot out of the starting gate. It probably wouldn’t help though. The media outside of Minnesota just uses Democratic and Republican, regardless of actual party name and agenda, so unless the media starts accurately reporting it’s a moot point.
LOVE IT!
We need to change the labels not the Dem agenda.
Trump has thoroughly abandoned compassion.
When might this have happened? I was under the impression he never had any?
Good point.
The US public is so vacuous that a better name choice might be something like the "Jedi" party, or maybe the "Sane" or "Reality" party.
Big Beautiful Party?
"The Last of Us" party.
George W. Bush managed to dirty the word "compassionate" by describing himself as a "compassionate conservative."
In Europe they call it "socialism with a human face". The funny thing about this, is that European govt & political structure was remade by US influence after WW2. But it didn't happen in an enduring fashion at home.
With no pushback from the Democrats.
"...as they continue to equate socialism with communism."
And any government involvement with socialism.
Maybe they got the idea from Lenis’s quote: “the goal of socialism is communism”.
Sorry, typo, Lenin’s
Well, Lenin WAS kind of a dick.
That Rs do this and quite successfully is why I believe calling oneself a Democratic Socialist is counterproductive. I would prefer a Progressive Democrat ... I am a lifelong (left leaning) independent and the last R I voted for was Charlie Baker.
It is not the same. See Bernie & AOC.
How can a city mayor introduce socialism on any scale, never mind Communism?
Well, the subway in New York used to be privately owned once upon a time, before the city bought them out...
Because a dedicated group of "libertarians" and employees of the very rich have been working hard for more than fifty years to make sure the average American thinks socialism leads directly to Stalinist camps. "Ignore Denmark. Look at Cuba." Ironically, we now have Stalinist camps, but they're in other countries.
Yes, the people behind the purges now are all in republican politics
Over seventy years - since McCarthyism in '53.
Right. Guantanamo is in Cuba.
Right, but we own it. This carve-out in our "enemy's" territory of Cuba is the craziest thing about the disjointed relationship of Cuba and the U.S.
The most Socialist organization in America is also its largest organization.
And it is one beloved by Republicans:
The U.S. military.
Their "love" is a mile wide and an inch deep. They love the power to send other people's kids to kill and die when they want to teach the wogs a lesson. But look how little they like taking care of those who come back maimed. Trump doesn't want them at his events, eh?
Communism is as far LEFT as one can get. From each according to his/her abilities, to each according to his/her needs. Of course, in practice this ideal does not work without an authoritarian leader, such as in China, because this goes against the natural dog eat dog nature of our species.
But it is the opposite of the Darwinian, survival-of-the-fittest beliefs of the right
Marx actually got that idea from the Bible, particularly Acts 4:32-35. If Jesus & Marx AGREE on something, then it can’t be all bad. Even a stopped clock is right once day, and “from each according to ability, to each according to needs” is the one—and perhaps only—thing Marx got right. Communism isn’t the way to do it, though: Social insurance through “social democracy” socialism is. BTW, when American liberals say “socialist” that’s what they mean—something like Canada. When the right says it, they mean authoritarian socialism—like Cuba. Big difference!
I don’t believe the Repugs think that highly of the military.
The military is as right wing / authoritarian as it comes.
Makes me think of communism, not socialism.
Beloved when the cameras are rolling…
because the vast majority isn't growing up, stuck in some kind of teenage wasteland in adulthood.
Here we are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_London
I just finished posting about this, including this link, on FB :)
Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, has been winning in the US for 40+ years. And then there's AOC.
My point exactly!
Umm- we Londoners re-elected Sadiq Khan on 2nd May last year. But yes, I take your substantive point and heartily agree.
Yes- and that’s proven by how much the swivel-eyed extreme right nut jobs hate him.
He’s standing down at the next election- I’m really interested who’ll replace him. Although London probably favours left of centre candidates, mayoral elections seem to favour big charisma candidates too, which kinda opens it up a bit.
Well, I do like Khan’s green policies . But why can’t mayors who are left lea king and do some nice policies not care about fighting crime ? Maybe because British law (back to London now ) is non existent or not exercised . I don’t know .
London is a lot like New York you say, well sure, in one way - its housing is as extravagantly expensive and unaffordable as New York's. I'm not sure how you believe that translates into "excellence", but I imagine you have your reasons.
Noah Smith evaluates the likely success of Mamdani's economic policies here https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/zohran-mamdanis-policies-will-mostly
To my mind, Smith's analysis is not encouraging and that's my main concern (Mamdani's a personable enough guy with a good TV presence). New York City's central and overarching issue is housing affordability (i.e. being constrained by systemic NIMBYISM), and Mamdani's proposals redistribute a modest amount to the lower income quintile, not a sin, but hardly any grasp of policy or initiative to actually increase housing builds for all.
I said that Sadiq Khan is an excellent Mayor, as I think is shown by his having been re-elected twice. All large cities - New York, London, Dublin, Tokyo, Shanghai and more - have housing problems but that is a national issue not a city issue.
Tokyo very famously does not have a housing problem, in part because Japan makes housing a national problem. New York’s housing problem is a city issue and it will not be fixed until the mayor makes supply-side housing policy the one thing they care about.
London is different in that housing is a borough issue—not a city nor a national issue. It probably should become a national issue and power should be taken away from the local authorities, but it hasn’t—so Sadiq has neither succeeded nor failed on housing because he doesn’t have the authority to.
Only one candidate in this race was serious about addressing housing in NYC—Zellnor Myrie—and his proposal for 1 million homes is likely insufficient.
YIMBYism is *the* issue that matters in urban American politics. Everything else is a rounding error and will not fix anyone’s problem.
New York needs to likely *double* the population in the five boroughs for housing to become remotely affordable. That requires land reclamation, relocation of industry to the suburbs, mass upzoning of residential neighborhoods, and replacing old walk-ups with modern high rises.
Nobody is taking this seriously.
"YIMBYism is *the* issue that matters in urban American politics. Everything else is a rounding error and will not fix anyone’s problem."
Perfectly said and as cities are our engines of productivity, in turn, our national economic success is riding on defeating the NIMBY's.
So that said, my concern is that Mamdani's "housing policy" will be ineffectual and, assuming he's elected, his term becomes net net, an opportunity cost fueled by vibes.
Also, the population of Japan is in decline, as they have few migrants.
Tokyo is growing. Housing markets are metropolitan, not national. They also have more immigrants than most people think.
It is absolutely a city issue, bc the majority of NIMBY road blocks are set on a city level, whether zoning, or the various holds and permits that need to be obtained on every level from the state to the city down to the neighborhood and across the breadth of the bureaucracy. That's why a place like Austin is able to build much quicker and cheaper (discounting land cost difference).
A non sequitur and an unsubstantiated claim don't really amount to much of a rebuttal.
And by your logic, Donald J. Trump, twice elected could be considered "excellent". I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean.
A lively discussion and international too! I live in Boston and affordability is a big deal here too. But there’s a lot of not in my backyard here as well.
Not just building housing (because there’s more available than you might think) but also access to what’s there. A lot of landlords hold apartments off the market to do better with AirBnB, which was donating to Whitney whatshisname.
Airbnb is objectively a rounding error in NYC. And Airbnb only exists because there’s also a shortage of hotel rooms. The solution remains the same: build more.
The shortage of hotel rooms may resolve itself with the loss of tourism.
I would argue, as someone who enjoys visiting other places, that we should see it as desirable to increase tourism.
As long as you don’t read Telegraph reader comments! Who probably don’t even live in London. All countries seem to be growing deeper political fissures.
As shown by the Telegraph itself, which has slowly and steadily become insane!
Sadiq Khan has been an exceptional mayor and a very necessary counterbalance to a corrupt Tory Government under Boris Johnson. New York, like London, is a tolerant, centrist city. Boris, as mayor of London prior to Khan, will be remembered (among other things) for his Bendy Buses which killed pedestrians and cyclist alike.
When he was mayor, Boris Johnson opposed the 'bendy buses' and had them withdrawn from service. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_buses_in_London )
As far as I can tell, Mayor Sadiq Khan doesn’t describe himself as, or propose policies widely associated with, democratic socialism. He seems to be in the mainstream, center-left wing of Labour, a shade left of the centrist Starmer.
London is a shithole.
Knightsbridge, Kensington, Holland Park, Mayfair, Westminster, Chelsea, Highgate, Hampstead, South Kensington and Belgravia are constituent parts of a "shithole"?
Your comment is based in ignorance and stupidity.
He is ? Doesn’t London drown in crime ? Endless stabbings etc
Not really. Yes, the knife crime is a concern - it's rising, and is essentially back to pre-Covid levels. But there were a total of 262 knife-related homicides in England & Wales in 2023/24 - if you compare this to the homicide rate in any US state of comparable size (and yes, Americans use guns, not knives, so exact comparisons aren't straightforward) then you'll see why those of us who live near London have no few worries about "drowning in crime" when we visit the capital.
Well well well - comparing to evil America makes it easy , doesn’t it ? How about comparing to other large European cities ? Oh, right .. Britain is not Europe anymore
Ah, I see. You're not actually discussing this in good faith. Goodbye.
Maybe you should compare apples to apples and bananas to bananas ?
London in 2025 is basically paradise, with the exception of high housing costs and low salaries
Well, in Anglo-Saxon societies like America and Britain you don’t want to live in cheap housing anyway . In those class societies with a tiny thin sliver of sophisticated elite with culture and a very nice taste you MUST live in an expensive place to be protected from the unwashed masses who indeed are just vulgar , loud and cultireless . So cheap housing won’t save you in London (except you want to listen to gum shots or hip hop from the neighbor the whole day or have a smudgy and unsafe surrounding. Low salaries IS a pain , though. Britons prefer to be born rich - not to get rich
I promise Zone 3 is fine.
Well, in Anglo-Saxon countries like America and Britain you anyway do r want to live in cheap housing . In those class societies - with the elite being refined and sophisticated and tasteful
Mamdani calls himself a *democratic socialist.* Not the same thing as a socialist. Bernie and AOC also call themselves democratic socialists. They want to make the system better, not overthrow it. They have demonstrated the capacity to work within it. Let's not fall into the trap that both the right wing and centrist Dems would like to lay, particularly since both of them want billionaires to be in charge.
Uh... what exactly is NOT "socialist" about a "democratic SOCIALIST"... ?
The only problem is that in the US, people falsely imagine that socialism is a synonym for fascism. It's not. Today's GOP is a synonym for fascism.
And centrist Democrats are, just like Mamdani, pro-democracy. That means that today, there is NO equivalence between them and right-wing politicians at all. Centrist Democrats are always pro-democracy, for instance, and they always support higher taxes on billionaires.
If I may, “socialist” is a relative term, not an absolute term, so it is negative in the mouths of some and positive in others. I live in Vancouver BC (Canada) where we have a “socialist” Premier, and we’re good thanks. Compared to the “conservative” (and here I mean “idiot”) Premier in Ontario, we are far, far better off - just look at the economic data for the last 20 years.
Socialist is used as a pejorative... mindlessly.
It's hard to prevent a word or phrase adopting a pejorative connotation, even if—and maybe especially if—the term was meant as an alternative to previous slurs. (British soldiers had "worthy oriental gentlemen" imposed on them, to no avail, as soon they were making references instead to "bloody wogs.")
Any normal descriptor can be expressed in a pejorative way, too, with the right undertone of disgust: "Women!" "Academics!" "Influencers!"
I agree, Gerry. I hope there will be many others who point to their examples of 'socialist' as successful and efficient. For my state, it's Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist. Above all, we must stem the tide of oligarchy and the inherent cruelty of the current administration. Earlier today, I read a comment that Trump and Project 2025 supporters intend American genocide by the removal of social supports.
With respect, I think it’s important to use words correctly. For example, slashing the welfare state is very bad but it is not actually a genocide.
Socialism means a specific thing, which can be fine under certain circumstances, though I would argue it is in fact less adept at addressing problems than liberal capitalism.
This would all be much easier if people exaggerated a bit less.
We get stuck in labels and let others define what they mean.
That's incorrect.
It is USED in many different ways, but it is DEFINED in one way. Even if the entire world would use it incorrectly, that still wouldn't change its definition...
Socialism has different types. So the definition it has to be very broad. Our government is socialistic here.. medicaid, medicare,social security, public education, infrastructure projects.
Zionist is used in different ways and means different things. The meaning of words change with usage. Language is dynamic.
No, the types of socialism that are fascists are mere PROPAGANDA, not socialism at all.
It's wrong to want to change definitions to adapt them to all the wrong ways to understand them by ignorant people out there.
Socialism has different types. "types of socialism that are fascists?" example? What do you mean? That's an oxymoron. The types of fascism are identified as such, just as types of socialism. Fascists are not socialists by definition.
Language usage is dynamic. You cannot say black is white though.
Hi! I’m in Victoria!
I am oversimplifying things for the sake of brevity in the comment section, but there are plenty of places where the difference is explained. (I don't necessarily agree with the New York Times' take, but they have just published an explainer that's an OK start.)
A socialist wants to replace capitalism with socialism. A democratic socialist wants to work within the capitalist and democratic system to curb excesses and ensure that the government benefits more people.
There are socialists who have a whole lot in common with DOGE -- the main difference is what they would do after the government is sufficiently broken to remake. Most of those who consider themselves socialists without the democratic modifier would never run for office or be able to make the necessary compromises to govern effectively.
Sure, centrist Dems give some lip service to having billionaires pay more taxes. But they don't really mean it. It's just a way to get them elected since tax increases on the most wealthy are so politically popular. People see through that, as they did when they voted for Mamdani.
Also briefly: "socialism", as invented by Marx, refers to the taking over of decisions about how to invest capitalist profits by the workers/employees of a specific plant, and by extension, by the people voted for in Congress.
So no, socialism is never about replacing capitalism with socialism. It's about replacing SAVAGE capitalism, that only enriches CEOs (the "owners of the capital" and means of production), with an economic approach (inside democracy) that distributes the profits made much more fairly.
In other words, you're confounding different POLITICAL regimes with different ECONOMIC regimes (as most Northern Americans do today).
The opposite of "democracy" (a political regime) is "dictatorship" or fascism. A democracy is defined by the constitutional independence of the three branches of government, where fascism "bundles" the power of the legislative and judiciary branches into the executive branch's power.
The opposite of capitalism (an economic regime) is communism. In capitalism, private ownership is defined as allowing CEOs to do whatever they want with the profits generated. In communism, only the government decides what to do with them, while all private ownership is abolished.
Socialism is an ECONOMIC regime in which private ownership is still the case, but more and more, workers/employees use a democratic government to pass laws that distributed the wealth generated by society as a whole more fairly.
As to DOGE: that's a fascist attempt to illegal destroy and defund government agencies while installing an AI surveillance system inside government computers. There are NO socialists in the US who ever advocated for something like this. They all reject it.
As to centrist Democrats: they have ALL voted, again and again, for bills that actively increase taxes on the wealthiest. Just fact-check your belief and you'll see that it's false.
After that treatise, can we move on? Regardless of whether it's appropriate to conflate a political and economic system, the American voting public does. Which is why we shouldn't reinforce that in our messaging.
The individual who identifies as a socialist comes down in a significantly different place politically than a democratic socialist who embraces that term as a politician seeking elective office (beginning with running for office in the first place).
And if you don't think socialists have a problem with government bureaucrats and wouldn't mind eliminating a significant portion of them on a short timeline, then I don't know what to tell you.
As for centrist Dems, two words: Jaime Dimon.
As George Orwell said, the day we give up objective truth is the day when fascism gets installed.
So no, we can't move on. The US needs to understand, once and for all, what "socialism" means, rather than cultivating demonstrably false ideas about it.
As to socialism having a problem with "government bureaucrats": how exactly does that work?
You don't think that a firm belief that what we have currently needs to be replaced or overthrown, however you want to define it, doesn't mean dismantling what we currently have? And that dismantling what we currently have doesn't require removing the governmental employees that support that system? If you want to model "objective truth," you can start there.
I consider myself closer to the center and really mean it when I say billionaires should pay more taxes. I also support a progressive tax system. don’t think I’m unusual.
Can we just use Social Democrat?
AI Overview
Social democracy and democratic socialism are related but distinct political ideologies. Social democracy, often associated with the Nordic model, focuses on achieving social justice through a mixed market economy, strong welfare state, and democratic governance. Democratic socialism, while also committed to democracy, envisions a more fundamental transformation of the economy, potentially including greater public ownership and worker control, with the goal of moving towards a socialist society.
Look up the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website for more information. We are a real national political party, with chapters all over, and real people and New Yorkers who volunteered for Mamdani. We want everyone who agrees with our *values* to join in the fight against oligarchy. We want a better United States of America, and are sworn to uphold the republic that we love.
DSA is very clear that it is *not* a political party, and is not on the ballot in any state as such. I am very very familiar with DSA, and that's an ongoing organizational debate, but it is firmly on the "not a party" side of that debate at the moment.
Why not redefine as Social Democrats. This may be more acceptable to some Americans
Sweden has been ruled by democratic socialists until recently. They also have more billionaires per capita than the US.
Those two are closely related.
Thank you! The happiest countries in the world have social democracies which make governmental decisions on the basis of what's best for their people, not their oligarchs. Democratic socialists are not communists and we should correct anyone asserting that they are.
The happiest countries in the world are much less socialist than both the left and the right claim they are. And the most *functional* countries in the world (Singapore, Switzerland) aren’t socialist at all.
I didn't say they were socialist. Social democracies are very different. Exercise your Google and discover! My definition of "functional" is happy and free, not authoritarian.
I don’t think Switzerland or Singapore are authoritarian.
You said it. Please educate the Americans who hear the word “socialism” and instantly think “communism “.
also AOC is very popular in NYC.
She is in one of the most gerrymandered safe Dem districts in the country. Of course she is popular. They could run a ham sandwich on the Dem ticket and get a 55-45 win.
Except she knocked off a long-term centrist incumbent and party leader to get her seat. She shook up the establishment just like Mamdani is doing.
Of course she won the primary. With 16,000 votes to Crowley's 11,500 out of a population of 750,000. It was a D+29 district where no one bothers to show up for the primary except the cookiest fringe, GOP doesnt bother campaigning, and lets crazy ppl get nominated.
As I said elsewhere, progressives are only able to do this crap in deep blue districts. Its not a reflection of their popularity but a reflection of the gerrymandering.
Or the establishment candidate was complacent, entitled, and got out-organized. Which is what happened with Cuomo.
Its and AND not an OR lol. Crowley was overly hubristic in that primary for sure. But winning by 4500 votes in a primary election where turnout was 7% of registered voters in the district doesn't scream "popularity" to me. Her appeal to the mass of the voters was never tested in a competitive election.
Pretty much true of many NYC districts. Also, she wins against other Dems n the primaries.
Sure. Progressives can underperform and still win in deep blue districts, but embracing that progressive vision is a path towards national irrelevance for the party. Her popularity is not a sign of the competitiveness of her position but a reflection of the massively gerrymandered electoral map.
I wasn't commenting on national relevance. I was noting that being a Democractic Socialist is not a problem in NYC and that the AOC endorsement did a lot for him, especially with younger voters.
That's fair. I was puting that popularity in context.
How about in New York State?
No idea but Mamdani is running for mayor of NYC, and the AOC endorsement does a lot.
Socialism is one of those words that has been twisted around and vilified for political reasons. Not reason - political reasons.
It's like entitlement. If you paid into Social Security you are entitled to be paid when it's your time for eligibility. A contract. Just as you are entitled to receive your coffee at the coffee shop after you pay for it. (OK - some coffee shops expect payment when you're done; in that case, they're entitled to their compensation for serving you your coffee. I guess in some circles, like for example a famous politician who played around being a wannabe Mafia don while doing a bad job at real estate development, that contract idea is only a one way street.) Entitlement sure has been redefined.
Anyway, the socialism thing probably became a bad word when the USSR started up - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Of course, the DPRK is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, too.
If you have a fire department, if you have public schools open to everyone, if you get your electricity from a not-for-profit…this list is longer than most Americans think (do they?)
Actually, oligarchs, the wealthy have been smearing socialism as the big boogey man since about the civil war. The horror of former slaves and poor white folks running for office and not dying in penury and all…
"Socialism is one of those words that has been twisted around and vilified for political reasons. Not reason - political reasons."
The word has been used in so many ways and by so many people, not just enemies but supporters too, that it has so many definitions it's increasingly hard to use the term in any capacity. Depending on who you're talking to, "socialism" can refer to the USSR or modern-day Sweden.
(For that matter, depending on who you're talking to, "capitalism" can refer to the Belgian Congo or, well, modern-day Sweden).
At this point, it is better to avoid the word, since if you have to explain, you have probably already lost when it comes to politics.
Modern-day Sweden is "capitalist," in that the means of production remains in private hands (albeit subject to a far higher marginal tax rate than here).
The USSR was "socialist," in that the means of production (factories and farms) were publicly owned and controlled. By contrast, the current Russian Federation is capitalist.
The foregoing means that Bernie Sanders is at most a "Social Democrat" in the West European political tradition. Last I checked, Sanders was not calling for Ben & Jerry's to be nationalized, i.e., publicly owned and controlled, nor was he calling for expropriation of the oligarchs' wealth. (1% of this country controls 40% of its wealth and 10% of this country controls roughly 80% of its wealth.)
Everyone is confused about Social Security. My understanding is the Republicans want to eliminate the benefit, not the tax. Otherwise, how would cuts in Medicare and Social Security offset tax cuts to Mr. Bezos? Or Mr. Elon? Can you imagine the public’s reaction if that were down? Or would they even know?
True, but perhaps they should not use the word "socialist" when they are not actually socialists.
Using it gives the GOP immense fodder to win elections outside of blue states and that means the White House. Even Bernie and Warren began to lose primaries when they left blue states and Bernie ended up down by 11 states and 2 million votes and Warren had to leave earlier.
That is simply the makeup of a large share of our electorate and you can't make any progress if you can't win.
Dems often complain that the GOP use the word wrong, and they do, but so do the liberals who use it.
If one were to look up the word "socialist" they probably would say, no that is not what I mean.
Even you had to explain and justify.
What is that old saying? If you have to explain you have likely already lost the argument.
Even the people of Denmark liked to point out that they are not what Sanders claims and to the right of him, same goes for places like Germany, etc.
You also cannot make progress if you capitulate every time. People respond to authenticity. Bernie and AOC have demonstrated they can challenge the status quo and still be effective, and have successfully identified as democratic socialists and respected legislators.
Mamdani is not running for president, and he's in a mostly blue state. If the Dems don't want to learn anything from his victory, they can keep funding the Cuomos and Schumers of the world and the super PACs, while wringing their hands over losing entire generations of young men.
I mean, no matter what you call him, how can Mamdani do worse than Eric Adams and Bill DiBlasio? The more you attack Mamdani and call him something he isn't, then the more you harm the Dem brand and encourage people to stay home like they did in 2024.
I don't think it's effective to trivialize centrist Democrats. Away from deeply Blue regions, there's no way to realize Democratic Socialism without these very voters, and it may require incrementalism, which shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing.
Where have the Dems capitulated?
The only time they have backed off or paired down some plan was to get enough votes to pass something otherwise they would have gotten nothing.
So, give me an example of capitulating?
In addition I agree that for a large blue state, no problem winning with that language of Dem Socialist, but in reality, how is a Dem Socialist really different than a regular Democrat?
The only thing I can tell is that they want to do big things faster, but the problem with that is that those types of plans often can't get the votes needed to pass congress.
For example, M4A has never been remotely close to having the votes in congress, so no one capitulated, they simply chose a way to move forward that could pass with the needed votes.
Even when the Dems had a supermajority for a few months in 2009, this was also made up with some Independents who caucused with them and they could not lose 1 single vote because it was a policy change and not a budget matter.
If you demand your way or the highway, nothing gets done and the GOP keep winning.
👆🎯
Another thing I would like to point out is that although AOC and Bernie have good idea in my view even if I prefer more incremental paths from point A to point B) they are used in every single attack add against every single Dem candidate in swing states with the heading that says this candidate is too liberal and "socialism" even the background is a red hellscape color and pictures of Bernie and AOC. And guess what? The GOP do it because it works. Even if the public does not like their candidate, they can scare people into voting for them.
Part of the reason the attacks are successful is that the people who should be standing behind them don't. Look at how popular Bernie and AOC's post-election tour was. Huge crowds, even in dark red states. He called Fighting Oligarchy what it was. It was genuine, and people loved it.
They are very good at preaching to the choir.
Even in dark red states, there are a often a good percentage of Dems.
In TX, a very red state, often a presidential candidate or candidate for Senate will only lose by 4-10%. That means that although the state is red, something like 40% + are probably Dem + Dem leaning Independents plus those who do not like the current GOP position on things.
So, yes they are going to draw large crowds, in TX during times like this even in red and purple states, but that does not mean a majority, only that they are appealing to the choir or that TX 40% who are angry and frustrated.
In a Dem primary, in such states, the more moderate candidate in those states tends to appeal to far more voters even those who vote in a Dem primary.
I’m not sure Eric Adams can be considered ineffective—rather, corrupt.
The problem is that while the democratic establishment is rather feckless, moving left is not really the solution to the substantive policy problems that have gone unaddressed. Zohran’s policy proposals are solutions in search of problems, while real issues are ignored. We need reformist technocrats, not the establishment or left populists. New York needs Kathryn Garcia, not Cuomo or Mamdani.
I would simply like to make the point that the Dem track record of winning elections AND making meaningful policy change is much worse from 2017-2025 than from 1992-2016. Charismatic technocratic centrism (Bill Clinton, Obama) actually wins elections. We can just…go back.
Please, what word would you suggest Mandani use in refering to his political leanings? I agrtee he does not fit the dictionary definition of capital S Socialism, that being defined by state ownership of capital. But what shall they call themselves?
He calls himself a democratic socialist. So does Bernie. So does AOC. At least in blue states, people know what those terms stand for when they are used. We can capitulate in advance and continue to allow Republicans to call people communists, or we can take the opportunity to educate people about what democratic socialists stand for. Blue politicians should not be participating in red scares.
I agree, but there is no way someone can win being close to that term once leaving big blue states in the USA.
Besides, all Dems are largely Dem Socialists anyway they just don't use the term.
How about using the term Democrat?
"All Dems are largely Dem Socialists anyway?"
Seriously, that's just not true.
Explain the difference.
There are very few exceptions, but even Manchin had agreed to support a version of BBB until Biden went to Europe and some progressives started to add more back in and he backed out again. Then Sinema supported it but not the taxes so they did not have enough payfors.
Those 2 killed it, but so did those who got too greedy and did not accept a compromise with Manchin that was still pretty progressive. It was almost a done deal. They would not "capitulate" and so we got nothing at all.
Who is actually more progressive? Someone who compromises so we can make needed progress or someone who digs their heels in and gets us nothing at all?
The people in group 2 who added more in and refused to compromise are nothing but talk and addicted to righteous indignation and who then sit their armchairs quarterbacking in defeat saying "if they only listened to me." It is pure arrogance, and who gets hurt? The poor get hurt who could have benefited from the compromise but who got nothing at all due to progressive arrogance, so they could be righteous and smug and say they did not give in.
They may give themselves fancy titles like "Dem Socialist" but do they EVER accomplish anything at all? Typically no, NEVER just smugness and a sense of superiority. What good is it to feel right if nothing ever happens and you help no one? How does that help anyone? How is that making progress of progressive?
No one in the GOP would have come close to supporting all that was in that BBB bill even before the progressives added more and sank it, but the moderate Dems did and it could have helped a lot of people.
Dems (so-called centrists or progressives) and the GOP are nothing alike.
Do you think that Bernie and Biden are/were equivalent?
If Dems were all in for Bernie rather than spending countless dollars to keep him off the ticket and publicly attack him, I am confident he would have prioritized and been able to accomplish different things than either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. I say this as someone who never voted for Bernie.
Part of the reason you can say that they never accomplish anything is that they are so feared by their own party and hamstrung the moment it appears they might be getting somewhere. The GOP doesn't like the Freedom Caucus, but they're not expending tons of effort to defeat them either. They may privately laugh at Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert, but they are not publicly undermining them or primarying them or gerrymandering their districts.
Those who identify as democratic socialists can move the Overton window back towards the left, which is still so far right of center as to be what was considered Republican in prior decades. And can normalize some positions that might be considered extreme, such as student loan forgiveness or reining in drug prices.
And centrists are not progressives. Progressives are much closer to democratic socialists than centrists. You may be confusing "liberal" with "progressive." Someone like Elizabeth Warren is progressive, and the primary campaign she ran was unlike what Kamala Harris ran, for example.
Explain Rashida Tlaib then. She also identified as a democratic socialist, and makes the Dem establishment really twitchy for her Palestinian identity and support for pro-Palestinian causes. Dems go after her all the time, accusing her of saying things she didn't say and voting to censure her.
Yet she continues to win in a purple state at best. She doesn't even get primaried any more. It's the Dem establishment who works to minimize her influence in Congress.
Summer Lee in Pennsylvania, not a big blue state.
People can fit a congressional district well, and I do not know of any Dem putting false words in her mouth. The GOP, sure.
My argument is that when it comes to a national election like for president, one needs to be aware of the political leanings, desires and fears, and the to do and not do list of the nation, and this is especially true of the swing states.
The more general the election, typically the more in the middle the candidate needs to be.
Trump got around this by appealing to every fringe and minority group he could find ranging from racists, far right evangelicals, to vaccine skeptics and on and on.
Very well said;,thank you! This is the issue both politically and economically! I’m not a “Democratic Socialist” but I certainly support any Democrat who will make a legitimate effort to make life more livable for the average working class! Enough expanded tax deductions for those who don’t have to worry about paying the rent this month or how to support grandma and at the same time pay tuition for two college students. Mamdani will be one of many on the city council so let’s welcome him, his fabulous smile and his optimistic program to improve this city for the working class, seniors and even those out of work!
The problem is that we have actual, technical policy problems to solve. I just don’t see any evidence that Zohran’s vibes-based lefty platform will do anything to make New York meaningfully more affordable for average people. You have to get the details right, fabulous smile and optimism be damned.
It's not a question of what he calls himself--it's a question of his ethics and policies. Regarding the latter, as John Lave noted above, Noah Smith did an excellent job of debunking the major "crowd-pleasing" ones he's announced--e.g., rent controls will actually restrict the supply of housing; government-run groceries will be expensive to run, are likely to be inefficient, and will drive family groceries out of business, free daycare is a decent idea, but where will the money come from, other than taking the well-to-do so heavily that many of them leave and take their productivity and financial contributions to New Yorkers with them. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/zohran-mamdanis-policies-will-mostly
As to ethics, his virulent stances against Israel and in favor of "globalizing the intifada" are despicable, fundamentally antisemitic, and threatening to the vast majority of Jewish New Yorkers.
He's charismatic and a superb speaker--so were Hitler and Mussolini, as well as a U.S. President of very recent memory. That's not to say Mamdani is in the same league, only to illustrate the point that one can be elected based on charismatic demagoguery, without a constructive ability to enact policies and processes that will improve the lives of most in the body politic.
My understanding is that democratic socialism accepts democracy as the right political structure, whereas communist socialism rejects democracy as incompatible with socialism. As far as I know both approaches advocate public ownership of the means of production and both disavow the legitimacy of markets.
Agree. There is no mention of taking over the means of production. But the simplistic story remains in rhe popular press and even more in the conservative press.
In Europe the term is social-democrat as in the Nordic countries. Wonder why they picked the US term that they did, which seems might be more threatening to the one-third ill-informed.
Because democratic socialists have been organizing in their communities since the 1980s, and while it was long thought that democratic socialists had no path towards electoral power, Bernie showed that this was not the case. Then there was AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Summer Lee, and Greg Casar who identified as democratic socialists, (and also Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman who were primaried by those more closely allied with the Democratic establishment.)
There are many more who are winning local elections like state legislature, city council and school boards, and yes, mayoral elections. Democratic socialists are considered to be further to the left than social democrats, but most do not embrace the term socialist without the democratic modifier, particularly as it is often associated in the public mind with revolutionary socialists (whether that's true or not, and is exploited by those who want to defeat democratic socialist candidates, either as Republicans or centrist Dems.)
I wish we could just change that label “democratic socialist.”
I just wish we would embrace what already exists. In a world full of Andrew Cuomos, be a Brad Lander. Build bridges, respect differences, fight ICE, don't try to use super PACs to crush authenticity and good ideas. If Mamdani isn't the next mayor of New York, it will be because Dems pulled out the stops to crush him. And do not support a single politician who sexually harasses people, OK?
Yes! Thank you for this critical distinction, Paula.
How have they demonstrated that?
People have been brainwashed. Communism= Socialism= Marxism= Dictatorship. Guess what folks, you're sliding into an far right Christian Nationalist autocratic oligarchy right now. Enjoy!
YES! We would do well to elect more and more of these!!
Paula, thank you.
Thank you Paul. As a Democrat and Jew, I share your viewpoint and am angry at the reaction by the establishment. Mandani is a great candidate with a vision who excited young people. Isn’t that exactly what we need to take this country back from MAGA and technocrats? I’m 67 and hoping this is the beginning of a new wave of democratic candidates. I saw an interesting quote yesterday “to run for the Democratic Party you have to run against the Democratic Party.” I think this is true.
Running against the Dem party may sound appealing to very liberal voters, but one can't win swing states that way.
In addition, this is the exact opposite of what Krugman just said.
He said we should support whoever is the nominee and not trash Dems.
Bernie lost by 11 states and a couple of million votes against Hillary in the Dem primary and he did as you suggested and trashed the Dem party and as a result of his bashing, Hillary's approval ratings sank when they had been over 57% before the primary race began and he gained his Bernie or nothing followers by trashing centrist Dems even using a Trump troupe "rigged."
Instead we got Trump and the GOP
How is that making progress? How is 3 conservative justice appointments progress?
As Krugman points out, no Dem is like the GOP and the courtesy needs to be extended both ways and in both directions.
You seem to be suggesting the opposite.
D's and R's each make up less than 30% of voters each and Independents make up over 40% The only place this is not true is in big blue states.
This is why the liberal Dem primary candidates always get creamed when a Dem primary leaves the big blue states which is exactly what happened to Bernie and Warren.
One can't win the presidential election with blue states alone.
So, by trashing centrist Dems one only makes it far more likely the GOP will stay in power because it is far more likely a moderate will will win a primary. This even happened to Al Gore where liberals claimed he was not "liberal enough."
We could have started addressing climate change decades ago!
Yes, I will support whoever the Dem candidate is, but what good will that do when less than 30% of voters are Democrats?
We have to have a candidate who can appeal nationally to win the White House.
The only presidential candidates who have won in a national contest since Reagan have run as moderates, Clinton, Obama, and Biden.
I’m trying to think, but haven’t ALL Dem candidates been moderates since McGovern, winners and losers?
Harris was branded as a CA liberal and could not shake the label and Kerry and Mondale were considered liberals as well as Al Gore, etc.
However, this did not always stop the father left of the party from running 3rd party challengers and syphoning off even more votes, as well, helping the GOP to victory. Carter was also considered pretty darn liberal, as well, gaining rock and roll cred from what I recall. His was my first election, but after Reagan....the tide shifted even more conservative.
Clinton made the switch to appeal to a more moderate base and that combined with southern credentials helped and he started the trend so that Dems could get back to the WH. He learned to navigate this middle appeal as a governor of Arkansas, I think. He even won AZ, as did Biden.
Feminism is dead in NYC. Democrats had the opportunity to vote for a serious, qualified, reasonable, unifying Black businesswoman, Adrienne Adams. Where were the people wanting to elect qualified women? They just get marginalized again when two macho candidates are jousting with each other.
She’s been a great council speaker. I ranked her high. She also got in the race late with little money, struggled to fundraise (it was actually Mamdani’s appeal that his maxed out donors should donate to her that qualified her for public matching funds) and never clearly articulated why she was running.
I am not a NY resident. I was mostly here to talk about centrist Dem vs "leftier" as Krugman put it.
However, the news we did get from afar here in CA simply mentioned those with more hoopla attached to their names like the "Dem Socialist" and "Cuomo" - so she may have been lost in all that hype for those who do not pay close enough attention. I only discovered her when I was reading about the winner. Having the name Adams prob did not help for those not tuned in enough, beats me not being a local.
Yes a lot of the pushback, maybe even the majority, was from Dems, and the Bernie Bros! Toxic masculinity!
And those moderate wins did nothing to retain working-class voters, but instead made them desperate not to lose any more economic or social ground; and so we have MAGA.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Dems did not achieve a lot for working class voters, etc?
Not only did we get the ACA, but Medicaid was expanded and we got the IRA, etc and expanded Pell Grants and 2 verson's of the pay as you can afford student loan programs from Obama and Biden, and some negotiation on drug prices and on and on.
In fact, Trump is trying to undo all of it.
If we now have MAGA, it is from disinformation, not from a lack of Dem efforts to do as much as they can when they can get the votes.
All policy changes to social programs require a 60 filibuster proof supermajority. Only budget items can be done with simple majority reconciliation when a party holds both houses and the WH, so it is rare.
Thus, even with more progressives, more could not have been done, especially if they did not win or win a majority. That simply is the nature of how congress works, so you have to try to get as much as you can done, when you can, and that often means compromise in order to get enough votes.
When we have a majority and fail to make progress it is often due to progressives and then we get nothing at all. Biden had the votes for BBB and Manchin was a yes and then progressives kept adding more in and he balked and then with more added in, we could not get Sinema to approve more payfors with taxes to fit the requirements. Greediness killed the whole bill and the poor are the ones who suffer, not the progressives in congress.
Fortunately we were able to get the IRA done which had the green incentives and credits as well as prescription drug, etc. in a smaller later bill.
When has a Sanders or AOC passed anything to actually help people? They just talk and don't do anything and criticize others for trying to actually get things done. They can't get anything done for anyone because that would require a compromise. How is doing nothing at all progressive?
Thus, I think you are blaming the wrong group.
I'm seriously stating that Democrata have *failed* since Clinton to slow or reverse the migration of 50 trillions of dollars in wealth from the bottom 90% upward to the 1%. Delivery crats have failed to unpair from special interests, failed to even reach unity on no stock trading. Sure, Biden was the most progressive president in 50 years, but I don't see anyone else other than the AOCs recognizing that economic and policy choices inevitably led to MAGA populism and the social rupture of economically and socially downwardly mobile middle class that fed it.
Policy changes require 60 votes in the Senate.
It is one thing to sit back and say what Dems have not done and ignore what they have been able to do whenever they are given a chance and it is quite rare to have the numbers needed.
Even merely changing the min wage would require a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate now that the GOP oppose just about everything. The Dems only had such a number with the help of a few independents and only for a few months in 2009, so they did healthcare and expanded Medicaid, etc. The only other time was with a budget resolution which can only address budget matters and requires Dems control the House, Senate and White House, also rare and no one can even raise the min wage with that or change policy. Sadly, the Dems only had 50 votes requiring they could not lose a single vote and still needed the VP as a tie breaker, and policy changes can't even be made with this approach only budget matters. Yet later that year they got the climate bill done called the IRA
So, the point I am making is that Dems do all that they can whenever they can and if a person in the WH was a progressive rather than a centrist, it would not have changed this math one bit.
It is not so much who is in control, but simply how the system works. Dems (centrist or progressive) are generally not the ones standing in the way, the GOP are.
In fact, BBB had all but one or 2 Dem senators on board and at one point it looked like it would pass, for that very progressive bill, and most senators are actually considered moderates with only Bernie being a member of the progressive caucus. So it was certainly not "most Dems" or moderates standing in the way. Clinton faced a GOP congress that was quite extreme with Gingrich in charge.
When the GOP are in power they try to undo all progress Dems make
There were times when Dems had the House & Senate, but nonetheless, did nothing to address those policy and economic choices. It is not just in the time of MAGA that moderation has failed, it's since Reagan. We need an FDR-like transformative candidate, a progressive, to sweep back the oligarchy, or technofascism is our future. Full stop.
Look at the primary map by precinct. The ones that went for Mamdani are predominantly richer, more college educted and whiter. He didn't do as well with the working class or poor or most minorities, who are the exact demographics that national Democrats have been steadily losing to the GOP. If anything, this is yet another data point showing that the modern progressive vision is a minority view of the educated elites and out of touch with other parts of the Democratic base.
TLDR: just like AOC, this proves that progressives can only win in very blue places, and underperform everywhere else.
My inclination would be to get through the general election before drawing too many conclusions about Mamdani's voter base. For starters, does he actually win?
My sense is that sometimes those of us who hang out in social media spaces such as this one can get pretty focused on labels and policy litmus tests. While there may be some value in hashing things out, I have noticed a tendency to want to pigeonhole both political leaders as well as movements. The danger in doing so is that real life can be more complex and dynamic than our arguments.
For example, now that Sanders is presumably too old to run for president again, we will all but inevitably see a changing of the guard in the 2028 primaries. That could result in shifts in both how candidates self identify and what policies they emphasize.
As a corollary, I would suggest that the progressive movement in the U.S. may be maturing. One sign of a young movement is that it focuses more on running "symbolic" candidates who champion its ideals with the recognition that they have no realistic hope of winning. But as the movement gains experience and builds strength, that can lead to a more pragmatic approach to electoral organizing.
An avowed democratic socialist like AOC may only be able to win election in a blue district, but someone with a similar policy vision but a more mainstream political persona might plausibly find success in more purple districts.
I suspect that we are moving through a threshold period where the tectonic plates of the American political system are shifting. That could change at least somewhat the relationship between the progressive and more moderate wings of the Democratic party.
Agreed. The next few cycles will be interesting. Dems seem to be in a struggle between a geriatric centrist establishment and young firebrand social media shit posters. Neither really appeals to the conservative 10% in the middle of the electorate who swing national elections. They do have young dynamic politicians with broad appeal like Shapiro and Gov Pete, but that doesn't seem to be where the party wants to go at the moment.
Do we have enough data points to say where the party wants to go right now? For example, the rallies held by Sanders and AOC have been well attended, but I wouldn't read too much into that. In-person events seem to be a popular way of channelling fear and frustration with the Republican assault on democracy.
Part of the problem may be that more moderate Democratic leaders aren't putting themselves out there as much as Sanders and AOC. One exception is Walz, who has been doing town halls in Republican states. Buttigieg, Newsom and Khanna have been making a lot of media appearances, and I assume they will ramp up their live events if any of them decide to run for president.
Where are the other potential 2028 candidates? If Shapiro or Whitmer want a shot at it I don't think they can get away with sticking to their knitting until a year before the primaries. I also wonder whether some other folks may make a play for the nomination such as Chris Murphy.
I suspect that once we get to primary season that the political dynamics may shift. For one thing, the power of the progressive wing of the party may be balkanized because -- at least at this point -- it doesn't have an obvious heir to Sanders. If Khanna runs, he strikes me as smart enough to not run as a purely insurgent candidate like Sanders did in 2016 and 2020. Can Khanna still appeal to the more lefty types or does an AOC-type candidate enter the race?
If that happens, then splitting the vote could undercut the power of progressives to influence who is the eventual nominee. So normies may thus hold more power than even in 2020, when they largely backed Biden. At least that's one scenario.
Normies winning is the probable scenario, as long as they don't get damaged by the lefties like Hillary and Kamala were, Dems have a shot. The big question to me is, what sort of positive vision for the future they will settle on. That winning vision will in large part determine how the shakeup in the coalition works out. If they stick with "not Trump", it won't go well.
Yup. This has been going on for 15 years. It all began with Citizens United and the Base abandoning President Obama over the passage of ACA.
Thank you. As as a Blue Dog, I like when people speak reality.
Since 2010.
The establishment is more comfortable with Trump. That says a lot about the establishment
And not to its credit, mind you. It's the same "deal with the Devil" that the corporate and military elites made with Hitler.
Easier than thinking…in truth, if you look at American ideals, the first ‘Election’ should have been, based on American values, between Sanders and Clinton. Center right/center left…the winner should be president and the ‘loser’ VP. Teamwork is always better! You just have too many folks would to be the chief not work in the kitchen.
Only if you don’t think the technocrats are the good guys…
When he and his ilk round you up and stuff you in a camp, you can’t say you weren’t warned this time
"he" who? It's the Republican president who is rounding people up (largely chosen by the color of their skin) and stuffing them in camps (latest version surrounded by alligators in deSantisLand) and sending them to various foreign hellholes.
I suspect the would-be mayor of New York does not want to do that, even if he had had the power (and I am pretty sure he does not.)
and I don't see any of "his ilk" at the national level who want to do that either, outside the MAGA bullies.
Do you mean Miller. Sweet pea - we are already there
There’s an unsigned editorial in today’s Washington Post decrying Mamdani’s nomination. Bezos fears seem to fairly overblown. What if Mamdani improves the quality of life and business climate in NYC to the extent where it is a more desirable place to invest and live in. Think of Amazon employees and their customers having affordable child care, which is liberating and employee friendly along with a free or reduced fare bus service to their workplace. If as they claim that marginal tax rates are the Bezos and the billionaire classes sole concern then why isn’t Mississippi a wealthy paradise for business where the quality of life is good and the poverty rate is low?
Manhattan is already a desirable place to live. That's why there's an affordability crisis.
Yeah, this has always seemed like the elephant in the room when people discuss unaffordable cities: "oh no, my city is so desirable that property values are skyrocketing!" is the definition of a first world problem.
Unlike many, I don't consider that term an insult; first world problems are still real problems that need to be solved. But let's be clear that what we're talking about here is places like NYC being victims of their own success. You know when cost of living was cheap in New York? In 1985, when it actually WAS a crime-ridden hellhole and anybody who could afford it was fleeing to the suburbs.
Well, not exactly. New York in the 80s was in a boom cycle—think Bonfire of the Vanities. Living in NYC was definitely not cheap, though certainly more affordable than it is now. Yes, crime was higher, but it didn’t deter millions of people from wanting to move there (myself included).
The go go” 1980’s economy became ingrained into political and economic policy and life in general in NYC. A lot of it came to for when the nature of the economy started to change after WWII. The economy over the past several decades that was nurtured by many in and out of government as more focused on FIRE. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, and less on the manufacturing sector. When the ports where folks like longshoremen and clerks worked became containerized and needed far fewer workers. The ports eventuality had to be redeveloped and reconfigured for new uses like parks as well as the existing freight facilities and cruse ships. The garment industry, automation and outsourcing took place however the fashion sector is a several billion dollar industry in the city. From design to modeling etc. The displaced workers in many of these fields, they became our Hillbilly elegy. Urban elegy? Hence the rise of Trump.
Bezos is simply using his Washington Post propaganda outlet to speak up on behalf of his newfound BFF, Donald J. Trump, and Trump's New York interests.
Affordable housing? Free services for the workers? Not in Trump's New York.
I think Bezos is a little too busy at the moment to be taking a personal interest in what the Post prints.
Bezos has made it clear what he wants and expects from the Washington Post.
Or are you unfamiliar with why Jennifer Rubin, Ashley Parker, Ann Telnaes, Alexandra Petri and tens of thousands of Washington Post subscribers have all left the Washington Post?
👆🎯
Places with very low or no tax rates tend to be authoritarian petro-States (Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, Brunei, Bahrain).
On the other hand, places with the highest rates of taxation tend to have the happiest citizens and rank at the top of the world's happiest places (Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and the Netherlands).
It’s funny how Texas has a very socialist institution. The Land Commission who are responsible for the administration of public lands as well as mineral rights which are used to fund education and other needs in the state.
From Wikipedia:
“The Texas General Land Office is a state agency of the U.S. state of Texas, responsible for managing lands and mineral rights properties that are owned by the state. The GLO also manages and contributes to the state’s Permanent School Fund.“
Don't forget Norway! I seem to recall its citizens have the best per-capita standard of living in the developed world and are the "happiest," Ibsen notwithstanding😊
Exactly. Free buses, child care, and frozen rent have all been found to increase economic activity, pouring more money into neighborhoods - a good thing. In what universe is that considered "radical"?
Child care, yes. The others? No.
Bus fare and rent relief represent money that will circulate in the economy paying bills, buying food, medicine, and so on. If that money is simply held as profit by the landlord or it goes into the city coffers that's much less likely to happen. That's a net economic loss.
That is voodoo economics.
No it's standard economics.
It's not "unsigned." It's signed by the editorial staff of the Washington Post. Here are the members - https://helpcenter.washingtonpost.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002940991-Leadership-of-The-Washington-Post-newsroom
Sweden is full of Social Democrats, as is Germany, both countries seem to be doing reasonably well. 🤓
They also have high scores on the PISA evaluations.
Who is in charge there right now?
Also, places like Denmark like to point out that Bernie if pretty far left of them.
Let me think, who is scarier a fascist or a democratic socialist.? Hmmm I’d pick the guy not wearing a mask and snatching gardeners off the street.
Democrats need to take a deep breath. NYC is not Peoria and that’s OK.
There’s an old joke that—despite being a bit crude—offers some useful insight here:
A visitor at a pub finds the establishment’s owner frustrated about his reputation. “Do you see the fences around town? I built those fences. Do they call me John the fence-maker? No. Do you like this bar? I’ve served thousands of pints here. Do they call me John the barman? No…”
He pauses and takes a deep breath.
“But you fuck one goat…”.
And that too applies the Muslims you refer to - a few do something cruel and stupid and you start your generalizations. Honesty requires we face it. Israel has fault too in its apartheid and slaughter of citizens. The fighting didnt arise from love, it was the direct result of the UN taking lands from one people to give to another, and Isreal's subsequent failure to work from that perspective. Drop the broad and inaccurate brush of hatred, and black listing of all for the actions of a few. Please.
Spot on. Brief and accurate on all points.
Lol I love how the right-wing has become the party of "Everyone and everything i don't like is a nazi"
Well said! We have had enough of the same old same old that only gave us oligarchs. Let’s try an approach that helps the rest of us!
Apparently, the editorial board of the Washington Post has their panties in a twist. Your framing of the argument makes complete sense. Thank you!
I'm so glad I canceled my subscription. The NY Times is pretty bad too. I look at the headlines and see only manipulation. At least, I know the articles are factual, and the writers are professional journalists.
I don’t live in New York, but what I do notice is that when a Republican wins an election there’s a faction of Democrats who instantly say “We need to listen to that guy and do what he does” and that when a leftist Democrat wins an election that same faction’s response is very much not that. (The Lamont-Lieberman race comes to mind.)
And no, that’s not to say you can plug Mamdani’s platform into any election anywhere and win in a walk. But still, Democrats are supposed to want Democrats to win elections. We’ll see.
Democrats spend more time fighting progressives than Republicans. In the 1940s, when the Japanese were in China, there were two separate Chinese armies. One was supported by the US and fought the communists. The other was Communist and fought the Japanese. What might have happened if they joined together to fight the fascists?
Yes, I'm tired of the self-flagellation on the left when there's a propaganda machine on steroids we need to contend with.
Dear Paul Krugman, I appreciate that you counter the Fox narrative of NYC as dystopian hellhole, but I think you are paying less attention to, and ought to pay more as an economist, is the fact that NYC's safety seems to have come at the expense of its affordability for a vast number of New Yorkers. This is what makes Mamdani so necessary. Also, I know it's not your area of expertise, but I think it's worth you mentioning, as a fellow Jew, that much of the attacks have been resurrecting an old Islamophobia, circa 9/11. Mamdani was forced, again and again, and not just by the likes of the Post but by your own former employer the NYT, to defend himself against charges of anti-semitism because of his anti-Zionism and his insistence that Netanyahu be held to international law. It was a very ugly campaign, and he won anyway. That says a great deal about New Yorkers' excellent values. I miss the place--having been outpriced. ~current Philadelphian
Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are one and the same
"I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain - especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state. ... "
- Albert Einstein, 17 April 1938
Obviously this Einstein guy was an anti-semite. </s>
OK for all the indigenous Arabs to have a state, but not the indigenous Jews? the majority of Jews in Israel aren't from the European diaspora. After Workd War II there were 750,000 - 1M indigenous Jews from Arab countries who were expelled or fled horrible persecution and confiscation of their property. Read the history of the Jews in Iran, Iraq and Morocco.
Jews were not expelled from Morocco (source is a documentary with interviews with Moroccan immigrants to Israel some of whom have moved back). They were recruited in the 1960's. This is another broad brush used to paint all of the middle east as Israel's enemy. Just because other countries do a bad thing doesn't mean Israel has to sink to their level. You are deflecting from the issue of the occupation of the territories and the oppression of the people who live there as well as the refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return home. I am not sure a state where the majority of the residents are ethnically Jewish but they are violating a commandment repeated 36 times in the Torah is in fact a Jewish state. And yes I am Jewish and so are my children.
Awesome quote!
This just isn't true, and it does the Jewish people no favors to pretend that it is. There are anti-semitic anti-zionists, and there are more of them than there probably are in the general population. But many anti-zionists are Jewish, and many anti-zionists simply believe that creating a state that is required to be majority one ethnicity is wrong on its face.
No, the two are not equivalent. Its just not true. The UN took Palestine to create Israel because anti-semitism was rampant in the controlling UN nations. "Put the jews over there" was the quiet undertone behind that decision. Today, Jews can easily live in many nations. The need for Israel is just not what it once was, when Jews were denied the right to own homes in white neighborhoods, attend certain schools, celebrate the Sabbath and generally thrive as full citizens in the larger community. Show me where this is happening now in, say, the US?
The hate now comes from Israel treating the Palestinian people as underlings and dogs from the early days of denying work, water and travel freedoms to the savage bombing of civilians today.
There are plenty of Arabs living peacefully in Israel 40% of Israel's medical school graduates in2023 were Arabs. There is an Arab supreme court justice in Israel. But there are alomost no Jews living in the Arab countries.
So given that arabs living in Israel are not an issue why not just let the Palestinians who were expelled in 1948 return?
Do the Jews from Arab countries get to have the land back that was cofiscated from them? Is this a land swap? But I'm not sure Jews want to go back. But would Iran and Iraq and other countries give the jews compensation for the land that they confiscated? Also, why did the Palestinians reject every proposal for the two-state solution? They would have gotten all of the currently disputed land in Clinton's plan plus more that Egypt was going to give them.
Again, do you want Israel to sink to the level of other countries or be better then that? That proposal did not include all the currently disputed land. It did not include the removal of the settlements from the occupied territories of the West Bank. It was a map that looked like Swiss cheese and assumed roads between Jewish settlements that Palestinians would not be allowed on.
"The UN took Palestine to create Israel" that is not true. Historian Jonathan Wyrtzen wrote a book about that. it was based on where people actually lived. Remember that the majority of the Jews in Israel are not from Europe. They were indigenous in Israel and all over the Middle East through the millennia. Then there were the emigres fleeing expulsion and violent persecution and property confiscation in Iran and Iraq and years of horrible treatment in Morocco. These are the Mizrachi Jews. they are the majority.
Everyone papers over that we're the most hated ethnic group on the planet. And that we're born with targets on our backs - all of us.
Who is papering that over? exactly who is this everyone?
You say you're Jewish. If that's the case, then you already know the answer to those questions.
I want your answer. I think you and I have a different experience of that target. Also I wasn't born with that target on my back. I converted. I chose it. I don't feel like any one is papering it over.
If you were born with it, you'd have experienced it. I'll give you just one small example. I've been told - more than once - that I don't "look" Jewish. What does that mean? It means I don't fit the stereotype. It also means I've heard a lot of people talking about Jews in ways they wouldn't have in front of someone they knew to be Jewish. They were invariably shocked when I would divulge that I'm one of "those" people.
Nothing frightens elites more than class issues. Racial issues are a relatively safe subject, class is the third rail of American politics.
I'd venture to say that more Americans are classist than racist.
I'm actually perplexed by this. I agree with it, but I don't understand where it comes from.
Totally agree. My daughter went to an elite college and they were all in on racial issues, but definitely not class. They didn't talk to the security and food service workers even though they saw them every day. When we went to visit she introduced us to them.
Yes, because class issues lead to events like French Revolution or Russian revolution with millions killed.
Let's shed a tear for French aristocrats or Russian Tsars, shall we?
Monarchies that ignored wealth disparity.
Excellent take.
:)
As a New Yorker, who ranked Mamdani number one in the primary, and was overjoyed to see him push Cuomo off the ticket, I deeply appreciate this article. This summarizes how I feel to a T.
I'm an outsider and was kind of hoping Brad Lander would win. But as long as corrupt, creepy Cuomo (hey! alliteration!) didn't win, I'm delighted.
Yes- Lander is a great politician and in the very beginning it was hard to say who would speak to the people, but his campaign just never grew the legs that Mamdani’s did. I was really happy to see Lander and Mamdani support each other so that they could push Cuomo down even as he got more endorsements. Creepy Cuomo is right 🤣 that would have just been depressing news . Hard pass on him.
In his concession speech, Cuomo said Mamdani "touched" younger voters. Hoof, meet mouth! LOLOL
😂 Exactly. Little Freudian slip, Cuomo?
Great read. I just got off the phone with my 47 yr old son living in NY. He’s very cynical about politics in general and he mentioned that the vibe among the people on the street was light and perhaps even upbeat. I’m holding my breath for the next act.
We New Yorkers don't let anything get us down too much.
Well at the rate the centrists are going They will nominate Diane Feinstein-- after all she was a mayor -- and has real connections now with the "higher ups"
Now that there is FUNNY!
I am a Democratic Socialist and often feel as if most Democrats treat us with great disdain instead of viewing us as countrymen and party members that want to look out for the interests of the working class. I am greatly appreciative that you treat us with respect and am always looking for your insights. Thank you Krugman.