Below is my column in The Hill on the pledge of Zohran Mamdani to end some of the early Gifted and Talented programs in the New York educational system. The move is part of a national campaign against such programs as racist or privileged due to the higher percentage of White and Asian students who qualify. The fear is that the Mamdani administration will return to the disastrous policies of the de Blasio administration in rolling back on the programs.
Here is the column:
Zohran Mamdani appears to have a plan for leveling the playing fields in education. Faced with a huge number of students with comparably dismal scores in math, English, and science, Mamdani is going to bulldoze higher-achieving programs. It is a pledge that only a Soviet central planner would relish.
By eliminating gifted and talented programs in lower grades, Mamdani will increase equity through mediocrity. With some on the left demanding the closure of all such programs, the concern is that New York is following the trend in other blue cities. (His opponent, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, has said that he would actually expand these programs).
Even the Washington Post’s editors have objected to his plan as “damaging education in the name of equity.”
Although Mamdani is currently focusing on lower grades, these programs are under fire as racist or privileged since less than a quarter of students come from Black or Latino populations. Activists have long objected that roughly 70 percent of students in gifted classrooms were white or Asian American, even though these groups comprise only about 35 percent of the student body.
The result is that politicians like Mamdani are virtually pushing high-achieving families and students out of public education. Once they are gone, the glaring contrasts in proficiency among programs will also be gone.
Gifted and talented programs are a source of pride for many families as students work with advanced technology and theories. Mamdani himself attended one such high school, Bronx High School of Science in Kingsbridge Heights. Students must work extraordinarily hard to gain admission to these programs. But what is merit to some is privilege or racism to others.
These students also can present a glaring and unwelcome contrast with the rest of the school system, particularly among different racial or economic groups. New York spends more than any other city on education at $41 billion a year — $36,293 per pupil. Much of this money is devoured by a bloated educational bureaucracy, which has been failing our children for decades. More than 40 percent of grammar school students in the city failed the state’s standardized math and reading tests last year. There were some gains recently, but these may just be a result of schools lowering the bar for passing the tests.
Across the country, some districts are lowering proficiency requirements and eliminating standardized tests to create an artificial appearance of success. These schools spend massively while cranking out kids with little hope to compete in the new economy or escape a cycle of poverty. This new ideal of “grading for equity” is designed to manipulate test standards to create the appearance of success.
Other districts are dumping standardized tests in favor of plans to prioritize “educational enjoyment” over performance measurements.
Some schools have entirely eliminated proficiency standards to erase any objective measurements of success.
Within these under-achieving systems, high-achieving students are not always welcomed. It is obvious that, faced with the elimination of gifted and talented programs, many of these families will simply leave public education if they can find the means to do so.
Many school districts are already experiencing a drain of families who are turning to religious or private schools with a greater emphasis on basic educational skills and subjects. They are tired of districts paying millions for transcendental meditation programs or other woke programs as proficiency levels stagnate or fail.
The response of many politicians has been to fight school voucher programs and other alternatives to their failing public schools. While Mamdani wants to introduce socialist programs like state-run stores as an alternative to private businesses, he is less keen in offering alternatives to government programs like public schools. School officials and unions oppose school choice because they know that many families would just leave public schools in search of better educational opportunities — few, if given a true choice, would buy the public schools’ subpar product. Many are already leaving.
Mamdani now threatens to turn that stream into a tsunami. Rather than fight to keep the most motivated and successful students in the public school system, he is effectively going to chop off the top ten percent. He is following in the footsteps of a disastrous plan under former Mayor Bill de Blasio that later had to be rescinded.
If expanded from these lower grades, Mamdani’s plan would eliminate the prospect of students being able to work at the highest possible levels in the New York school system. New York offers all students the opportunity to undertake advanced work if they work hard enough to gain admission. That includes non-white students who can find opportunities for elite colleges and jobs through such programs. The early grades are a critical period for such students who show extraordinary talents to develop those skills.
For teachers, the result can be equally dysfunctional. They will now be faced with students who require a far more intense level of instruction to progress. With a few gifted and talented students in a class, it is more likely that they will teach to the majority and leave the advanced students stagnating.
That can be devastating for advanced students. The gifted and talented programs allow students to achieve their full intellectual potential. If these students are not challenged, they can become disgruntled and unmotivated, potentially tossing away promising careers.
The dumbing down of our public schools is already manifesting itself in higher education. Recently, Harvard had to offer courses on basic high-school math for its students, who were found unable to do college-level work.
For many, the solution is not to eliminate programs for advanced students, but to elevate the rest of the school system to proficiency levels. Of course, that is easier said than done, and a far more challenging prospect for public educators who have been failing inner-city kids for decades.
As for Mamdani, there seems a certain visceral appeal to pushing everyone toward the lowest common denominator. Mamdani is in his element in railing against the privileges of the children of largely white and Asian families. He can now do for education what the Soviets did for fashion: reducing choices to a few bland options.
Journalist H.L. Mencken once denounced public education as an effort “simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level … to put down dissent and originality.” Mamdani seems intent on realizing Mencken’s worst fears.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
It’s kind of clever. Withhold a free and appropriate education from the smart kids–neglect them in every way possible–and their scores may just drop enough to solve Job One in Public Schools: closing the achievement gap. Across the board underperformance! Success!
I am sorry that ALL New Yorkers will have to suffer through this nonsense.
But you can either learn things the easy way or you can learn them the hard way.
Turley notes that this will drive capable students from the Public schools.
That may not be the optimal way to improve education – but it is still one way.
All that the left is done is further segregating/stratifying education.
Those who can afford to do so will leave the public system and their kids will get a quality education.
Those who can not afford to do so will be stuck in a declining public system until things get bad enough that parents revolt and get rid of the left wing nut dingbats that run New York.
Education has already proven to be a “Turnpoint”. Conservatives have done extremely well with parents of all races because they do not want the nonsense the left is inflicting on their kids.
The issue is not “gifted” programs, it is the lefts idiocy that our right to equality before the law, is the same as ACTUALLY being equal.
No two humans are “equal” each and every one of us has different strengths and weaknesses.
The left purportedly celebrates diversity – but only meaningless diversity.
When one person demonstrates abilities beyond the norm that is somehow evil.
This fixation on artificial actual equality is the fatal flaw in the left.
If you were born in the US you are undeservedly fortunate – UNEQUAL to those in the rest of the world.
The left seems to think that must be fixed by bringing in millions of less fortunate throughout the world.
But the FACT is – hear and everywhere else we are just NOT all equal.
There is a difference between equal rights and actual equality.
“When one person demonstrates abilities beyond the norm that is somehow evil.”
That’s absolutely not true. Making baseless claims is not an argument.
“The issue is not “gifted” programs, it is the left’s idiocy that our right to equality before the law, is the same as ACTUALLY being equal.”
Again that’s not even close to being true. The left’s argument has never been about actually being equal. Never. That’s a misconception from the right perpetrated by the right to demonize the left. That’s all it is.
When the left talks about equality, it is not about literal equality—it never was. It has always been about equality of opportunity.
I find it ironic that John Say often harps about equality when the right is subject to their own rules such as review of T-shirts and materials for appropriateness. Like the Charlie Kirk “Freedom” t-shirt worn by school staff. The right has been adamant that any material be reviewed and vetted by school districts for compliance with anti-DEI policies of the Trump administration. He claimed that reviewing such material is unconstitutional and if others do it it must be treated equally. Really weird.
The left has always supported equality in the sense of equal opportunity. Not the kind of stupid nonsense John Say alludes to. No wonder the right has it wrong all the time. They keep making the same mistake of assuming instead of listening to what the left is really saying.
XS, you misunderstand. It’s not a mistake. The Right doesn’t have it wrong. The Right intentionally mischaracterizes it so they can deflect blame from those who are gutting the middle class and siphoning as much wealth from them as possible. They don’t want to recognize who has done this to them because that would also mean recognizing they let it happen. And they get the additional satisfaction of harm being done to those they don’t like, even if they suffer as well.
Feel better?
For the Left, “it is not about literal equality—it never was. It has always been about equality of opportunity.”
Which in practice is exactly the same thing.
To achieve equality of opportunity, the Left demands lowering standards in education, jobs, contests. And to achieve equality of opportunity, the Left demands the redistribution of income for housing, medical care, bank loans.
Here is the totality of George’s arguments lately:
“Nuh-uhh”
Mad-man-i’s rise is, according to Charlie Kirk, a distress signal from 20-somethings, that they cannot afford even a pared-down version of the American dream, which includes a small house and at least one car, sufficient to start a family.
I think Kirk was onto something. In my view, he was also right to say we should not ignore these types of distress signals, as we do at the peril of having Communist mayors or governors all across the fruited plain, so to speak.
Given the above, one way to forestall such an eventuality, IMHO, is to orient government and economic policy around making it easier for 20-somethings, even 30-somethings as well, to afford the American dream, start families, and even farmstead. These are important in their own right too, as having more babies is a vital national need, as well as reestablishing family farms. That is, if we want any kind of future.
It’s the short story Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut jr come to life.
The Dems have advanced from copying 1984 to realizing Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, which depicts a society where the government enforces absolute equality by handicapping individuals with superior intelligence, strength, or beauty. The story follows the Bergeron family, whose exceptionally gifted son, Harrison, rebels against the system and is ultimately killed by the Handicapper General. (Google ai description of story)
No one is being handicapped here. This is to eliminate a program aimed at 4 year-olds, currently 2,100 children.
Can we please stop tip-toeing around it? He is a globalist puppet, he is part of a regime, and quite literally everything he stands for is antithetical to our Constitution and our system. Idiotic trust fund babies will absolutely elect him, and it will absolutely have broader consequences. Could everyone in the other 49 states please wake up? This is kinda now or never time.
James, I don’t want to sicken you further, but in 2018, AOC won the primary with less than 15,000 votes, TOTAL in a district of over 700,000. That tells us a lot of important things. If Hitler ran in that primary, would he have gotten more or less votes?
AOC’s seat in Congress is a cheap seat.
AOC wants’ Chuckey’s senate seat…..Burn Chucky, burn.
Teacher’s Unions have grown into a cancer: “[T]he National Education Association (NEA) was founded in 1856, modern teachers’ unions gained legitimacy in the 1960s, primarily focusing on collective bargaining for better pay and working conditions. The two major unions, the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have since transitioned to become powerful advocates for educational policy and political lobbying” (https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/education/teachers-unions-past-and-present).
Zorro-Ham Mom-Scamie is not qualified to make sweeping changes to educational initiatives. He should stick to making the subways safe again, cleaning the streets of trash, and fighting crime—these things alone would improve the access to education.
Unions are unconstitutional criminal organizations whose sole bargaining chips consist of breach of contract, trespass, threats, intimidation, stalking, vandalism, property damage, bodily injury, etc.
No contract with a union may be entered into.
Americans are free to operate a a free enterprise or accept or reject employment.
So when didja get that 8 hour workday? When was child labor outlawed? Anyone hanged for it?
Asking for a friend…
You know, these improvements in society were always coming because of greater enlightenment and bi-partisan effort in working towards “a more perfect union,” and just because unions once achieved something good doesn’t mean they can’t turn into political despots
….some good [achieved a long time ago] doesn’t change the fact that good things can be, and often ARE, infiltrated, misappropriated, and ruined by those seeking greater control of social levers like education. Can a good thing be ruined? Asking for a friend.
Private unions are fine. Government unions are not. You have to understand the difference.
While one party can be fiscally responsible, the other party can promise the sky to get get government employees votes. Because their terms in office are limited they don’t pay for not delivering. We see that with government workers pension that were over promised but never funded and now those pension funds are going broke and leaving government employees with little or no pension money or loading the costs on taxpayers. Yet the politicians that made those promises are long gone and newer workers still buy the broken promises.
That is a voter problem isn’t it? To vote for people who are making these promises and those voters reaping the benefits of better teachers?
How is that the fault of unions that were, in part, a reaction to failure to deliver on promises from an organization that is nearly impossible to sue?
“So when didja get that 8 hour workday?”
When private enterprise increased productivity, and offered it (along with higher wages) to recruit and keep good employees.
I could see the need for unions when moguls exploited the workforce, with serious injury or death the frequent resuit.
But teachers’ unions today are basically the Democratic Party negotiating with itself.
Someone else’s private property is exactly not one scintilla of your business.
Americans are free to run a business or accept or reject employment.
Americans are not free to commit breach of contract, trespass, threats, intimidation, stalking, vandalism, property damage, bodily injury, etc., with impunity.
Outlaw police unions first.
Police unions are a worse cancer – backing police who kill startled innocent citizens because the cops can’t read a house address.
Our biggest geopolitical rival at the moment is China. It is in China’s interest to see the US education system become less effective at producing creative, highly-intelligent, original-thinking, leaders. So this proposal on Mad-man-y’s part is right in line with China’s strategic global interests. Is it really so outlandish to ask whether China is, in some perhaps indirect way, funding his mayoral campaign?
Perhaps ask Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton why we fed China’s economy by getting China into the WTO.
So what, old man? There are 300,000,000 other people in the US and many of them in conservative governed states, states where the conservatives can demonstrate the clear superiority of double-digit percentage increases in police pay and private ownership of prisons and barely single-digit percentage increases in teacher pay and school funding.
You know, of course, this is a program that is applied to 4 year olds on their way into kindergarten?
Just one more good reason to defund public education.
Madmani and the entire communist American welfare state are unconstitutional, and as such, must be struck down.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The Dystopia Left Tyrants are defined by Shaw in: “Man and Superman” “Maxims for Revolutionists Idolatry” with these few lines:
“The art of government is the organization of idolatry.
The bureaucracy consists of functionaries; the
aristocracy of idols; the democracy, of idolators.
The populace cannot understand the bureaucracy; it can
only worship the national idols. “
“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”
True decades ago and today, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Quit it.
It is fascinating to me watching from afar this dalliance by NYC citizens with a mayoral candidate that is proposing policies which have a well known record of abysmal performance. Just how delusional can voters be? In my home school district, the school district’s strategy was to house the gifted programs in the lowest performing schools. This resulted in a boost in the average test scores for these schools, perhaps also buffering incompetent school officials from being exposed by really low test scores. So there might be unintended consequences in addition to the obvious of shedding high performing students from the public schools.
Might I suggest to Mr. Mamdani that the ultimate in equity would be to award students with vouchers. That would go a long way to reduce any gap in education affordability. The downside is that your public school teachers and educational bureaucracy will have major conniptions though which would present significant problems getting elected. Side with equity or side with the oligarchy? What is a Democratic Socialist supposed to do?
Ain’t teacher’s unions grand?
They teach the kids garbage so they can grow up used to believeing garbage.
I hope Zohan wins and Antifa and the illegals take over! It serves them right.
Vouchers do nothing to reduce the affordability gap. Private schools either simply raise tuition to match the value of the voucher, continuing to freeze out poorer students or the voucher is so small an amount versus the tuition that those who cannot afford the tuition without the voucher will remain unable to afford it with the voucher.
It’s like a $10 coupon at a Rolls Royce dealer.
OT
“You have four months to learn spanish.”
– Bad Bunny
_______________
Is there one among you who doubts the “Great Replacement”?
I was learning Italian. Grazie
Yiddish for me. Oy.
AKA “la gran reemplazo” AKA BOHICA time Gringo!
Dear Mr. Turley, thank you so much for today’s article. A half a century ago I was in school. At that time, the African-American girls I was in school with would not participate in gym class much less in any other classroom. Often, they along with their boyfriends, would line the hallways between classes. So, when the left talks about “white privilege” I ask “Where?” The African-Americans have been given every single opportunity to make it is this country. For many reasons (Daniel Moynihan’s study points these out) they aren’t successful. The socialist nut case running for mayor of New York is looking to dumb everyone down so the elites can run every aspect of our lives.
What these democrat-socialists” can’t see and won’t admit is that most black “poverty” (both of mind and economics) is self-imposed, chosen, and loved.
Mamdani is doing exactly what Trump did back in 2016. He recognizes what the voters in NY want and it’s not what Trump is offering now. Some of his policy ideas are getting pushback from conservatives and those who can’t distinguish the difference between Marxism, Democratic socialism, and communism. That itself is a failure of our educational system. Who remembers Jay Leno’s popular street interviews where general trivia questions about our history and geography were asked of random Americans? They showed how poorly educated we were and that was back then. These are some of the same people who cannot comprehend complex issues and display woeful reading comprehension. President Trump once famously stated that he loves the poorly educated. Precisely because they are easy to manipulate and fool. That is the sad truth about our country today.
“Some of his policy ideas are getting pushback from conservatives and those who can’t distinguish the difference between Marxism, Democratic socialism, and communism.”
Hunh?
Looks like the DEMOCRATS are the ones who dislike Mamdani and are fearful of a win, but rejecting him could have worse consequences.
“Major US City Likely To Be Stuck With Socialist Mayor, Even If Most Voters Reject Him.” https://www.aol.com/news/major-us-city-likely-stuck-145023864.html
“Mamdani Is More Foe Than Friend in the Suburbs, Even Among Democrats.” https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/04/nyregion/mamdani-suburbs-voters-republicans.html
Try to read with a little more comprehension and context, geoerge.
ROFL!
Those are criticism from conservatives on left-leaning publications. Owens is a D.C. reporterd from the daily caller.
The NY times article only cites one. democratic candidate from long island. Not the boroughs fo NY opposed to certain policies Mamdani proposed. That is a far cry from Democrats in general.
That is how reading comprehenstion works. Understanding what is being said instead of relying on the headlines. Not even a nice try.
clown, please refer to your source for what you said, “and those who can’t distinguish the difference between Marxism, Democratic socialism, and communism.”
Also, you are calling AOL a ‘conservative’ source? hahahahahahaha
Is Woke Time Magazine’s Connor Greene a conservative working for TIme”
“While Mamdani has now secured the endorsements of a number of notable Democrats, there are still top members of the party who have not given him public support. Among them: the two most powerful Democrats in Congress, both of whom are also New Yorkers. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have so far declined to endorse Mamdani, though they have each met with the mayoral candidate since his primary win.” https://time.com/7319858/zohran-mamdani-nyc-mayor-election-endorsements/
You play the same game as what you accuse others of: confirmation bias. Your lower-educated IQ, like gigi, seeks out info that suits you, and then you pretend you know so much more. joke, clown
“Also, you are calling AOL a ‘conservative’ source? hahahahahahaha”
No, like I said reading comprehension seems to be your problem. Read for comprehension anonymous. Try again.
ROFL!!
You are hilarious.
Getting an endorsement is not required to win an election. Plus Mamdani is running for mayor, not state office. Jeffries or Shumer’s endorsement is irrelevant. What matters is the endorsement of the voters and it looks like a majority of NYC voters like Mamdani. He’s the exception to the rule. He represents something completely different and NYC voters are willing to take the chance given the poor choices they have. Just like Trump. People were willing to take a chance with Trump for his extreme views. The same willingness is coming from NYC voters.
You can tell you want to move the goal posts whenever your attempt to rebut fails. It’s amusing as hell.
Busted…. George.
Only you use this word (ROFL!)
Everyone uses ROFL. John Say uses it. Are you saying John Say is secretly masquerading as George?
Dustoff, it even gets funnier than that. “AOL” is the WEBSITE that was quoted. Did geogie think it referred to Ocasio-Cortez? talk about reading comprehension and context problems.!!!!!!hahahah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL
Lying again I see george
What is the lie?
Dumb-X: You’re the ones who “who can’t distinguish the difference between Marxism, Democratic socialism, and communism.” Because of this, your vapid virtue signaling ala-democtratic-socialism will be the ruin of us all. You can’t see the forest for the trees you’re hugging, like fools.
Anonymous, so what’s the difference? You didn’t show us the distinction to prove me wrong. Do you know? I’m not the one using the terms interchangably like you and those of your ilk do. So, do you know how are they different?
They aren’t different—they are simply three stages in the march toward doom. The “distinctions” (you insist upon) are made for dummies like you who ultimately use word-emotion salads to feed your empty heads that can’t make logical connections to past performance and history.
All your overlords have to do is just change the words, and make them look different, and Dumb-X’s will eat it up (rationalize ANYthing!)
Good doggie.
“They aren’t different—they are simply three stages in the march toward doom. ”
No they are not. So you’re saying you don’t know the difference. Thanks for proving my point. You have no idea what each means and why they are different.
Anonynous doesn’t know the difference. ROFL!
No, I’m saying YOU don’t know the [real] difference, and what difference you THINK there is, has been INCULCATED, literally FED into your unquestioning brain.
Again, you’re not answering my question because you don’t know. You’re avoiding it.
Again, you want to “bait” a definition out of someone else because 1) you yourself avoid and don’t know, and 2) any definitions you don’t agree-with will be cause for endless sparring over small details—straining at gnats while you swallow camels.
Why don’t you list your own definitions, since you’re implying a knowledge no else has properly—and educate us [if you can]. I’d really like to know the “distinctions” you make between three different phases of the same thing.
You keep avoiding the question because you don’t know the difference. That kind of deflection is common of those who cannot define the differences. You keep proving it every time you fail to answer the question.
X-s said, as he looked in the mirror.
Lets put the actual subjects, the real perpetrators, back into your statement, where they belong:
The “democrats” famously state that “they” love the poorly educated, who do not qualify for gifted programs and who do not know how to obtain ID’s to vote. Precisely because they are easy to manipulate and fool. That is the sad truth about our country today.”
What democrats have said that they love the poorly educated? You do know Trump was a long-time Democrat right? He may secretly still be a Democrat.
Trump/democrat—off topic,
but to the point here, all democrats are always in solidarity over relaxing all academic standards to accommodate those “poor folks” they feel sorry for, those they have no faith in, those they believe can’t ever measure up to rigor, those they insist can’t figure out how to get an ID,
and these are called the “oppressed.” See Pedagogy of the Oppressed, (Paulo Freire), they so they call their “dumbing-down” “equity;” they call it justice—and you ask “what democrats?”—ALL of them! Don’t tell me you don’t recognize these very democrat “talking points” that have become a damaging reality in our education system.
LOL this Classical Liberal can distinguish the difference between Marxism, Communism and the oxymoron Democratic Socialism. No matter how you try to dress up the pig they are all pigs.
So….what’s the difference? A social democrat is a thing. Some nations practice it successfully.
Practice “it” sucessfully??? You’ve got that wrong!
What is practiced successfully, in your model, is the preponderance of capitalism without which your mealy brand of democratic-socialism would NEVER work….at best your “democratic socialism” is a conglomeration in which the lame part (socialism) seems to work, but only at the expense of its capitalistic attributes. At worst, its a mind game and a good tool for the intellectually-weak such as yourself.
So what you’re saying is you don’t understand what a socialist democrat is.
Yup.
Your turn to make the BIG REVEAL. Hurry up!!!
We’re ready to learn what’s really hiding inside a box of rocks.
A failure.
Please name anywhere Ever where socialism – even socialism lite has succeeded.
ANYWHERE ?
In the world we do not see perfect socialism. We also do not see perfect libertarianism.
What we do see is that the stronger the socialism is the more the failure is, and the more likely there is to be bloodshed.
While the more libertarian a nation is the greater the freedom – the faster standard of living rises.
This was true 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 25 years ago, and it is still true today.
I would further note – that the details DO NOT MATTER.
Forgetting ideology entirely – From govenrment controlling 18% of the economy through to it controling 80%, growth declines by about 1% for every 10% of the economy occupied by government.
You do not need an ideological label – the label does not matter – while big government is universally socialist. What is true is that Bigger govenrment leaves people poorer.
There are excellent non-ideological reasons for this.
Public Choice economics identifies exactly why governments are inherently inefficient at whatever they do.
Nor do we actually want to fix this.
We can fight over what is fascist – but one thing that is definitely true of fascists is that they ARE the penultimate examples of efficient govenrment (though still under performing free markets).
Fascists are precisely why we DO NOT WANT efficient govenrment. Not from Trump – not from Mandami.
If you want efficiency – and we all want efficiency – because they is synonymous with rising standard of living, that is only accomplished int he free market.
Democratic socialism or ANY FORM of more powerful govenrment ALWAYS underperforms greater individual liberty.
Elswhere you claim that “atleast you learn” – but something so fundimental and well known since the french revolution – you are completely ignorant of.
John Say, not socialism. Democratic Socialism. The Nordic model is democratic socialist. They have been very successful in running their government as such.
“What is true is that Bigger govenrment leaves people poorer.”
Are you sure about that? How do you explain China’s vastly improved standard of living? Their government hasn’t shrunk. They are still under a communist system with tightly controlled capitalism.
“Their government hasn’t shrunk.”
BS.
China created free enterprise zones, with a modicum of property and contract rights. In other words, it ripped some pages from the capitalist playbook.
…how do you explain???
The theft of technology, the killing of populations, and the West-sanctioned removal of industry from the United States [all this with nefarious roots, lots of help]—that’s how they improved their standard of living. Stop feeding and spreading the LIES about China.
Glad you are on-board against any more socialist subsidies to farmers.
A totally free market rapidly collapses into a series of monopolies that choke the market to death and intercede to prevent competitors from entering while also preventing any movement towards alternatives that might displace them. To avoid this requires significant government intervention, intervention that has been allowed to fail in the US leading to a handful of companies dominating food, energy, and transportation. It appears that rental housing is the next to go with software being used to lock-step increase rental prices with monopolistic actions masquerading as a distributed system.
“Some nations practice it successfully.”
Nope. There is no nation that has any form of socialism – even the LIGHTEST form of socialism that does not have a rate of increase in standard of living that is atleast 1% lower than the US.
The standard of living i the US is 30-50% higher than the EU. There are very few countries in the EU with standard of living equal or high than the US – and NONE with standards of living higher than better US states.
But even in the US – about half of current red states – were deep blue states for more than 2 centuries – as a result they had abysmally low standards of living. While most Deep blue states today were deep red states for over 200 years and have extremely high standards of living.
That said – even though the average red state today has a lower standard of living that the average blue state – due to the fact that most red states were blue for 200 years and most blue states were red for 200 years.
TODAY -the rate of improvement of standard of living in red states if 50% greater than blue states.
The same is true in the EU – the nations with the LEAST socialism have the highest rates of increase in standard of living.
Interestngly my analysis of the US above applies to a large extent to the EU – the poorest parts of the EU are those parts of the former soviet union – the most socialist in the past.
But these are also TODAY the most anti-socialist and mostly the fastest growing.
Conversely Western Europe has the worst demographics and the lowest rates of growth.
Germany has a standard of living that is about 75% of that of the US – a middle class german is doing about as well as a working class american. And Germany is the “California” of Europe.
Further MANY european countries that the left claims are socialist or social democrat – were so decades ago in the past and today are striving to leave that behind.
Norway is a tiny country, with disproportionately massive oil income, and despite the lefts view of it as a social democracy, is far more conservative than most of the US. Sweden is twice as large, does not have a massive oil trust, and is less conservative than Norway – but still more conservative on the whole than the US.
Sweden in particular has had high taxes and a board social safety net in the past – it is struggling to get away from those, but it is really difficult to get rid of bad ideas once they are entrenched.
Most wealthy people left sweden which damaged its economy.
It was infamous for a time for a tax system so bad that if you made more money you would actually end up poorer.
But most of us know of Sweden today as the country that took the libertarian approach to COVID.
Aside from the fact that approach worked as well MEDICALLY as any other western country – what Sweden did NOT do which much of the west did – was destroy a fragile economy – as a result Sweden has one of the strongest economies in europe.
And idiots like you will use the FACT that Sweden has not been able to totally wipe out the socialist garbage it inflicted on itself in the 60-80’s as the basis for claiming that it is a successful social democracy – yet it success is specifically because of its efforts to abandon social democracy.
“The standard of living i the US is 30-50% higher than in the EU.”
And your source for this evidence is….?
The Standard of living in the EU is actually higher than in the US. Because it seems you are judging the standard of living based on a higher average income and a bigger materialistic culture. In the US the life/work balance is crap. In the EU that is multitudes better than in the US. Not just better life/work balance, also healthcare, infrastructure, a stronger social safety net, and higher incomes are not the only metric that determines the standard of living, and certainly not material wealth.
“ That said – even though the average red state today has a lower standard of living that the average blue state – due to the fact that most red states were blue for 200 years and most blue states were red for 200 years.
TODAY -the rate of improvement of standard of living in red states if 50% greater than blue states.”
ROFL! Come on John, really?
Red states where once deep blue states? You mean when Democrats who are today’s conservatives and relied on slavery to maintain their economies vs. Republicans who are today’s Democrats had stronger industrial economies. You’re hilarious.
“ Norway is a tiny country, with disproportionately massive oil income, and despite the lefts view of it as a social democracy, is far more conservative than most of the US. Sweden is twice as large, does not have a massive oil trust, and is less conservative than Norway – but still more conservative on the whole than the US.”
They are also very socially progressive. Their universal healthcare, and social safety nets are not what conservatives here approve of. In fact those two countries impose taxes at a higher rate and use it to maintain successful social programs, education, healthcare etc. They do that far better than us and that is part of the success of their social democratic system of governance.
“ And idiots like you will use the FACT that Sweden has not been able to totally wipe out the socialist garbage it inflicted on itself in the 60-80’s as the basis for claiming that it is a successful social democracy – yet it success is specifically because of its efforts to abandon social democracy.”
Of course they didn’t get rid of their social democracy completely. Because they are smart enough to understand what works and what doesn’t. They kept what worked and certain socialist ideas do work and that is what drives conservatives bonkers. That some socialist ideas do work and work very well. Nordic countries don’t just stop when it is working. They continually adjust their systems according to societal needs. That is part of the success.
Here Republicans are afraid of any socialist idea working successfully because it undermines their core claim that they don’t work. They go to great lengths to make sure they don’t work by legislating failures into them and using it show that they don’t work. When Obamacare was first propopsed Republicans did their best to ensure that it wouldn’t work properly so they could point out thta it doesn’t work. They didn’t completely succeed and when Obamacare became the law of the land even republicans once opposed to it are now inf favor of it because they got to see the benefits of affordable healthcare and more access. Those against the ACA are still trying to hobble it and force it to fail to “prove” it never did.
Democratic Socialism has been shown to work when properly applied and managed. Republicans don’t want any success to come from it because it undermines their own claims that it doesn’t work when in reality it does.
“So….what’s the difference?”
Nice deflection.
You’re the one who keeps claiming (without evidence) that there’s a difference. The onus is on you to explain and prove that difference.
“. . . the difference between Marxism, Democratic socialism, and communism.”
In theory, they’re all the same: Collectivism and the individual’s life belongs to the state. In practice, the only difference among the three is the method of national suicide.
It is going to be interesting to watch if his policies succeed or fail. And if they do fail, be interesting to see how they spin it as a success. IIRC, a few European countries tried tax the rich policies. The rich up and left. Will NYC suffer the same fate with Wall St.?
Europe has massive problems – Many left over headaches from socialist policies of the 50s-80s.
But also large scale demographic problems.
Regardless, even though Europe TEPIDLY has been moving away from failed socialism lite since the mid 80s, it is really hard to get rid of massively expensive socialist programs that are a huge drag on the nation.
Growth in the US has slowed in the 21st century – for most of the 20th century the US average 3% growth. From Reagan through Clinton we averaged 3.5% growth, but Bush II only managed 2.5%. Obama 1.4% Trump I 2.3%, Biden may well have been a net growth after inflation of 0, We are still trying to sort out how much of the data during the Biden administration was falsified.
Trump is purportedly doing 3.8% right now – but I DOUBT that after inflation that is true. My guess is that real growth in the US is under 2% right now.
The difference between 1% and 2% and 3% growth is ENORMOUS.
Standard of living in the EU is at best 70% of the US. And this is getting worse. Growth in the EU was 2% when it was 3.5% in the US, when we are seeing sub 3% growth the EU is seeing ZERO growth.
The cost of past socialism and socialist programs that continue to live on is an enormous drag.
Sure. While most of Europe had to recover from the devastation of WWII, including the continuing problem of farmers and construction teams needing to worry about left-over unexploded munitions, the US was left in pretty good shape, but that has nothing to do with political leanings. The South in the USA has not recovered to compete with the North and that’s been 160 years later.
While you claim that the standard of living is 70% of the US, it’s also clear that the US has a massive homeless problem, a massive drug problem, prisons stuffed full of inmates (some used a slave labor for private companies), and more gun deaths every day than many European countries see in an entire year. There is also the minor detail that the US spends far more on healthcare than Europeans do and yet has lower life expectancy. The US has also allowed its higher education costs explode leaving students in life-time debt vs. many European colleges and universities being free or low cost.
The more massive the growth, the more massive the inflation. However the distribution of wealth from that growth puts 90% of the result into the hands of the 10%.
UF
“It is going to be interesting to watch if his policies succeed or fail. ”
Not the slightest interesting – there is zero doubt they will fail.
Socialism has NEVER truly succeeded anywhere.
At best it massively under performs
The inter-relationship and inter-dependency of plans like Mamdani’s have great effect on other aspects of society as well.
One example and major effect looks at a country’s demographics. Assume that you cannot get a higher education if you do not complete or do well with basic education.
Multiple studies have shown that lesser-educated women have more babies than women with higher education levels.
And who are those higher-educated women who have less babies? Asians and Whites.
e.g., “It also showed that Black and Hispanic women without college degrees or less than a high-school education have more births than similarly educated white women.”
https://news.yale.edu/2022/10/20/study-reveals-disparities-childbearing-race-and-education-level
So for my thinking is, don’t lower the bridge; raise the water.
We MUST DEMAND and go back to HIGH proficiency in the basic RRR’s of education. (Reading, Writing, ‘Rithmetic.)
(Oops. Left out a sentence.
Just prior to my “e.g.,” it should state: “This is true even for those without higher education, ” followed by my sentence beginning with “e.g.”)
The problem Lin is that we are not going back, the left is driving us further and further away from merit, hard work and morality.
What will happen is that Mamdani will end up as unpopular is Johnson in Chicago and DiBlasio in NYC and the media will still protect him as the people suffer. The rich will leave, taxes will go up, pensions will get more and more in debt as he kowtows to the teachers union and crime and anti-Semitism will be rampant.
HB – it is hard to know for certain – and maybe I am wrong – but Honestly I think we passed “Peak Woke”
The problem is that the down hill slope is not smooth and while the death of Woke is inevitable, Woke is not going to die quietly.
I am personally trying to make sense of the commitment of powerful and politically shrewd democrats to Woke nonsense.
It is one thing for AOC who can ride a local wave of left wing nuts as well as have a nationwide base of strong supporters that will stand behind her no matter what to the tune of 20% of the population.
It is entirely different for democrat political leaders – like Schumer and Pelosi and others to beleive there is a future for a party that can get little more than 20% of he people to support it or its policies.
Regardless Democrats MUST move to policies that appeal to a majority of people or become a permanent RUMP party.
We have seen a version of this in reverse in the UK. The Torries lost their way and no Reform UK is polling ahead of both Torries and labor. Labor temporarily controls the reigns of power in the UK – because of the split between the Torries and emerging Reform party. But if an election were held today – or anytime in the past year – Labor would be obliterated politically.
I have no idea what will happen in NYC in Nov. Nor NJ nor VA nor the coming mid terms.
But the writing is on the walls. The democratic party as it is Today has no future. It takes years for a decade+ of bad choices to truly undermine the base of a political party. But that process has started – it is well underway, and just as it takes a long time to get started – once started it is near impossible to stop.
It seems like you would be glad if there was only the Republican party.
Why whine so much about what is going on with the Democrats day after day after day, particularly if it moves to the single-party goal?
I see that you make the plea that Democrats essentially become Republicans, but if they do, why would voters who favor Republican policies vote for the Democrats then and why would those who favor current Democrat policies follow the change to become Republican in all but name?
Seems like an irrational concept, but then it is also a Republican one.
Mandami isn’t the problem.
The problem is the people that are going to vote for him.
There are a couple of groups.
The ones that will get and power and money that comes with being on the team.
Then you have the voters who for decades received trophies for just showing up,
never knew how to play outside with friends but had play dates and a “smart phone”.
Instead of learning math, science, industrial arts, and courses that would give one the confidence to build something, they learned everything that would make them want to tear things down.
These idiots thought that getting tattoos, green and purple hair, every part of the body pierced and mutilated would make them special.
Instead they telegraph their stupidity so that they will never get a decent paying job.
Now that they are in their 20’s and 30’s with no hope of ever achieving anything, they turn to communism.
Then you have the holdovers from the sixties with extreme cases of TDS. Life just passed them by.
Anyone with two little grey cells to rub together (yes I am re-reading all the Hercule Poirot novels at this time) already knows what happens when a communist runs anything – history has provided too many examples. What we also know is that there are far too many parasites in the greater NYC area 9both on welfare, are illegals, or are sucking the life out of the taxpayer through government employment administering to the give-aways to the later.
My hope is that he wins and then destroys the city and loses his tax base as sensible people flee the city. Only then, after complete collapse, can we begin to reconstruct a viable urban city without the problem of placating parasites who have seen what happens when the well runs dry.
We must admit to ourselves that there is no compromising with woke, ignorant parasites, they will cling to our flesh until we are used up. It sounds cruel but so is the historic records of what happens under communism. If we want to save this nation, all notions of socialism and islamic fundamentalism must be irradicated soon. There is no more hope of compromise with them than there is a compromise with islamic jihadis.
What I am afraid of is that there are far too many passive Americans who will not get involved to the point of making a difference and the progs will inherit this nation because of willful apathy on the part of most.
That is such an accurate picture – the best that I have read. Far too many Americans “sit back and watch” as America is intentionally undermined by the left. I fear for our Constitutional Republic.
*. Mamdani won’t run anything. He’s never had a job. Imagine the hard-core union bosses doing wheelies while laughing.
They’re licking their chops right now…
This FLUSH, man-scaped, silver-spooned, intifada pretty-boy, is about to find out.
^^^ see it as an opportunity to open private schools for the gifted and talented and feds can tag that money to be transferred. Private charter schools that lose funding for non performance. Of course we know in NY gifted means at grade level proficiency.
Feds cut money from high schools grades 11 and 12 and expand JCs for basic education and trades. Test out with GE after grade 9. Drop age for workforce to age 16 expanding workforce.
Opportunity
Keep the FEDs out of this – we are trying to CLOSE the Department of education.
Whether you like it or not the federal govenrment will NOT be run by MAGA for long.
At some point democrats will return to office. The GOAL is NOT to provide them with even more levers of power to not merely terminate purportedly good program that you have come up with but to use the money and power YOU agree to giver them AGAINST all the good you have done.
Just and Mandami is looking to ruin and already bad NYC, What power you leave in the federal govenrment will be use by the next democrat to hold power in a similar way.
If you want long term improvement – do NOT expand federal education funding
END IT.
Leave more money in parents pockets and let PARENTS decide how to spend it.
Catholic and other religious private schools have proven for over a century that a quality education can be provided affordably even to working class families.
I am not trying to sell catholicism – merely pointing out that they have managed to provide equal or better education than the public schools for less than 1/4 the cost.
One of the faults of those on the left is the delusion that you solve problems by throwing money at them.
That usually makes things WORSE.
And we have seen that in education and healthcare in the US.
Regardless,
Let the left ruin public schools.
Do not make the mistake of trying to solve a local problem federally.
If your local schools are crap
MOVE or pay for private.
When enough people do that things will actually change for the better.
The most dangerous issue in the country for the left – worse than even immigration is education.
Parents of all cultures are absolutely united in wanting the BEST for their kids.