Over 12 years of public service, I’ve supported candidates from both parties. I hold views considered right of center: limited government, local control and skepticism that the answer to every problem is throwing more money at it and expanding government. I also hold views considered left of center, particularly on social issues and, to an extent, environmental issues. I take a libertarian view when it comes to personal choices. I just want humans to be happy, so long as their happiness isn’t hurting others.
Ultimately, I left the two-party system because neither party represented me. Both have become institutions focused far more on gaining and keeping power than solving problems.
Congressional stock trading is a prime example. Public support for a ban is overwhelming, yet Republicans have not enacted a clean, standalone ban and Democrats failed to act when they had the chance. Both share the blame. If they truly wanted it passed, they could pass it tomorrow. The dirty little secret is they benefit from the status quo.
As part of an exhausted majority frustrated with both parties, I think we need to acknowledge that people with different political philosophies can recognize the same problems and genuinely want to solve them.
Housing is unaffordable. Healthcare costs crush families and small businesses. College has become more expensive while the value of some degrees is increasingly questionable. Corporations have accumulated immense power. The disagreement is often not over whether these problems exist. It is over how we fix them.
This post is going to drive down on the increasingly prominent role of democratic socialist policies on the left. But before I do, it’s also increasingly difficult for me to support a candidate who considers themselves hard MAGA. I have serious concerns about the movement’s willingness to ignore constitutional norms, weaken checks and balances and place loyalty to an individual above institutions. MAGA captured a moment when folks were sick of parties ignoring basic problems, but it completely fumbled the opportunity.
And yes, POTUS and the Republican Party are playing footsies with socialism too. The U.S. government now owns stakes in 30 U.S. companies. I have real problems with that. Government should set and enforce fair rules for the market, not become an owner of the companies it regulates.
Conversely, I would not support a candidate who openly identifies as a democratic socialist. My opposition is not based on some trumped-up accusation that everyone to my left is a communist. Democratic socialism does not equal communism. Pretending otherwise is lazy.
Let’s drive down.
Democratic socialist policies are no longer fringe. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 32% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters view democratic socialist leaders positively. Among liberal Democrats that rises to 52%. These ideas deserve serious scrutiny.
The Democratic Socialists of America’s national program calls for publicly owned social housing, universal rent control and public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries. I oppose those policies because they expand government’s economic role far beyond a reasonable safety net.
Housing is a good place to examine the difference between recognizing a problem and actually solving it.
Can rent control help someone who already has a regulated apartment? Yes. That benefit is real. But it does not build the next apartment.
Publicly owned social housing can build apartments, but it shifts construction, operating, maintenance and long-term financial risk to taxpayers.
New York City is the poster child for long-term rent regulation. After decades of it, the city still has one of the country’s most severe housing shortages. In 2023, the rental vacancy rate was just 1.41%. Among rent-stabilized apartments it was 0.98%.
Decades of controlling rents did not solve the underlying problem. A shortage of housing remains. Controlling the price of something that’s scarce doesn’t make it less scarce.
So what’s the alternative?
We should allow more housing types in appropriate places, including accessory dwelling units. We should encourage adaptive reuse, reduce unnecessary permitting delays, address financing barriers for housing types such as duplexes and apply smart growth principles guiding growth toward existing infrastructure.
Housing isn’t the only place we’re seeing this philosophy tested.
Another example: government grocery stores.
New York City, now led by a democratic socialist mayor, is becoming a real-world test of the same principle. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has announced five city-run grocery stores that will sell certain staple foods 30% below typical retail prices, with public subsidies helping cover the underlying costs and the city considering a system to manage who can purchase the discounted goods.
Government can subsidize the price, but it won’t eliminate scarcity.
The better approach is to make it easier for grocery stores to open and compete, especially in underserved neighborhoods, while reducing unnecessary costs that drive prices higher. If affordability is the concern, targeted assistance to families in need is preferable to having government own and operate the store itself. This is a fundamental difference between the American mixed-market system and democratic socialism: government can and should provide a safety net without becoming the primary owner or provider.
Someone still has to determine who gets access to a scarce product. If price is no longer doing it, government may end up doing it through eligibility rules, purchase limits or rationing.
This gets to the larger principle behind my objection.
My underlying political philosophy is simple. Disperse power whenever possible. Keep power closest to the individual: families, workers, small businesses and local communities. Government has an important role, but it should be constrained, competent and accountable.
I oppose government picking winners and losers. Locally, I’ve never voted in favor of a tax abatement for developers for that reason.
That does not mean government has no role. We can improve healthcare while demanding price transparency, competition and accountability. We can protect workers and confront monopolies without placing industries under government control. We can maintain a reliable safety net without allowing government to dominate our economic lives.
Democratic socialism moves in the opposite direction from my political philosophy. It concentrates enormous economic power in government and asks us to trust political institutions to use that power wisely. The answer to unaccountable corporate power is not more unaccountable government power.
Both MAGA and democratic socialism tapped into legitimate frustration with institutions that were not delivering results. MAGA devolved into a personality-driven movement willing to ignore constitutional norms. Democratic socialism channels frustration with corporate power and inequality toward concentrating more political and economic power in government. I reject both approaches.
Right now, voters are frustrated with the federal administration and looking for alternatives. The Democratic Party should not assume every victory represents a broad endorsement of democratic socialism. In many cases, voters are simply rejecting the status quo.
This is also why I believe our political system needs reforms that give independents and the exhausted middle a meaningful voice. Open primaries are part of that conversation. Closed primaries and gerrymandering allow a relatively small share of voters, often representing the ideological bases of the parties, to effectively decide elections. In heavily partisan districts, whoever emerges from the dominant party’s primary is often virtually guaranteed to win the general election. I’ll write more about that separately, along with the longer conversation about what happened to the populist right.
The problems are real. That does not mean the people proposing these policies are insincere. I reject villainizing folks we disagree with.
Identifying a problem and solving it are two different things. Good intentions do not guarantee good results. More centralized and less accountable government is not the answer, and I do not believe the solutions democratic socialists are proposing will work.
