Political campaigns in the U.S., especially those for the presidency, can be nasty. In this episode of Democracy Works, the team looks at the political discourse around nine particularly deplorable elections.
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.
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.
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
Applications are now open for the Fall 2026 Fulcrum Fellowship, a solutions‑focused journalism program designed to train emerging reporters in narrative complexity and community‑centered storytelling. The fall cohort will run from September 14 through October 20, and applications will be accepted until August 3.
The Fulcrum Fellowship is part of the publication’s broader NextGen initiative, which aims to expand opportunities for student journalists and elevate youth voices in coverage of democracy, civic engagement, and public policy. The program builds on the success of previous cohorts and reflects The Fulcrum’s commitment to nurturing journalists who can move beyond polarized narratives.
Executive Editor Hugo Balta, an accredited solutions‑journalism trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network (SJN), leads the fellowship. Under his direction, participants receive hands‑on training in solutions journalism and “complicating the narrative” techniques — approaches that help reporters illuminate not only challenges facing democracy but also the responses emerging in communities nationwide.
As part of an SJN sponsorship, students receive training in climate solutions journalism and produce an original reported story that applies those techniques. This added component expands the fellowship’s focus on narrative complexity and equips emerging journalists with tools to cover climate challenges through evidence‑based, community‑centered reporting.
“We’re seeking young journalists who want to tell richer, more human stories,” Balta said. “This program provides the training and mentorship they need — and reinforces that journalism should empower communities, not just report on them.”
Fellows receive mentorship from the publication’s editorial team and opportunities to publish original reporting. Each fellow who completes the program receives a $1,000 stipend.
The fellowship is open to undergraduate and graduate journalism students in the United States who are in good academic standing. Application materials include:
All materials must be emailed to newsroom@fulcrum.us with the subject line “Fall Fulcrum Fellowship application.”
This year marks the first time The Fulcrum is expanding its fellowship program into the fall, made possible through funding from the Hortencia Zavala Foundation. Fellows will also have the opportunity for their published work to appear on the Latino News Network, extending the reach of their reporting to audiences engaged in conversations about democracy, civic participation, and community renewal.
Students interested in solutions‑focused journalism and civic storytelling are encouraged to apply early.
READ: Six Emerging Journalists Selected as 2026 Summer Fulcrum Fellows
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
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.
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.
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.
