The day before the Trump administration captured and extradited Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, many on the right (including yours truly) had fun mocking something newly appointed New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said during his inaugural address.
The proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America proclaimed, “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”
The phrase “warmth of collectivism” offended many of us because “collectivism” is widely understood as a generic label for far-left political systems.
Understandably, the next night's big news—Venezuela's socialist dictator, himself a shining example of “warm collectivism,” being deposed at gunpoint (ship)—quiet the ideological uproar.
But I think it's worth going back to something else that Mamdani said in his inaugural speech, and in that very phrase: “rugged individualism.”
The term “rugged individualism” was coined by President Hoover in 1928. But we have the Democrats to thank for his immortality because Democrats (and democratic socialists) have been running against him, and Hoover, ever since. FDR campaigned in 1932 denouncing the “doctrine of American individualism” and never He actually stopped suggesting that Hoover and his party were fanatically anti-government and favored devil-take-last capitalism.
Attacks on Hoover and conservatives in general as libertarian fanatics remain entrenched in popular society, journalistic and academic imagination to this day. and they were unfair from the beginning. Hoover, a progressive Republican who had served in the Wilson administration, was never the ruthless advocate of do-nothing austerity that his opponents made him out to be. In fact, public spending during Hoover's four years in office almost doubled in real terms (and, yes, Republicans controlled Congress).
For generations, the hard left has framed every debate between frigid, rapacious capitalism and warm, loving government aid. The right often offers the mirror image of the American dream and free enterprise versus sinister anti-American collectivism in one form or another.
This framework fuels political dysfunction and popular distrust because it blinds political combatants to the reality of the status quo: the United States is neither a free-market utopia nor a dystopia. In fact, as a true free market fanatic, I cringe when people call Trump a champion of unfettered capitalism. State capitalism, perhaps. But protectionism and industrial policy are not the capitalism of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
The suggestion that capitalism in the United States is unfettered is difficult to reconcile with the existence of a vast apparatus of regulatory agencies (FCC, SEC, EPA, OSHA, FHA, etc.) or the fact that, roughly, half of all federal spending goes to social benefit programs, primarily Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
It is flatly absurd to look at New York City in 2026 – or 1986, or even 1936 – and see devil-take-last capitalism in action. The municipal budget that Mamdani inherited spend $19.26 billion in public assistance. That money is on top of billions more in state and federal spending. Among its more than 300,000 employees there is a broad network of social workers, health and safety inspectors, healthcare workers and educators. Maybe they don't have enough. But that is not a regime of “rugged individualism” either.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who spoke at Mamdani's ceremony last week, repeated his refrain about the need for the rich to pay their “fair share.” In 2022, millionaires in New York City made up less than 1% of tax filers, but still they paid 40% of city income taxes. Is that a “fair share”? People may disagree, but it's nothing.
Maybe it's bad that the top 10% of American taxpayers almost half of income in the United States, and provide three-quarters of income tax revenue. Maybe it's a good thing that the average wage earner receive more in benefits of what they paid. Maybe it's right that the poorest 20% of Americans receive barely 6 dollars from the government for every dollar they pay in taxes. Maybe we should be ashamed that spend less than France in social welfare programs, but more than Switzerland and the Netherlands. Reasonable people will differ.
But that's the point. Talking about a United States that does not exist is unreasonable. It makes it more difficult to offer reasonable proposals for government action in any ideological direction. If people believe that the status quo is Wild West capitalism, then even attempts to reduce bureaucracy or reform public assistance sound cruel and unnecessary. And if the existing safety net counts as “robust individualism” for politicians like Mamdani, critics cannot (or at least I cannot) be blamed for fearing his vision of “warm collectivism.”
UNKNOWN: @JonahDispatch
Perspectives
Perspectives from the LA Times offers AI-generated analysis of Voices content to provide all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news articles.
point of view
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. Content is not created or edited by the Los Angeles Times editorial staff.
Ideas expressed in the piece.
Goldberg argues that New York City Mayor Mamdani's invocation of “warm collectivism” rests on a misleading characterization of the current American political economy.[1] The author argues that both political sides have long engaged in distorted frameworks: the left portrays capitalism as inherently cold and rapacious, while the right characterizes collectivism as sinister and un-American.[1] In reality, Goldberg asserts, the United States operates neither as a free-market utopia nor a dystopia, but rather maintains a complex system with extensive government regulation, significant spending on social benefits, and substantial social infrastructure.[1] Goldberg notes that the term “rugged individualism” has been unfairly weaponized against conservatives since the FDR era, and Hoover himself has been mischaracterized as heartless despite nearly doubling government spending during his presidency.[1] The author demonstrates that New York City's current status directly contradicts any accurate claims of “rugged individualism,” pointing to a city budget that allocates $19.26 billion to public assistance and employs more than 300,000 government workers.[1] Goldberg further argues that New York City millionaires, although they represent less than 1% of taxpayers, already pay approximately 40% of the city's income taxes, suggesting that a substantial redistribution of wealth is already occurring.[1] According to Goldberg, these misleading rhetorical frames undermine productive political debates by causing citizens to misunderstand the real basis for government intervention.[1]
Different points of view on the topic.
Mamdani argues that the current distribution of freedom and economic opportunity in New York City is fundamentally unequal, and that freedom itself belongs primarily to those with economic means.[2] The new mayor maintains that for decades, workers have suffered the consequences of a system designed for the wealthy, overcrowded classrooms, crumbling public housing infrastructure, inadequate public transportation and wages that fail to keep pace with cost-of-living increases.[2] Mamdani asserts that corporations harm both consumers and employees through exploitative practices, requiring aggressive government intervention.[2] Rather than accept that existing social programs constitute adequate collectivism, Mamdani is committed to substantially expanding government services through universal child care funded by taxes on the wealthy, implementing rent freezes to prevent displacement, and providing fast, free public transportation.[2] The mayor emphasizes that his democratic socialist principles do not deviate from his campaign promises, but rather represent his core philosophy of government, a philosophy he will not abandon despite potential criticism.[2] Mamdani's position reflects the belief that the existing safety net and tax structure are insufficient to address systemic inequality and that more expansive collectivist policies are essential to ensure genuine freedom and dignity for workers.[2]
