"You're Calling for Class Warfare!"

The Politics of Economic Inequality

On Monday I attempted to demonstrate the ways in which economic inequality skyrocketed in post WW2 America. Drawing from classical sociological work on stratification, I argued that, while economics may be a driver, the effects of inequality show up in other areas of culture. The access to political power that results from being toward the top of the economic ladder provides a major drag on any attempt to deal with the economic realities people face. This has been true for both parties since Reagan worked to dismantle labor unions and Clinton aligned with the bond market.

In a post-Citizens-United world, both parties have been heavily reliant to major donors giving through superpacs and splashy fundraisers. It has created something analogous to Mutually Assured Destruction, where neither party could back away from rich donors for fear of being at a competitive disadvantage.

Given the linkage between economic inequality and political campaigns, it follows that maintaining the status quo is the most likely outcome of our political contests. We might differ around the edges on things but we’re unlikely to address the structural nature of inequality. Both parties look for wedge issues where they can contrast their positions with those of the opponent in endless social media ads.

About three weeks ago, I offered my own advice to the multitudes of others telling Democrats what they ought to do going forward. I suggested that they should identify key issues that will be important in 2028, that they focus on solving known problems, and that they run FOR their values and not simply AGAINST their opponent.

Perhaps it’s time for Democrats (especially younger ones) to run right at the issue of economic inequality. It is an important good to try to stop draconian measures like the Medicaid and SNAP cuts in the Big Beautiful Bill. But that’s not enough. Rather than simply stopping harms aimed at those at lower on the economic ladder to pay for tax cuts, we need to start talking about the things that will actually improve their economic and social well-being.

Anyone who does so will be immediately attacked for the effort: “You’re calling for class warfare!” Right-wing politicians and pundits will be aghast. Maria Bartiromo might have an on-air stroke. Social media will explode. And the mainstream press will cover the blowback as a legitimate story (rather than the contrivance that is really is).

Does it sound like I’m advocating class warfare? So be it. It’s a basic sociological reality that if the inequality is structural in nature, it has to be addressed through structural means.¹ The major way to address economic inequality is to work to enhance the position of family farmers, small business owners, inner city families, displaced factory workers, young mothers, and elder care.

We got a test of my thesis last night in New York City. In a late surge, Zohran Mamdani defeated former New York governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary for mayor in the first round of the ranked choice vote. Final results come out next Tuesday. If he wins (as expected), he will go on to face current mayor Eric Adams and whomever runs on the Republican ticket in November.

There were lots of dynamics to this race. There could not have been a more establishment candidate than Cuomo. Mamdani is 34 years younger. SubStacker Michael Lange summarized it well on Monday.

Furthermore, Cuomo vs. Mamdani is a Tale of Two New Yorks. One is aging and on the decline, yet still tightly-tethered to the reins of power; the other is youthful and ascendant, but lacking insider clout. One relies on the atrophying, but still impactful, political machines of yore; the other prides itself on the grassroots — rallies, volunteers, energy – slowly recreating the civic life left behind by the machines. One prizes relationships and remains institution-driven (Clergy, Labor Unions, Editorial Boards, Real Estate); the other prescribes both left-leaning ideology and robust community organizing, with the foot soldiers to prove it. One embodies the establishment, the other rails against it. This Tuesday, these Two New York’s will collide at the ballot box. A changing of the political guard may be in order.

Mamdani’s platform has some bold ideas. Many might not work. But notice what he thinks is important: economic realities. The Washington Post reported today:

Mamdani prevailed by focusing incessantly on the affordability challenges faced by New York residents, pledging to ease the cost of living by providing free child care, freezing rent and making city buses free. In a city home to the world’s largest population of billionaires, he pledged to fund his ideas by raising taxes on the wealthy. Seeking to become the first Muslim mayor of a city with the world’s largest Jewish population outside of Israel, he did not shy away from criticizing the Israeli government for its handling of the war in Gaza.

Democratic consultants, centrist politicians, and even Bulwark types are immediately worried that Mamdani’s positions will be hung around the neck of every one of the party’s candidates for office. They will be asked about his membership in the Democratic Socialists of America (along with Bernie Sanders, AOC, and others) and about his position on Israel, Gaza, and Palestinian rights. And that will happen.

I’d hope that those candidates would ignore the voices pushing them to the middle, refuse to denounce Mamdani’s positions, and embrace the key elements of battling inequality (coded as “affordability challenges”). Maybe they could simply say something like, “I don’t endorse all of his policies, but I’m glad to someone trying to make government work for someone other than those at the top.”

This morning the New Republic’s Greg Sargent interviewed journalist Amanda Marcotte on his podcast. Their interaction about AOC illustrates my point.

Sargent: It really does. And just to close this out, let’s go back to AOC for a sec. There’s this drumbeat of punditry out there that says, Oh, she’s a hard-left progressive. She’s in the progressive bubble. But again, the content of the views isn’t necessarily the most important thing. It’s the sincerity. It’s the willingness to say, I believe this, even if you don’t. Can you talk about how AOC has shown that that’s the way to do this? And is there a way forward here for Democrats?

Marcotte: Yeah, I think that part of it is when you see Democrats being hedgy or obviously using focus group–tested language, there’s a sense that normal people have that they’re hiding something. So it actually almost makes it seem like they have some secret socialist views that are so scary they can’t be said in public because they’re too bad, right?

Sargent: Right. It’s ironic, isn’t it?

Marcotte: Yeah, whereas AOC says what she believes and when she does, it becomes a little bit more real and normal and harder to argue with—or at least if you’re going to engage, you can engage like a normal person. She says, for instance, that women’s rights are important to her. I love the fact that she is a very outspoken feminist. I think that a lot of the people who hate her can’t really argue against her point because she’s making it very clearly and plainly, and it is inarguable. So have a little faith that your values are good and that people will believe them if you just defend them. She does, and people like her for that. And I wish that more Democrats stopped acting ashamed of what they believe.

The Right’s response to Mamdani’s victory is precisely the class warfare argument you’d expect with some Islamophobia thrown in for good measure. Stephen Miller says this is the result of loose immigration policies. Charlie Kirk is worried about a Muslim mayor in a post 9/11 world.² Lots of others denounce “socialists” without context. Elise Stefanik is already fundraising on Mamdani’s victory.

But ask yourselves, would they have been happy if Cuomo had won the primary? Of course not!

All of those complaining today would be talking about alleged sexual harassment, Covid failures, and establishment politicians from legacy families. I guarantee that Stefanik’s anti-Cuomo fundraising appeal was already in the pipeline.

If Democratic candidates are going to get attacked regardless, far better to follow Amanda Marcotte’s advice and run on your values. And if those values don’t involve attacking economic inequality in America, please don’t run!

1. Also true for a host of other social issues.

2. I thought we loved the Saudi’s now, but whatever.