I’m still trying to figure out what’s wrong with diversity (a demographic fact), equity (synonymous with fairness), and inclusion (vs exclusion). Maybe if I figure it out, I’ll then know what “woke” is. And then I’ll understand how “the left” is forcing “the right” into fascism. All I see right now is a bunch of people on the right whose feelings are hurt by distinctly American values, but perhaps when I understand “woke,” this misconception will be cleared up.
There is nothing wrong with diversity and inclusion, unless in practice it produces uniformity and exclusion… which it does.
Progress happens when ideas compete and flourish, and when the people with the best ideas and the biggest commitment to success are supported and provided opportunity to excel. This concept should be fair, it should be open to people of all colors, sexes, genders, etc. But it is not achieved by pre-selection based on a system of “fairness” that excludes rather than includes those who work the hardest and have the best ideas, based on the fact they may or may not meet an organizations diversity goals or rules.
I don't accept unsupported assumptions as valid arguments, such as this: "There is nothing wrong with diversity and inclusion, unless in practice it produces uniformity and exclusion… which it does." You seem to be implying elsewhere that "the marketplace of ideas" is blind to differences among those with ideas, and "the market" elevates the best ideas. As an economist, I could write a hundred pages about why this abstraction is nonsense, but I'd rather hear from you whether you'd like to support your initial assumption or withdraw it, and whether my characterization of the rest of your comment is correct.
My statement is simply common sense. The case majority of the population does not and will not support a reallocation of employment, jobs, political positions or otherwise that puts “diversity and inclusion” above personal excellence. Handicapping basketball players based on height to ensure short people get a chance, or if you want to look at real world application, reducing math requirements in high school because certain groups have lower testing scores than others, defies common sense, which makes it radical in its application, and thus unpopular.
This isn’t a serious reply. No, it’s not common sense. If public opinion were common sense, most of us would still believe “white” people have superior intellectual abilities than Black people. I’m not an educational psychologist and neither are you, but at least I’m smart enough not to opine on that about which I know nothing. I also don’t pretend to know how to measure merit. But by all means, keep pretending if it makes you feel better.
The subtext of your argument is that some “groups” are much more likely to produce exceptionally “meritorious” people, which is really just racism or misogyny or some other bigotry.
And you are case in point why voters of all colors, sexes, and backgrounds are avoiding voting left. Have a great time arguing with your navel. Come back in 10-20 years when you mature a bit.
Is "personal excellence" the only metric that should be considered? I've seen multiple projects crash and burn because there were many "excellent" people that didn't work well together.
I don't believe in reducing academic requirements to address deficiencies; however, I also don't believe in leaving groups behind due to deficiencies that are beyond their control to correct. What would you propose instead?
There was a comment recently made by someone on the right that they felt justified questioning the qualifications of black pilots. Is it reasonable to believe that the FAA would reduce licensing requirements for pilots based on skin color?
I don't know what you call progress, but looking at the last 60-70 years - all these supposedly smart and committed people just got so rich and successful they lost touch with reality. And they using that disconnect to create even more exclusion and profiting from it.
Healthcare executives keep us just healthy enough not to die but sick enough to keep buying their wellness products. Smart tech people built algorithms that divide us or at least manipulate us enough to win elections - social media became more about anti-socializing and mostly about control your atention. The "best minds" in finance created complex schemes to extract money from regular people while making taxpayers cover their losses. Military and companies like Palantir use intelligence and tech to build surveillance and control systems.
When we measure merit by how much money you make or how high you climb in institutions, we're selecting for people who know how to game the system, not improve it. These people get so disconnected from normal life that their "solutions" just create new problems to solve. Maybe real merit looks different - like actually solving problems without creating new ones, or building things that don't require screwing someone else over, but including and building communities. Our current system rewards extraction of commons, not creation.
Everyone's heads are fuzzy about success, but maybe we first think what does it mean, and should everyone benefit from one's success or are we like animals in jungle. Your pack, your ideas, yours yours yours, everything is yours.
None of your points have anything to do with Diversity or Inclusion. And the financial system / capitalism /corruption in America has nothing to do with personal exceptionalism. I don’t accept that the best minds, ideas end up in finance. It is quite obvious based on the past few elections in the U.S. have proven they don’t end up in politics either. And diversity and inclusion has been a key decider in what direction people vote, which is pretty indicative of the level of iQ that the average voter has. But sure, let’s dumb things down even more for the sake of ideology.
Sounds like you're bitter that you weren't selected for a promotion over someone else that you considered a DEI hire.
Could there have been other factors involved? Some ideas often lose out to others based on buy-in, resource allocation and how soon we'll see outcomes and how easy it'll be to re-assign resources if the results aren't panning out. We don't always see all the factors that lead to a decision being made between proposed courses of action, but claiming some sort of epistemic closure as an inevitable result of DEI needs better support.
The current Trump administration demonstrates your point! No DEI hires there! Every person is brilliant, has worked sooooo hard, has billionaire backers, and works only to provide the greatest good to the US citizens!
Kasparov is correct. There is something about simplistic narratives of past glory and the traditions of “us real people,” versus “those others,” that will always have more crowd appeal to the politically disengaged than materialistic explanations of why they themselves are on the outs. On the one hand, people see a kind of vaguely religious and symbolically driven call to vigilance and protection of familiar ways. On the other, people see privileged intellectuals who seem to be talking down to them, pointing to material benefits that, in the view of the audience, may never come to pass. Extremist narratives of the former type attract more people than those of the latter. It was true in the days of Weimar Germany and is true today. In the U.S., the hard left doesn’t hold that much sway in the Democratic Party and never has. The rescue from our current condition — a reinvigoration of the American dream for all — will come from the political mainstream not the fringes.
From an Italian's perspective, the Democratic Party is almost more to the right than our Prime Minister Meloni. I see the rights selling a return to a past that never existed by punishing minorities to people who are losing income and security due to company relocation and demand for new skills.
I seek woke as an acceptance and an expression of kindness and compassion toward others. If people choose to be gay so be it. If someone is poor and drastically needs help then we offer support if we can. If people are immigrants then see things from their perspective...if they came here to escape oppression and violence then I can understand that too, but we also need to revamp our shattered system of immigration as Biden had suggested.
I am a moderate Christian who follows MY "Golden Rule." "Do unto others...as I would want them to do unto me." Treat others with kindness, understanding, respect, and compassion!
Your logic and communicating this thought is absolutely wonderful. It is spot on. You’re the best in explaining the dangers of the far right and its authoritarian outcomes than anyone.
Please allow me to present some different information, which contradicts some of what you have written in this post.
1. People have voted against their self-interest when they traded it for their belief that they gain proximity to power. (Being one of the cool kids, being in the in group.) This goes for elected officials and the public. See https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9831368
2. Senator Bernie Sanders was the acknowledged victim of a funding scheme to prevent him from getting the Democratic nomination in 2016. This has been admitted by Donna Brazile, then Democratic National Committee chair. In November 2017, former DNC Chair Donna Brazile revealed the existence of a fundraising agreement between the Clinton campaign and the national party that pre-dated the primary campaign. https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-robbed-sanders-dnc-brazile-699421
I would propose a different lens, not Far Right v Far Left. In the 2016 race, Senator Sanders polled better than Trump (as did Hillary Clinton) https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll because he talked about the groceries and the power elite. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents a working class and middle class district to whom her emphases on groceries, power elite, and fair play are honest, accurate, and fair. If we call that Far Left, we are associating it with a pejorative. I submit that this association is inaccurate and leaves a lot of light out of the lens.
I am a photographer, so the metaphor works well for me.
Fascinating point. It's also interesting to note how in countries like Argentina, where the far left has governed for so many years, the far right does not represent the idea of conserving the old, but rather of breaking with the past in a wild and devastating manner.
Milei, who is a great admirer of Trump and Musk and has many ties with the American government, has just threatened members of the National Congress with imprisonment if they pass laws that generate a fiscal deficit. Everything Milei does and says is an open confession of his desires (and intentions) to become an authoritarian ruler. For their part, the political leaders of the left have not conducted any deep self-criticism of their performance, which culminated in an annual inflation of 200%, and they continue to orbit around former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who is currently in prison on corruption charges.
A centrist proposal has never been more urgent, because the only antidote to neutralize this lunatic far right is a vigorous revaluation of rational thought. But of course, how many remain in the political spectrum who are immune to that antidote?
Yes, but more precisely 'Kirchnerismo,' which has its ideological roots in Peronismo and coincidentally also revolves around a married couple, of which the man was president once (now deceased) and the woman was president twice and vice president once. For the right, Peronismo and Kirchnerismo mean the same thing: evil.
Perón and his political movement are a very complex phenomenon, but it was a center-left political force, very focused on the working classes, the pursuit of social justice, and the promotion of Argentina's economic independence. The thing is, Perón was a military man, quite authoritarian, an admirer of the dictators of his time, but at the same time married to Evita, the greatest symbol of representation for the poor and marginalized.
I get what you are saying but the progressive left is much further from communism than the MAGA right is from fascism, that's the biggest difference. I haven't seen any attempts to subvert democracy on the left like MAGA is doing on the right. I haven't seen relentless lawbreaking and constitutional violations on the left like MAGA is doing on the right. I've seen no indication that a Bernie Sanders or AOC as president would do anything remotely as damaging to the economy, to rule of law or to our institutions as MAGA is doing. You are correct that disruption is less popular than restoration among most voters, but "conservatives" (at least in America) are no longer conservative, they are revolutionaries. The Democratic Party is now the conservative party in America, in the sense that they are the only party trying to conserve norms and institutions. All the major disruptions are happening on the right, so I disagree that the side that is pro-disruption is always going to lose. When the mass of voters are cynical and disillusioned and think the elites rig the system for their own benefit, they want to blow the system up instead of reforming it, and that's a big driver of populist movements everywhere, especially in the United States.
From a European perspective there's nothing "far left" about politicians such as AOC or Mamdani. The policy suggestions of Mamdani, if you really pick them apart, are quite lame and not very "revolutionary" even by US standards. Nothing that hasn't been done before even in the US. What is actually happening is that the public discourse has normalized the far right so dramatically that bog standard social democracy appears "far left".
…none of the people I know about that the Media call WOKE is Communist. There’s an element of Communism in most every Society, and it has proved to be a failed ideology. The people I know of called WOKE in the United States are fighting for a just and moral Society. They don’t have time to be discussing ideologies, or paying to join way out groups. They’re fighting for a society of Laws that protect and give equal rights to ALL citizens. They’re fighting to keep our Society from being owned by Wealthy individuals (oligarchs) who want the good life for themselves, but care nothing for justice, human rights, opportunity, medical care, education for the masses of citizens who toil daily to have a fuller quality of life for their families. Politicians who speak up for a better life for all people are NOT Communists. They are GOOD PEOPLE working for the GOOD of ALL. Those who use ‘scary’ words like Communism to frighten people, simply want to avoid the TRUTH
If Mamdani gets elected, it will move discussion two steps to the left. The idea that it would be better for everyone if police were not handling situations they are not well-equipped to handle by orientation and by training would gain consideration. The idea that policing can be more effective if they are of the community and not operate like an occupying overwhelming force might gain currency. “Intifada” as struggle against oppression as opposed to its other meaning might be understood.
Policy might move half a step to the left; this is NYC politics with all it entails.
In my college days, I used to joke that the hard left (of which I was not a part) was comprised of eight or ten people spread out over fifteen organizations.
The left may be “annoying” but, as we’re seeing, the right really means it. There’s a schoolyard approach that’s frighteningly effective. Punching downhill is always stronger than punching uphill.
When the far-left has been “successful” it tends to be via the use of reactionary-style tactics.
The Overton Window may shift but the house it is in will collapse. The backlash to a Mamdani mayoralty will make your head spin. Say hello to Governor Stefanik and Republican federal trifectas for the next decade-plus. We will look back on the demonization of “Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco Democrats” as the Good Old Days. I only hope that I am wrong.
I'm not convinced, because I suspect Mamdani will be an unsuccessful mayor given his naivete and inexperience, and the mayor doesn't exactly have unlimited powers, the city council and economic reality will push back on his policy agenda quite a bit. As a result the Democratic party and the voters themselves will push back on him, negating the ability of the right to use Mamdani to scare centrist voters into voting GOP. In short, Mamdani is not a right wing version of Trump, he's not going to create and lead a movement that takes over the Democratic Party.
I agree will you assessment that in America and Western Europe the far right will defeat the far left. (Although not the assessment that Mamdani is far left - he’s not advocating for ending democracy, he’s for rent control and a state-run grocery store pilot program)
But in China and Russia, the far left was pretty popular and even now there’s lots of nostalgia for the Soviet and Maoist past. When I lived in China, one friend’s mom said, “at least back then we were all equally poor”.
Perhaps this is because the imperial systems that preceded them were so bad for most Russians and Chinese? IDK
As the proponents of capitalism in the United States allow it to become a corporate/oligarchic system that serves fewer and fewer people, it might be that in 40 years Americans seek the far left over the far right because they’re so willing to try something new.
Far right is helped online (therefore having advantage in elections) by Leningrad trolls. It's the standard kgb tactic of let's be friends because ideology, only kremlin also chose right-wing this time.
Also, time and Harvard has proven that communist economics is a fluke, so the left using the old marxist texts are heavily disadvantaged.
Y'all in the US are using left and right as a straight line, but in reality it's a circle, where the extremes meet at the +- 180° and liberalism and democracy is at 0°. This explains the phenomenon of right-wing rascals turning coat and seamlessly being adopted to the far left after WW II, and turning back to the far right whenever it got socially feasible.
In other words, it's equal if you die from left or right lobe pneumonia.
Nazis/white supremacists of today feared that their position of power was being lost due to the "great replacement"(American white demographic would be overwhelmed by growing minority groups) This was argued ad nauseam on the right wing propaganda channel with such notable dirtbags as Trucker Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham and Gutfeld
But their defensive positioning has reversed from denying rights of the "inferior" minority groups(AfroAmericans, Asians, East Indians, even Native American Indians) to an offensive position to demand that the their position of superiority be recognized
This offensive positioning has led the Nazi party to the self righteous conclusion that in the grand scheme of politics that it’s perfectly normal to keep these “no account inferiors” from dominating the political scene Rather than celebrating and embracing DEI(diversity equity and inclusion) there is a concerted attack ultimately leading to excess gerrymandering Win at any cost so as to suppress the “inferiors”
I’m still trying to figure out what’s wrong with diversity (a demographic fact), equity (synonymous with fairness), and inclusion (vs exclusion). Maybe if I figure it out, I’ll then know what “woke” is. And then I’ll understand how “the left” is forcing “the right” into fascism. All I see right now is a bunch of people on the right whose feelings are hurt by distinctly American values, but perhaps when I understand “woke,” this misconception will be cleared up.
There is nothing wrong with diversity and inclusion, unless in practice it produces uniformity and exclusion… which it does.
Progress happens when ideas compete and flourish, and when the people with the best ideas and the biggest commitment to success are supported and provided opportunity to excel. This concept should be fair, it should be open to people of all colors, sexes, genders, etc. But it is not achieved by pre-selection based on a system of “fairness” that excludes rather than includes those who work the hardest and have the best ideas, based on the fact they may or may not meet an organizations diversity goals or rules.
I don't accept unsupported assumptions as valid arguments, such as this: "There is nothing wrong with diversity and inclusion, unless in practice it produces uniformity and exclusion… which it does." You seem to be implying elsewhere that "the marketplace of ideas" is blind to differences among those with ideas, and "the market" elevates the best ideas. As an economist, I could write a hundred pages about why this abstraction is nonsense, but I'd rather hear from you whether you'd like to support your initial assumption or withdraw it, and whether my characterization of the rest of your comment is correct.
My statement is simply common sense. The case majority of the population does not and will not support a reallocation of employment, jobs, political positions or otherwise that puts “diversity and inclusion” above personal excellence. Handicapping basketball players based on height to ensure short people get a chance, or if you want to look at real world application, reducing math requirements in high school because certain groups have lower testing scores than others, defies common sense, which makes it radical in its application, and thus unpopular.
This isn’t a serious reply. No, it’s not common sense. If public opinion were common sense, most of us would still believe “white” people have superior intellectual abilities than Black people. I’m not an educational psychologist and neither are you, but at least I’m smart enough not to opine on that about which I know nothing. I also don’t pretend to know how to measure merit. But by all means, keep pretending if it makes you feel better.
The subtext of your argument is that some “groups” are much more likely to produce exceptionally “meritorious” people, which is really just racism or misogyny or some other bigotry.
And you are case in point why voters of all colors, sexes, and backgrounds are avoiding voting left. Have a great time arguing with your navel. Come back in 10-20 years when you mature a bit.
I accept your surrender on the merits. Perhaps do some introspection to understand if you really are a bigot.
Is "personal excellence" the only metric that should be considered? I've seen multiple projects crash and burn because there were many "excellent" people that didn't work well together.
I don't believe in reducing academic requirements to address deficiencies; however, I also don't believe in leaving groups behind due to deficiencies that are beyond their control to correct. What would you propose instead?
There was a comment recently made by someone on the right that they felt justified questioning the qualifications of black pilots. Is it reasonable to believe that the FAA would reduce licensing requirements for pilots based on skin color?
I don't know what you call progress, but looking at the last 60-70 years - all these supposedly smart and committed people just got so rich and successful they lost touch with reality. And they using that disconnect to create even more exclusion and profiting from it.
Healthcare executives keep us just healthy enough not to die but sick enough to keep buying their wellness products. Smart tech people built algorithms that divide us or at least manipulate us enough to win elections - social media became more about anti-socializing and mostly about control your atention. The "best minds" in finance created complex schemes to extract money from regular people while making taxpayers cover their losses. Military and companies like Palantir use intelligence and tech to build surveillance and control systems.
When we measure merit by how much money you make or how high you climb in institutions, we're selecting for people who know how to game the system, not improve it. These people get so disconnected from normal life that their "solutions" just create new problems to solve. Maybe real merit looks different - like actually solving problems without creating new ones, or building things that don't require screwing someone else over, but including and building communities. Our current system rewards extraction of commons, not creation.
Everyone's heads are fuzzy about success, but maybe we first think what does it mean, and should everyone benefit from one's success or are we like animals in jungle. Your pack, your ideas, yours yours yours, everything is yours.
None of your points have anything to do with Diversity or Inclusion. And the financial system / capitalism /corruption in America has nothing to do with personal exceptionalism. I don’t accept that the best minds, ideas end up in finance. It is quite obvious based on the past few elections in the U.S. have proven they don’t end up in politics either. And diversity and inclusion has been a key decider in what direction people vote, which is pretty indicative of the level of iQ that the average voter has. But sure, let’s dumb things down even more for the sake of ideology.
Sounds like you're bitter that you weren't selected for a promotion over someone else that you considered a DEI hire.
Could there have been other factors involved? Some ideas often lose out to others based on buy-in, resource allocation and how soon we'll see outcomes and how easy it'll be to re-assign resources if the results aren't panning out. We don't always see all the factors that lead to a decision being made between proposed courses of action, but claiming some sort of epistemic closure as an inevitable result of DEI needs better support.
The current Trump administration demonstrates your point! No DEI hires there! Every person is brilliant, has worked sooooo hard, has billionaire backers, and works only to provide the greatest good to the US citizens!
Kasparov is correct. There is something about simplistic narratives of past glory and the traditions of “us real people,” versus “those others,” that will always have more crowd appeal to the politically disengaged than materialistic explanations of why they themselves are on the outs. On the one hand, people see a kind of vaguely religious and symbolically driven call to vigilance and protection of familiar ways. On the other, people see privileged intellectuals who seem to be talking down to them, pointing to material benefits that, in the view of the audience, may never come to pass. Extremist narratives of the former type attract more people than those of the latter. It was true in the days of Weimar Germany and is true today. In the U.S., the hard left doesn’t hold that much sway in the Democratic Party and never has. The rescue from our current condition — a reinvigoration of the American dream for all — will come from the political mainstream not the fringes.
From an Italian's perspective, the Democratic Party is almost more to the right than our Prime Minister Meloni. I see the rights selling a return to a past that never existed by punishing minorities to people who are losing income and security due to company relocation and demand for new skills.
I seek woke as an acceptance and an expression of kindness and compassion toward others. If people choose to be gay so be it. If someone is poor and drastically needs help then we offer support if we can. If people are immigrants then see things from their perspective...if they came here to escape oppression and violence then I can understand that too, but we also need to revamp our shattered system of immigration as Biden had suggested.
I am a moderate Christian who follows MY "Golden Rule." "Do unto others...as I would want them to do unto me." Treat others with kindness, understanding, respect, and compassion!
Sadly the Trumps & Farages of this world think the Golden Rule means "he who has the gold makes the rules".
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/01/11/has-gold/
Your logic and communicating this thought is absolutely wonderful. It is spot on. You’re the best in explaining the dangers of the far right and its authoritarian outcomes than anyone.
Dear Garry Kasparov,
Please allow me to present some different information, which contradicts some of what you have written in this post.
1. People have voted against their self-interest when they traded it for their belief that they gain proximity to power. (Being one of the cool kids, being in the in group.) This goes for elected officials and the public. See https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9831368
2. Senator Bernie Sanders was the acknowledged victim of a funding scheme to prevent him from getting the Democratic nomination in 2016. This has been admitted by Donna Brazile, then Democratic National Committee chair. In November 2017, former DNC Chair Donna Brazile revealed the existence of a fundraising agreement between the Clinton campaign and the national party that pre-dated the primary campaign. https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-robbed-sanders-dnc-brazile-699421
I would propose a different lens, not Far Right v Far Left. In the 2016 race, Senator Sanders polled better than Trump (as did Hillary Clinton) https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll because he talked about the groceries and the power elite. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents a working class and middle class district to whom her emphases on groceries, power elite, and fair play are honest, accurate, and fair. If we call that Far Left, we are associating it with a pejorative. I submit that this association is inaccurate and leaves a lot of light out of the lens.
I am a photographer, so the metaphor works well for me.
Fascinating point. It's also interesting to note how in countries like Argentina, where the far left has governed for so many years, the far right does not represent the idea of conserving the old, but rather of breaking with the past in a wild and devastating manner.
Milei, who is a great admirer of Trump and Musk and has many ties with the American government, has just threatened members of the National Congress with imprisonment if they pass laws that generate a fiscal deficit. Everything Milei does and says is an open confession of his desires (and intentions) to become an authoritarian ruler. For their part, the political leaders of the left have not conducted any deep self-criticism of their performance, which culminated in an annual inflation of 200%, and they continue to orbit around former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who is currently in prison on corruption charges.
A centrist proposal has never been more urgent, because the only antidote to neutralize this lunatic far right is a vigorous revaluation of rational thought. But of course, how many remain in the political spectrum who are immune to that antidote?
Are you referring to Peronism? From what I've read of it, Peronism is a big-tent ideology with elements of both Left & Right.
Yes, but more precisely 'Kirchnerismo,' which has its ideological roots in Peronismo and coincidentally also revolves around a married couple, of which the man was president once (now deceased) and the woman was president twice and vice president once. For the right, Peronismo and Kirchnerismo mean the same thing: evil.
Perón and his political movement are a very complex phenomenon, but it was a center-left political force, very focused on the working classes, the pursuit of social justice, and the promotion of Argentina's economic independence. The thing is, Perón was a military man, quite authoritarian, an admirer of the dictators of his time, but at the same time married to Evita, the greatest symbol of representation for the poor and marginalized.
'Far-left excess enables far-right overreach'. You could be right, but it's not a logical conclusion following the premises, a non-sequitur.
I get what you are saying but the progressive left is much further from communism than the MAGA right is from fascism, that's the biggest difference. I haven't seen any attempts to subvert democracy on the left like MAGA is doing on the right. I haven't seen relentless lawbreaking and constitutional violations on the left like MAGA is doing on the right. I've seen no indication that a Bernie Sanders or AOC as president would do anything remotely as damaging to the economy, to rule of law or to our institutions as MAGA is doing. You are correct that disruption is less popular than restoration among most voters, but "conservatives" (at least in America) are no longer conservative, they are revolutionaries. The Democratic Party is now the conservative party in America, in the sense that they are the only party trying to conserve norms and institutions. All the major disruptions are happening on the right, so I disagree that the side that is pro-disruption is always going to lose. When the mass of voters are cynical and disillusioned and think the elites rig the system for their own benefit, they want to blow the system up instead of reforming it, and that's a big driver of populist movements everywhere, especially in the United States.
If Mamdani get elected that plays in the hand of Trump and GOP.
From a European perspective there's nothing "far left" about politicians such as AOC or Mamdani. The policy suggestions of Mamdani, if you really pick them apart, are quite lame and not very "revolutionary" even by US standards. Nothing that hasn't been done before even in the US. What is actually happening is that the public discourse has normalized the far right so dramatically that bog standard social democracy appears "far left".
…none of the people I know about that the Media call WOKE is Communist. There’s an element of Communism in most every Society, and it has proved to be a failed ideology. The people I know of called WOKE in the United States are fighting for a just and moral Society. They don’t have time to be discussing ideologies, or paying to join way out groups. They’re fighting for a society of Laws that protect and give equal rights to ALL citizens. They’re fighting to keep our Society from being owned by Wealthy individuals (oligarchs) who want the good life for themselves, but care nothing for justice, human rights, opportunity, medical care, education for the masses of citizens who toil daily to have a fuller quality of life for their families. Politicians who speak up for a better life for all people are NOT Communists. They are GOOD PEOPLE working for the GOOD of ALL. Those who use ‘scary’ words like Communism to frighten people, simply want to avoid the TRUTH
If Mamdani gets elected, it will move discussion two steps to the left. The idea that it would be better for everyone if police were not handling situations they are not well-equipped to handle by orientation and by training would gain consideration. The idea that policing can be more effective if they are of the community and not operate like an occupying overwhelming force might gain currency. “Intifada” as struggle against oppression as opposed to its other meaning might be understood.
Policy might move half a step to the left; this is NYC politics with all it entails.
In my college days, I used to joke that the hard left (of which I was not a part) was comprised of eight or ten people spread out over fifteen organizations.
The left may be “annoying” but, as we’re seeing, the right really means it. There’s a schoolyard approach that’s frighteningly effective. Punching downhill is always stronger than punching uphill.
When the far-left has been “successful” it tends to be via the use of reactionary-style tactics.
The Overton Window may shift but the house it is in will collapse. The backlash to a Mamdani mayoralty will make your head spin. Say hello to Governor Stefanik and Republican federal trifectas for the next decade-plus. We will look back on the demonization of “Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco Democrats” as the Good Old Days. I only hope that I am wrong.
I'm not convinced, because I suspect Mamdani will be an unsuccessful mayor given his naivete and inexperience, and the mayor doesn't exactly have unlimited powers, the city council and economic reality will push back on his policy agenda quite a bit. As a result the Democratic party and the voters themselves will push back on him, negating the ability of the right to use Mamdani to scare centrist voters into voting GOP. In short, Mamdani is not a right wing version of Trump, he's not going to create and lead a movement that takes over the Democratic Party.
I agree will you assessment that in America and Western Europe the far right will defeat the far left. (Although not the assessment that Mamdani is far left - he’s not advocating for ending democracy, he’s for rent control and a state-run grocery store pilot program)
But in China and Russia, the far left was pretty popular and even now there’s lots of nostalgia for the Soviet and Maoist past. When I lived in China, one friend’s mom said, “at least back then we were all equally poor”.
Perhaps this is because the imperial systems that preceded them were so bad for most Russians and Chinese? IDK
As the proponents of capitalism in the United States allow it to become a corporate/oligarchic system that serves fewer and fewer people, it might be that in 40 years Americans seek the far left over the far right because they’re so willing to try something new.
Far right is helped online (therefore having advantage in elections) by Leningrad trolls. It's the standard kgb tactic of let's be friends because ideology, only kremlin also chose right-wing this time.
Also, time and Harvard has proven that communist economics is a fluke, so the left using the old marxist texts are heavily disadvantaged.
Y'all in the US are using left and right as a straight line, but in reality it's a circle, where the extremes meet at the +- 180° and liberalism and democracy is at 0°. This explains the phenomenon of right-wing rascals turning coat and seamlessly being adopted to the far left after WW II, and turning back to the far right whenever it got socially feasible.
In other words, it's equal if you die from left or right lobe pneumonia.
Cheeto and White Supremacy
Nazis/white supremacists of today feared that their position of power was being lost due to the "great replacement"(American white demographic would be overwhelmed by growing minority groups) This was argued ad nauseam on the right wing propaganda channel with such notable dirtbags as Trucker Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham and Gutfeld
But their defensive positioning has reversed from denying rights of the "inferior" minority groups(AfroAmericans, Asians, East Indians, even Native American Indians) to an offensive position to demand that the their position of superiority be recognized
This offensive positioning has led the Nazi party to the self righteous conclusion that in the grand scheme of politics that it’s perfectly normal to keep these “no account inferiors” from dominating the political scene Rather than celebrating and embracing DEI(diversity equity and inclusion) there is a concerted attack ultimately leading to excess gerrymandering Win at any cost so as to suppress the “inferiors”