The liberal establishment is not the left's biggest obstacle, and the left is not the liberal establishment's biggest obstacle. The biggest obstacle to both is a rigged political system.
I'd suggest three steps are necessary to create enduring Democratic power: 1) Redirect grievance from immigrants and minorities to the "economic royalists" (borrowed from FDR) in power who are skewing the political system toward the rich and leaving everybody else fighting over the scraps that are left; 2) impose actual accountability on these royalists, many of whom were also a part of this administration involved in looting American society (my model here is the Pecora Commission from FDR's time); and 3) use the energy developed by bringing accountability to create new, big things that benefit the working class.
All three of these steps are exactly what FDR used during the Depression. The Pecora Commission brought accountability to Wall Street and gave FDR the political capital to create the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Board. The latter caused a boom in union membership that was essential for giving the Democratic coalition a durable base. The destruction of the FDR coalition was precisely the goal that Republicans implemented when they went after unions.
Contrast this with Obama: none of the people responsible for the 2008 crash were ever held accountable. Because of that, the energy demanding accountability was able to be captured by the Republican Party through scapegoating immigrants and minorities.
Thank you for this history lesson! It is a real roadmap and the one thing you didn't mention was that Roosevelt was HATED by the monied class - And as he famously said, he welcomed their hatred. Of course Roosevelt didn't have to deal with Citizen's United, or Fox News, Newsmax and their ilk. But he did have entire newspapers running articles about him and calling WWII "Roosevelt's War." I have always believed that the thirty percent of people still clinging to Trump are descended from the people who refused to call FDR by name, but referred to him as "That man in the White House."
I had a comment over on SB the other day where I’m trying to come to a similar detente in this factional war.
Because I simply don’t see it as a war that either side can actually “win”. We need to embrace liberalism and pluralism within our own party, dammit! And that should be one of the biggest DUH things out there.
I would also beg you not to treat Substack as a serious place. It (and Matt’s comment section) is a small bubble occupied by a kind of militant almost-Bush-era-Republican form of centrism that has very little influence on the broader party. Last year those people backed the Dem Senate’s decision not to block Trump, and that proved to be a hugely bad bet. This year the centrist loss of ground has become so obvious that most of the commentariat had finally begun acknowledging they’re losing the voters. (Not in a “we made mistakes and want to reconsider our strategy” way, unfortunately, which might be useful.)
I think the voters at large are much more amenable to just about anyone who says they’ll change things. If you’re firing inward, you’re not making that pitch and you’re going to lose seats.
@Brian, the big part for me is this (paraphrasing):
“There is no true victory for either side of this factional war. There will never be a day when the other faction is forced to kneel before us and accept the truth and wisdom of our opinions about what’s best for our party.”
I think the biggest internal enemy of our party right now is the mindset that clings to this fantasy that either faction can be defeated and some singular vision installed as dogma.
Moreover, the obsession with electoral strategy belies generations of neglect of our party’s logistical apparatus. Our two factions are like the Germans and Japanese, single-mindedly deluded that seizing this or that oil field or ore deposit is a sufficient substitute for having the monstrous economy that actually won that war.
Defeating the delusion and establishing a common pluralistic, cooperative vision for a new liberal political machine is the ONLY way this factional war ends well for us. We HAVE to embrace mutually beneficial kayfabe.
I think that’s what Simon Rosenberg has been trying to accomplish for a bunch of years with Hopium. - his -prediction- of course failed big for 2024, but succeeded for all the off year elections since 2018.
I'm not sure how claiming COVID originated in France (?) should be considered a "far left" view. For that matter, how is accusing Joe Biden of "rape" in any sense "far left"? These things seem to suggest the candidate is just a plain old nut, regardless of where she falls on the left-right axis. It's deeply troubling to see that Mamdani may be willing to overlook these things if a candidate is "aligned with" his agenda vis-a-vis Israel and/or redistribution. A big uh-oh.
That would have been to support Chi Ossé's challenge to Jeffries. But not only did Mamdani not do that; he asked DSA not to endorse Ossé as well. They didn't, and Ossé dropped out. If you look at the whole picture of Mamdani's endorsement strategy, there's a lot more calibration than this column acknowledges.
"Those steps Mamdani skipped are actually the most important ones: How to fight Trump in the here and now"
Replacing bad incumbents is precisely about fighting Trump in the here and now. E.g., the two incumbents defeated by Mamdani endorsees were both tepid at best in defending Mahmoud Khalil against political imprisonment--and Khalil was Espaillat's **own constituent**! Who knows how much weaker they would get as the screws continue to tighten. We definitely won't defeat fascism if sitting congresscritters stand by while a wannabe dictator locks up their constituents. Mamdani's biggest risk was aimed at perhaps the biggest failure of an incumbent on this front. That may not be a Grand Theory of Power, but it's a pretty good Near-Term Theory. And it's tied to the job Mamdani actually has, which is mayor, not national official who should help solve the national crisis.
To say nothing of the fact that Tom Souzzi, leader of the so-called Promise to America centrist faction, said he voted against Trump's OBBB, but said he agreed with 75 percent.
I think Brian and some in his milleu really may be missing out on the fact that quite a few centrists actually don't agree that Trump is a particular serious threat to this country - Golden and MGP said this openly in the summer of 2024, even as the Trump campaign was feverishly trying to distance itself from the unpopular Project 2025, which as we all know became the central guiding document of his adminstration.
A "Centrist" Democrat is 7% less Republican than a Republican. Watching a grumpy Hakeem Jeffries, after New York's spectacular Dem. primary performance, it occurred to me that "Centrist" is also synonymous with "lazy". Jeffries was content cashing checks and pushing facile "kitchen table affordability gas price" platitudes. His legislative priorities always coincide with his rabid desire for majority House leadership. What legislation? - one might ask. Ask that of Schumer, while you're at it, he of "There's nothing we can do unless Trump's approval drops below 40%". We're still waiting for Chuck's brilliant resistance at 30%.
If Darializa Avila Chevalier's old tweets were really disqualifying, there would be a hundred-fewer pandering ignoramus Republicans in office, having cynically spewed unequivocally racist, sexist, antisemitic, violent conspiracy-saturated drivel to appeal to imbecile voters.
After 50 years of holding my nose and voting for whatever compromised almost-Republican the Democratic Party has shoveled onto my ballot, I'm thrilled to be in a party with Chevalier, Lander, Valdez and Mamdani, whether there's a "Socialist" in front of "Democratic" or not.
“which is guided by the assumption that manifesting outrage at the GOP loses the center.”
This assumption should have never existed in the first place but the fact it didn’t get blown up during the lead up to the 2016 election is pathetic. This assumption is why the GOP has been able inflict so much damage on this country over the last few decades.
I can certainly understand why so many younger (& older) voters are moving towards the Mamdani’s and Wilson’s, they see younger, authentic candidates who want to fight for them. At this point, that’s more than enough for them and they can overlook some of the negatives.
It’s difficult to get behind established Dems who keep claiming they’ll fight fascism, corruption, big business, this regime and its enablers when there’s very little proof they have the backbone to follow through.
That said, the factions do need to find a way to call a truce so they can build real power which is the only way to stop the the country from spiraling.
I rarely disagree with Brian, so I'm a bit uncomfortable writing this. Still, there is no such thing as a "centrist" politician. A "centrist" is someone who already holds office, wishes to keep it, and so legislates as little as possible, takes as few risks as possible, so he/she has the incumbents power, gets re-elected, gets key committee assignments, and a nice share of the revenue from donors/lobbyists.
There's no such thing as "shared" power, either. One either commands it or not, and if one commands it, it matters how it's applied. In this case, we have a lesson applied over and over, which is how the first 100 days are used, when power is maxed out.
The enemy of the Dem party is time. The GOP and Project 2025 showed the way. One can disagree with what they did (I'm sick at heart about it), and marvel at the efficiency (OK, profligacy?) with which they wielded it.
To change things, dems need to do something similar. To do that, they need to gain control of all government. To do that they need to change everything about how they look at politics. If they go about this in their usual way, the GOP will re-gather itself and slaughter the Dems next election because nothing will have been done..
IOW, we need both Dantons and Robespierre's, each aware the other might well send them to the guillotine later. Brian's right it's a rigged system. It's structurally no longer workable. Simply put, though, if you know playing by the rules coronates someone else, stop playing by the rules.
If one remembers, power wasn't shared in 1789. It was brutally fought for. We need a good dose of that. What folly to believe what was could be once again. Things have changed. IMO, the Liberal Establishment has a lot to be held accountable for, not least its egregious political cowardice, and a steadfast refusal to protect citizens except in a de minimus way that protects careers and assets.
This is one your rare silly columns Brian. Mamdani has a strategy: he wants to replace nonperforming centrist Dems, the least popular people in the political spectrum in poll after poll. He won’t content himself with hollow speeches like AOC. He got Hochul to give him much of what he wants bc she knows he would come after her next, and she is unpopular.
Mamdani will face a great deal of opposition from entrenched neoliberal Democrats, those who have nothing to offer. These are the very same folks who are the least popular politicians in the country. They will not fight Trump, but they will fight him. I’ll wait to see what happens. In the meantime, he is legit and he won’t back down, so his voters love him. As for Mayo Pete, hard pass. He will never be anything besides a corporate sellout. You know that, right? Right?
No they won't, and you appear to have missed the bigger picture. Mamdani is popular bc he actually represents the views of Democratic voters. His popularity stems from the fact that Mamdani's agenda benefits the overwhelming majority of those in NYC, and I dare say his agenda would benefit the bottom 90% (give or take) of the country. The centrist Democrats have little to no appeal as they have nothing but platitudes to offer.
There are other leaders that are more popular than him, Pete Buttigieg has higher favorable ratings. Saying Mamdani is uniquely popular among Dems is stupid. Obama, hardly a socialist is the most popular Dem leader. Bernie is popular and Pete too. Mamdani ranks after them in popularity.
There is nothing unique about Zohran ideas, they have already been implemented in other Blue states by normie libs.
But rent freezes and city grocery stores are legitimately insane ideas.
Biden BBB had a universal childcare nationwide plan, some this is hardly unique.
You guys are showing sane cult like devotion to this guy like Trump supporters.
Brian wrote, "Few Democrats are willing to show, rather than say, that they’re not kidding around. He’s [Mamdani] here to play, and everyone is on notice. I also think his objectives are worthy, at least in the abstract. What’s an FDR-like agenda for the post-Trump 21st century?"
I find it odd that some people are selling the Democratic Socialists and Mamdani short. Believe it or not, America has a rich history of socialism. Eugene Debs comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs The only reason that the country would see these people as "toxic" is because of the wide propaganda campaign that has been perpetrated since Debs by the money men essentially calling them "communists." Not the same thing at all. And Brian, why shouldn't Mamdani take his shot and follow FDR's playbook? Why should he hang back? Waiting for what? For the institutionalized Dems to fight back? They haven't and they won't because they have forgotten why they are in Congress. We need to change our social trajectory in this country and fast. Frankly, Brian, we are faced with global warming (with Trump using our tax dollars to prop up the fossil fuel industry), racial oppression on steroids, and a world drastically changed by artificial intelligence. We need to prepare NOW. Abstract thinking is a luxury we don't have. We have a playbook to help our people, FDR accentuated it with his Four Freedoms speech. https://www.fdrlibrary.org/four-freedoms And we must grasp it now. This is the time to imagine a new way of living for everyone. And with the destruction Trump/MAGA has wrought, we should use every opportunity to push it forward so we can build a better, healthier and happier society.
Did Mamdani know about the woman’s crazy shit posting history before he endorsed her? He obviously wasn’t going to backtrack after endorsing but I wonder if he would’ve if he had known
I disagree with Brian’s assessment of Mamdani’s endorsements and support for candidates in the recent Dem primary . They were strategic choices. He stayed out of the campaign to replace progressive lion Gerry Nadler.
Instead of court EXPANSION look at Yale constitutional scholar Akhil Amar's plan for 18-year terms (without needing a constitutional amendment) by putting those after 18 years on "senior status" with other duties -- still paid, so they haven't lost their position -- but no longer making decisions. 18-year terms means that there would be two nominations every presidential administration.
Look up and listen to Akhil Amar's arguments -- 18 years makes lots of sense for (coincidentally) 18 reasons that he and sidekick Andy managed to come up in discussion on Amarica's (sic) Constitution podcast.
I have listened to Amar. I still believe that 18 years are too long. I would also think long and hard about limiting the court's jurisdiction only to areas enumerated in the Constitution, disputes among the states and foreign governments. Then Congress can create another court to hear all other disputes. Lots of ways to get judges on that court, mostly by borrowing and rotating them from circuit courts (the number of which I would expand). Amar's imagination is limited by his job and his profession. He is better than many of his peers, but better is not the same as good.
1. You don't need to be a social democrat to believe that social democracy is good for liberalism. The current Overton Window is well to the right of liberalism, barely allowing liberals into acceptable discourse. Social democrats are probably more effective in shifting the Overton Window than liberals. This being America, they're only going to shift it so far. Liberals have nothing to fear except a closer proximity to the center of discourse, and thus power.
2. The mainstream Democrats' theory of victory works fine on individual races, but destroys the Democratic brand. Every advocate knows the first law of advocacy: always attack; never defend. A smart attack can anticipate and neutralize counterattacks, but it's never defensive. Democrats can win individual elections with "we're not crazy," but that's a defensive move that makes the entire party look weak.
3. Smart politicians like Zohran Mamdani know that the rule of democratic politics is: "never offend a voter without a reason." The word "socialist" is offensive to many, but Mamdani has a reason for using it. (Heck, Bernie Sanders has a reason for using it, and he's just a New Deal liberal in ill-fitting socialist drag.) The Chuck Schumers of the world think that the rule is "never offend a voter." Weakness--the trick is knowing who to offend, and how, and why.
4. fwiw, I'm just a shitlib myself. I support social democrats because they strengthen my cause, not because their cause is mine.
1 - Another consideration for Mamdani's boldness is, his supporters expect a whole lot, a lot of it he is unlikely to succeed at getting passed, and as the government executive any ill and unintended consequences of any of his sometimes-dubious campaign promises he DOES enact would wound him singularly and obviously, so he may wind up abounding much of it. Therefore, bold endorsements of startlingly left wing candidates is one of likely few things he CAN deliver to generate gratitude in those who fought for him—and if they actually win, then quadruple the credit. Regardless of its effect on his movement's national agenda.
2 - His movement may be playing a longer game, and for more cutthroat short-term stakes. Every time they fail to move their agenda (and most of the time they do advance it and it brings ill and unintended consequences) they can blame the wealthy establishment zionists for stopping it or for sabotaging the consequences. If they defray disappointment with more scapegoating, they can more slowly build power over 20 years. And in the meanwhile, those few representatives they have in Washington can right away agitate and obstruct to continue making a hash of the Democratic Party (and also a hash of the country, for those who suspect that is in fact their obfuscated core agenda.)
I'd suggest three steps are necessary to create enduring Democratic power: 1) Redirect grievance from immigrants and minorities to the "economic royalists" (borrowed from FDR) in power who are skewing the political system toward the rich and leaving everybody else fighting over the scraps that are left; 2) impose actual accountability on these royalists, many of whom were also a part of this administration involved in looting American society (my model here is the Pecora Commission from FDR's time); and 3) use the energy developed by bringing accountability to create new, big things that benefit the working class.
All three of these steps are exactly what FDR used during the Depression. The Pecora Commission brought accountability to Wall Street and gave FDR the political capital to create the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Board. The latter caused a boom in union membership that was essential for giving the Democratic coalition a durable base. The destruction of the FDR coalition was precisely the goal that Republicans implemented when they went after unions.
Contrast this with Obama: none of the people responsible for the 2008 crash were ever held accountable. Because of that, the energy demanding accountability was able to be captured by the Republican Party through scapegoating immigrants and minorities.
Thank you for this history lesson! It is a real roadmap and the one thing you didn't mention was that Roosevelt was HATED by the monied class - And as he famously said, he welcomed their hatred. Of course Roosevelt didn't have to deal with Citizen's United, or Fox News, Newsmax and their ilk. But he did have entire newspapers running articles about him and calling WWII "Roosevelt's War." I have always believed that the thirty percent of people still clinging to Trump are descended from the people who refused to call FDR by name, but referred to him as "That man in the White House."
Why was Roosevelt trying to shrink the tent?
A lot of very rich people especially on the West Coast and in construction particularly loved FDR. The Bechtels, Henry Kaiser, etc/
Newspaper chains were, editorially speaking, more conservatively aligned on average, as late as 1963-1964, only shifting more liberal then.
I had a comment over on SB the other day where I’m trying to come to a similar detente in this factional war.
Because I simply don’t see it as a war that either side can actually “win”. We need to embrace liberalism and pluralism within our own party, dammit! And that should be one of the biggest DUH things out there.
https://substack.com/@thebattleline/note/c-282278161?r=e9tr3&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I would also beg you not to treat Substack as a serious place. It (and Matt’s comment section) is a small bubble occupied by a kind of militant almost-Bush-era-Republican form of centrism that has very little influence on the broader party. Last year those people backed the Dem Senate’s decision not to block Trump, and that proved to be a hugely bad bet. This year the centrist loss of ground has become so obvious that most of the commentariat had finally begun acknowledging they’re losing the voters. (Not in a “we made mistakes and want to reconsider our strategy” way, unfortunately, which might be useful.)
I think the voters at large are much more amenable to just about anyone who says they’ll change things. If you’re firing inward, you’re not making that pitch and you’re going to lose seats.
I'm with you, Matt. Make way for change because it's coming whether they like it or not.
Your generalizations about Substack are far too sweeping.
I guess we'll find out on November 4.
You logic escapes me.
See my other comment.
@Brian, the big part for me is this (paraphrasing):
“There is no true victory for either side of this factional war. There will never be a day when the other faction is forced to kneel before us and accept the truth and wisdom of our opinions about what’s best for our party.”
I think the biggest internal enemy of our party right now is the mindset that clings to this fantasy that either faction can be defeated and some singular vision installed as dogma.
Moreover, the obsession with electoral strategy belies generations of neglect of our party’s logistical apparatus. Our two factions are like the Germans and Japanese, single-mindedly deluded that seizing this or that oil field or ore deposit is a sufficient substitute for having the monstrous economy that actually won that war.
Defeating the delusion and establishing a common pluralistic, cooperative vision for a new liberal political machine is the ONLY way this factional war ends well for us. We HAVE to embrace mutually beneficial kayfabe.
I think that’s what Simon Rosenberg has been trying to accomplish for a bunch of years with Hopium. - his -prediction- of course failed big for 2024, but succeeded for all the off year elections since 2018.
I'm not sure how claiming COVID originated in France (?) should be considered a "far left" view. For that matter, how is accusing Joe Biden of "rape" in any sense "far left"? These things seem to suggest the candidate is just a plain old nut, regardless of where she falls on the left-right axis. It's deeply troubling to see that Mamdani may be willing to overlook these things if a candidate is "aligned with" his agenda vis-a-vis Israel and/or redistribution. A big uh-oh.
This is nothing new in politics.
"The biggest possible swing he could’ve taken."
That would have been to support Chi Ossé's challenge to Jeffries. But not only did Mamdani not do that; he asked DSA not to endorse Ossé as well. They didn't, and Ossé dropped out. If you look at the whole picture of Mamdani's endorsement strategy, there's a lot more calibration than this column acknowledges.
"Those steps Mamdani skipped are actually the most important ones: How to fight Trump in the here and now"
Replacing bad incumbents is precisely about fighting Trump in the here and now. E.g., the two incumbents defeated by Mamdani endorsees were both tepid at best in defending Mahmoud Khalil against political imprisonment--and Khalil was Espaillat's **own constituent**! Who knows how much weaker they would get as the screws continue to tighten. We definitely won't defeat fascism if sitting congresscritters stand by while a wannabe dictator locks up their constituents. Mamdani's biggest risk was aimed at perhaps the biggest failure of an incumbent on this front. That may not be a Grand Theory of Power, but it's a pretty good Near-Term Theory. And it's tied to the job Mamdani actually has, which is mayor, not national official who should help solve the national crisis.
To say nothing of the fact that Tom Souzzi, leader of the so-called Promise to America centrist faction, said he voted against Trump's OBBB, but said he agreed with 75 percent.
I think Brian and some in his milleu really may be missing out on the fact that quite a few centrists actually don't agree that Trump is a particular serious threat to this country - Golden and MGP said this openly in the summer of 2024, even as the Trump campaign was feverishly trying to distance itself from the unpopular Project 2025, which as we all know became the central guiding document of his adminstration.
A "Centrist" Democrat is 7% less Republican than a Republican. Watching a grumpy Hakeem Jeffries, after New York's spectacular Dem. primary performance, it occurred to me that "Centrist" is also synonymous with "lazy". Jeffries was content cashing checks and pushing facile "kitchen table affordability gas price" platitudes. His legislative priorities always coincide with his rabid desire for majority House leadership. What legislation? - one might ask. Ask that of Schumer, while you're at it, he of "There's nothing we can do unless Trump's approval drops below 40%". We're still waiting for Chuck's brilliant resistance at 30%.
If Darializa Avila Chevalier's old tweets were really disqualifying, there would be a hundred-fewer pandering ignoramus Republicans in office, having cynically spewed unequivocally racist, sexist, antisemitic, violent conspiracy-saturated drivel to appeal to imbecile voters.
After 50 years of holding my nose and voting for whatever compromised almost-Republican the Democratic Party has shoveled onto my ballot, I'm thrilled to be in a party with Chevalier, Lander, Valdez and Mamdani, whether there's a "Socialist" in front of "Democratic" or not.
"Centrist" is also synonymous with "lazy". 😆You got it, Gary.
Chevalier fails the common sense test that Nina Turner also failed.
If you're
1. Running as a Democrat can you say
2. Democrats are better than Republicans
“which is guided by the assumption that manifesting outrage at the GOP loses the center.”
This assumption should have never existed in the first place but the fact it didn’t get blown up during the lead up to the 2016 election is pathetic. This assumption is why the GOP has been able inflict so much damage on this country over the last few decades.
I can certainly understand why so many younger (& older) voters are moving towards the Mamdani’s and Wilson’s, they see younger, authentic candidates who want to fight for them. At this point, that’s more than enough for them and they can overlook some of the negatives.
It’s difficult to get behind established Dems who keep claiming they’ll fight fascism, corruption, big business, this regime and its enablers when there’s very little proof they have the backbone to follow through.
That said, the factions do need to find a way to call a truce so they can build real power which is the only way to stop the the country from spiraling.
I rarely disagree with Brian, so I'm a bit uncomfortable writing this. Still, there is no such thing as a "centrist" politician. A "centrist" is someone who already holds office, wishes to keep it, and so legislates as little as possible, takes as few risks as possible, so he/she has the incumbents power, gets re-elected, gets key committee assignments, and a nice share of the revenue from donors/lobbyists.
There's no such thing as "shared" power, either. One either commands it or not, and if one commands it, it matters how it's applied. In this case, we have a lesson applied over and over, which is how the first 100 days are used, when power is maxed out.
The enemy of the Dem party is time. The GOP and Project 2025 showed the way. One can disagree with what they did (I'm sick at heart about it), and marvel at the efficiency (OK, profligacy?) with which they wielded it.
To change things, dems need to do something similar. To do that, they need to gain control of all government. To do that they need to change everything about how they look at politics. If they go about this in their usual way, the GOP will re-gather itself and slaughter the Dems next election because nothing will have been done..
IOW, we need both Dantons and Robespierre's, each aware the other might well send them to the guillotine later. Brian's right it's a rigged system. It's structurally no longer workable. Simply put, though, if you know playing by the rules coronates someone else, stop playing by the rules.
If one remembers, power wasn't shared in 1789. It was brutally fought for. We need a good dose of that. What folly to believe what was could be once again. Things have changed. IMO, the Liberal Establishment has a lot to be held accountable for, not least its egregious political cowardice, and a steadfast refusal to protect citizens except in a de minimus way that protects careers and assets.
This is one your rare silly columns Brian. Mamdani has a strategy: he wants to replace nonperforming centrist Dems, the least popular people in the political spectrum in poll after poll. He won’t content himself with hollow speeches like AOC. He got Hochul to give him much of what he wants bc she knows he would come after her next, and she is unpopular.
Mamdani will face a great deal of opposition from entrenched neoliberal Democrats, those who have nothing to offer. These are the very same folks who are the least popular politicians in the country. They will not fight Trump, but they will fight him. I’ll wait to see what happens. In the meantime, he is legit and he won’t back down, so his voters love him. As for Mayo Pete, hard pass. He will never be anything besides a corporate sellout. You know that, right? Right?
A lot of liberals and moderates will leave the party, let’s see how can you win them.
No they won't, and you appear to have missed the bigger picture. Mamdani is popular bc he actually represents the views of Democratic voters. His popularity stems from the fact that Mamdani's agenda benefits the overwhelming majority of those in NYC, and I dare say his agenda would benefit the bottom 90% (give or take) of the country. The centrist Democrats have little to no appeal as they have nothing but platitudes to offer.
There are other leaders that are more popular than him, Pete Buttigieg has higher favorable ratings. Saying Mamdani is uniquely popular among Dems is stupid. Obama, hardly a socialist is the most popular Dem leader. Bernie is popular and Pete too. Mamdani ranks after them in popularity.
There is nothing unique about Zohran ideas, they have already been implemented in other Blue states by normie libs.
But rent freezes and city grocery stores are legitimately insane ideas.
Biden BBB had a universal childcare nationwide plan, some this is hardly unique.
You guys are showing sane cult like devotion to this guy like Trump supporters.
No they won't, although they might become independents who vote for Democrats. Kind of like the GOP over the last 10 years.
Brian wrote, "Few Democrats are willing to show, rather than say, that they’re not kidding around. He’s [Mamdani] here to play, and everyone is on notice. I also think his objectives are worthy, at least in the abstract. What’s an FDR-like agenda for the post-Trump 21st century?"
I find it odd that some people are selling the Democratic Socialists and Mamdani short. Believe it or not, America has a rich history of socialism. Eugene Debs comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs The only reason that the country would see these people as "toxic" is because of the wide propaganda campaign that has been perpetrated since Debs by the money men essentially calling them "communists." Not the same thing at all. And Brian, why shouldn't Mamdani take his shot and follow FDR's playbook? Why should he hang back? Waiting for what? For the institutionalized Dems to fight back? They haven't and they won't because they have forgotten why they are in Congress. We need to change our social trajectory in this country and fast. Frankly, Brian, we are faced with global warming (with Trump using our tax dollars to prop up the fossil fuel industry), racial oppression on steroids, and a world drastically changed by artificial intelligence. We need to prepare NOW. Abstract thinking is a luxury we don't have. We have a playbook to help our people, FDR accentuated it with his Four Freedoms speech. https://www.fdrlibrary.org/four-freedoms And we must grasp it now. This is the time to imagine a new way of living for everyone. And with the destruction Trump/MAGA has wrought, we should use every opportunity to push it forward so we can build a better, healthier and happier society.
Did Mamdani know about the woman’s crazy shit posting history before he endorsed her? He obviously wasn’t going to backtrack after endorsing but I wonder if he would’ve if he had known
From what I understand he endorsed her before her shit positing history came to full view? lol
I disagree with Brian’s assessment of Mamdani’s endorsements and support for candidates in the recent Dem primary . They were strategic choices. He stayed out of the campaign to replace progressive lion Gerry Nadler.
Instead of court EXPANSION look at Yale constitutional scholar Akhil Amar's plan for 18-year terms (without needing a constitutional amendment) by putting those after 18 years on "senior status" with other duties -- still paid, so they haven't lost their position -- but no longer making decisions. 18-year terms means that there would be two nominations every presidential administration.
18 years are too long. No justice (or judge for that matter) should serve more than 12 years.
Look up and listen to Akhil Amar's arguments -- 18 years makes lots of sense for (coincidentally) 18 reasons that he and sidekick Andy managed to come up in discussion on Amarica's (sic) Constitution podcast.
I have listened to Amar. I still believe that 18 years are too long. I would also think long and hard about limiting the court's jurisdiction only to areas enumerated in the Constitution, disputes among the states and foreign governments. Then Congress can create another court to hear all other disputes. Lots of ways to get judges on that court, mostly by borrowing and rotating them from circuit courts (the number of which I would expand). Amar's imagination is limited by his job and his profession. He is better than many of his peers, but better is not the same as good.
I am thinking we need a practice of shared power more than a theory of shared power.
Practice before theory. Theory can grow from practice.
A few comments:
1. You don't need to be a social democrat to believe that social democracy is good for liberalism. The current Overton Window is well to the right of liberalism, barely allowing liberals into acceptable discourse. Social democrats are probably more effective in shifting the Overton Window than liberals. This being America, they're only going to shift it so far. Liberals have nothing to fear except a closer proximity to the center of discourse, and thus power.
2. The mainstream Democrats' theory of victory works fine on individual races, but destroys the Democratic brand. Every advocate knows the first law of advocacy: always attack; never defend. A smart attack can anticipate and neutralize counterattacks, but it's never defensive. Democrats can win individual elections with "we're not crazy," but that's a defensive move that makes the entire party look weak.
3. Smart politicians like Zohran Mamdani know that the rule of democratic politics is: "never offend a voter without a reason." The word "socialist" is offensive to many, but Mamdani has a reason for using it. (Heck, Bernie Sanders has a reason for using it, and he's just a New Deal liberal in ill-fitting socialist drag.) The Chuck Schumers of the world think that the rule is "never offend a voter." Weakness--the trick is knowing who to offend, and how, and why.
4. fwiw, I'm just a shitlib myself. I support social democrats because they strengthen my cause, not because their cause is mine.
1 - Another consideration for Mamdani's boldness is, his supporters expect a whole lot, a lot of it he is unlikely to succeed at getting passed, and as the government executive any ill and unintended consequences of any of his sometimes-dubious campaign promises he DOES enact would wound him singularly and obviously, so he may wind up abounding much of it. Therefore, bold endorsements of startlingly left wing candidates is one of likely few things he CAN deliver to generate gratitude in those who fought for him—and if they actually win, then quadruple the credit. Regardless of its effect on his movement's national agenda.
2 - His movement may be playing a longer game, and for more cutthroat short-term stakes. Every time they fail to move their agenda (and most of the time they do advance it and it brings ill and unintended consequences) they can blame the wealthy establishment zionists for stopping it or for sabotaging the consequences. If they defray disappointment with more scapegoating, they can more slowly build power over 20 years. And in the meanwhile, those few representatives they have in Washington can right away agitate and obstruct to continue making a hash of the Democratic Party (and also a hash of the country, for those who suspect that is in fact their obfuscated core agenda.)