In this video from Healing Race, Andre and Todd reflect on their conversation in the first episode, discussing the parallels between Black and Jewish histories of discrimination and hate and how they think about those histories when it comes to our country today. Andre asks Todd about times when he’s felt fears for his own safety and relate his stories to his experience as a Black man in this country.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani arrives prior to speaking about the fiscal year 2027 budget in New York City on May 12, 2026. Mamdani has led the charge to freeze rents on one- and two-year leases for New York City’s 1 million rent-regulated apartments.
(Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)
Mamdani is ignoring 40 centuries of economic lessons
Jul 01, 2026
Last week, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a citywide freeze on rents.
The response from economists can be summarized as “oy.”
Economists are famous for arguing “on one hand” this and “on the other hand” that. This is why President Truman famously wanted to hire a one-handed economist.
Nonetheless, there are few issues that enjoy a broader consensus among economists than the conclusion that rent control is counterproductive. Surveys of leading economists going back nearly four decades confirm this. A 1990 poll of 464 economists found that 93% of American respondents agreed that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available” — 95% of Canadian economists had a similar opinion. And another survey in 2012 had a similar result.
As Jason Furman, who chaired President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, put it, “Rent control has been about as disgraced as any economic policy in the tool kit.” The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck — a socialist, mind you — was pithier: “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”
In response to the controversy over Mamdani’s rent control scheme, which applies to roughly 1 million of the city’s rent-stabilized apartments, progressive writer Jill Filipovic posted on X: “Am I the only person who has no strong feeling about the rent freeze other than ‘cool to try out a policy like this on a short-term basis so we can test if it actually works?’ My only hope is we all learn some important information from this experiment and are honest about the results, whatever it brings.”
But I don’t really want to write about rent control, a provably dumb policy that has been around for more than a century. The bigger issue is this attitude, which is running wild within the Democratic Party and on the increasingly confident hard left. Specifically, the idea that anything the democratic socialist insurgency is proposing is new.
“Together, we will usher in a generation of change,” Mamdani declared upon being elected last November as the new democratic socialist mayor of New York City. He vowed to take a “brave new course” and “chart a new path.” His rent freeze is seen as a fulfillment of his pledge.
That’s fair enough. But virtually everything on their agenda was old before anyone reading this was born. Take price controls. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, along with numerous other progressive politicians (and a few Republican ones), respond to every price hike and inflation report by arguing for price controls of one kind or another.
Price controls are older than Christianity.
If you don’t believe me, pick up a copy of "Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls," by Robert Schuettinger and Eamonn Butler. Hammurabi set prices 4,000 years ago. Diocletian issued his Edict on Maximum Prices in A.D. 301 President Nixon did it to disastrous effect in 1971.
Price controls are lies, fueling corruption and hiding economic reality. Prices reveal where supply and demand are, even when we cannot know all of the things that inform supply or demand. Prices, in the words of economist Alex Tabarrok, are “a signal wrapped up in an incentive.” Mask the signal and you remove the incentive. Controls on rent, food, gas, pharmaceuticals, etc., don’t just conceal the real costs of a good or service, they pass those costs elsewhere. Unable to recoup on the investment in housing, crops, oil development, medicine, there is less — or no — investment.
Oil-rich Venezuela became an economic basket case because the government fixed the price of fuel to a political benchmark. Its vast oil industry couldn’t afford to maintain itself and collapsed.
Some progressives, like Sen. Sanders, at least admit their ideas are old — how could he do otherwise, given that he hasn’t had a new idea since the Pleistocene? But they point to Scandinavian countries that abandoned command-and-control economic planning decades ago.
In other words, they point to “new ideas” from the old world that are now considered old over there.
Speaking of old, the new hotness on the left is wealth taxes. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has endorsed the idea of a national wealth tax to catch up with the cool kids. This, too, is a very old idea that began in prehistory as mere plunder. It’s also a failed idea, which is why most of the countries that adopt them end up repealing them.
Much has been written — including by me — about how Trump appeals to low-information voters who don’t know the history or facts behind a given policy (like, say, tariffs). That’s fine. But the most ardent opponents of Trump, the ones promising a bold and fresh alternative agenda, are appealing to the same kinds of voters — and journalists.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
America's Blue Collar Workers Shouldn’t Be the Fall Guy for Everyone Else’s Prosperity
Jun 30, 2026
One of the worst mistakes a Democratic President ever made was Bill Clinton's signing of the NAFTA trade agreement. The impact of free trade agreements—economically and politically—has been terrible for the American blue-collar worker and for the Democratic Party. I don't believe Donald Trump would be in the White House today were it not for NAFTA and the other trade agreements.
As early as 2011, I wrote a post, "Democrats Better Pay Attention to the Needs of the Middle Class." The middle class was clearly hurting due to job losses from globalization and wage stagnation since the 70s. And they were angry. But the Democratic Party paid no attention.
In 2016, the impact of trade agreements became a central issue in the presidential campaign. Trump was vociferously against the trade agreements. But a New York Times editorial, “Rage Against Trade” (August 6, 2016), said the rage was misplaced because, although trade has cost some jobs through cheap imports, the main factor in the loss of factory jobs has been automation.
But I respectfully disagree. While the point about automation was well taken, the editorial made no mention of the loss of jobs caused by shipping American jobs overseas, which has been made possible to a large extent by these trade agreements, as well as by improved technology, such as container ships, which have reduced transportation costs.
It’s not the cheap imports from Asia, as such, that have hurt the American worker. It's that many of these cheap imports are now being made by American multi-national corporations—the loss of jobs results from these American firms replacing American workers with Asian workers. This, in turn, is a result of trade agreements, as American firms can now import foreign-made goods into the U.S. with no tariffs. The American worker has also been harmed by wage stagnation that corporations have blamed on competition from low-wage countries.
These companies have been and are doing well; only American workers are suffering. According to a 2012 Wall Street Journal analysis, “Thirty-five big U.S.-based multinational companies added jobs much faster than other U.S. employers in the past two years, but nearly three-fourths of those jobs were overseas.” In the past 25 years, corporate profits have soared.
But not workers' wages. The competition of cheap imports has enabled American corporations to say that they have to meet the competition and so have provided only token raises to middle-class blue-collar American workers for decades. These workers have thus not just been hit by job losses; those who still have jobs have seen their wages stagnate since the mid-70s.
But that corporate talk is just so much bull. It seems to make sense that corporations must compete with low-wage countries. But when you see that corporate profits have soared during this same period, it is clear that the money was there to increase workers' wages without raising prices, had they wanted to. It would certainly have impacted profits, which would not have pleased investors and thus would have hurt CEOs, but they could have done so if they had wanted to, and the corporations would have remained viable.
The only group left holding the bag has been the middle-class, mostly White, blue-collar American worker. Their plight is huge, not just financially but also socially/psychologically. And as we saw in the 2016 and 2024 presidential campaigns, the political ramifications have been substantial.
I am not an economist. I don’t know what the alternative is at this stage of the game. I do know that we cannot, as Trump suggested, just rip up these trade agreements and walk away from the concept of global trade. That would certainly bring our economy down, which would be bad for everyone, including the aggrieved, non-college-educated American blue-collar worker.
The only resolution I can think of is that since the money is there to provide an increase in wages to the workers, balanced somewhat by a reduction in CEOs' wage packages, without raising the price of the company's products— just do it. That would reduce profits, but the company would still be viable.
I do know that this major group of American workers … and their families … cannot continue to be the fall guy for corporations getting richer and consumers benefiting from cheaper goods.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less
As political loyalty shifts from institutions to personalities, democratic accountability suffers. Examine the rise of political fandom in democracy.
tomazl / Getty Images
Democracy Needs Citizens, Not Fans
Jun 30, 2026
Democracy often rests on the idea that citizens are political equals. They may be associated with different social organisations and ideological traditions, but in the democratic culture, they interact as citizens with equal rights and equal opportunity. In a democracy, devotion was never expected; it was developed to institutionalise disagreement among equals. The democratic system is associated with impersonal rules instead of personal loyalty, where institutions regulate power and citizens have the freedom to interrogate those who govern them.
However, contemporary political culture in India deviates from this democratic spirit. The status of citizenship is gradually turning to the fandom. The success of politicians is increasingly not measured by their ability to contribute to the path of development but by the size of their digital audiences, social media trends, public spectacles, and emotional engagement. The normalisation of social media has accelerated this transformation. Followers, likes, views, and recommendations become a new form of political capital. In this culture, politicians are often more motivated to gain attention than to achieve meaningful policy outcomes. Consequently, politics now resembles celebrity culture, where popularity and visibility are often mistaken for political efficiency.
This change has consequences in terms of the relationship between leaders and citizens. A citizen and a fan occupy different statuses in a society, and this difference often gives them different roles in a democracy. Leaders undergo a continuous monitoring process based on a rational critique, in the great tradition of citizenship. They may support a government in some aspects while simultaneously opposing it in other aspects. Their submissiveness is ultimately toward constitutional principles, democratic procedures, and public institutions. They have a realisation that no leader is above the law and criticism is not an anti-social act but a democratic process.
However, fans are primarily attached to personalities. The nature of their engagement with politics is much more emotional than institutional. The political centrality revolves around the leader, while institutions lose space in public discussions and expectations. Political questions become personalised. Successes are attributed solely to the leader, while failures are blamed on situations and structure or institutions perceived as obstacles. It no longer connects citizens with the state but admirers to an individual.
Citizens need institutions: the judiciary to protect rights, the legislature to make laws, the election commission to ensure free and fair elections, universities to produce and verify knowledge, and the media to scrutinise power. Citizens often prioritise democracy over any individual because institutions outlast governments and provide coherence to public life. They realise that public trust must rest in procedures rather than personalities.
Contrary fans operate differently. They often invest their trust in the leader, instead of institutions. As a result, if the institution questions the leader, the institution itself may be labelled as ineffective or outdated. Any unfavourable interpretation from the court and the media can be portrayed as biased. Even the research or data that come with the findings contrary to the ideology or personality of the leader may face criticism for disrupting the social system. In this type of political culture, legitimacy depends more on loyalty to the leader than on rules and procedures.
Citizens are increasingly encouraged to associate with personalities instead of institutions.
Supporters may argue that strong leaders are necessary to run the government. Indeed, democracies need leadership, persuasion, and public enthusiasm. Charismatic leaders can mobilise participation, inspire confidence, and overcome political challenges. They can motivate citizens and bring neglected issues into public discourse. Leadership itself is not the problem. The risk emerges only when admiration evolves into unquestioning loyalty and enthusiasm replaces citizenship.
The social risk of fandom lies in the logic of differentiation. Citizenship creates a model of equality despite differences. It enables a political community of relatively diverse people with mutual disagreement to remain within the same political community. Fandom, on the other hand, creates division in society into competing segments of supporters and non-supporters. It shrinks the space for open discourse because the goal is no longer persuasion but affirmation. Public intellectualism shifts from evaluating policies to showcasing loyalty. Criticism is often interpreted as hostility, and disagreement becomes evidence of disloyalty. In this situation, a democratic opponent is no longer regarded as a fellow citizen with a different opinion but as an adversary whose legitimacy itself is questioned.
Ergo, over time, this type of political culture can create a situation of institutional crisis. Consequently, far-reaching democracy declines, and political organisations function centred on individual personalities. Public officials may become reluctant to challenge leaders even when institutional norms require them to do so. Citizens begin evaluating institutions not by their integrity but by whether their decisions favour preferred leaders. Accountability deteriorates when criticism is interpreted as disloyalty. Eventually, governance moves increasingly towards personal authority rather than adhering to constitutional principles.
History is evident that charismatic leaders, despite long rule, failed to provide long-term stability to their society, while strong institutions often provide democratic stability. Leaders may rise and fall, governments can change, and political movements will evolve. It is the Institutions that ensure continuity, accountability, and legitimacy of power. When the role of citizen goes to prioritise as the role of fan, institutions would weaken in favour of personal loyalty, and democracies become more vulnerable to instability because the mechanisms intended to manage disagreement lose public legitimacy, and the public may use an anarchist way to showcase their disagreement.
Democracy requires participation, conviction, and political passion. But above all, it requires citizens. Leaders may inspire a nation, but only institutions can sustain one. When citizens become fans, institutions become dispensable; and when institutions become dispensable, democracy itself becomes fragile. The survival of democracy depends not on the strength of its leaders but on the strength of its citizens and the institutions they choose to trust.
Ashwani Kumar is teaching Sociology at UILS, Chandigarh University, Punjab. Reach Kumar at ashwinsociology@gmail.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Texas Department of Public Safety Region II Headquarters on Oct. 1, 2025 in Houston. The state is using DPS records to cross-check a list of registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens using a federal database.
Antranik Tavitian for The Texas Tribune
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records
Jun 30, 2026
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office is now checking whether 2,724 registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens may have already provided proof of citizenship to the Texas Department of Public Safety, elections division director Christina Adkins said during a meeting with county election administrators earlier this month. That check comes after county elections officials found the federal database used to generate the list flagged some voters who had already given citizenship documentation to DPS when they registered to vote.
Texas officials in October sent counties the list of potential noncitizens generated by checking the state’s voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters against a federal database used to verify citizenship. Soon after the state released the list, counties began to investigate the flagged registrants and mail notices asking them to provide documented proof of citizenship.
County election officials have since confirmed some of the flagged voters were citizens, though a total number was not immediately available. In addition, they found that hundreds of the flagged voters had registered through DPS, which requires proof of citizenship, such as a passport, and keeps copies of such documents on file.
In Travis County, for example, voter registrar Celia Israel asked the state to check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens in the county against DPS records. The Texas Secretary of State’s Office did so, and found that out of the 97 individuals flagged as potential noncitizens in the county, 11 had already provided proof of citizenship.
Adkins during the meeting said that Travis County officials were the only ones who had requested that the state conduct the check of the records through DPS, according to a recording of the Secretary of State Office’s meeting with county election officials obtained by Votebeat. Now, the state is conducting these checks for flagged voters statewide.
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office had previously told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that it did not initially check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens against DPS’ records before sending the list to county election officials to investigate.
That decision prompted a March lawsuit from voting rights groups and some Texas voters who said the state should have done so. The lawsuit is still pending in federal court.
In the meantime, local election officials in some counties have already removed some flagged voters from the voter rolls after they did not respond to requests to provide proof of citizenship.
It’s not clear why the Texas Secretary of State’s Office is checking the list of potential noncitizens against DPS records now and how county election officials will be directed to respond to the findings. The Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment for this story.
Officials push for additional safeguards to use the SAVE database
The federal database state election officials used to identify potential noncitizens is known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, database. The Trump administration overhauled SAVE last year, making it free for states to use and easier to search, and it has urged election officials around the country to use it to search for potential noncitizens on their voter rolls.
Experts and election officials have raised concerns about the SAVE database’s accuracy and reliability, and advocacy groups have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s changes and how SAVE is being used.
According to the recording, Adkins said the state did not initially check the list of potential noncitizens identified by SAVE against DPS records because that agency already uses the SAVE database.
“Initially, we didn’t think that there would be any kind of substantial difference, but obviously, we have found that there are some discrepancies,” Adkins said in the meeting.
Adkins said the discrepancies affected a “small fraction” of the total list and could be a result of outdated information kept by the SAVE database or by DPS — for example, some of the individuals flagged by the SAVE database may have recently become naturalized citizens — or due to clerical errors.
“No dataset is going to be 100% perfect,” she told county officials. “That’s why we can’t cancel voters outright” without additional investigation.
Adkins said another reason the state didn’t check DPS records before sending the lists to counties in October is because DPS must manually check each record, which takes a long time, and would have left counties with less time to investigate ahead of the March 3 primary election. Federal law restricts election officials’ ability to conduct systematic voter list maintenance within 90 days of a federal election, meaning the window for counties to investigate ahead of the primary ended in early December.
“We wanted to get that data in your hands, where you could at least address some of the kind of low-hanging fruit, is the way I would say it,” Adkins said.
In an emailed statement after this story initially published, DPS officials said the agency is working with the Secretary of State’s Office to “review and provide information from the Driver License System as it relates to registered voters, and requests to verify voter citizenship status are being prioritized.”
During an interim House Elections Committee hearing earlier this month, state lawmakers discussed how the state can ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote. At that hearing, Travis County election officials told lawmakers the state’s move to cross-check the results from the SAVE database with DPS data should be the standard moving forward. Others told lawmakers to consider the amount of time and resources it takes election officials — in counties already strapped for funding — to investigate whether a registrant is a potential noncitizen.
Last year, Texas lawmakers proposed a bill that would require Texans to provide documented proof of citizenship to register to vote, but it failed to pass before the end of the legislative session. The bill was among the most sweeping proof-of-citizenship proposals introduced anywhere in the country, applying not only to new applicants for voter registration but also retroactively to 18.6 million voters already registered in the state.
Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records was originally published by Votebeat Texas and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More