Socialism plus tribalism equals calamity for the Big Apple



Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s shocking upset win in June’s Democratic primary for New York City mayor lit up the progressive base while alarming moderates, city residents, and anyone wary of his blend of raw collectivism and pointed racial politics. What few have examined is how that unstable mix carries the seeds of its own collapse.

Collectivism as an economic philosophy is not new. More than a century of evidence shows the consistent failure of its modern form.

The cultural and economic Marxism animating today’s progressive left is a dog’s breakfast of demands promoted in the name of the ‘oppressed.’

Every modern “market” economy includes socialistic features: government ownership or control of production, progressive taxation, industrial regulation, welfare programs, and other redistributive policies. These operate like dials on a control panel, adjusted up or down depending on who holds power. Push the collectivist dials too far, and the system shifts along a spectrum toward central control.

The persistence of collectivism reflects blind faith in what people think should work rather than what does. When the dials turn high, the results almost always damage the human condition. The rare cases of relative success appear in small, culturally homogenous, high-trust societies — and even there, private initiative and meritocracy remain essential.

The Scandinavian paradox

Progressives love to point to Scandinavia as proof that “socialism works.” Yet the Scandinavian collectivist model actually confirms its limitations, both in its successes and failures.

By the 1990s, these countries reached the limits of their mixed-economy “Nordic Model” after a period of postwar public-sector expansion. Economic reforms and deregulation followed.

What makes their experiment more sustainable than in larger, more diverse nations is not socialism itself but historic cultural cohesion. Until recently, Scandinavia was defined by small size, strong national identity, and ethnic homogeneity. That cohesion has frayed under decades of refugee inflows, prompting reversals. Denmark, for example, has now adopted tougher asylum policies after decades of rising immigration.

Mamdani’s contradictions

That cohesion is absent in New York, which makes Mamdani’s platform especially volatile. His campaign combines extreme economic policies such as rent freezes, government-run grocery stores, and dramatic minimum wage hikes with unabashed racialism. He refused to disavow calls to “globalize the intifada” and openly proposed higher property taxes on “richer and whiter” parts of the city.

The cultural and economic Marxism animating today’s progressive left is a dog’s breakfast of demands promoted in the name of the “oppressed” and seeks to “decolonize” all evidence of Western civilization from modern life. Like most insurgent collectivist movements, the progressive left is united more by what it is against — Enlightenment rationalism, free markets, individual liberty, Judeo-Christian values — than by any coherent program.

RELATED: Stop calling Zohran Mamdani a communist — he’s something worse

Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

At its core, socialism is universalist. It assumes citizens will treat one another as extended family, placing altruism above self-interest. The moment people recognize differences — between groups or individuals — that illusion collapses. True solidarity, homogeneity, and “equality of outcome” demand the suppression of individuality. That’s why the progressive left abandoned “equality” for “equity.” Equality allows for individual difference. Equity enforces uniformity.

Mamdani’s platform exposes collectivism’s core flaw: Solidarity cannot survive out-groups. Once Jews, whites, capitalists, or any other group are branded outsiders, cohesion breaks down. History records what comes next — kulak liquidation in Russia, mass starvation in Mao’s China, the slaughter in Rwanda. Unless the targeted group is small and easily crushed, socialism inevitably devolves into zero-sum tribalism.

Socialism or tribalism?

Despotic totalitarianism is unlikely at the municipal level in an otherwise free country. But the contradictions of Mamdani’s “tribal socialism” in a multiethnic, heterodox city will bring something else: disappointment, unmet promises, and needless misery. New York’s quality of life will further erode as radical ideology collides with social fragmentation.

If Mamdani wins, the only question is which outlasts the other — socialism or tribalism. History offers the answer. Tribalism survives. And it leaves behind a bitter coda to the American creed that “all men are created equal.”

Race is not righteousness — Jesus died for our sin, not our skin



For as often as the phrase “Christ is King” trends on social media, it seems like a growing number of self-professing Christians have forgotten that it was sin — not skin — that kept Jesus on the cross.

Millions of Americans gathered this past Easter Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Apart from that ultimate sign of self-sacrifice, we would still be in bondage to sin and face the penalty for indulging it — spiritual death and eternal separation from God. That’s because, according to the Bible, we are all born in sin and remain spiritually dead unless we turn from our sin and place our hope and trust in Christ.

No argument reveals a smaller mind than the impulse to link sin to skin for ideological gain.

Messages circulating on X often sound wildly different, but many follow the same script. On any given day, you’ll find someone — often claiming to be Christian — warning that a specific group poses a unique threat to the American way of life.

Some wrap their claims in the pseudo-academic language of “race realism” and genetic determinism. Others frame it as cultural criticism. But the message stays the same: Those people over there are the real problem.

Years ago, I noticed this pattern in how some black progressives invoked slavery and Jim Crow to argue that “whiteness” itself is an inherently evil force driving racism.

Today, a growing number of white conservatives fire back with crime statistics, claiming black Americans are inherently violent.

Meanwhile, a rainbow coalition of agitators — including Hispanics and Asians — spends its time urging followers to “notice” Jewish control of everything from pornography to U.S. foreign policy.

Different faces, same poison.

Ethnic and political tribalism has convinced many Americans that moral decay is always someone else’s fault. It’s not our problem. It’s their problem.

They chase any story or video that reinforces their worldview and dismiss anything that challenges it. A white police officer involved in a fatal shooting of a black man becomes proof that policing itself is systemically racist. A black teenager who commits a crime becomes a symbol of supposed racial dysfunction — not an individual but a statistic.

Many in this mindset obsess over IQ scores and genetic theories. But no argument reveals a smaller mind than the impulse to link sin to skin for ideological gain.

Christ’s death on the cross should convict every one of us to examine our own hearts. The moment you start measuring your worth by someone else’s failure, you’re already losing the moral battle. Comparative righteousness is a foolish and dangerous game.

The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18 illustrates the danger of self-righteousness. Pharisees prided themselves on strict adherence to the law, so it’s no surprise that the one in Jesus’ story thanked God for his supposed moral superiority. He fasted, tithed, and avoided obvious sins. He was especially grateful not to be like the tax collector — a judgment that, on the surface, seemed justified.

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!”

Jesus shocked the crowd with the conclusion: It was the tax collector — not the outwardly religious Pharisee — who went home justified. He drove the point home with a final line that still cuts: “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The world would look very different — better, even — if more people, especially Christians, followed the example of the tax collector instead of the Pharisee.

Every person, family, and community carries its own burdens. Certain sins may show up more often in some groups than others, but that only looks like moral deficiency when we stop measuring ourselves against God and start judging others as the standard.

That’s why I advocate an “inside-out” approach to social commentary. I focus first on the issues that are common, pressing, and personal. Telling hard truths is difficult enough. It’s even harder when the messenger comes off as an outsider taking shots rather than someone who cares enough to speak from within.

Conservatives have every right to criticize America’s cultural collapse — but they should think twice before using China’s Xi Jinping to deliver the message. And if even Vivek Ramaswamy can’t offer light criticism without backlash, maybe it’s not just the left that has a problem hearing the truth.

The inside-out approach beats the alternative. It forces us to confront our own flaws instead of obsessing over everyone else’s. The outside-in method puts the sins of others under a microscope, while hiding the mirror that would show our own.

That’s why I don’t understand black pastors in neighborhoods torn apart by gang violence who spend their sermons denouncing “white supremacy” or DEI. Those things may be worth discussing — but they’re not why kids are dying in their streets.

Likewise, a white pastor in Wyoming would do much more good addressing his state’s sky-high suicide rate — often involving firearms — than speculating on how rap music and absent fathers are ruining black teenagers in Chicago.

Nothing’s wrong with offering honest insights about what plagues other communities. Tribalism shouldn’t stop us from grieving or rejoicing with people who don’t look like us. But the problem comes when we frame both vice and virtue in ethnic terms.

The apostle Paul didn’t tailor his warnings about idolatry, greed, lust, or murder based on ethnicity. His message was universal because the human condition is universal.

That’s why Christians must always remember: Jesus died for our sin, not our skin.

Trump as ‘deporter in chief’? The real numbers might shock you



Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in an interview with CNN’s Jim Acosta, compared Trump’s immigration policies to Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. He claimed that Hitler didn’t bother with German law — he just hauled people off to death camps in Poland and Hungary. Apparently, that’s what Trump is doing now by deporting MS-13 gang members to El Salvador.

Symone Sanders took it a step further. The MSNBC host suggested that deporting gang-affiliated noncitizens is simply the first step toward deporting black Americans. I’ll wait while you try to do that math.

The debate is about control — weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent.

Media mouthpieces like Sanders and Matthews are just the latest examples of the left’s Pavlovian tribalism when it comes to Trump and immigration. Just say the word “Trump,” and people froth at the mouth before they even hear the sentence. While the media cries “Hitler,” the numbers say otherwise. And numbers don’t lie — the narrative does.

Numbers don’t lie

The real “deporter in chief” isn’t Trump. It was President Bill Clinton, who sent back 12.3 million people during his presidency — 11.4 million returns and nearly 900,000 formal removals. President George W. Bush, likewise, presided over 10.3 million deportations — 8.3 million returns and two million removals. Even President Barack Obama, the progressive darling, oversaw 5.5 million deportations, including more than three million formal removals.

So how does Donald Trump stack up? Between 2017 and 2021, Trump deported somewhere between 1.5 million and two million people — dramatically fewer than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. In his current term so far, Trump has deported between 100,000 and 138,000 people. Yes, that’s assertive for a first term — but it's still fewer than Biden was deporting toward the end of his presidency.

The numbers simply don’t support the hysteria.

Who's the “dictator” here? Trump is deporting fewer people, with more legal oversight, and still being compared to history’s most reviled tyrant. Apparently, sending MS-13 gang members — violent criminals — back to their country of origin is now equivalent to genocide.

It’s not about immigration

This debate stopped being about immigration a long time ago. It’s now about control — about weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent. It’s about turning Donald Trump into the villain of every story, facts be damned.

If the numbers mattered, we’d be having a very different national conversation. We’d be asking why Bill Clinton deported six times as many people as Trump and never got labeled a fascist. We’d be questioning why Barack Obama’s record-setting removals didn’t spark cries of ethnic cleansing. And we’d be wondering why Trump, whose enforcement was relatively modest by comparison, triggered lawsuits, media hysteria, and endless Nazi analogies.

But facts don’t drive this narrative. The villain does. And in this script, Trump plays the villain — even when he does far less than the so-called heroes who came before him.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Cenk Uygur’s Powwow With Charlie Kirk Bodes Well For Defeating The ‘Uniparty’

Cenk Uygur's appearance on the TPUSA stage is healthy and could signal a way forward out of our nation’s political failings.

People Who Fought In Afghanistan Know Why Nation-Building Was Never Going To Work

In Afghanistan, tribalism is at a virtually unparalleled level. Westerners have no idea how deeply disturbing that tribalism can be.

Democrats Have Only Themselves To Blame For America’s Growing Tribalism

Contrary to the vision of the founders and Lincoln, we are 'going back' to a paradigm of fear, resentment, and tribalist conflicts — and Democrats have only themselves to blame.

Americans’ Lack Of Trust In Each Other Is Getting Dangerous

Not nearly enough attention has been spent on why many Americans have come to believe that ‘the other side’ will destroy the country if it gets power.