Copyright Baltimore Sun
The race for mayor in New York City is down to a progressive, a moderate and a conservative. But if you read the papers, you will hear that the race is down to a radical socialist, a moderate Democrat and a conservative Republican. Even more, you will hear that the race is down to a radical socialist, a moderate capitalist and a conservative capitalist. None of these labels work, because Zohran Mamdani is not a socialist, and neither Andrew Cuomo nor Curtis Sliwa are capitalists. Only a few Democrats, not even Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, will admit that they are not capitalists. Warren, in 2020, supported the same policies that Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont did in the race for president. He insisted he was a democratic socialist, but she insisted she was a capitalist. Go figure. Socialism, by definition, revolves around the public ownership of the means of production — like automobile companies, information technology companies, oil companies, food distribution companies and financial services companies. Although Mamdani, the Democratic candidate, says he is a democratic socialist, and although at times in the last 10 years he has said that New Yorkers should “seize the means of production,” he is not running on this concept. Moreover, his website does not promote this concept. He stands for free child care, free buses, rent control and other progressive ideas. Cuomo, running as an independent, is a centrist Democrat. He stands for core themes of the New Deal as well as the Clinton administration, where he served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The truth is that Franklin D. Roosevelt and Bill Clinton both supported a fundamental departure from laissez-faire capitalism — certainly, Lyndon B. Johnson did. They were all proponents of the mixed economy, namely the dominant form of political economy in the United States and most of Western Europe since the 1930s. The mixed economy, Harvard economics professors will tell you, is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. While it supports the private ownership of the means of production, it also supports strong government intervention in the private sector on fiscal policy and monetary policy. Government intervention is necessary in order to counter the forces of economic freedom with democratic values of equality, community and stability. Politicians in the United States hate the words “mixed economy.” It doesn’t sell newspapers or buy votes. It sounds, to them, like academic gibberish. It has no motor, no lights, no fire. The words capitalism and socialism do. “I am a capitalist. Vote for me. He is a socialist. Don’t vote for him.” The Republican in the race, Mr. Sliwa — he is a moderate (many say non-traditional) Republican. Yet he is also not a capitalist in any meaningful sense of the term. He does not want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Clean Air Act. For New York, he is definitely to the right of Cuomo and Mamdani. But he is far to the left of Herbert Hoover and Friedrich Hayek. There are definitely very important issues between the three candidates, but not one of them is a socialist or a capitalist. They are all proponents of the mixed economy. One of them is a very progressive mixed-economy politician, one of them is a moderate mixed-economy politician, and one of them is a relatively conservative mixed-economy politician. The categories matter because campaigns get carried away with words — with gross exaggerations, distortions and pathetic negative campaigning. Some good Political Philosophy 101 would give voters a more accurate perspective on what the policy disputes really are. Judging character and experience is another matter.
