Socialism and the Democratic Party;
the Case for a Return to Moderated Capitalism
ORDER ON ON AMAZON
Less than four decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a self-described “democratic socialist” was elected as mayor of the largest city in the United States. Running as the Democratic Party nominee, the thirty-four-year-old Zohran Mamdani won overwhelming support from New York City’s young voters. Thus, a conversation—a debate, even—that millions of older Americans believed had been settled once and for all has seemingly been reopened. Not frightened by history or the definitions of the past, a younger generation is again suggesting that some version of socialism might be the path to a better world
The election of Mamdani highlights the generational challenge facing the Democratic Party going into the 2026 midterm elections. After the party saw declining support from younger voters in 2024, a Democratic candidate was able to reenergize them and ride their excitement to victory. However, he did so sometimes using a word—“socialism”—that, while exciting to a younger generation, is often frightening to an older generation of moderate voters. It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say that “socialist” is one of the most charged labels in US politics. Regularly hurled by Republicans at Democrats, it has been assiduously ducked by any Democratic candidate that actually wanted to win...
Less than four decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a self-described “democratic socialist” was elected as mayor of the largest city in the United States. Running as the Democratic Party nominee, the thirty-four-year-old Zohran Mamdani won overwhelming support from New York City’s young voters. Thus, a conversation—a debate, even—that millions of older Americans believed had been settled once and for all has seemingly been reopened. Not frightened by history or the definitions of the past, a younger generation is again suggesting that some version of socialism might be the path to a better world
The election of Mamdani highlights the generational challenge facing the Democratic Party going into the 2026 midterm elections. After the party saw declining support from younger voters in 2024, a Democratic candidate was able to reenergize them and ride their excitement to victory. However, he did so sometimes using a word—“socialism”—that, while exciting to a younger generation, is often frightening to an older generation of moderate voters. It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say that “socialist” is one of the most charged labels in US politics. Regularly hurled by Republicans at Democrats, it has been assiduously ducked by any Democratic candidate that actually wanted to win...
A Path to the Future
It’s worth noting that while Mamdani didn’t shy away from the label, the word “socialist” didn’t win him the election. Instead, he successfully put forth a simple message: Government can be used to make life better for the residents of New York City. The message was captured with one word: “affordability.” Many voters were excited about Mamdani because, to them and many others, it sometimes seems like the Democratic Party has given up on the hope of making our lives better. Sometimes it feels like the party is beaten down and believes that life is just going to be bleak for most of us. Mamdani got people excited because he rejected that defeatism. He rejected the idea that we couldn’t still use government to improve people’s lives. He rejected the idea that our government didn’t have an obligation to attempt to extend equality of opportunity. Even voters who didn’t agree with how he planned to do so could find it exciting to have a candidate talk about the moral obligation of government to try to make life better, to make sure every resident had the ability to lead a life they were happy with.
And Mamdani and younger voters are right: We can still use government to make people’s lives better, just as we have done in the past. Our government stopped doing many of the things it needs to do to ensure we all benefit from our economy. It isn’t this way because it had to be. It is this way because we allowed it to be. Mamdani is right that we can get back to using the power of government to improve people’s lives, to ensure they can afford to live a life they are happy with and proud of. That message will resonate with voters across the United States, whether it’s called democratic socialism or regulated capitalism or anything else. Ultimately, it is the outcomes that matter, not the labels.
The United States is two hundred and fifty years old and has achieved unparalleled individual freedom and wealth. Yet sometimes it feels like our country is in decline, as if we have lost our vigor and our direction. We haven’t reached this point because it was inevitable or because all nations eventually decline. We reached it because those of us in the middle paid less attention while our country’s approach to managing our economy was being undermined by the Republican Party and sometimes by the Democratic Party as well. Our path for-ward is to again pay attention and for the Democratic Party to reassert its vision of moderating capitalism for the benefit of all of us. If we fix what we have, then there’s no reason the next two hundred and fifty years of our history can’t be as glorious as the last two hundred and fifty years. America’s time isn’t over—we just need a tune-up. Hopefully this book will be part of that process.
It’s worth noting that while Mamdani didn’t shy away from the label, the word “socialist” didn’t win him the election. Instead, he successfully put forth a simple message: Government can be used to make life better for the residents of New York City. The message was captured with one word: “affordability.” Many voters were excited about Mamdani because, to them and many others, it sometimes seems like the Democratic Party has given up on the hope of making our lives better. Sometimes it feels like the party is beaten down and believes that life is just going to be bleak for most of us. Mamdani got people excited because he rejected that defeatism. He rejected the idea that we couldn’t still use government to improve people’s lives. He rejected the idea that our government didn’t have an obligation to attempt to extend equality of opportunity. Even voters who didn’t agree with how he planned to do so could find it exciting to have a candidate talk about the moral obligation of government to try to make life better, to make sure every resident had the ability to lead a life they were happy with.
And Mamdani and younger voters are right: We can still use government to make people’s lives better, just as we have done in the past. Our government stopped doing many of the things it needs to do to ensure we all benefit from our economy. It isn’t this way because it had to be. It is this way because we allowed it to be. Mamdani is right that we can get back to using the power of government to improve people’s lives, to ensure they can afford to live a life they are happy with and proud of. That message will resonate with voters across the United States, whether it’s called democratic socialism or regulated capitalism or anything else. Ultimately, it is the outcomes that matter, not the labels.
The United States is two hundred and fifty years old and has achieved unparalleled individual freedom and wealth. Yet sometimes it feels like our country is in decline, as if we have lost our vigor and our direction. We haven’t reached this point because it was inevitable or because all nations eventually decline. We reached it because those of us in the middle paid less attention while our country’s approach to managing our economy was being undermined by the Republican Party and sometimes by the Democratic Party as well. Our path for-ward is to again pay attention and for the Democratic Party to reassert its vision of moderating capitalism for the benefit of all of us. If we fix what we have, then there’s no reason the next two hundred and fifty years of our history can’t be as glorious as the last two hundred and fifty years. America’s time isn’t over—we just need a tune-up. Hopefully this book will be part of that process.