This dispute is the same one that pops up anytime a new Leftist vanguard arrives and attempts to gain power. It was best described by Mikhail Bakunin in his "Statism and Anarchy", which was a direct response to Marx and his movement:
"....the pseudo-popular state will be nothing but the highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small aristocracy of real or pretended scholars. The people are not learned, so they will be liberated in entirety from the cares of government and included in entirety in the governed herd. A fine liberation! Thus, for the masses to be liberated they must first be enslaved."
Bakunin suggested that the Marxists' real aim was a "pedantocracy": a regime in which theoreticians—their own type of theoreticians—would be in charge, in which a political intelligentsia, unemployable in normal circumstances, took the positions of power.
All of socialism PRETENDS to be about the suffering masses and provides endless litanies of injustices as a way to gain power, as the socialist vanguard sells itself as egalitarian humanitarians who will smite all oppressors and usher in a golden age of Justice. But from Robespierre to Lenin to Mao to Castro etc etc, there's always the same result: an ideological police state that calls servitude liberation and obedience freedom.
Maybe it was Mencken who said it best: “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.”
Also, people need to stop suggesting or imagining that any Dems/liberals are going to abandon Trans or migrants or Palestinians or criminals—Progressivism is sacred dogma, all these groups are sacred victims, they exist in a realm separate and above electoral politics. What we think of American liberalism has been swallowed and supplanted by Social Justice ideology, which is a dogmatic and intolerant political religion founded on doctrinal purity and the suppression of dissent. The liberal world that older people grew up with in the 20th century is dead and gone. The Dems might fudge, veil, deceive etc, but they are not going to abandon their tribe's sacred beliefs. Their backers, voters, friends and families etc would never allow it.
I belly laugh at the salve that MAGA and the “new” right is repeatedly forced to apply to its guilty conscience. Y’all understand that you’re in charge, still. You realize that you control the entire federal government, again. You’ve, somehow, nominated ole Don three consecutive times. He’s been your pied piper for over a decade and counting, Yet, we never hear a defense of the aging, angry, incoherent, imbecile that leads your cult. Rather, it’s just a lotta whining, grievance, and blame. Diversions. Whataboutism. And salutes, always salutes to the dear leader. All coupled with a wish that we could somehow return to the halcyon days of your youth. It’s delicious to watch.
I understand your frantic attempts to blame the minority party. But dude, the record setting deficits are yours, MAGA’s Middle East war is yours, the Epstein coverup is yours, the taco tariffs are yours, RFK’s measles outbreaks are yours, Don’s bizarre, incoherent ramblings are yours, Don’s massive corruption is yours, the roving death squads are yours, the shredding of the rule of law is yours, the economy is yours, our humiliation on the world stage is yours, inflation is yours, Don’s record setting disapproval ratings are yours. Suck it up buttercup…
Time for Pete (the drunkard, abusive, Fox weekend talk show co-host posing as SecDef) and all the manly men to man up and take responsibility for the government y’all are running. Perhaps you should take Pete’s T test? The whining has become tedious. Boorish. Don is your intellectual lodestar. Your moral compass. The man you hope your sons ape.
Hey Jeff! I admit to Don derangement, I think JD and Little Marco were spot on in their initial warnings. You seem to believe their post-capitulation views? I sense a severe case of Trump Denial Syndrome in y’all. Perhaps you should read the public warnings of his first term cabinet, they’re far harsher than me. Meanwhile, I’ll keep plugging away, conservatives will be back, someday.
Aha, very clever, I was cornfused when you indicated that you're on the prowl for ideological police states, leaders who are unemployable in normal circumstances, despotic governments of pretended scholars, suppression of dissent, doctrinal purity, and the dogmatic and intolerant political religion found today on the right, er, left. All interesting views for a Chase Oliver voter. In any event, enjoy the war:)
It’s rather nice to have a president that fulfills his promises we elected him for. But as usual, folks from the left only talk about MAGA like they got Trump elected, but it was not them. But it is entertaining to watch folks like you beat your head against a brick wall while ignoring those you need to vote for side to win. Losers with a loser’s lament based on an outdated worldview. Keep it up. The best thing the Republicans have going for them are the archaic left.
You're half right Dan. I am indeed beating my head against a brick wall. But, I'm a lifelong conservative. I no longer have a home since there isn't a party espousing conservative views. I still believe in now discredited notions like rule of law, fiscal sanity, character counting, personal freedom, free speech, global leadership, suspicion of the concentration of power in the federal government, and free markets. Now, they are "archaic" notions as you suggest. The "new" right won. And they won fair and square by repudiating the things I still believe in. The joke's on me.
History shows that the rise of demagogues is inevitable, hence the structure the founders chose for our government. But even though Don was inevitable, the capitulation of elites was not. I agree with the renditions of Don that my former party's leaders once uttered-witness the original public comments of JD, Little Marco, Mitch McConnell, and all the rest. Prior to their submission they told the truth.
In any event, enjoy what you claim to have voted for: the measles outbreaks, record deficits, mind boggling corruption, roving death squads, the Epstein coverup, the blatant racism, inflation, and MAGA's Middle East war. I'll keep wandering the wilderness. We'll be back, someday:)
Another one thought partisan. Worthless for knowledge or an adult conversation. Peddle your intelligent stupidity some where else. You have nothing to offer to those who decide elections.
I have no clue what you mean, but ok. I'm gonna keep on believin what I've always believed, not rely on an aging, incoherent, corrupt politician for marching orders. Call me crazy:)
Put another way, I'll continue believing JD's first analysis of Don, not his second. Which do you believe?
Dan it's fine if you support record deficits, the Epstein coverup, the billions in crypto corruption, and of course, MAGA's Middle East war. Us conservatives will simply choose a different path.
Do you think JD was lying in his first analysis of Don, or the second? They are statements on the record, and both can't be true. I think he told the truth the first time. You?
Should read House of Government. The Bolsheviks were a small fanatic club who quickly built an elite world for themselves while killing dissidents and really anyone who was a threat to their power. After that was accomplished, Stalin turned his malevolent talent towards the destruction of his erstwhile colleagues. The saddest and most staggering part of the tale is that the old Bolsheviks had no psychological ability to see this as a personal betrayal, much less a betrayal of their values. They believed themselves guilty because the ultimate socialist told them so. The workers were merely fodder for the glory of the State.
Mamdani recently stated that someone making $250,000 a year could be considered “working class” if they aren’t able to “afford the basic dignities of life.” I realize the cost of living is much higher in NYC, but $250,000 is still above the median income in Manhattan. And it is a king’s ransom in many places in America. This sort of talk will absolutely not work politically in most of America as it will sound wildly out of touch and only something that an entitled Brahmin would take seriously.
I am glad that I don’t live in NYC or anywhere like it! All these DSA types are phonies who mix childishly unrealistic economic ideas with Islamism and Third-Worldism. The whole thing is too incoherent to win on a national level, but it will likely do damage in places like NYC.
The way they talk to their existing and future base on their website is wildly childish. It’s as if they think young adults want to be coddled and can’t handle responsibility. I think they are preying on young people’s anxieties about their careers and managing money. I was poor and battled some serious FUD as well in my early 20’s.. but I was able to grow up and it worked out fine. The problem is they position capitalism as the omnipresent boogeyman that’s going to rip your life apart and make you miserable. This stuff is appealing to the “failure to launch” generation while telling them they are screwed by their own country and that if Big Papa government was socialist (but not like that over there!) then the world would be well. I get the healthcare paint point.. but wow, they are twisted and so two-faced.
Yes, it’s not unusual, or even really a problem to be poor in your 20s as you are just starting out life. But in a capitalist economy, you should have plenty of opportunities to move up and build wealth. In fact, it’s never been easier to purchase equities, including safe mutual funds and ETFs that build wealth over time. With all this said, I do sympathize with those in their 20s about housing costs. Starter homes are way too expensive. Still, the solution is a market-based one; build more housing! The DSA’s “solutions” are just utopian nonsense that won’t help matters.
Agreed! Unfortunately it’s not just utopian, they are pretty adamant about pinning a very negative and bitter narrative onto America. I mean essentially they don’t want the country to exist any more. I think it’s by design, whoever is behind the current incarnation of the DSA. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bill Ayers himself was the author of their platform.
In Portland, OR where we have many DSA or friends of DSA in our local government, our “wealth taxes” start at $125k and have not been indexed to inflation in 7 years. But most of our socialists make much more than that and call themselves working class.
Mamdani is far more savvy and effective than he would seem at first glance. But he’s a unicorn riding a black swan. Mamdani doesn’t extrapolate to the rest of DSA.
Oh, he is very media savvy! But I agree that he is a unicorn riding a black swan. And I am all in favor of local government and local control! So let NYC have him and deal with the consequences.
Don't write off the DSA as limousine socialists. Communist leaders have always been such. Vladimir Lenin came from nobility. Trotsky was a wealthy farmer. Nearly all the Bolshevik leadership were the early 20th century equivalent of limousine socialists highly educated and from wealthy (merchant class or above) families.
You use this to write off the DSA but it is instead their most dangerous attribute. These are people who know the language, mechanisms, and power structures of the American elite. They may be small in number, but they punch FAR above their weight class politically. When they say "by any means necessary" we must take them seriously and literally and treat them accordingly.
Revolutions are almost always led by frustrated, elite-aspirant, students who don't think received what their education and heredity entitles them to. (Picture the MA in Art History who’s working as a barista.) It may only be 120K members, but 120K ideologically motivated, angry, professional class, elite-aspirants have the very real capability of destroying America. Smaller numbers have overturned governments in many other nations.
To point out the obvious, the USA isn’t Tsarist Russia and they aren’t in the middle of losing WWI.
Both the DSA left and the alt-right are full of disappointed, angry, rich kids who want to burn it all down. What they don’t have is the mass social unrest to power their movements.
If (when) the US bond market gets Liz Trussed... if (when) China invades Taiwan and we can do nothing about it... a significant domestic threat or further polarization that veers into a N. Ireland Troubles-like situation... a 2008 recession mirror...
There are lots of things that can cause a crisis, especially in a society as fat, dumb, and wealthy as we are. And a revolutionary vanguard this well connected can easily create the very crisis they need.
Argentina was a prosperous, wealthy, democracy (although a young one) until Peron. It's hardly the only example.
Social unrest could lead the USA to the hard right, never to the hard left. A non-ideological populist strongman is also likely, and probably the most likely.
Juan Peron was a populist, not a Marxist. The Communists and Socialists in Argentina opposed him. His original rise to power started as being part of a right wing coup. He changed ideology whenever it suited him.
Also, Peron came to power in after nearly two decades of political instability, including multiple coups.
I'll be honest, Jim, I think Lockean democracy has run its course. I'm with Patrick Deneen in the "somewhat reluctant post-liberal" camp. So I would not necessarily oppose a Franco or Bukele type figure were he to arise. (Trump is not that figure as he lacks the one thing necessary, competence. Specifically economic competence.)
Since I think American democracy is on life support already, I see my choices as a hard-Left theocracy (maybe not USSR but akin to China or Cuba or Venezuela) or a, as you put it, "non-ideological strongman" akin to Franco. The Left's permanent fear of a hard-Right dictatorship is a fever dream; there is no path to such a creature for America so I don't worry about it.
You want a dictator and yet you call yourself an American.
Not even the DSA hates America as much as you do.
The right's permanent fear of a hard-left dictatorship is even more of a fever dream. Hard leftism is not and has never been popular in America. There is no path to a hard left dictatorship in the USA.
Around the world, Communism died decades ago. Even China and Vietnam are capitalist societies that are communist in name only.
I don't "want" it. I still "want" a broadly liberal society built on Judeo-Christian moral norms (which was essentially what we had for 150+ years.) However, that shared moral order is gone (due in part -- but not mostly -- to the very immigration you so favor) and without it, there is no basis for liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is really good at questions of means but terrible at ends.
As a libertarian, I realize this is hard for you to see, since you likely equate "liberal democracy" to a philosophical hybrid of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill in which everyone gets to do whatever he wants until someone else's nose intervenes. But that's not actually democracy at all; it's liberal authoritarianism. Which is exactly what Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville both (from 2 different directions) predicted would happen to Locke's system. The rise of that system is what Deneen has chronicled so well in How Liberalism Failed.
So no, I don't "want" it at all. But since authoritarianism is coming, I choose to steer it toward the non-ideological right-wing version (and pray I end up with a Franco instead of a Mussolini) as opposed to the theocratic-Left-wing version which tends to produce a Lenin or a Mao. Lacking the universalist impulse of the Left, the right-wing version tends to be more practical, allowing more space for people to "live their lives the way they choose" (a sentiment I hope you can relate to) than its left-wing, utopian counterpart.
Yes, it's an excellent point. The Bolshevik takeover is not necessarily typical. It would be useful to examine a much broader set of case studies to understand how socialist takeovers happen. This book might be a good starting point: https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never-dies/
Something like 70% of Democrats already say they would be willing to vote for a DSA candidate. Communists are voted in, but have to be expelled by force. Always. The only thing standing between us and that reality is what is left of a pathetic, moribund Republican Party and a Trump coalition that no longer has a reason to come to the polls, both of whom hate each other.
The Bolsheviks took power in some pretty specific circumstances. WW1 was breaking the back of Russia's economy--far beyond the level of economic pain that modern Americans could even imagine. There were a number of competing leftist parties in Russia at the time, which disliked the Bolsheviks due to Lenin's authoritarianism. In the chaos of WW1, the Bolsheviks managed to outmaneuver the other leftist parties in the Russian worker's councils ("soviets") and seize power. Then they had to fight a civil war to maintain it.
From my perspective, the lesson of the Bolshevik takeover is that it's important to avoid a crisis which could allow such wacko radicals to seize power. I'm thinking scenarios like: a punishing war with China, AI-induced mass casualty event/mass job loss, US sovereign default. Cooler heads should carefully steer clear of such disasters to avoid giving the DSA an opening.
This isn't Russia, and they don't need those circumstances. All they need is a majority, and pretending like they aren't a geoqing, direct threat is likely to cede it to them.
Wish more people understood that the Bolesheviks were only one socialist faction and not the biggest or most popular one, just the most ruthless. And that they completely rejected the bottom up Soviet model of worker control. I actually have a bit of sympathy for the “real socialism has never been tried” argument. It would look a lot more like a worker-owned business where decisions about the are made with the workers as genuine stakeholders and participants. The problem with this model is that it can only be done in smallish groups if at all. Humans are very bad at arriving at decisions collectively, and the reason is common sense: there are too many competing interests. And then there are always those who just want to go along and get along, and the inevitable selfish. I reserve judgment whether true socialism on some scale can be accomplished, but it’s telling that it’s so seldom seen in the wild. Central control is the opposite of what socialism would be if it could be, but if you endorse any of today’s flavors of socialism, that’s what you’re going to get: a new Stalin. Someone tasked and trusted with making decisions for the whole of “the people.” Just like a king.
You're correct about scale. The Brudenhoff are a Christian sect that practices communal living (essentially Christian communism). After decades of experience, they cap their group size at 150; get larger than that and the group divides into 2 groups.
Also, the word "boleshevik" actually means "majority". The opposite is "menshevik". However, Lenin claimed the name by winning some minor vote in the Democratic Labor Party (which Lenin would morph into the Communist Party). The mensheviks actually ran Dem-Labor until at least the middle of WWI.
Ebenezer's confidence in WWI's effect on the rise of confidence is accurate but misplaced. The DSA in the Democratic Party is where the Bolsheviks were in Russian Dem-Labor movement in about 1910: a minority, of loud, angry, professionally frustrated college grads about to take over as the older gen dies off.
Do people actually think these DSA candidates are anywhere near Marxism?
The satire legit writes itself.
Meanwhile the centrist candidates are just taking corpo PAC money, passing crap like H1-B, basically removing our ability to vote for them no matter how much I don't like DemSocs
We should be discussing the DSA's Marxist tendencies a lot more, in fact.
BTW, it's ironic that you bring up H-1B given that the DSA endorses open borders. With open borders, we could go from perhaps new 100K H-1B visas per year, to ten million people flooding in from India alone every single year. Factor of 100 difference.
Most DemSoc candidates tend to have negative views of H1-B; "open borders" is a made up policy hallucinated to dunk on opponents.
To this day, I have not seen a single Marxist on the ballot, but if it was between them and a lobbyist riddled candidate with an OpenSecrets page longer than an Excel sheet...
>The Open Borders resolution calls for the “uninhibited transnational free movement of people, the demilitarization of the US-Mexico border, the abolition of ICE and CPB without replacement, decriminalization of immigration, full amnesty for all asylum seekers, and a pathway to citizenship for all non-citizen residents.”
An article on the DSA website states:
"We in the U.S. socialist movements have called for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and for open borders. While this is a minority position in our country, it is the one position that is not only morally just,but also in the best interests of the vast majority of people in the U.S.. And we believe that there is growing support for it."
I always thought a Bernie vs Trump race would have been wonderful: 2 polar opposite ideas about the country. Alas, the Democratic Party thought Bernie was too extreme so they booted him in the primaries.
10 years later, the Democratic party would likely boot him because he's not extreme enough.
Only a WEIRD would say immigration is primarily an economic act. Everyone else in the world recognizes it as a political or cultural one.
However, let's say you're right. It's "self-limiting"? Well, sure, if the wages of your own country are dragged down so much that it's no longer worth emigrating, it will stop. While an economist might declare such an outcome Pareto-optimal and be happy with it, most natives of any country would not.
I literally described in my second paragraph how your own policies will destroy the very society you claim to love.
You say below that you're essentially a libertarian. I'm not at all surprised, as I've chased round this same bush with other libertarians before.
I spent 10 years in that camp (an econ degree will do that do you.) so I'll leave you with the one quote that finally got me free of it, Pope John Paul II: "Man was not made for the market. The market was made for man."
If you're literally advocating open borders, or defending DSA advocacy of such, why would you expect WEIRD norms to persist after half a billion beggars etc. from India arrive and start doing the exact same scams and corruption which characterize Indian society?
Our WEIRD society has persisted just fine without open borders for decades and decades. How, exactly, will arguing against open borders "drag our wonderfully WEIRD society back to something less developed, poorer, and more primitive"? Why would maintaining our current status quo drag us back that way?
Why are we seeing burgeoning anti-immigrant movements in virtually every society which allows mass immigration, including the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc.?
When the theory doesn't match the reality, perhaps revisit your theory.
Self limiting until an economic race to the bottom is complete, eventually defeating the establishment as disenfranchised voters decide populism sounds good.
A balanced immigration policy is necessary, not corps using it to drive down wages and rig the market when there is no real shortage. There's a difference between filling real gaps and rigging the market.
"Free market" only seems to count when it goes their way it seems. Otherwise it turns into corporate socialism or rigged policies
A panel of economists was asked if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement:
"Unless they were compensated by others, many low-skilled American workers would be substantially worse off if a larger number of low-skilled foreign workers were legally allowed to enter the US each year."
The data on H1-B says otherwise, as do correlated layoffs.
It's basic supply and demand. Artificially inflate supply with imported labor and a visa tied to your corporation, demand goes down and therefore wage suppression forms up.
The invisible hand via rigged immigration policy comes in for a reacharound, after they gifted the US's institutions.
I was so glad to see your byline. Oh, how your keen insight has been missed. Thank you, Ruy, for this. You help clarify what the DSA is doing and how it isn't a winning strategy among mainstream Democrats. Please contribute again soon.
Almost missed this - I hope Ruy will establish his own, independent, brand.
Re the post itself, I’d like to see Ruy respond, in detail, to Edsall’s third, flawed, suggestion. Also, I think the “professionals” that Ruy keeps referring to, are a lot different from what that term would imply, 10 or 15 years ago.
Respectfully, neither you or Edsall mentions the obsession with Israel, the rancid antisemitism and constant blood libel that animate the DSA and has been infecting the Democratic Party, and unfortunately a lot of Democrats.
That’s actually their best quality, because thanks to them, the Democrats have handed the Jewish vote—one of their strongest constituencies—over to the GOP on a silver platter.
So far, no DSA candidate is impressive, either intellectually or from a character perspective. In fact many are very ignorant of just basic economics and general knowledge of the world and country. New York City's Chevalier thinks that Sweden and Denmark are socialist countries - they aren't. Milos Kilaot of Colordao was insubordinate to her white glove law firm in NYC when she place a political article in a journal which her law firm asked her to take down, fearing for the firm's reputation. She refused and they fired her. It's astonishing that she blew up her legal career that her parents worked hard to fund because of some righteous stance - oh and she's from Ethopia but she hates the USA - so why is she here any way? So she and her parents can keep grifting off the goodwill of the American people? The DSA is bereft of political talent and people who are worthy to represent the American people. Ne wYork's Mamdani who hails from Uganda also hates the USA although it's given his parents a very good life and him an excellent education. It's baffling why so many DSA types are new immigrants - yet they hate the USA - so it begs the question - why are they here ? It's dark times in the Democrat Party for sure.
DSA Party members are often wealthy nepo babies that, obviously, rarely heard the word "no" as children. They now believe they are entitled to run the world, and they want to do so from the comfort of the US.
For example, in a recent interview, DSA Co chair Gustavo Gordillo recently noted the US exported the notion of capitalism to his birthplace of Peru. It so destabilized the Peruvian utopia, his family was forced to flee. Without a hint of irony, he failed to mention of all the countries on earth, his family fled to the US.
Ditto for Mamdani, who often opines on US intolerance, yet chose to marry in a multi million dollar Ugandan wedding. Uganda not only still criminalizes homosexuality, it openly brags the LGBTQ community is welcomed with execution or a life long prison sentence. Yet the Mamdani family chose Uganda for their wedding venue and the intolerant US as their residence?
Wealthy nepo babies. Um, like Don and his kiddos? Someday, y’all will realize the jokes been on you. After Don has pocketed all the corrupt crypto loot, gaslit the cult, and slipped off to the land of Ron Desanctimonious, it will dawn on you. It’s sooo delicious to watch:) Life is good!
>Gustavo Gordillo recently noted the US exported the notion of capitalism to his birthplace of Peru. It so destabilized the Peruvian utopia, his family was forced to flee.
FWIW, I think Gordillo's account is heavily distorted (unsurprisingly). Peru was destabilized by a Maoist terror group. The US provided a little bit of aid to Peru to defeat the group, but it was mostly done by Peruvian security forces.
Practically all countries have some degree of “socialism,” which involves certain services being provided by government, paid for primarily by taxes. That includes the U.S., with the oldest being public roads, schools, and parks, followed by public hospitals,Social Security, Medicaid, etc., financed by taxes that are quite progressive at least at the federal level.
I support the existing system basically as is, and resent the claims of DSA types that it is grossly unfair. I would support some adjustments to it to better achieve goals like enhancing the earning power of lower skilled people and reducing dependence on fossil fuels, but don’t trust DSA extremists to implement those goals fairly and effectively.
The Edsall recommendations would be a great start, but the problem is exacerbated by non DSA Dems that hold DSA beliefs, while wearing moderation like a Halloween costume.
In Texas, Dem Senate candidate James Talarico was devoted to DSA policy, before it was was cool. More than a 1/2 decade ago, Talarico donated thousands to a coalition seeking to end the Austin Police Dept. With Talarico's help, the coalition succeeded in a 1/3 reduction in Austin police funding, even as crime soared.
That should not be surprising. Talarico has repeatedly noted prisons are "violence" that must go extinct. To that end, Talarico voted against Texas mandatory minimum sentences for convicted people traffickers, even as Texas was the epicenter of migrant child trafficking. Talarico also refused to support limiting bail for accused repeat violent felons.
Nor are Talarico's Socialist leanings, limited to police and incarceration. Talarico's response to Dobbs was to beg Biden to federally install and operate abortion facilities within Texas Federal Courthouses. Little is more antidemocratic, than illegal governance by federal fiat.
Likewise, Talarico refused to support Texas law banning minor child transition surgery and fertility ending medication. Talarico has also sought to abolish ICE, noting God commands aid for our poverty stricken brothers and sisters, regardless of Immigration status. Positions Talarico now refutes, laughingly, claiming to be a moderate.
Dem candidates that speak Spanberger while campaigning, only to govern as Mamdani, are hardly rare. Minn Governor Tim Walz, while not on the ballot, recently pardoned a convicted child rapist, seeking to avoid his deportation. The predator blamed the child for enticing him, when he confessed to repeatedly raping the girl from age 10-12, while instructing her on his oral gratification. As the rapist was finally set to be deported 2 decades later, not a single Dem supported his removal.
Unless a large coalition of Dems demand a return to sanity, Dems can look forward to more Bill Mahers. The famous lifelong Hollywood Liberal who donated 7 figures to Obama not that long ago, has noted he will leave the Party, if the march to Socialism does not cease.
And look who the MAGA Republicans nominated to replace the reliably conservative and scandal free John Cornyn, whose chances of defeating any Democrat would have been considerably better than Paxton’s.
Bush Republicans have no business in high office…I voted for Paxton over George P Bush and would do it every time again! Get rid of Collins and Cornyn and move forward! No going back to globalists like Bush that sacrificed American soldiers and jobs to make China great again!
It would have been helpful if you had defined the term “Brahmin Left”. I had to search the internet, and only found two articles that used the phrase. One was your article from 2023, and the other was an article by the guy who coined the term. If you want a working class reader, don’t use esoteric words unless you define them first for less “educated” readers.
But your points were imported and I encourage you to keep writing about this, just remember who your readers are.
Yeah I think the term "intelligentsia" is more accurate than "professional". They aren't necessarily gainfully employed, but they are sure they know how to run society and deserve to control the levers of power. You'd struggle to find one who has experience running even a small business.
I think this misses some facts that have changed, and the growing possibility that Mamdani and most other elected officials will bolt if the CCPers officially take over at the next convention. Did you see Bhaskar’s interview with Ross Douthat? Much of it was downright stunning, he seems to be laying the groundwork for such a move after the midterm.
Also, inasmuch as you’re right about the demographic impact on the Democratic Party, it’s not as if the Republican base and bench won’t also be a smoking pile of rubble with Trump gone.
I think you're writing off both parties prematurely. Mandami and his ilk are in the same position in the Democratic Party as Trump and MAGA were in the GOP in 2015. He's not going to bolt; he's going to take over.
Picture a A Rubio-Vance ticket (or visa versa) against a Newsom-Cortez ticket in 2028. I think that's a really viable possibility. And I honestly don't know who wins.
Leaving aside that Vance is the only one of those four people I expect to see on a general election ticket, I meant a bolt from DSA in service to taking over the Democratic Party.
Vance is awful…Rubio should pick another Reagan conservative and ditch the Nixon apologists like Vance AND along with Bush apologists like Pence. I was involved in the campaigns of Tim Scott and Rubio in 2010 and neither were Tea Party Republicans as they got their start in the GOP in the 1990s when Reagan was still relevant. I attended quite a few campaign rallies and I don’t recall ever hearing them discuss the Iraq War either although I could be wrong??
DSA is not "the largest socialist membership organization in American history". At its peak, there were 120,000 Wobblies, in a country a fraction the size. (And they did a lot more good than the DSA.)
In terms of "taking care of our own"--the DSA supports open borders. The Indian government could offer beggars on the streets of Delhi a free one-way ticket to the US. Imagine 10 million impoverished Indians coming in every year. Medical and welfare systems would quickly be overwhelmed. We're already $32T in debt.
This dispute is the same one that pops up anytime a new Leftist vanguard arrives and attempts to gain power. It was best described by Mikhail Bakunin in his "Statism and Anarchy", which was a direct response to Marx and his movement:
"....the pseudo-popular state will be nothing but the highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small aristocracy of real or pretended scholars. The people are not learned, so they will be liberated in entirety from the cares of government and included in entirety in the governed herd. A fine liberation! Thus, for the masses to be liberated they must first be enslaved."
Bakunin suggested that the Marxists' real aim was a "pedantocracy": a regime in which theoreticians—their own type of theoreticians—would be in charge, in which a political intelligentsia, unemployable in normal circumstances, took the positions of power.
All of socialism PRETENDS to be about the suffering masses and provides endless litanies of injustices as a way to gain power, as the socialist vanguard sells itself as egalitarian humanitarians who will smite all oppressors and usher in a golden age of Justice. But from Robespierre to Lenin to Mao to Castro etc etc, there's always the same result: an ideological police state that calls servitude liberation and obedience freedom.
Maybe it was Mencken who said it best: “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.”
Also, people need to stop suggesting or imagining that any Dems/liberals are going to abandon Trans or migrants or Palestinians or criminals—Progressivism is sacred dogma, all these groups are sacred victims, they exist in a realm separate and above electoral politics. What we think of American liberalism has been swallowed and supplanted by Social Justice ideology, which is a dogmatic and intolerant political religion founded on doctrinal purity and the suppression of dissent. The liberal world that older people grew up with in the 20th century is dead and gone. The Dems might fudge, veil, deceive etc, but they are not going to abandon their tribe's sacred beliefs. Their backers, voters, friends and families etc would never allow it.
I belly laugh at the salve that MAGA and the “new” right is repeatedly forced to apply to its guilty conscience. Y’all understand that you’re in charge, still. You realize that you control the entire federal government, again. You’ve, somehow, nominated ole Don three consecutive times. He’s been your pied piper for over a decade and counting, Yet, we never hear a defense of the aging, angry, incoherent, imbecile that leads your cult. Rather, it’s just a lotta whining, grievance, and blame. Diversions. Whataboutism. And salutes, always salutes to the dear leader. All coupled with a wish that we could somehow return to the halcyon days of your youth. It’s delicious to watch.
I understand your frantic attempts to blame the minority party. But dude, the record setting deficits are yours, MAGA’s Middle East war is yours, the Epstein coverup is yours, the taco tariffs are yours, RFK’s measles outbreaks are yours, Don’s bizarre, incoherent ramblings are yours, Don’s massive corruption is yours, the roving death squads are yours, the shredding of the rule of law is yours, the economy is yours, our humiliation on the world stage is yours, inflation is yours, Don’s record setting disapproval ratings are yours. Suck it up buttercup…
Time for Pete (the drunkard, abusive, Fox weekend talk show co-host posing as SecDef) and all the manly men to man up and take responsibility for the government y’all are running. Perhaps you should take Pete’s T test? The whining has become tedious. Boorish. Don is your intellectual lodestar. Your moral compass. The man you hope your sons ape.
Defend him. And enjoy your war.
Was this for me!?
I didn't mention Trump at all, I never voted for him and have no clue what you're talking about. My comment was about Bakunin and Marx!
Not everything is about Trump or Dems v Reps or American politics! There's a whole world out there.
Clever, he has TDS. He can't help himself.
Hey Jeff! I admit to Don derangement, I think JD and Little Marco were spot on in their initial warnings. You seem to believe their post-capitulation views? I sense a severe case of Trump Denial Syndrome in y’all. Perhaps you should read the public warnings of his first term cabinet, they’re far harsher than me. Meanwhile, I’ll keep plugging away, conservatives will be back, someday.
LOL, wtf are you on about?
Aha, very clever, I was cornfused when you indicated that you're on the prowl for ideological police states, leaders who are unemployable in normal circumstances, despotic governments of pretended scholars, suppression of dissent, doctrinal purity, and the dogmatic and intolerant political religion found today on the right, er, left. All interesting views for a Chase Oliver voter. In any event, enjoy the war:)
It’s rather nice to have a president that fulfills his promises we elected him for. But as usual, folks from the left only talk about MAGA like they got Trump elected, but it was not them. But it is entertaining to watch folks like you beat your head against a brick wall while ignoring those you need to vote for side to win. Losers with a loser’s lament based on an outdated worldview. Keep it up. The best thing the Republicans have going for them are the archaic left.
You're half right Dan. I am indeed beating my head against a brick wall. But, I'm a lifelong conservative. I no longer have a home since there isn't a party espousing conservative views. I still believe in now discredited notions like rule of law, fiscal sanity, character counting, personal freedom, free speech, global leadership, suspicion of the concentration of power in the federal government, and free markets. Now, they are "archaic" notions as you suggest. The "new" right won. And they won fair and square by repudiating the things I still believe in. The joke's on me.
History shows that the rise of demagogues is inevitable, hence the structure the founders chose for our government. But even though Don was inevitable, the capitulation of elites was not. I agree with the renditions of Don that my former party's leaders once uttered-witness the original public comments of JD, Little Marco, Mitch McConnell, and all the rest. Prior to their submission they told the truth.
In any event, enjoy what you claim to have voted for: the measles outbreaks, record deficits, mind boggling corruption, roving death squads, the Epstein coverup, the blatant racism, inflation, and MAGA's Middle East war. I'll keep wandering the wilderness. We'll be back, someday:)
Another one thought partisan. Worthless for knowledge or an adult conversation. Peddle your intelligent stupidity some where else. You have nothing to offer to those who decide elections.
You sound exactly like Democrats during the Reagan administration. Exactly.
I have no clue what you mean, but ok. I'm gonna keep on believin what I've always believed, not rely on an aging, incoherent, corrupt politician for marching orders. Call me crazy:)
Put another way, I'll continue believing JD's first analysis of Don, not his second. Which do you believe?
Even though I was staunch Regan supporter and Republican. You’re a waste of time. Nothing valid to say. Good bye
Dan it's fine if you support record deficits, the Epstein coverup, the billions in crypto corruption, and of course, MAGA's Middle East war. Us conservatives will simply choose a different path.
Do you think JD was lying in his first analysis of Don, or the second? They are statements on the record, and both can't be true. I think he told the truth the first time. You?
Anyone interested in the granularity of this view - how it presents in time and space -
Should read House of Government. The Bolsheviks were a small fanatic club who quickly built an elite world for themselves while killing dissidents and really anyone who was a threat to their power. After that was accomplished, Stalin turned his malevolent talent towards the destruction of his erstwhile colleagues. The saddest and most staggering part of the tale is that the old Bolsheviks had no psychological ability to see this as a personal betrayal, much less a betrayal of their values. They believed themselves guilty because the ultimate socialist told them so. The workers were merely fodder for the glory of the State.
Mamdani recently stated that someone making $250,000 a year could be considered “working class” if they aren’t able to “afford the basic dignities of life.” I realize the cost of living is much higher in NYC, but $250,000 is still above the median income in Manhattan. And it is a king’s ransom in many places in America. This sort of talk will absolutely not work politically in most of America as it will sound wildly out of touch and only something that an entitled Brahmin would take seriously.
Mamdani needed to include his Columbia University-tenured father and successful film producer mother in the mix.
He's a phony, but anyway serious in his Islamist leanings.
Man, do I hate him.
I am glad that I don’t live in NYC or anywhere like it! All these DSA types are phonies who mix childishly unrealistic economic ideas with Islamism and Third-Worldism. The whole thing is too incoherent to win on a national level, but it will likely do damage in places like NYC.
The way they talk to their existing and future base on their website is wildly childish. It’s as if they think young adults want to be coddled and can’t handle responsibility. I think they are preying on young people’s anxieties about their careers and managing money. I was poor and battled some serious FUD as well in my early 20’s.. but I was able to grow up and it worked out fine. The problem is they position capitalism as the omnipresent boogeyman that’s going to rip your life apart and make you miserable. This stuff is appealing to the “failure to launch” generation while telling them they are screwed by their own country and that if Big Papa government was socialist (but not like that over there!) then the world would be well. I get the healthcare paint point.. but wow, they are twisted and so two-faced.
Yes, it’s not unusual, or even really a problem to be poor in your 20s as you are just starting out life. But in a capitalist economy, you should have plenty of opportunities to move up and build wealth. In fact, it’s never been easier to purchase equities, including safe mutual funds and ETFs that build wealth over time. With all this said, I do sympathize with those in their 20s about housing costs. Starter homes are way too expensive. Still, the solution is a market-based one; build more housing! The DSA’s “solutions” are just utopian nonsense that won’t help matters.
Agreed! Unfortunately it’s not just utopian, they are pretty adamant about pinning a very negative and bitter narrative onto America. I mean essentially they don’t want the country to exist any more. I think it’s by design, whoever is behind the current incarnation of the DSA. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bill Ayers himself was the author of their platform.
In Portland, OR where we have many DSA or friends of DSA in our local government, our “wealth taxes” start at $125k and have not been indexed to inflation in 7 years. But most of our socialists make much more than that and call themselves working class.
Wow!
This is a good thing.
Mamdani is far more savvy and effective than he would seem at first glance. But he’s a unicorn riding a black swan. Mamdani doesn’t extrapolate to the rest of DSA.
Oh, he is very media savvy! But I agree that he is a unicorn riding a black swan. And I am all in favor of local government and local control! So let NYC have him and deal with the consequences.
Mamdani is picking a lot of low hanging fruit. That's a big part of his popularity and what other politicians should be paying attention to.
He's also far more flexible in practice than his rhetoric would have you believe.
"Don't get too invested in the politics of places you don't live" is good advice for everyone.
Don't write off the DSA as limousine socialists. Communist leaders have always been such. Vladimir Lenin came from nobility. Trotsky was a wealthy farmer. Nearly all the Bolshevik leadership were the early 20th century equivalent of limousine socialists highly educated and from wealthy (merchant class or above) families.
You use this to write off the DSA but it is instead their most dangerous attribute. These are people who know the language, mechanisms, and power structures of the American elite. They may be small in number, but they punch FAR above their weight class politically. When they say "by any means necessary" we must take them seriously and literally and treat them accordingly.
Revolutions are almost always led by frustrated, elite-aspirant, students who don't think received what their education and heredity entitles them to. (Picture the MA in Art History who’s working as a barista.) It may only be 120K members, but 120K ideologically motivated, angry, professional class, elite-aspirants have the very real capability of destroying America. Smaller numbers have overturned governments in many other nations.
To point out the obvious, the USA isn’t Tsarist Russia and they aren’t in the middle of losing WWI.
Both the DSA left and the alt-right are full of disappointed, angry, rich kids who want to burn it all down. What they don’t have is the mass social unrest to power their movements.
Until they do. That's what worries me.
If (when) the US bond market gets Liz Trussed... if (when) China invades Taiwan and we can do nothing about it... a significant domestic threat or further polarization that veers into a N. Ireland Troubles-like situation... a 2008 recession mirror...
There are lots of things that can cause a crisis, especially in a society as fat, dumb, and wealthy as we are. And a revolutionary vanguard this well connected can easily create the very crisis they need.
Argentina was a prosperous, wealthy, democracy (although a young one) until Peron. It's hardly the only example.
Social unrest could lead the USA to the hard right, never to the hard left. A non-ideological populist strongman is also likely, and probably the most likely.
Juan Peron was a populist, not a Marxist. The Communists and Socialists in Argentina opposed him. His original rise to power started as being part of a right wing coup. He changed ideology whenever it suited him.
Also, Peron came to power in after nearly two decades of political instability, including multiple coups.
I'll be honest, Jim, I think Lockean democracy has run its course. I'm with Patrick Deneen in the "somewhat reluctant post-liberal" camp. So I would not necessarily oppose a Franco or Bukele type figure were he to arise. (Trump is not that figure as he lacks the one thing necessary, competence. Specifically economic competence.)
Since I think American democracy is on life support already, I see my choices as a hard-Left theocracy (maybe not USSR but akin to China or Cuba or Venezuela) or a, as you put it, "non-ideological strongman" akin to Franco. The Left's permanent fear of a hard-Right dictatorship is a fever dream; there is no path to such a creature for America so I don't worry about it.
You want a dictator and yet you call yourself an American.
Not even the DSA hates America as much as you do.
The right's permanent fear of a hard-left dictatorship is even more of a fever dream. Hard leftism is not and has never been popular in America. There is no path to a hard left dictatorship in the USA.
Around the world, Communism died decades ago. Even China and Vietnam are capitalist societies that are communist in name only.
I don't "want" it. I still "want" a broadly liberal society built on Judeo-Christian moral norms (which was essentially what we had for 150+ years.) However, that shared moral order is gone (due in part -- but not mostly -- to the very immigration you so favor) and without it, there is no basis for liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is really good at questions of means but terrible at ends.
As a libertarian, I realize this is hard for you to see, since you likely equate "liberal democracy" to a philosophical hybrid of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill in which everyone gets to do whatever he wants until someone else's nose intervenes. But that's not actually democracy at all; it's liberal authoritarianism. Which is exactly what Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville both (from 2 different directions) predicted would happen to Locke's system. The rise of that system is what Deneen has chronicled so well in How Liberalism Failed.
So no, I don't "want" it at all. But since authoritarianism is coming, I choose to steer it toward the non-ideological right-wing version (and pray I end up with a Franco instead of a Mussolini) as opposed to the theocratic-Left-wing version which tends to produce a Lenin or a Mao. Lacking the universalist impulse of the Left, the right-wing version tends to be more practical, allowing more space for people to "live their lives the way they choose" (a sentiment I hope you can relate to) than its left-wing, utopian counterpart.
Yes, it's an excellent point. The Bolshevik takeover is not necessarily typical. It would be useful to examine a much broader set of case studies to understand how socialist takeovers happen. This book might be a good starting point: https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never-dies/
This argument involves a lot of equivocation around the word “Socialism”.
There is a big difference between “Socialist” democratic parties like British Labour and German SPD and Stalin and Mao.
Something like 70% of Democrats already say they would be willing to vote for a DSA candidate. Communists are voted in, but have to be expelled by force. Always. The only thing standing between us and that reality is what is left of a pathetic, moribund Republican Party and a Trump coalition that no longer has a reason to come to the polls, both of whom hate each other.
They don’t need the people they only need the power
The Bolsheviks took power in some pretty specific circumstances. WW1 was breaking the back of Russia's economy--far beyond the level of economic pain that modern Americans could even imagine. There were a number of competing leftist parties in Russia at the time, which disliked the Bolsheviks due to Lenin's authoritarianism. In the chaos of WW1, the Bolsheviks managed to outmaneuver the other leftist parties in the Russian worker's councils ("soviets") and seize power. Then they had to fight a civil war to maintain it.
From my perspective, the lesson of the Bolshevik takeover is that it's important to avoid a crisis which could allow such wacko radicals to seize power. I'm thinking scenarios like: a punishing war with China, AI-induced mass casualty event/mass job loss, US sovereign default. Cooler heads should carefully steer clear of such disasters to avoid giving the DSA an opening.
This isn't Russia, and they don't need those circumstances. All they need is a majority, and pretending like they aren't a geoqing, direct threat is likely to cede it to them.
Wish more people understood that the Bolesheviks were only one socialist faction and not the biggest or most popular one, just the most ruthless. And that they completely rejected the bottom up Soviet model of worker control. I actually have a bit of sympathy for the “real socialism has never been tried” argument. It would look a lot more like a worker-owned business where decisions about the are made with the workers as genuine stakeholders and participants. The problem with this model is that it can only be done in smallish groups if at all. Humans are very bad at arriving at decisions collectively, and the reason is common sense: there are too many competing interests. And then there are always those who just want to go along and get along, and the inevitable selfish. I reserve judgment whether true socialism on some scale can be accomplished, but it’s telling that it’s so seldom seen in the wild. Central control is the opposite of what socialism would be if it could be, but if you endorse any of today’s flavors of socialism, that’s what you’re going to get: a new Stalin. Someone tasked and trusted with making decisions for the whole of “the people.” Just like a king.
You're correct about scale. The Brudenhoff are a Christian sect that practices communal living (essentially Christian communism). After decades of experience, they cap their group size at 150; get larger than that and the group divides into 2 groups.
Also, the word "boleshevik" actually means "majority". The opposite is "menshevik". However, Lenin claimed the name by winning some minor vote in the Democratic Labor Party (which Lenin would morph into the Communist Party). The mensheviks actually ran Dem-Labor until at least the middle of WWI.
Ebenezer's confidence in WWI's effect on the rise of confidence is accurate but misplaced. The DSA in the Democratic Party is where the Bolsheviks were in Russian Dem-Labor movement in about 1910: a minority, of loud, angry, professionally frustrated college grads about to take over as the older gen dies off.
I am VERY concerned about this.
Do people actually think these DSA candidates are anywhere near Marxism?
The satire legit writes itself.
Meanwhile the centrist candidates are just taking corpo PAC money, passing crap like H1-B, basically removing our ability to vote for them no matter how much I don't like DemSocs
Based on their actual statements, yes, they are dead on quoting Marxist practices and philosophies.
Look at the governing body of the DSA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Political_Committee_(DSA)
A number of powerful caucuses are explicitly Marxist.
See coverage here: https://www.city-journal.org/article/democratic-socialists-of-america-communism
We should be discussing the DSA's Marxist tendencies a lot more, in fact.
BTW, it's ironic that you bring up H-1B given that the DSA endorses open borders. With open borders, we could go from perhaps new 100K H-1B visas per year, to ten million people flooding in from India alone every single year. Factor of 100 difference.
Most DemSoc candidates tend to have negative views of H1-B; "open borders" is a made up policy hallucinated to dunk on opponents.
To this day, I have not seen a single Marxist on the ballot, but if it was between them and a lobbyist riddled candidate with an OpenSecrets page longer than an Excel sheet...
I would probably stay home.
This leftist magazine claims DSA delegates voted "overwhelmingly" for an open borders resolution in 2019
https://proteanmag.com/2019/08/02/breaking-dsa-votes-to-endorse-open-borders-and-a-green-new-deal-program-at-atlanta-convention/
>The Open Borders resolution calls for the “uninhibited transnational free movement of people, the demilitarization of the US-Mexico border, the abolition of ICE and CPB without replacement, decriminalization of immigration, full amnesty for all asylum seekers, and a pathway to citizenship for all non-citizen residents.”
An article on the DSA website states:
"We in the U.S. socialist movements have called for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and for open borders. While this is a minority position in our country, it is the one position that is not only morally just,but also in the best interests of the vast majority of people in the U.S.. And we believe that there is growing support for it."
Source: https://sfarchive.dsausa.org/issues/fall-2019/ten-arguments-for-open-borders-the-abolition-of-ice-and-an-internationalist-labor-movement/
Holy shit I completely missed that, I'd sooner vote for MAGA over this
More under the impression DSA is similar to a guy like Sanders (he isn't associated) they're much further left than I thought.
I always thought a Bernie vs Trump race would have been wonderful: 2 polar opposite ideas about the country. Alas, the Democratic Party thought Bernie was too extreme so they booted him in the primaries.
10 years later, the Democratic party would likely boot him because he's not extreme enough.
Cosplay communists.
Immigration is primarily an economic act and is, therefore, self-limiting.
Immigration, legal and illegal, dropped significantly after the 2008 financial crisis. Nobody is coming here when unemployment is double digits.
With unemployment below 5% and boomers retiring, limiting immigration is self-defeating economic policy.
Only a WEIRD would say immigration is primarily an economic act. Everyone else in the world recognizes it as a political or cultural one.
However, let's say you're right. It's "self-limiting"? Well, sure, if the wages of your own country are dragged down so much that it's no longer worth emigrating, it will stop. While an economist might declare such an outcome Pareto-optimal and be happy with it, most natives of any country would not.
I would rather be Western, Industrialized, Educated, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) than the alternative.
And this is precisely why I oppose you: You want to drag our wonderfully WEIRD society back to something less developed, poorer, and more primitive.
I literally described in my second paragraph how your own policies will destroy the very society you claim to love.
You say below that you're essentially a libertarian. I'm not at all surprised, as I've chased round this same bush with other libertarians before.
I spent 10 years in that camp (an econ degree will do that do you.) so I'll leave you with the one quote that finally got me free of it, Pope John Paul II: "Man was not made for the market. The market was made for man."
If you're literally advocating open borders, or defending DSA advocacy of such, why would you expect WEIRD norms to persist after half a billion beggars etc. from India arrive and start doing the exact same scams and corruption which characterize Indian society?
Our WEIRD society has persisted just fine without open borders for decades and decades. How, exactly, will arguing against open borders "drag our wonderfully WEIRD society back to something less developed, poorer, and more primitive"? Why would maintaining our current status quo drag us back that way?
I suppose you would've voted for Trump on the grounds that his supporters were mere "cosplay Nazis"?
"Immigration is primarily an economic act and is, therefore, self-limiting."
Sure. It will self-limit when wages/quality of life in the US and India have equalized, and there is no gain to immigrating.
Classic lump of labor fallacy. Go learn some economics.
Why are US wages higher than those in India?
Why are we seeing burgeoning anti-immigrant movements in virtually every society which allows mass immigration, including the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc.?
When the theory doesn't match the reality, perhaps revisit your theory.
European data shows that immigrants from many countries contribute negatively to public finances: https://xcancel.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1879634729756135736
Self limiting until an economic race to the bottom is complete, eventually defeating the establishment as disenfranchised voters decide populism sounds good.
A balanced immigration policy is necessary, not corps using it to drive down wages and rig the market when there is no real shortage. There's a difference between filling real gaps and rigging the market.
"Free market" only seems to count when it goes their way it seems. Otherwise it turns into corporate socialism or rigged policies
That’s not how economics works.
A panel of economists was asked if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement:
"Unless they were compensated by others, many low-skilled American workers would be substantially worse off if a larger number of low-skilled foreign workers were legally allowed to enter the US each year."
The most common answer was "Agree". Source: https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/low-skilled-immigrants/
The data on H1-B says otherwise, as do correlated layoffs.
It's basic supply and demand. Artificially inflate supply with imported labor and a visa tied to your corporation, demand goes down and therefore wage suppression forms up.
The invisible hand via rigged immigration policy comes in for a reacharound, after they gifted the US's institutions.
I was so glad to see your byline. Oh, how your keen insight has been missed. Thank you, Ruy, for this. You help clarify what the DSA is doing and how it isn't a winning strategy among mainstream Democrats. Please contribute again soon.
Almost missed this - I hope Ruy will establish his own, independent, brand.
Re the post itself, I’d like to see Ruy respond, in detail, to Edsall’s third, flawed, suggestion. Also, I think the “professionals” that Ruy keeps referring to, are a lot different from what that term would imply, 10 or 15 years ago.
Respectfully, neither you or Edsall mentions the obsession with Israel, the rancid antisemitism and constant blood libel that animate the DSA and has been infecting the Democratic Party, and unfortunately a lot of Democrats.
That’s actually their best quality, because thanks to them, the Democrats have handed the Jewish vote—one of their strongest constituencies—over to the GOP on a silver platter.
It costs nothing to moderate Democrats to get on the anti-Israel bandwagon.
It may be that most American Jews tend to be progressive, but they are 2% of the population.
It’s the devil’s bargain, but Dems are taking it, as of now.
The GOP is in no better shape, although Rs like Rubio and Cruz have spoken against the current Jew hatred forcefully.
So far, no DSA candidate is impressive, either intellectually or from a character perspective. In fact many are very ignorant of just basic economics and general knowledge of the world and country. New York City's Chevalier thinks that Sweden and Denmark are socialist countries - they aren't. Milos Kilaot of Colordao was insubordinate to her white glove law firm in NYC when she place a political article in a journal which her law firm asked her to take down, fearing for the firm's reputation. She refused and they fired her. It's astonishing that she blew up her legal career that her parents worked hard to fund because of some righteous stance - oh and she's from Ethopia but she hates the USA - so why is she here any way? So she and her parents can keep grifting off the goodwill of the American people? The DSA is bereft of political talent and people who are worthy to represent the American people. Ne wYork's Mamdani who hails from Uganda also hates the USA although it's given his parents a very good life and him an excellent education. It's baffling why so many DSA types are new immigrants - yet they hate the USA - so it begs the question - why are they here ? It's dark times in the Democrat Party for sure.
DSA Party members are often wealthy nepo babies that, obviously, rarely heard the word "no" as children. They now believe they are entitled to run the world, and they want to do so from the comfort of the US.
For example, in a recent interview, DSA Co chair Gustavo Gordillo recently noted the US exported the notion of capitalism to his birthplace of Peru. It so destabilized the Peruvian utopia, his family was forced to flee. Without a hint of irony, he failed to mention of all the countries on earth, his family fled to the US.
Ditto for Mamdani, who often opines on US intolerance, yet chose to marry in a multi million dollar Ugandan wedding. Uganda not only still criminalizes homosexuality, it openly brags the LGBTQ community is welcomed with execution or a life long prison sentence. Yet the Mamdani family chose Uganda for their wedding venue and the intolerant US as their residence?
Wealthy nepo babies. Um, like Don and his kiddos? Someday, y’all will realize the jokes been on you. After Don has pocketed all the corrupt crypto loot, gaslit the cult, and slipped off to the land of Ron Desanctimonious, it will dawn on you. It’s sooo delicious to watch:) Life is good!
>Gustavo Gordillo recently noted the US exported the notion of capitalism to his birthplace of Peru. It so destabilized the Peruvian utopia, his family was forced to flee.
FWIW, I think Gordillo's account is heavily distorted (unsurprisingly). Peru was destabilized by a Maoist terror group. The US provided a little bit of aid to Peru to defeat the group, but it was mostly done by Peruvian security forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path
If you ever heard the song Civil War by Guns N Roses, there's a voiceover near the end which goes:
"We practice selective annihilation
Of mayors and government officials
For example, to create a vacuum
Then we fill that vacuum
As popular war advances
Peace is closer"
That voiceover was a quote from a Shining Path guerilla.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAYmGCYhVAo
Practically all countries have some degree of “socialism,” which involves certain services being provided by government, paid for primarily by taxes. That includes the U.S., with the oldest being public roads, schools, and parks, followed by public hospitals,Social Security, Medicaid, etc., financed by taxes that are quite progressive at least at the federal level.
I support the existing system basically as is, and resent the claims of DSA types that it is grossly unfair. I would support some adjustments to it to better achieve goals like enhancing the earning power of lower skilled people and reducing dependence on fossil fuels, but don’t trust DSA extremists to implement those goals fairly and effectively.
The Edsall recommendations would be a great start, but the problem is exacerbated by non DSA Dems that hold DSA beliefs, while wearing moderation like a Halloween costume.
In Texas, Dem Senate candidate James Talarico was devoted to DSA policy, before it was was cool. More than a 1/2 decade ago, Talarico donated thousands to a coalition seeking to end the Austin Police Dept. With Talarico's help, the coalition succeeded in a 1/3 reduction in Austin police funding, even as crime soared.
That should not be surprising. Talarico has repeatedly noted prisons are "violence" that must go extinct. To that end, Talarico voted against Texas mandatory minimum sentences for convicted people traffickers, even as Texas was the epicenter of migrant child trafficking. Talarico also refused to support limiting bail for accused repeat violent felons.
Nor are Talarico's Socialist leanings, limited to police and incarceration. Talarico's response to Dobbs was to beg Biden to federally install and operate abortion facilities within Texas Federal Courthouses. Little is more antidemocratic, than illegal governance by federal fiat.
Likewise, Talarico refused to support Texas law banning minor child transition surgery and fertility ending medication. Talarico has also sought to abolish ICE, noting God commands aid for our poverty stricken brothers and sisters, regardless of Immigration status. Positions Talarico now refutes, laughingly, claiming to be a moderate.
Dem candidates that speak Spanberger while campaigning, only to govern as Mamdani, are hardly rare. Minn Governor Tim Walz, while not on the ballot, recently pardoned a convicted child rapist, seeking to avoid his deportation. The predator blamed the child for enticing him, when he confessed to repeatedly raping the girl from age 10-12, while instructing her on his oral gratification. As the rapist was finally set to be deported 2 decades later, not a single Dem supported his removal.
Unless a large coalition of Dems demand a return to sanity, Dems can look forward to more Bill Mahers. The famous lifelong Hollywood Liberal who donated 7 figures to Obama not that long ago, has noted he will leave the Party, if the march to Socialism does not cease.
And look who the MAGA Republicans nominated to replace the reliably conservative and scandal free John Cornyn, whose chances of defeating any Democrat would have been considerably better than Paxton’s.
Bush Republicans have no business in high office…I voted for Paxton over George P Bush and would do it every time again! Get rid of Collins and Cornyn and move forward! No going back to globalists like Bush that sacrificed American soldiers and jobs to make China great again!
Always insightful, Ruy. Trenchant analysis
Good article.
It would have been helpful if you had defined the term “Brahmin Left”. I had to search the internet, and only found two articles that used the phrase. One was your article from 2023, and the other was an article by the guy who coined the term. If you want a working class reader, don’t use esoteric words unless you define them first for less “educated” readers.
But your points were imported and I encourage you to keep writing about this, just remember who your readers are.
the funny party is that actual professionals (doctors lawyers, pharmacists and engineers) are more conservative than the average
Yeah I think the term "intelligentsia" is more accurate than "professional". They aren't necessarily gainfully employed, but they are sure they know how to run society and deserve to control the levers of power. You'd struggle to find one who has experience running even a small business.
I can’t decide if this makes me want to drink or makes me want to drink. I choose drink.
I think this misses some facts that have changed, and the growing possibility that Mamdani and most other elected officials will bolt if the CCPers officially take over at the next convention. Did you see Bhaskar’s interview with Ross Douthat? Much of it was downright stunning, he seems to be laying the groundwork for such a move after the midterm.
Also, inasmuch as you’re right about the demographic impact on the Democratic Party, it’s not as if the Republican base and bench won’t also be a smoking pile of rubble with Trump gone.
I think you're writing off both parties prematurely. Mandami and his ilk are in the same position in the Democratic Party as Trump and MAGA were in the GOP in 2015. He's not going to bolt; he's going to take over.
Picture a A Rubio-Vance ticket (or visa versa) against a Newsom-Cortez ticket in 2028. I think that's a really viable possibility. And I honestly don't know who wins.
Leaving aside that Vance is the only one of those four people I expect to see on a general election ticket, I meant a bolt from DSA in service to taking over the Democratic Party.
Sorry. I thought you meant a departure of DSA FROM the Democratic Party.
Vance is awful…Rubio should pick another Reagan conservative and ditch the Nixon apologists like Vance AND along with Bush apologists like Pence. I was involved in the campaigns of Tim Scott and Rubio in 2010 and neither were Tea Party Republicans as they got their start in the GOP in the 1990s when Reagan was still relevant. I attended quite a few campaign rallies and I don’t recall ever hearing them discuss the Iraq War either although I could be wrong??
I don't like Trump & Co., but I'll take the other side of that last bet.
Oh of course Vance could still win even with Marley’s chains (in the words of Ross Douthat).
Douthat is a huge loser…he supported the Iraq War.
This article claims the majority of the DSA governing board is already explicitly communist:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/democratic-socialists-of-america-communism
I'm not exactly sure which caucuses would count as tankies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Political_Committee_(DSA)
What I’ve heard is that the non-tankies have a bare 6-5 majority and are barely holding it together.
DSA is not "the largest socialist membership organization in American history". At its peak, there were 120,000 Wobblies, in a country a fraction the size. (And they did a lot more good than the DSA.)
Every single word of this.
How about the vanguard of people who think we should take care of our own, especially those who need a little help. Got a problem with that?
Considering the fraction of the population that lives on $30 per day or less, the US is already comparable to Sweden
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/poverty-share-on-less-than-30-per-day
In terms of "taking care of our own"--the DSA supports open borders. The Indian government could offer beggars on the streets of Delhi a free one-way ticket to the US. Imagine 10 million impoverished Indians coming in every year. Medical and welfare systems would quickly be overwhelmed. We're already $32T in debt.
And always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom!
Did this whole essay really boil down to “tough on crime” rhetoric and complaining about transgenders in sports. Have we learned anything.