THE GREAT TENT DEBATE: HOW ZOHRAN MAMDANI'S VICTORY REVEALS AMERICA'S UNFINISHED CONVERSATION WITH ITSELF
OR: WHAT FDR KNEW THAT TODAY'S DEMOCRATS KEEP FORGETTING
There's a delicious irony in watching America's political establishment clutch its pearls over the word "socialism" while simultaneously enjoying their weekends off, their Social Security checks, and their Medicare coverage. It's like watching someone denounce the evils of electricity while scrolling through their smartphone. Yet here we are, in what historians are increasingly calling America's Second Gilded Age, relitigating arguments our great-grandparents thought they'd settled during the first one.
The recent election of Zohran Mamdani as New York City's mayor—a self-identified democratic socialist who ran on a DSA-endorsed platform of affordable housing, expanded public transit, and worker protections—has sent tremors through the Democratic Party establishment that register somewhere between "mild panic" and "existential crisis." The question everyone seems to be asking is: "Is this the future of the Democratic Party?"
But that's the wrong question. The right question is: "Why are we still having this argument?"
Gilded Age 1.0: When Robber Barons Roamed the Earth
Let's rewind to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when America experienced its first bout of extreme wealth concentration. The original Gilded Age wasn't just gilded—it was practically encrusted with diamonds while the workers who mined those diamonds lived in conditions that would make a Dickens novel look optimistic.
This was the era of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Vanderbilts—men who accumulated wealth so vast it would make today's tech billionaires look like they were running lemonade stands. Meanwhile, workers toiled in factories for 12-16 hours a day, children as young as five worked in coal mines, and the concept of a "weekend" was about as realistic as a vacation to Mars.
Into this charming tableau stepped the socialists, anarchists, and labor organizers who had the audacity to suggest that perhaps—just perhaps—the economic system could be structured so that not everyone who wasn't a robber baron died of either overwork or starvation. Radical stuff, I know.
The Socialist Party of America, under Eugene V. Debs, began advocating for truly revolutionary ideas: the eight-hour workday, unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, workplace safety regulations, and the abolition of child labor. The establishment's response was predictable: These were dangerous foreign ideas that would destroy American freedom, undermine individual initiative, and lead inevitably to Bolshevism, chaos, and probably the end of apple pie.
Sound familiar?
Enter FDR: The Capitalist Who Saved Capitalism from Itself
Then came the Great Depression, which had the inconvenient effect of making socialist ideas look considerably less crazy when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed and people were literally starving in the streets of the richest nation on Earth.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that aristocratic traitor to his class, performed one of the greatest political magic tricks in American history: He adopted the Socialist Party's platform wholesale—and used it to save capitalism.
Let's be clear about what FDR was doing. He wasn't a socialist. He was a pragmatic progressive who understood that unregulated capitalism had just driven the American economy off a cliff, and if something wasn't done quickly, the American people might start listening to the actual socialists (or worse, the communists or fascists who were gaining ground globally).
As Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party leader, wryly observed: Roosevelt didn't carry out the Socialist platform—he carried it out on a stretcher. FDR took ideas that had been dismissed as dangerous radicalism—Social Security, unemployment insurance, massive public works programs, financial regulation, labor rights—and repackaged them as necessary reforms to preserve the American system.
The Tennessee Valley Authority? Government-owned electricity generation. The Works Progress Administration? Government as employer of last resort. The Fair Labor Standards Act? Government mandating wages and working conditions. Social Security? Mandatory government-run social insurance.
If you proposed any of these programs for the first time today, Fox News would spontaneously combust.
But here's the crucial point: FDR wasn't trying to abolish capitalism. He was trying to create what we might call "social capitalism"—a mixed economy where the government actively intervened to prevent the worst excesses of the market, provide a basic floor of economic security, and ensure that capitalism served the many rather than just the few.
It worked. The New Deal didn't end the Depression (World War II did that), but it fundamentally restructured the American economy and created the framework for the most prosperous period in American history: the post-war decades when a single income could support a family, when unions were strong, when inequality was relatively low, and when the phrase "American Dream" actually meant something to most Americans.
The Second Gilded Age: History Doesn't Repeat, But It Sure Does Rhyme
Fast forward to today, and the parallels are almost too obvious to be interesting. Almost.
We're living through another period of extreme wealth concentration. Three Americans now own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country combined. CEO pay has increased by over 1,000% since 1978 while worker pay has increased by about 12%. The cost of housing, healthcare, and education has skyrocketed while wages have stagnated. Unions have been systematically dismantled. And we're facing an existential climate crisis that the market has spectacularly failed to address.
Meanwhile, a new generation of democratic socialists—Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and now Zohran Mamdani—have emerged advocating for ideas like Medicare for All, tuition-free college, a Green New Deal, and stronger labor protections.
And once again, the establishment response is: These are dangerous radical ideas that will destroy American freedom, undermine individual initiative, and lead inevitably to Venezuela, chaos, and probably the end of apple pie.
The script hasn't changed in a century. They've just updated the boogeyman from the Soviet Union to Venezuela.
The Semantic Shell Game: Socialism vs. Social Democracy
Here's where things get genuinely confusing, and deliberately so. The American political debate has been muddied by a fundamental failure (or refusal) to distinguish between different economic systems.
Social Democracy (what the Nordic countries practice): A capitalist economy with strong regulations, robust unions, and a comprehensive welfare state. Private ownership remains the norm, but the government ensures universal healthcare, education, childcare, and a strong social safety net. Think: capitalism with guardrails and a really good safety net.
Democratic Socialism (what the DSA advocates): A longer-term vision of transitioning beyond capitalism to an economy characterized by more democratic ownership and control—worker cooperatives, public enterprises, and economic democracy. The key word is "democratic"—this is achieved through voting and organizing, not revolution.
Authoritarian State Socialism (what the Soviet Union practiced): Government ownership of everything, no political freedom, and a command economy. This is what Republicans mean when they say "socialism," and it's what exactly zero elected Democrats are actually advocating for.
The genius of right-wing rhetoric is conflating all three. Propose universal healthcare like every other developed nation has? "That's socialism!" Suggest stronger unions? "That's socialism!" Want to regulate Wall Street? "That's socialism!"
It's like calling everything from a bicycle to a fighter jet a "vehicle" and then arguing we can't have bicycles because fighter jets are dangerous.
Most of what modern democratic socialists actually advocate for is social democracy—the Nordic model. They want Denmark, not the Soviet Union. But admitting that would require an honest debate about policy rather than fear-mongering, and where's the fun in that?
The Big Tent Debate: Or, How Democrats Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Infighting
Which brings us to the current civil war within the Democratic Party, a conflict that makes the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea look like a model of unity.
On one side, you have the progressive/democratic socialist wing arguing that the party needs to embrace bold, transformative policies that address systemic inequality, climate change, and the failures of neoliberalism. Their argument: The status quo isn't working for most Americans, incremental change is too slow, and people are hungry for a politics that actually improves their lives rather than just preventing things from getting worse.
On the other side, you have the moderate/centrist wing arguing that embracing "socialist" policies (even social democratic ones) will alienate swing voters, independents, and moderate Republicans, making it impossible to win elections. Their argument: You can't implement any policies if you don't win, and you can't win if you scare away the middle.
Both sides have a point, which is what makes this so frustrating.
The progressives are right that the Democratic Party's centrist strategy of the past few decades has coincided with: declining union membership, rising inequality, stagnant wages, exploding healthcare and education costs, and the election of Donald Trump. Clearly, something isn't working.
The moderates are right that the word "socialism" still polls terribly with large swaths of the American electorate, particularly older voters who lived through the Cold War and voters in swing states who Democrats need to win.
But here's what both sides are missing: The debate shouldn't be about labels. It should be about policies and results.
The Ownership Question: Who Gets What, and Who Decides?
At its core, the entire socialism vs. capitalism debate boils down to a simple question: Who should own and control the economy?
The pure free-market position (which no serious person actually advocates for, but which serves as a useful rhetorical position): Everything should be privately owned and market-determined. Government should do basically nothing except maybe maintain an army and enforce contracts.
The pure socialist position (which, again, almost no one actually advocates for): Everything should be collectively or publicly owned and democratically controlled.
The real debate is about the mix. What should be in private hands, and what should be public goods or services?
Most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, actually agree on quite a bit:
- Public roads and highways: Yes
- Public K-12 education: Yes
- Fire departments: Yes
- Police: Yes (though we can debate reform)
- The military: Yes
- Social Security: Yes (it's wildly popular)
- Medicare: Yes (also wildly popular)
- The Post Office: Mostly yes
So we've already decided that certain things work better as public services than as private, for-profit enterprises. The question is: Where do we draw the line?
Should healthcare be a public good like fire protection (if your house is on fire, we don't check your credit score before sending the fire truck)? Most developed countries say yes. America says "sort of, but only if you're old or poor enough."
Should higher education be a public good like K-12 education? It used to be much more affordable when it was heavily publicly subsidized. Now it's a profit center that leaves students with crushing debt.
Should housing be treated as a human right with strong public involvement, or purely as a market commodity? Most European countries lean toward the former. America leans toward the latter, and we have a homelessness crisis.
The "socialist" position isn't that everything should be government-run. It's that certain essential services—healthcare, education, housing, utilities—work better when they're treated as public goods rather than profit centers. And that workers should have more power and ownership in the economy.
That's not radical. That's just... most of Europe.
The Mamdani Moment: A Test Case
Which brings us back to Zohran Mamdani's mayoral victory in New York City.
Mamdani didn't win by hiding his democratic socialist affiliation or running away from the label. He won by running on concrete policies that addressed New Yorkers' actual problems: affordable housing (in a city where median rent is over $3,000/month), better public transit (in a city where the subway is literally falling apart), and better wages and working conditions.
He didn't spend his campaign talking about seizing the means of production or abolishing capitalism. He talked about building more public housing, funding the MTA, and ensuring that workers can afford to live in the city where they work.
In other words, he ran on social democratic policies while being honest about his democratic socialist values. And he won.
This terrifies Democratic moderates because it suggests that maybe—just maybe—the "socialism" label isn't the electoral poison they've convinced themselves it is, at least not when it's attached to popular policies that address real problems.
It also terrifies them because it suggests that the progressive wing of the party isn't going away. It's growing, it's organizing, and it's winning elections.
The FDR Playbook: Still Relevant After All These Years
Here's what Democrats should learn from FDR: He didn't win by running away from bold ideas. He won by embracing them, implementing them, and showing they worked.
FDR didn't say, "Well, Social Security sounds nice, but it might scare some voters, so let's propose a means-tested, market-based retirement savings account with tax incentives instead." He said, "We're creating a universal social insurance program, everyone pays in, everyone benefits, and it's going to work."
And it did. Social Security is now the third rail of American politics—touch it and you die (politically). Even Republicans don't dare propose eliminating it, though they'll occasionally float the idea of "reforming" it (which is politician-speak for "cutting it").
The lesson: Bold, universal programs that materially improve people's lives become politically untouchable. Means-tested, complicated, market-based half-measures that only help some people become easy targets.
Medicare for All would be politically invincible once implemented. The current system of employer-based insurance with means-tested subsidies and a patchwork of public programs is a political piñata that everyone takes swings at.
The Path Forward: Stop Fighting About Labels, Start Fighting for People
Here's my modest proposal for the Democratic Party:
Stop arguing about whether you're socialists or capitalists. Start arguing about whether your policies will actually help people.
Do Americans want "socialism"? Depends on how you define it and who you ask.
Do Americans want:
- Healthcare that doesn't bankrupt them? Yes.
- Education that doesn't bury them in debt? Yes.
- Housing they can afford? Yes.
- Jobs that pay a living wage? Yes.
- A planet that's habitable for their grandchildren? Yes.
- Corporations and billionaires to pay their fair share in taxes? Yes.
These aren't "socialist" positions. They're majority positions. The fact that achieving them requires government intervention and regulation doesn't make them socialist—it makes them sensible.
The Democratic Party's big tent should be big enough to include both pragmatic social democrats like Mamdani and more centrist figures. The tent should be defined not by ideological purity but by a commitment to using government power to improve people's lives and create a more equitable economy.
FDR's coalition included Southern segregationists and Northern progressives, urban machines and rural populists. It was a mess. But it worked because everyone agreed on the core mission: using government to provide economic security and opportunity.
The modern Democratic coalition should be similarly focused: We may disagree on the ultimate goal (reformed capitalism vs. democratic socialism), but we should agree on the immediate steps: universal healthcare, affordable housing, climate action, worker power, and progressive taxation.
The Oligarchy's Endgame: The Ownership Society
Let's talk about what we're actually fighting against: the vision of the modern oligarchy.
The current crop of billionaires and their political allies don't just want low taxes and minimal regulation. They want to privatize everything. Social Security? Turn it into private accounts. Medicare? Vouchers for private insurance. Public schools? Vouchers for private schools. Roads? Toll roads owned by private companies. Prisons? Already private. The Post Office? They're working on it.
This is the "Ownership Society"—a dystopian vision where every aspect of life is a profit center for someone, where every human need is a market opportunity, and where your access to basic services depends entirely on your ability to pay.
This isn't capitalism. This is feudalism with better marketing.
The counterargument from the left—whether you call it social democracy or democratic socialism—is simple: Some things shouldn't be profit centers. Some things should be public goods. Some things should be rights, not privileges.
Healthcare shouldn't be a business where the incentive is to deny care to maximize profit. Education shouldn't be a debt trap. Housing shouldn't be a speculative investment vehicle. Water, electricity, and internet access shouldn't be luxuries.
This isn't about government control for its own sake. It's about democratic control—ensuring that essential services serve the public good rather than private profit.
Red State, Blue State: Universal Programs Serve Everyone
Here's the beautiful thing about truly universal programs: They serve everyone, regardless of politics.
Social Security doesn't check whether you voted Republican or Democrat before sending your check. Medicare doesn't care about your political affiliation. Public roads don't ask for your voter registration before letting you drive on them.
This is why these programs are so durable. Once people have them, they don't want to give them up, regardless of their ideology.
The genius of the New Deal was creating programs that served everyone and that people could see and feel in their daily lives. The failure of many modern Democratic proposals is that they're too complicated, too means-tested, and too easy to attack.
Medicare for All would serve rural Republicans and urban Democrats alike. A federal jobs guarantee would help depressed former industrial towns and inner cities. Universal childcare would help working families everywhere.
These aren't "coastal elite" programs. They're universal programs that would materially improve life for the vast majority of Americans, regardless of geography or politics.
The Cost Argument: Or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About Deficits When It Comes to Tax Cuts and Wars
Inevitably, whenever anyone proposes expanding social programs, the immediate response is: "But how will we pay for it?"
This is a fair question that deserves a serious answer. But let's note that this question is asked with remarkable selectivity.
Nobody asked "How will we pay for it?" when we:
- Cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations (multiple times)
- Spent trillions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
- Bailed out Wall Street in 2008
- Passed another massive tax cut in 2017
Somehow, we always find money for those things. It's only when we're talking about healthcare, education, or infrastructure that we suddenly become fiscal hawks.
The answer to "How do we pay for it?" is actually straightforward:
1.Progressive taxation: Return to tax rates on the wealthy and corporations that are closer to historical norms. The top marginal tax rate under Republican President Eisenhower was 91%. It's currently 37%.
2. Close loopholes: Eliminate the carried interest loophole, tax capital gains as ordinary income, and crack down on offshore tax havens.
3. Wealth taxes: Implement modest taxes on extreme wealth accumulation.
4. Reduce wasteful spending: We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other developed nation and get worse outcomes. A single-payer system would actually save money.
5. Economic growth: Investing in people—their health, education, and economic security—pays dividends in economic growth and productivity.
The question isn't whether we can afford these programs. The question is whether we can afford not to have them. The current system of extreme inequality, inadequate social services, and environmental destruction isn't sustainable. It's not even particularly capitalist—it's oligarchy.
The Innovation Canard: Or, Do We Really Need Seventeen Types of Deodorant?
One of the favorite arguments against government involvement in the economy is that it stifles innovation. The market, we're told, is the great engine of human progress, and any government interference will lead to stagnation.
This argument has two problems:
First, it's historically false. Most of the major technological innovations of the past century—the internet, GPS, touchscreen technology, the basic research behind most pharmaceuticals—were funded by government research. The market is great at refining and commercializing innovations, but the basic research that makes them possible usually comes from public investment.
Second, it confuses innovation with product differentiation. Yes, the market has given us seventeen types of deodorant and forty-three varieties of breakfast cereal. Is that the kind of innovation we should prioritize over, say, developing renewable energy technology or curing diseases?
The argument that government involvement kills innovation is particularly rich coming from an industry (tech) that was built on government-funded research and that now spends most of its innovative energy figuring out new ways to violate your privacy and addict you to social media.
Meanwhile, government programs like Medicare and the VA have been leaders in healthcare innovation, and public universities conduct most of the basic research that private companies later profit from.
The Mixed Economy: Stop Pretending We Have to Choose
Here's the thing that both the "pure capitalism" advocates and the "pure socialism" advocates miss: We don't have to choose between one or the other. We can have a mixed economy that uses markets where they work well and public provision where it works better.
Markets are great for producing consumer goods, driving efficiency in competitive industries, and responding to diverse consumer preferences. Nobody wants the government deciding what kind of shoes you should wear or what flavor of ice cream you should eat.
But markets are terrible at:
- Providing universal access to essential services
- Addressing externalities like pollution
- Investing in long-term public goods
- Preventing monopolies and market concentration
- Ensuring basic economic security
This isn't ideological. It's practical. Different tools for different jobs.
The question isn't "capitalism or socialism?" It's "What mix of market mechanisms and public provision best serves human flourishing and democratic values?"
The Nordic countries have figured this out. They have robust market economies with high levels of entrepreneurship and innovation. They also have comprehensive welfare states, strong unions, and significant public ownership in key sectors. And they consistently rank among the happiest, healthiest, and most prosperous nations on Earth.
We could do that. We choose not to.
Conclusion: The Tent Is Big Enough, But It Needs a Foundation
Zohran Mamdani's victory in New York City isn't a fluke, and it's not just about New York. It's a sign that a growing number of Americans—particularly younger Americans who have lived through two major economic crises, crushing student debt, unaffordable housing, and the looming climate catastrophe—are ready for something different.
They're not asking for Soviet-style communism. They're asking for what their grandparents had: a society where hard work actually leads to security and prosperity, where you don't have to be born wealthy to have a decent life, and where the economy serves people rather than the other way around.
The Democratic Party can either embrace this energy and build a coalition around popular policies that materially improve people's lives, or it can continue to triangulate, means-test, and poll-test itself into irrelevance while Republicans offer simple (if false) answers to people's real problems.
FDR showed us the way: Be bold. Be universal. Be unapologetic about using government power to improve people's lives. And don't let your opponents define your terms.
The big tent is big enough for both pragmatic social democrats and more radical democratic socialists. What it can't accommodate is a continued commitment to a status quo that isn't working for most Americans.
The question isn't whether the Democratic Party should move left or stay center. The question is whether it should fight for policies that address the real crises facing Americans—inequality, climate change, healthcare, housing, education—or continue to offer incremental tweaks to a system that's fundamentally broken.
History suggests that bold, universal programs that materially improve people's lives become politically invincible. Timid, means-tested half-measures become political punching bags.
The choice should be obvious.
But then again, if political parties were good at learning from history, we wouldn't be relitigating arguments from the 1930s in 2025.
Some things, apparently, never change. But maybe—just maybe—this time they will.
After all, FDR saved capitalism by adopting socialist ideas. Perhaps today's Democrats can save democracy by doing the same.
The tent is big enough. The question is whether the party has the courage to fill it.
