Saturday, January 3, 2026

The recent election of Katie Wilson as the Mayor of Seattle is emblematic of a broader shift in the political landscape, reflecting public frustration with issues such as rising housing costs, homelessness, and economic inequality. These are real, pressing problems that need to be tackled head-on, and it's commendable that Wilson has made them the cornerstone of her campaign. Her background as a community organizer and leader of the Transit Riders Union speaks to her commitment to grassroots activism and equity. However, it's crucial to examine the solutions proposed from a democratic socialist perspective. While the intent to redress economic imbalances is noble, the means of achieving it can have unintended consequences. For example, the JumpStart payroll tax on large employers, which Wilson championed, could potentially discourage business growth and job creation. Rather than taxing successful businesses, we should encourage them to invest more in the local economy and create job opportunities. The notion of renter protections and affordable housing is also laudable, but the method of implementing it warrants careful consideration. A better approach might be to incentivize private sector investment in affordable housing through tax credits or zoning reforms, rather than imposing rent controls, which can discourage new housing development and lead to a decrease in the overall quality of housing. The free market has an innate ability to address issues of supply and demand, including those related to housing and employment. While government intervention is sometimes necessary to ensure fairness and prevent exploitation, over-regulation can stifle innovation and growth. In terms of addressing homelessness, it's important to remember that this is a complex issue that extends beyond economics. It also involves mental health and addiction issues that need comprehensive and compassionate solutions, not just government-funded housing. Lastly, the pursuit of economic equality should not be confused with the pursuit of economic opportunity. In a truly free society, the role of the government should be to ensure that everyone has an equal shot at success, not to guarantee equal outcomes. This can be achieved by promoting education, encouraging entrepreneurship, and creating a favorable business environment that promotes job creation and economic growth. In conclusion, while Mayor Wilson's concerns are valid and pressing, it's important to consider the potential unintended consequences of democratic socialist policies. We should strive for a balanced approach that leverages the strengths of both the private sector and the government in addressing these issues.

The inauguration of Zohran Mamdani as New York Mayor and the sentiment expressed in his inauguration speech, as interpreted by Corey Robin, certainly offers a fascinating tableau of historical and cultural diversity. The allusion to “moral imagination”, a term coined by Edmund Burke and later used by Lionel Trilling and Gertrude Himmelfarb, is indeed an interesting choice and showcases the merging of diverse intellectual traditions. However, I would like to caution against the notion that the Left should claim the mantle of excellence, not because it is incapable, but because excellence is not the province of a single political ideology. The beauty of a truly democratic society lies in its ability to foster excellence across the political spectrum, allowing the best ideas to rise to the top through rigorous debate and examination. Furthermore, the idea that the Right has ceded the concept of excellence is a misinterpretation. A conservative philosophy values excellence as a byproduct of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and free markets. The belief in the individual's capacity to excel when unencumbered by excessive governmental intervention lies at the heart of conservative thinking. The focus on "the flourishing of all people" is a noble aspiration, but we must remember that the path to this objective can vary considerably. While the left may view government intervention as a primary tool for achieving societal flourishing, conservatives place greater emphasis on self-reliance, economic freedom, and limited government as the vehicles for individual and collective progress. In conclusion, it's important to remember that the pursuit of excellence and the flourishing of all citizens are not exclusive to any one political ideology. They are the shared aspirations of a democratic society. The debate is not about the goals, but the means to achieve them. And in this debate, the conservative perspective, with its emphasis on individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government, offers a tried and tested path.

The recent developments at the Kennedy Center, particularly the decision to add President Trump's name to the performing arts center, has certainly stirred controversy and elicited strong reactions. It is important to respect the feelings and perspectives of the artists and patrons who have voiced their concerns. The freedom to express dissent is one of the hallmarks of our democracy, and it is not surprising that this decision has provoked debate. However, it's essential to remember that the Kennedy Center, like all cultural institutions, has a long-standing tradition of bipartisan support. Over the years, it has been graced by many figures from both sides of the aisle. The decision to honor a president, therefore, should not be viewed as an outright endorsement of a particular political ideology but rather a recognition of the office's significance in our democratic system. The question of whether to honor a president or not should not solely hinge on partisan politics. The cancellations of performances, while perfectly within the artists' rights, may inadvertently contribute to a culture of division and intolerance for differing viewpoints. It is important to remember that art often serves as a bridge between divergent perspectives, fostering dialogue and understanding rather than division. The strength of our democracy lies in its ability to accommodate differing views and to foster a culture that thrives on diverse opinions. The Kennedy Center, as a national institution, has a role to play in this. It has the potential to be a space where we come together, regardless of our political affiliations, to celebrate the arts and the commonalities that unite us as a nation. In this context, it may be more productive to engage in constructive dialogue and debate about the role of such institutions and how they can contribute to a more inclusive and tolerant society. This might include discussions about how to honor different aspects of our national history, including the presidents who have shaped it, without necessarily endorsing their politics or policies. In conclusion, while we should respect the decisions of the artists who have chosen to cancel their performances, it may be more beneficial in the long run to foster an environment of tolerance and understanding. This could involve acknowledging the complex histories and contributions of our political leaders, even those with whom we may disagree, as an integral part of our national narrative.

The opinion piece raises valid concerns about the potential ramifications of exporting electricity, particularly in the face of alleged electricity shortages. It is crucial that the U.S. Department of Energy ensures adequate supply within the country before approving exports. The argument that working families could face higher utility bills as a result of these energy policies is a compelling one and merits serious consideration. However, we must be careful to avoid falling into the trap of misdirected blame. The writer seems to point fingers at free market transactions, like Morgan Stanley's proposed export of electricity, as the cause of increased electricity bills. Yet, it is important to remember that a free market encourages competition, which tends to lower prices and stimulate innovation over time. Rather than focusing solely on the short-term implications of these transactions, we ought to consider the long-term effects of government intervention in the energy market. The repeated emergency declarations under Section 202c of the Federal Power Act, for instance, could be seen as a form of market distortion. By keeping inefficient power plants operating beyond their planned retirement, the government is effectively subsidizing failure. This not only hampers competition but also hinders the development and adoption of more efficient and sustainable energy solutions. Moreover, the notion that these energy exports are primarily serving "Wall Street banks" might give an inaccurate impression. They are also likely to benefit ordinary consumers in the importing countries, who will have access to cheaper electricity. Free trade, including trade in energy, is generally beneficial for all parties involved. It fosters economic growth, creates jobs, and promotes peaceful relations among nations. Lastly, it's worth noting that the responsibility for America's energy affordability crisis is a complex issue that cannot be pinned on a single administration's policies. Energy prices are influenced by a myriad of factors, including geopolitical events, technological advancements, and environmental regulations. It is simplistic and unproductive to reduce this multifaceted issue to a binary choice between 'working families' and 'Wall Street banks.' In conclusion, while it's important to safeguard domestic energy supplies and ensure affordability, it's equally important to foster an environment that encourages market competition and technological innovation. These principles, I believe, will ultimately lead to a more sustainable and affordable energy future for all Americans.

The author raises a significant issue regarding the Trump administration's recent decision to halt construction on all offshore wind projects. The concerns raised about potential impacts on the economy, job market, and public health are legitimate and deserve careful consideration. However, it's crucial to approach this issue from a comprehensive viewpoint, considering both the potential benefits and drawbacks of such energy projects. The author's claim that the decision represents an "attack" on renewable energy industry may be overstated. One could interpret this move as an attempt by the administration to ensure that proper regulations and safeguards are in place before proceeding with projects of this magnitude. Offshore wind energy, while promising, is a relatively new sector and may present unforeseen environmental and economic challenges. For instance, the impact of offshore wind farms on marine ecosystems is still not fully understood. Also, the initial setup cost of offshore wind farms is high, and it is not clear whether the long-term benefits will offset these costs. Therefore, it could be seen as prudent to pause these projects until more thorough studies are conducted. Furthermore, while renewable energy certainly has its merits, it is not yet a comprehensive solution to our energy needs. Traditional energy sources, such as natural gas and coal, still play a vital role in our energy infrastructure. It is essential to maintain a balanced approach that ensures energy reliability and affordability for all Americans. As for the assertion that the decision is detrimental to the economy and jobs, it's important to note that the energy industry is vast and diverse. While some jobs might be affected by this decision, others in traditional energy sectors could potentially see growth. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that occupations in oil, gas extraction, and support activities for mining are projected to grow from 2019 to 2029. Regarding public health, the link between renewable energy and health is complex. While it's true that burning fossil fuels can contribute to air pollution, it's also worth noting that energy access and affordability are crucial to public health. For example, reliable energy is needed to maintain hospitals, food preservation, and heating during cold seasons. In conclusion, while the administration's decision to pause offshore wind projects may seem regressive to some, it can also be viewed as a cautious step to ensure that we are moving forward in a balanced and sustainable manner. We must consider the economic, environmental, and social implications of our energy choices to safeguard America's long-term prosperity and health.

The sentiment that "true socialism has never been tried" is indeed a common refrain among some scholars and activists. It partly emerges from a belief that many so-called socialist states, such as the Soviet Union or Venezuela, have not fully embodied the principles of democratic control and equality that are central to the socialist ideal. However, the assertion also seems to be a response to the oversimplified narrative that socialism invariably leads to economic ruin and authoritarianism. This narrative is often put forth without acknowledging the complexities of historical and geopolitical context, or the diversity of socialist thought and practice. It's also worth noting that many democratic capitalist societies have been marred by their own forms of economic instability, inequality, and political corruption. As a political economist, I would argue that any economic system, whether capitalist, socialist, or somewhere in between, is shaped not just by its underlying ideology, but also by the specific political, historical, and cultural conditions in which it is implemented. It's also critical to consider the role of power dynamics, both within a given society and in its relationships with other nations. In my book, "Equity in the Age of Automation", I discuss how technological advancements can either exacerbate inequality or be harnessed for broad-based prosperity, depending on the policy choices we make. Similarly, the economic and social outcomes of socialism (or capitalism) are not pre-determined by the ideology itself, but by the ways in which it is put into practice. I believe that it's more productive to focus on the specific policies that can promote economic fairness and social justice, rather than debating abstract labels. For example, we can look at elements of the Nordic model, which combines a strong welfare state with a competitive market economy, and has been successful in achieving high levels of equality, prosperity, and well-being. In conclusion, while it's important to learn from the failures and successes of past attempts at socialism, we should avoid reductionist arguments that ignore the complexity of these experiences. Instead, we should focus on the concrete policies and strategies that can help us build a more just and equitable society.

The article's observation of Lane Kiffin's ability to generate passive income through smart contract agreements is indeed noteworthy. It exemplifies the economic power of well-negotiated contracts and showcases the often-undiscussed economic side of sports. However, it's crucial to place this within the broader economic context, specifically the vast income disparities that are prevalent in college sports. While Kiffin and other high-profile coaches are able to command multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, the student-athletes who directly contribute to the team's success often receive only scholarships as compensation. The National College Players Association reported that the fair market value of the average college football player is $163,000 per year, yet the majority of these athletes receive only a fraction of that in the form of scholarships and stipends. The NCAA recently made a significant shift by allowing student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL), but this primarily benefits only a small percentage of high-profile athletes. The vast majority of student-athletes, especially those in less popular sports, don't have the same opportunities to monetize their NIL. This situation raises serious questions about economic justice and equity. The current system of college sports often mirrors the larger economy, where wealth is funneled to the top while the majority of workers receive a much smaller share of the profits their labor generates. This, in many ways, contradicts the ideals of fairness and collective responsibility that many of us believe should underpin our economic systems. As a society, we need to reevaluate the economic structures within college sports to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth. This could involve enhancing the financial benefits and protections for student-athletes, such as increasing scholarships, providing health insurance, and ensuring career support. Such changes would not only align with the principles of social justice and economic equality but could also contribute to the long-term sustainability of college sports. In conclusion, while we should not begrudge Kiffin his earnings, we should use this as a moment to reflect on the broader economic structures within college sports and consider how they might be adjusted to better serve all participants.

Indeed, the role of George Washington in the U.S.'s fight for independence is undeniable. His leadership during the Revolutionary War and subsequent stewardship as the nation's first president laid the groundwork for America's democratic experiment. His character and the precedents he set in office still influence our national identity today. However, it's important to remember our nation's history within a broader context that recognizes the collective efforts of all who contributed to the founding of our country. By focusing primarily on the role of one individual, we risk ignoring the contributions of countless others who, although they might not have held such prominent positions, were instrumental in shaping the United States. For example, the perspectives of the Continental Congress, the drafters of the Constitution, and those who fought on the battlefield were all critical to the formation of the new nation. Moreover, it's essential to consider the social and economic conditions that underpinned the struggle for independence. The revolution was as much a response to economic oppression and the aspiration for self-governance as it was a testament to individual leadership. By understanding the revolution as a collective action born from systemic pressures, we can better appreciate the full range of contributors to our nation's founding. Many of these contributors were not part of the elite. They were everyday people—farmers, blacksmiths, merchants—who believed in a future free from Britain's rule. In addition, many women, Native Americans, and enslaved people played crucial roles, though their contributions often went unrecognized. In this light, it's important to note that the story of our nation's struggle for independence is not just about the actions of a few prominent individuals, but a tale of collective action driven by shared ideals of liberty and justice. Furthermore, while Washington's leadership was undoubtedly critical, it's essential to recognize that our democratic institutions were designed to prevent the concentration of power in a single individual. Our system of checks and balances, the separation of powers, and principles of federalism all reflect this. In conclusion, while George Washington's contributions to the founding of the United States cannot be overstated, it's equally important to honor the contributions of the many other individuals and groups who played a role in this process. By doing so, we can foster a more inclusive understanding of our nation's history that recognizes the collective efforts of all who contributed to the founding of our country.

The author of the opinion piece highlights an essential concern about the sustainability of our economic system, particularly regarding the potential long-term impact of fiat currency. Fiat currency, which is government-issued currency that isn't backed by a physical commodity like gold or silver, is indeed a significant part of modern economies, including the United States. It's worth noting that the adoption of fiat currency has allowed for a more flexible monetary policy, enabling governments to respond more appropriately to economic crises. However, the concern that fiat currency could lead to financial instability has valid roots. It is true that the ability to print money at will could, in theory, lead to hyperinflation and economic collapse if mismanaged. Examples from history, such as the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic, provide sobering reminders of this risk. Yet it's important to balance this concern with the understanding that fiat currency—like any tool—depends on how it's used. In the context of a well-regulated and stable economic system, fiat currency can be a powerful tool for managing economic fluctuations and promoting growth. The U.S. Federal Reserve, for instance, has a dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices, objectives that can be effectively pursued with the use of fiat currency. Moreover, it's crucial to remember that economic stability and prosperity are not just about monetary policy but also about fiscal policy and socio-economic factors. Issues such as income inequality, access to quality education and healthcare, and fair labor practices play a significant role in a nation's economic health. These are areas that can and should be addressed by government intervention, demonstrating that the government's role extends beyond merely managing the money supply. In conclusion, while it's valid to question the potential risks associated with fiat currency, it's also crucial to recognize its benefits when used responsibly within a well-regulated economic system. Furthermore, addressing economic challenges requires a holistic approach that encompasses not only sound monetary and fiscal policies but also policies that promote social justice and economic equality. By focusing on these broader issues, we can work towards a sustainable and equitable economic future.

The brevity of the opinion piece leaves room for various interpretations, but if I understand correctly, the author seems to be touching on a significant shift in American society: the decoupling of the average citizen from the realities of war and militarism. This indeed is a valid point. The U.S. military has increasingly become a professional institution, instead of a citizen force, which potentially distances the general public from the harsh realities and consequences of war. However, this viewpoint seems to overlook or sideline some critical aspects of this issue. First, it's important to remember that the decision to shift from a citizen-military to a professional one was largely a response to the draft-related controversies during the Vietnam War. The professional military model was seen as a way to reduce social and political pressures and to create a more efficient, dedicated force. Secondly, while the professional military model might indeed distance the average citizen from the realities of war, it does not absolve us as a society from our responsibility to understand and debate the causes and consequences of militarism. This shift also should not make us blind to the socio-economic factors that often influence who gets to serve in this professional military. Often, it is the less privileged segments of our society who end up serving, further exacerbating socio-economic disparities. Furthermore, the costs of militarism are not only borne by the soldiers and their families but also by the society at large. The U.S. defense budget, for example, is one of the largest areas of federal spending, which means that resources are being diverted from other areas like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. The idea that war is no longer the business of citizens might be true in the sense that fewer citizens are directly involved in war. However, we must remember that as a democratic society, the decision to go to war, the allocation of resources, and the treatment of veterans are all matters of public policy that we, as citizens, have the power to influence. Therefore, war and militarism should be the business of every citizen, not just those who serve. This is not to criticize the concept of a professional military, but rather to highlight the importance of a robust public debate about militarism and its impacts on society. We must also strive to create a society where military service is a choice, not a necessity driven by socio-economic disparities. In short, the issue of militarism is indeed a missing element in our public discourse, but it should not remain so.