So Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi of Long Island has come out swinging against the socialists. “We are capitalist, not socialist,” reads a letter that The New York Times reports he and 14 other legislators signed and began circulating last week. This went out Thursday, two days after three self-described democratic socialists backed by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani won Democratic congressional primaries in the city.
The letter, which is on the short and vague side, states two broad principles to which the signatories adhere. The first is “growth, competition, and broad prosperity.” “Growth” and “prosperity” are time-honored centrist buzzwords, as they’re hoisted into use to send the message that these Democrats value economic dynamism more than “fairness,” which is a word that moderates fear signals endorsement of excessive statism, although interestingly, the concept is tucked into the first sentence (“We believe in a growing, fair, and competitive economy…”). The second is “safety, security, and human dignity,” under which the letter lists four components: fiscal discipline, a government that works, free speech, and patriotism.
There’s nothing wrong with these things as far as they go. But they don’t go far enough. In particular, there’s one big missing word. I’ll circle back to that, but first, let’s talk about why these democratic socialists are winning in some places.
The first reason is that people are really pissed off at a system they see as totally rigged. Suozzi is roughly my age. He and I grew up in a United States in the 1960s and ’70s that Lord knows had many problems, but that was at least trying to build a robust middle class and was taxing excessive wealth appropriately.
The Gini coefficient is a number that measures economic inequality. Like golf, lower scores are better, and the lowest Gini scores, invariably logged by the Scandinavian countries, are in the mid-20s. The highest is always South Africa, in the low-60s.
When Suozzi and I were toddlers, the U.S. number was fairly high—around 37. Then came the Great Society—the civil rights, fair housing, and other anti-discrimination laws that first brought large numbers of Black families into the middle class, and other anti-poverty programs. The right has sold middle America on the idea that the Great Society—which I’d hope most Democrats today are proud of, but much of which was, as the word is used today, “socialism”—was a failure. But by the 1980s, right before Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. Gini number reached its lowest point in modern history, 34.7.
Then came Reagan and supply-side economics and the war on the War on Poverty. By the time Bill Clinton took office, the number was north of 40. Today it’s 42 and climbing. We’re worse than Russia and Iraq and about on par with Argentina and Mexico.
People aren’t stupid. They may not know what the Gini coefficient is or who Gini was (an Italian economist), but they know what’s been happening to the country and their money in their bones. And they know how they’re being ripped off by corporate actors, as these hidden junk fees become more and more just a fact of life, especially for working-class people paying rent to private-equity landlords or trying to take their kids to a ball game. So, it’s small wonder that more people are voting for the candidates who are saying most emphatically that they’re going to try to do something about all that—specifically, fighting back against the people who’ve been cheating the middle- and lower-classes for years.
The second reason socialists are winning elections is that the Democratic base has moved well to the left of where it was even just 10 years ago. Early this year, The New Republic commissioned a poll of 2,400 rank-and-file Democrats. We asked respondents to identify themselves ideologically, giving them five choices: conservative, moderate, moderate-to-liberal, liberal, and progressive. There were little descriptions of each, so it should have been clear to all that “progressive” was the left-most choice.
I thought “progressive” was going to finish third. It finished first (within the margin of error): Progressive got 32 percent, liberal 31, and moderate-to-liberal 21. Moderate was way back at 12 percent. Back in the Obama days, moderates were around 35 percent of the party. Indeed, liberal overtook moderate as the top Democratic category only around 2012, according to Pew.
So that’s a huge change. Now it’s true that other polls, which unlike TNR’s didn’t offer five categories, show a higher moderate share, but the overall move leftward by Democratic base voters is undeniable. They haven’t done so because they want the government to take over the means of production. They’re enraged at the way they’re getting nickel-and-dimed by these billionaires who have more and more power, and they want their party to take on that fight, and the democratic socialist candidates are, in most cases, the ones who are being clearest that they would take up that challenge.
Moderates can choose to recoil at that word “socialist” if they want. The branding carries some amount of risk: We have a diverse population and many people who reside here now remember when totalitarian regimes that called themselves socialist ravaged their lives—a far cry from the way socialism is practiced in Canada and the Nordic states (all of which are, or course, capitalist countries at their core). Still, it’s not even clear it’s such a dirty word, at least to Democrats. In our poll, we asked people if they thought the word was a plus or a minus or didn’t matter. Results: plus 31, minus 24, didn’t matter 43.
I’d rather see moderate Democrats try to make common cause with this resurgent left to the extent possible. As recounted in the 2024 book, The Truce, this is a feat that President Joe Biden managed for much of his presidency, so it can be done. I should note that I think the left bears some responsibility as well. As I wrote in a long piece back in our March issue, both sides are just too emotionally invested in regarding the other side with suspicion. As political psychologist Drew Westen explained to me in that piece, Democrats tend to discuss politics and policy in a way that emphasizes their differences and not their points of commonality.
Members of Congress form a lot of caucuses and coalitions. It’s telling that to my knowledge, there isn’t one, not one, that tries to bridge the differences between the two sides and highlight some things they agree on. It would be nice if a prominent left leader and a prominent moderate leader formed some kind of coalition that said to America hey, we agree on these X number of things. For starters:
- That the rich should pay higher taxes, with a top marginal rate somewhere above 40 percent.
- That Social Security must be made solvent forever, probably by reimposing the Social Security tax above a certain income level (the so-called “donut hole” approach, which by the way polls through the roof).
- That the minimum wage should be raised to $18 an hour (there’s been a lot of inflation since the Fight for 15) and that Congress should index it to inflation so that it never has to worry about passing increases again.
- That the expanded child-tax credit enacted in the wake of the pandemic—which as The New Republic’s Grace Segers reported was a historically successful anti-poverty program—should be made permanent.
- That they will pass laws cracking down on monopoly power.
Doing this would send the almost unprecedented signal to voters and the media that Democrats are less interested in fighting each other than in uniting to pass an agenda that actually improves people’s daily lives. These five positions would signal such a commitment. They should all be completely uncontroversial.
Ah, but that last one … And here we return to the Suozzi letter. It sings the praises of competition. Great. I’m all for it. But what force today in the United States is crushing competition? It’s not the Democratic Socialists of America. It’s not the government. It’s not Zohran Mamdani.
It’s the billionaire class, or “the Epstein class,” if you prefer Jon Ossoff’s acerbic locution. You call yourself a capitalist, Tom Suozzi? Well, monopoly is the most grotesque perversion of capitalism that exists. There’s a reason Adam Smith hated monopolies. Centrist Democrats should familiarize themselves with that history, if they don’t know it.
And this is a telling point on which Suozzi’s letter comes up short. That missing word I alluded to above is “monopoly.” You can’t praise competition without criticizing monopoly. Monopoly kills competition—period, end of story.
But to criticize monopoly is to be willing to make powerful enemies. The democratic socialists—and by the way, in proper historical terms, they’re really social democrats; go Google “difference between social democrat and democratic socialist”—are willing to do this. The centrists are not. And until they are, their happy talk about competition won’t mean much. Rank-and-file Democrats want their party to fight. That doesn’t mean just fighting Donald Trump. It means fighting the powerful interests that are screwing them deeper into the ground every day.
Fareed Zakaria, who I’m pretty sure is not a card-carrying DSA member, made the point forcefully in his Washington Post column over the weekend. Discussing a new book on liberalism by Adrian Wooldridge, Zakaria wrote that liberalism “was once the most radical force in politics. It attacked inherited privilege, monopoly power, censorship, aristocracy, clerical authority, and closed guilds. It was not the ideology of the establishment. It was the battering ram against the establishment.”
That’s what this country needs. I don’t care that much whether it’s called liberalism or socialism. I prefer that it be called liberalism, but if others want to call it socialism, I won’t go into hysterics. The point is that the Democratic Party better do it, or it will lose again in 2028, and it, and our democracy, will die.
