Taya Graham:  Welcome to our Inequality Report Reacts, the part of our coverage where we respond to current events and discuss how it will affect inequality in our country and beyond. And boy, have there been some big developments to talk about, which I will be doing soon with my reporting partner, Stephen Janis.

Now, several weeks ago we talked about how the Democratic Party was risk averse and suffered from a “get in line” culture, meaning the corporatist wing of the party chose safe and even more dull, moderate candidates who waited their turn yet continue to lose. Think of Hillary Clinton or the fact that Joe Biden decided to run again despite the fact that the entire country thought he was too old. Those are your classic get in line and wait your turn candidates.

Stephen, before we get to how that get-in-line culture had a shock to its system recently, can you just give us a brief overview of what the get-in-line culture within the party is? Just give us a quick primer.

Stephen Janis:  Well, basically it’s a risk-averse culture that is really driven by the corporatism of the Democratic Party. See, the Democratic Party is kind of, I guess, split in a sense, I don’t even know if the right word is split, but maybe schizophrenic, where there’s the centrist Democrats who want to run as corporateist Democrats who want to do the bidding of their corporate constituency, and then there’s a left impulse who wants to be more progressive, but of course can’t really get into the power base and the establishment of the Democratic Party. So what they do is they create a get-in-line culture to keep the progressives out and means like, wait your turn. So like you said, Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of a get-in-line candidate, and Barack Obama jumped the line — And Bernie Sanders totally jumped the line. And really, if we look in past history, the jump-the-line candidates tend to be more progressive. So it’s a way of keeping order in what is, essentially, a corporatist, middle-of-the-road part of the party.

Taya Graham:  Since that discussion, something pretty big has happened which illustrates exactly what we discussed. That’s because in the critical New York primary for mayor, which many pundits said was a referendum on politics nationwide, an unknown democratic socialist candidate, Zohran Mamdani, surprised everyone with a stunning victory over former New York governor Andrew Cuomo — And it wasn’t a squeaker. Instead, Mamdani beat Cuomo by a massive 10 points. This despite Cuomo being the choice of the Democratic establishment.

Now, Mamdani is the exact opposite of the get-in-line type of candidate. First, he was a relatively unknown New York assemblyman prior to the election, meaning he was a state legislator without any sort of high profile job in the city. He started polling at just 1% — 1%. Also, he’s just 33 years old, so he hasn’t even had time to get in line. No one, and I mean no one from the pundit class, gave him the slightest chance to win. And his opponent, the classic get-in-line establishment candidate, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, was considered a shoo-in to win. You can’t get more establishment than a man who had to resign from his past job in disgrace due to a series of sexual misconduct allegations. And then he’s embraced by the establishment to run the state’s largest city. Stephen, how does this even happen?

Stephen Janis:  Yeah, well, you’re seeing something when someone jumps the line that they become, they are dynamic, and they’re dynamic because they’re offering actual policy proposals, which you’ll talk about. Now, see, basically the middle, the moderate part of the Democratic Party, like I said before, is kind of a spokesperson for the corporatists. And what they do is that they soften up the base by saying things that they might do but never really doing them.

So when someone comes out into that mix and offers very substantial transformative policies — Which, again, you’ll talk about — Everything changes, the dynamics of the campaign changes because suddenly you see an organic community that grows around this candidate. He rises on the dynamics of his ideas that aren’t just the corporatist pabulum, which is like, let’s do neoliberal policies, let’s give tax breaks to corporations, let’s do public-private partnerships. No, he says, as you’ll talk about, let’s have grocery stores that are funded by the public that are cheaper.

And I think that shows you just how, I think, empty and vacuous the Democratic middle Party agenda is and why it comes off as being so undynamic. When someone comes in and says, I’m going to transform things — Kind of the way Trump did — Suddenly, everything changes, and that’s what you’re seeing here.

Taya Graham:  Talk about empty. Cuomo received $25 million from a corporate PAC, OK, talk about establishment. And yet, at the same time, there were 11 staffers that worked with him that credibly accused him of sexual misconduct. So when you’re talking about empty, I’m thinking of the democratic values which they tout, they’re supposed to be antimisogynist, they’re supposed to support women, and yet they would embrace a candidate like this. I mean, can’t they see why people would be disillusioned?

Stephen Janis:  Yeah, well, I think it shows how tightly the Democratic middle tries to hold onto power and how that power is driven by a consultant class who, I said before, only has a constituency of corporatists. That’s why the idea, like you said, is totally absurd, that Cuomo would even be a viable candidate to be the mayor of the city when he was kicked out of the governor’s office. But of course, that’s how the corporateist class works, they find him safe, he’ll tout the public-private partnerships, he’ll keep the tax breaks flowing, all the things that have failed that have really set the ground for Republicans to kick Democrats out of power almost across the board.

And remember, Trump made some of his biggest gains in New York City in the past election.

Taya Graham:  That’s right.

Stephen Janis:  Seven, eight points. So it can’t be New Yorkers are happy with this middle-ground message. They want progressivism, which I think is clear in this case.

Taya Graham:  But Mamdani is not just young and also clearly antiestablishment, but he also touted bold, aggressive policies during the campaign. So, for example, he promised to freeze rent for rent stabilized apartments and build 200,000 new affordable homes over the next 10 years by decidedly not turning to neoliberal policies like using the zoning code to incentivize development or tax breaks for developers, but actually invest public dollars into assuring that new housing is actually affordable.

Stephen, how is this different from the establishment Democrats when it comes to the use of tax incentives to build housing? We know a little bit about that here in Baltimore.

Stephen Janis:  We gave out tax incentives in Baltimore to an array of developers and what we ended up with was a lot of luxury housing. But I think what his policies say is something even deeper, more profound, and that is that politics and governance does not have to be cruel. I think that neoliberal policies, the neoliberal project, and Republican conservatism have been based upon the idea that, ultimately, politics has to be cruel. Somebody has to lose, someone has to be tossed out of the country, someone has to be incarcerated. It’s a myriad of things that say, underlying this whole project democracy here is the idea of cruelty.

And when someone comes on the stage and says, you know what? It doesn’t have to be cruel, it can actually be helpful. Government can transform people’s lives in a positive way. Then suddenly the whole bow breaks and people start to panic, which is why they threw $25 million at someone who had been kicked out of office to try to become mayor because he’s saying, we don’t have to have cruelty, government doesn’t have to be dysfunctional. It can actually work for people.

Taya Graham:  It’s really interesting that you bring up cruelty because there’s another policy he has that contrasts sharply with the usual Democratic playbook, and that’s how he actually talked about public safety. That’s because Mamdani proposed creating a Department of Community Safety — You heard me right. Not putting more cops on the street but actually creating an agency that would look to prevent crime by addressing many of the social ills that cause it.

Stephen, I have to say this is quite a stark departure for the average Democrat.

Stephen Janis:  It is totally an answer to this idea that Democrats have been continually criticized about calling defunding the police. Instead of saying, I’m going to defund the police, I’m going to fund a positive, proactive organization that will address the root causes of crime. And guess what? It’s worked in Baltimore because we have a thousand less officers than usual, and the homicide rate is down significantly, and many community leaders cite community organizations, things like Safe Streets.

So it’s so great because in many ways Democrats have suffered even though they fund policing. We just did a story about how authoritarianism was grown and evolved in Baltimore because of our overinvestment in policing. But he’s saying here, I’m not defunding police — I’m just funding things that are better for the health of the community, and that way we can prevent crime.

Taya Graham:  Stephen, one other aspect of his policy that really caught my eye was an idea that he touted in a TikTok video. I want you to watch it and then we can talk about it.

Zohran Mamdani [CLIP]:  Grocery prices are out of control. The cost of eggs and milk has skyrocketed. Some stores are even using dynamic pricing, jacking up the cost over the course of a day depending on what they can get away with.

It doesn’t need to be this way. I’m Zohran Mamdani, and as mayor, I will create a network of city-owned grocery stores. It’s like a public option for produce. We will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores whose mission is lower prices, not price gouging. These stores will operate without a profit motive or having to pay property taxes or rent and will pass on those savings to you. They’ll partner with small businesses and nearby farms and sell at wholesale prices. The job of city government isn’t to tinker around the edges while one in four children across our city go hungry.

Taya Graham:  How anticorporatist can you be than touting city-owned grocery stores? I am just amazed at how progressive he is. It’s like he threw the whole Democratic playbook of public-private partnerships, he just threw it away and said the government can do something better to make people’s lives better. What are your thoughts on this?

Stephen Janis:  Well, what really, I think, is going to be shocking to the Democratic corporatist class is the fact he said, I’m going to take profit out of governance.

Taya Graham:  Yes.

Stephen Janis:  Government can do something without being profitable, without having to be profitable, and can provide a service to people that is actually equal, has some way of making up for the vast inequality of this country. In other words, we can do something good. We don’t have to make a profit off it. Oh my God. And I can imagine how the corporateist class and the consultants are now trying to come up with PowerPoints to show how it’s going to be futile.

But I think that’s a really, really important and bold move, saying, yeah, government should not be operating on a profit formula. Not every facet of American life has to make money. We can do something that can improve people’s lives and it doesn’t have to benefit a small group of billionaires.

Taya Graham:  You know what? You mentioned the consultant class, and I think it’s interesting to explore that. How do they have a different constituency? We know they’re getting money from the Democrats, but they have a different agenda.

Stephen Janis:  I think they’re the tip of the spear that softens up the electorate and says, oh, we’re still liberal, we still care. But really what they’re representing are the corporatists who fund them to ensure that government still becomes a neoliberal profit machine for them and really heightening inequality. So they come up with messages.

Remember we talked about last time you said the Democrats spent $20 million to find out why young men didn’t like them? And we both laughed about that because here we have a candidate who actually did better with young people than he did with older people. So it’s something where this consultancy class has one or two or 10 constituents, which are the big people that can write big checks. They want to send a message out that the Democrats are going to do something without actually doing something, and it’s a high wire act that has been failing. And that’s why, I think, a lot of people are actually panicking right now.

Taya Graham:  It’s not really a surprise that consultants serve a different set of voters, namely the wealthy, and it makes sense that if your constituency is the wealthy and corporations that you can’t do things like call for city-run grocery stores, and you certainly can’t call for Medicare for all. It’s like you’re just campaigning solely for the dollar.

OK, Stephen, we have a candidate who jumps the line, rejects neoliberalism, calls himself a socialist, touts New Deal-like policies, and he has no support from the Democratic establishment, and he beats the party pick by a healthy margin and wins. Stephen, how did he do it, and why do you think it happened?

Stephen Janis:  Like I said, he ignored the Democrat’s prescription for cruelty in policy. In other words, trying to make a cruel policy look actually nicer, and he just ignored it. He jumped the line, he didn’t wait his turn. He said, I have something to offer, and he offered something substantive, and he connected with people in a way that no consultant could buy because he said, I’m going to do something to make your lives better, and I have a way to do it and it doesn’t involve giving a tax break to a corporation. It’s not really profound, in some sense. It’s actually really saying that government, again, can be useful, and government can be progressive.

And when I say progressive, forward thinking, and bold, Democrats fetishize the process. They like to create processes — The middle Democrats. He’s saying, here’s outcomes. Here’s my outcome-based idea. I’m going to make this work. I’m not just going to have a process, I’m not going to create a committee, I’m going to actually do something and make it work — And that’ll be the interesting thing to see if he can get it done.

Taya Graham:  What’s interesting to me as someone who’s a lifelong Baltimore City resident, I think it’s really interesting that he’s addressing things that city residents really care about. For example, he wanted fair, free, fast buses so that you don’t have to pay to get on the bus, that it’s a safer bus, and that it’s a faster bus. He also proposed stabilizing rent prices, building more affordable housing. And also, I think he wants to make childcare, I think from age six weeks to age five years free. Then, of course, the city grocery store. So he’s really affecting people where it really counts: right in their wallet, and it gives them a way to support their families. I think everyone is feeling that pinch.

But I think there’s an aspect of the story that’s really important, and it’s the youth vote. And I think it’s one of the biggest takeaways and maybe even one of the most important aspects of Mamdani’s win. That’s because Trump made big gains in 2024 with young people, and it was a key to his victory in the so-called blue wall of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

We spoke to young people in Wisconsin and they supported Trump for reasons that seem less policy driven and, honestly, more vibe driven. But Mamdani is a little different in that sense. He fills a Democratic policy vacuum, and I think that’s why he really appealed to younger voters.

Stephen Janis:  Yeah, I mean, younger voters are facing existential crises and no one’s really offering them a solution, so maybe they resort to vibes because they don’t really know what to do. What they want to see is a change to the order that has left them in this position where they’re facing climate change, existential climate change —

Taya Graham:  Not being able to afford homes.

Stephen Janis:  Not being able to afford homes, all these —

Taya Graham:  Not being able to afford starting a family.

Stephen Janis:  Exactly. All these things are hitting them at once, and so they look and they see a Democrat saying, we’ll just incrementally move, like an iceberg, slowly.

Taya Graham:  Exactly.

Stephen Janis:  It’s just going to be one little inch at a time. And they know intuitively that’s ridiculous. They know intuitively it’s impossible. So perhaps they migrated slightly to Trump because they were like, well, he’s going to make change. Now we have a Mayoral candidate who comes along and says, I’m going to make big, big structural changes to your life. And guess what? They’re like, cool. Give it to me. I’ll take it. And that’s what the Democrats have to learn from this election. They’re already starting to cast him out in some ways. You already hear rumblings from the Democratic establishment: well, stop it if you want to win again.

Taya Graham:  Honestly, this is really a big loss for the Democratic establishment. But there’s an interesting fact about that. When Mamdani began attracting attention, establishment Democrats, instead of embracing his populous rise, they fought back, like I mentioned, they started that super PAC for Cuomo to the tune of $25 million. Can you believe that during a time where people are dealing with economic insecurity, they would use $25 million to beat a candidate who is promising cheaper rent and city-run grocery stores? Stephen, why on earth did they do this?

Stephen Janis:  Because they represent people who want government to remain profitable and neoliberal, and it’s the only thing that works for them. The formula of government subsidizing business has been the major policy arc of the last 50 years, and they want to see it continue, and they’re panicked that someone is saying no to that, and they’re panicked that young people are actually saying no to that too.

It reminds me, in some ways, of when Bernie Sanders ran in 2016, and the super delegates who they’ve since gotten rid of, we’re like, no, no Bernie Sanders, and we might not even be talking about Trump had Bernie Sanders been the nominee in 2016. Certainly, maybe in 2022. So yeah, they’re panicked.

Taya Graham:  I really like what you’re teasing out here, which is the idea of a political economy within a political establishment. As we were reported on during our last React, Democrats spent $20 million on consultants to find out why young men didn’t like them instead of learning from a candidate who embraced populous ideas and was able to run and build an organic coalition. So I guess the big question is, will Democrats learn anything from his success? And is it possible that the Democrats will stop spending money on consultants and start listening to voters? Or am I just asking for too much here?

Stephen Janis:  You’re asking for too much [Graham laughs]. The moderate Democrats are wedded to the political economy of cruelty, and so long as that defines their party, that will define the culture of the party, and that will define the get-in-line culture of the party. It is something that is so inherent and it’s so intrinsic to the way they do policy that I don’t think they’re going to listen to this young man who has really revolutionized the city.

Taya Graham:  Of course, this election isn’t over yet. I mean, first New York City now uses ranked choice voting, which means when people vote, they pick a first choice candidate and then a second choice candidate. If no one wins more than 50%, the second choice votes are counted from the people whose first choice didn’t win, and this continues until someone reaches 50%. And those results, I think, will be available on July 1. And then there’s the general election in November, which will feature current mayor Eric Adams on the ballot running as an Independent, and perhaps the second-place finisher, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Still

Stephen Janis:  He’s still considering that, yeah.

Taya Graham:  Yeah. So I don’t think this is totally over, but I think this is a pivotal moment for the Democratic Party.

Stephen Janis:  It totally is. They have as clear a pathway as they had with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton to go one way or the other and literally embrace what works, that’s really all that they need to do, or continue on the path that has led them down being a party that has absolutely no power in the US government right now.

Taya Graham:  I have to ask you a question, though. Would this have even been possible without ranked choice voting?

Stephen Janis:  That’s a good question.

Taya Graham:  Because I think I’ve seen Democrats fight the idea of ranked choice voting in other states. It seems that the Democratic Party should want to evolve.

Stephen Janis:  I think ranked choice voting gives people the sense that they can take a risk on a candidate that they really like and it’s not going to be for naught. I think also it allows people to vote down ballot for third parties, but then know their vote will still count for the top of the ticket too. So I do think ranked choice voting will make this country more progressive and less conservative, I honestly do.

Taya Graham:  And I think establishment Dems are scared [crosstalk] of ranked choice voting.

Stephen Janis:  Totally scared. Totally scared. I mean, Andrew Cuomo? Seriously?

Taya Graham:  I know. I know.

Stephen Janis:  Come on.

Taya Graham:  After everything that they went through during COVID under Cuomo, and then, of course, all the allegations of sexual misconduct, it’s really shocking that they would want this to be their choice.

Stephen Janis:  Well, it wasn’t the voters’ choice.

Taya Graham:  This election really does offer them stark choices and conflicting approaches to the upcoming elections. Most important, they need time to adjust based on what’s just happened. They can either spend more money on the consultant-industrial complex trying to buy back voters with messages crafted by corporatists, or they can learn from the victory of an avowed socialist and perhaps search out candidates who have a message that’s truly populous.

Stephen, I need your final thoughts here.

Stephen Janis:  Yeah. My final thoughts are, Democrats, look at what’s right in front of you, and be iterative, and think, maybe we need to evolve along with the electorate. For once, listen to the electorate, not some people who get paid a hundred thousand dollars an hour, OK?

Taya Graham:  Yes.

Stephen Janis:  Just once. Just shut that phone off and just listen to the people that voted in New York and think that New Yorkers might have an idea that might work elsewhere.

Taya Graham:  You know what? The Democratic Party really does need to learn to listen to the electorate, because in this case, it’s evolve or die. Take a look at what people actually want. Take a look at candidates like Mamdani and Sanders and AOC and look at what people are really excited by. Look where young people are voting. Evolve or die. It’s as simple as that.

Stephen Janis:  Good final word.

Taya Graham:  Well, Stephen, I want to thank you for joining me.

Stephen Janis:  Absolutely, it was great.

Taya Graham:  My inequality watchdog for another Inequality Watch Reacts Report. I appreciate having you.

Stephen Janis:  Oh, I love being here.

Taya Graham:  OK. And I want to thank all of you who took the time to watch us. We’re going to try to stay on top of these current events by doing these Inequality Watch Reacts. And as always, we’re your inequality watchdogs, and we are reporting for you. Take care.