Trump Embraces Mamdani Socialism as 'Practical'

Plus: DOGE is disbanded, Trump attempts to influence the Warner Bros. merger, and Democrats tell the military to reject illegal orders

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Trump Embraces Mamdani Socialism as 'Practical'

This week, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie are joined by Reason senior editor Robby Soave to discuss President Donald Trump's unexpectedly warm White House meeting with New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and why he now describes the socialist's agenda as "practical." They examine what this moment suggests about Trump's shifting political instincts, how it fits with his recent comments on tariffs and the state of the economy, and what the disbanding of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) signals about his governing approach.

The group then looks at Trump's attempt to influence the pending Warner Bros. merger and the broader media landscape, including worries about misinformation and new reporting that major MAGA influencer accounts on X are operating from overseas. The panel also considers the implications of six Democrats telling service members they do not have to obey illegal orders and the ensuing backlash. A listener asks how to reconcile consumer benefits from intense market competition with the need to preserve incentives for long-term innovation and investment.

 

0:00—DOGE disbands

4:02—Trump meets Mamdani in the oval office

14:50—White House seeks influence over Warner Bros. merger

27:58—Red Scare, Oliva Nuzzi, and cancel culture

38:46—Listener question on preserving incentives in a market economy

51:29—Democrats encourage military not to follow illegal orders

57:49—Weekly cultural recommendations

 

Mentioned in This Podcast

"Republican Socialism," by Eric Boehm

"To the Socialists of All Parties," by Katherine Mangu-Ward

"A Dirge for DOGE," by Christian Britschgi

"How I Found Out: Part 1," by Ryan Lizza

"FDR's War Against the Press," by David T. Beito

"Mamdani Understands Something About Trump That European Leaders Don't," by Matthew Petti

 

Upcoming Reason Events

Reason Versus debate: Big Tech Does More Good Than Harm, December 10

• Producer: Paul Alexander
• Video Editor: Ian Keyser

What are we consuming this week?

Peter Suderman

• Landman, Season 2

Nick Gillespie

• Plur1bus, created by Vince Gilligan

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• Plur1bus, created by Vince Gilligan

Robby Soave

• Wicked: For Good

---

Comments

[AT]

You see what these SOBs at Reason are doing, right?

Nobody has ever deserved to be hit across the face with a 2x4 more than KMW after this circlejerk.

[damikesc]

Would be a shame if the Natl Guard failed to protect their HQ and something truly terrible happened to them.

A real shame.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

They are trying to save the narrative that they are independent libertarians by trying to claim trump is a socialist, as many voted for kamala.

This after the railed against doge, firings, and the spending cuts under BBB. After ignoring welfare use by illegals, explosion in food stamps and welfare from open borders migration, etc.

[NM Dave]

In order to be a socialist, you have to both understand the principles of socialism and engage in a thought process that leads you to conclude that socialism is a system you believe will result in a better society. Trump cannot be a socialist, as he has no core beliefs, other than in the accumulation of wealth for Trump.

[sarcasmic]

Trump likes Mamdani, lol. That means Trump defenders will soon be defending socialism. I mean Socialism. With a big 's'. Then again his defenders already say that his administration buying up shares in corporations is all hunky-dory. Sure some in the comments pretend that that's a bridge too far, but I don't believe them. Not even a little bit.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Did you rant like this when you beat your ex wife and abused your young daughter? You know, before the tall handsome cop kicked the shit out of you, right before your arrest.

You probably somehow blame that on Trump too.

[GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND]

It's ok because democrats did it first.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Yeap. This maddow level analysis is written for retards like sarc.

[Chumby]

Listening to this would be cruel and unusual punishment; dl

[BigT]

“But any Republican who asks us why is Reason magazine critical of Donald Trump, hasn't really, you know, they need to go to an adult education course and learn how to read.”

F these a-holes. This is the arrogance of ignorance on display. This kind of crap is why I’ll never give them even a nickel.

[proprietist]

Mamdani is not socialist. He may say he is. But he is not. Nor is AOC. There is no evidence either wants to implement socialism, or workers seizing the means of production from the capitalist class.

A generation of Republicans and libertarians labelling universal healthcare, public education from pre-K to college and progressive taxation of billionaires "socialist" made "socialism" a positive thing for Gen Z and much of the millennial generation who don't remember the red scare and the Cold War.

The fact that most Americans think Scandinavia is "socialist" is a joke. Scandinavia are the happiest and most stable countries in the world, so should be studied as a system to aspire to.

And that's what most of the American "far Left" aspire to: social democracy: a fundamentally capitalist system, just with a strong safety net, environmental protections and progressive taxation to balance out the things that makes capitalism problematic, unstable and prone to socialist revolution left to its own devices.

I'm not saying they are right on everything. I think student loan forgiveness is infantilizing educated adults who made private decisions, and I think the green revolution needs to take into account economics for the working class who rely on carbon-emitting industries and technology to survive. I don't think taxing billionaires is a fix-all and I think many criminals are beyond rehabilitation. America has unique historical realities that don't apply to Scandinavia, and a more ethnically and economically diverse culture.

But, yes, Mamdani's ideas are practical for NYC and not particularly radical. I doubt any wealthy people will leave NYC over Mamdani for anything other than performative reasons.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Would you rather the term "collectivist"?

True socialism has never been tried, not in 200 years.

[proprietist]

I'd prefer the term "social democrat" an accurate term reflecting what these people actually support.

Socialism implies the effective end of capitalism and nationalization/redistributed, and that has been tried many times in various forms throughout history.

[AT]

Social Democrat = Socialist. Stop playing games.

[proprietist]

No, moron. they are different.

Social democracy is a regulated capitalist economy combined with a strong welfare state.

Socialism is an economic and political system where the community or the state owns and controls the means of production, aiming for more equitable distribution of wealth and resources.

Note the fundamental difference.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

So marriage of fascism and socialism in your own definition. Even worse lol.

[proprietist]

Well, no. Social democracy is democratic and not authoritarian, so it is neither of those systems. And again, it is fundamentally a capitalist market economy with private property, so not socialism.

But I can understand the confusion - both social democracy and fascism are "Keynesian" hybrid market economies that are neither wholly capitalist nor wholly socialist. Keynes was responding to the deep flaws of free market economies that led to flawed socialist uprisings and instability.

The difference is on a "political compass", fascism is right of center at 100% lean authoritarian, while social democracy is left of center at maybe 20% lean libertarian.

Hitler and Mussolini were fans of Keynes's ideas, but believed authoritarian government not accountable to democracy would be able to implement the ideas easier than a democratic government that has to answer to the people. Keynes himself was a democrat, and most developed countries' economies adopted social democracy after the war - pretty much every country at the top of the quality of life rankings is a social democracy.

You would understand this as a longtime Reason reader, as Reason reminded us that places like Sweden are in many ways more free market than the US. US is also a social democracy, but it is a very half-assed and wasteful one. It's also a piss poor example of Keynesianism - they got the monetary policy right in general, but the fiscal policy is perverted (instead of cutting government and building up a nest egg in surplus years, they use tax surpluses as an excuse to spend more money, thus we get endless debt).

[BigT]

Fascism is socialism sans government ownership, definitely left of center with the other collectivist ideologies. That you get this wrong proves you are an idiot apologist for authoritarian collectivism.

[Zeb]

I tend to agree with your definition (except for the assumption about the aims of the people implementing it). But the "democratic socialists" seem to want to define it was what you are calling "social democracy". If they don't want actual socialism, then they should stop using the word and trying to rehabilitate it.

[proprietist]

I agree with you, but I think a lot of especially younger online people use "socialism" because Republicans and libertarians have been calling social democracy "socialism" for decades and decades? When asked, they all deny they want to destroy capitalism.

[AT]

There isn't one.

[sarcasmic]

The fact that you are too stupid to see the fundamental difference doesn't mean that there isn't one.

I would explain it to you except for two things. First you're too damn stupid to understand, and second you're such a hateful little man that you'd rather believe two plus two is five than agree with someone you hate who says the answer is four.

[AT]

Aha, we've found a sock.

[5.56]

Lol, clueless

[damikesc]

I'd prefer genocide for the socialists.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

You'd like your favored propaganda. We understand.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Collectivism can never be democratic because collectivism is the antithesis of individualism.

Individualism can simulate collectivism with contracts. Collectivism can't even tolerate individualism, let alone simulate it.

[proprietist]

Social democracy is a center-left philosophy. You speak of these concepts like they are mutually exclusive and not a spectrum with substantial overlap. It's a weird radical view. We live in societies where there are conflicts of rights and collective interests (such as the mutual protection of the common/the environment), and we are also individuals with full individual rights.

"Individualism can simulate collectivism with contracts."
So...collectivism via contract is democratic, or no?

"Collectivism can't even tolerate individualism, let alone simulate it."
Do bands (i.e. musical collectives) have no inherent room for individuality by the members because SOME bandleaders are overcontrolling dictators?

In a hyperbolic, authoritarian extreme like...North Korea or the Soviet Union, yeah, maybe not. This is also true in right-authoritarian regimes like fascism and monarchism, where you are working collectively for the national project's interest or the crown's interest.

Social democracy is on the libertarian/anti-authoritarian half of the spectrum, and some forms of left socialism and communism/anarchism can be as well. Social democracy is a balanced, centrist ideology that balances the broader wealth creation engine of capitalism with improved equality of opportunity, stability and protection of both collective and individual rights, and offsets for the many places markets fail.

Solutions to markets' failure to provide, say, health care for the poor has nothing to do with whether that society is individualist or collectivist in nature. The question is whether failure to provide basic needs creates instability that endangers that society's sustainability.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

No, it’s just leftist. Therefore it’s proponents should be removed, and their work destroyed.

[Azathoth!!]

Sadly, they're being told that democratic socialism IS social democracy.

Social democracy is a crawl towards communist oppression.

Democratic socialism is when you vote for communist oppression.

[sarcasmic]

Tell that to the citizens of Norway.

[proprietist]

Social democracies like Scandinavia are the most stable countries in the world. They aren't going to regress to Soviet style state socialism. The safety net is the cost of stability. It is good for business, good for everyone's rights, and good for peace.

I am not necessarily advocating for implementing Scandinavian style systems in the US. We have unique historical problems to cope with that ethnically and economically homogenous Scandinavia didn't.

All I know is addressing the failure of controlling healthcare costs in a for-profit system and the failure of providing paths to more affordable higher education and vocational training are driving young people towards normalizing "socialism" when all attempts to fix those problems are labelled "socialism."

[TJJ2000]

I'm still wonder why the F you both aren't in Norway.
Treasonous BS-Propaganda spouting [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].
The USA doesn't need to be conquered by your Nazi-fanboy-ism.

[proprietist]

LMAO, right, modern Norway: bastion of Nazism...you realize how utterly fucking stupid you sound? I might as well call you a Nazi back, and it would be just as meaningless.

Maybe we want to improve America to have a similarly high QOL and solve the intractable problems rooting in our history instead of running away from a challenge like a coward?

[TJJ2000]

If you cannot support Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
GET THE F OUT!

[Azathoth!!]

All I know is addressing the failure of controlling healthcare costs in a for-profit system and the failure of providing paths to more affordable higher education and vocational training are driving young people towards normalizing "socialism" when all attempts to fix those problems are labelled "socialism."

Because it is government, trying to 'fix' these issues that has actually created this problem.

Instead of encouraging the proliferation of health care providers, higher learning and vocational paths the state tried to hide the costs completely through third party systems and 'low' interest loans.

This government involvement ended proliferation and caused real prices to rise due to both the loss of competition and the hiding of the cost.

The solution is to get government completely out of these arenas save as an arbiter of 'did you get what you paid for'.

[Mickey Rat]

"social democracy"

Democracy does not launder the wrong notions of socialism into something good, and socialism corrupts democracy.

[Liberty_Belle]

I'm not saying they are right on everything. I think student loan forgiveness is infantilizing educated adults who made private decisions,

Made private decision coming out of highschool going into college at age 18 on avg. I don't consider fresh 18 yr olds as able to make responsible adult decisions. By the time they have a iota of what the ramifications are ( irl , not just words on a paper) over years to come, it is too late; they are already on the hook. Most 18 yr olds haven't had to pay for their own smartphone yet, and we want to blame them for not knowing what a student loan obligation means for the next decade or more of their lives. Not fair to an 18 yr ... the age at which they sign on the dotted line.

Heck, you can't even legally drink until 21 ... yet , somebody lets you commit to indentured servitude without an appreciation for the consequences straight out of highschool.

[Social Justice is neither]

So you agree with the intentional infantalizing of adults by pushing off responsibility even father, bravo. Sorry commie girl but the way to make people responsible is to make and hold them responsible, not by removing consequences.

[damikesc]

"Made private decision coming out of highschool going into college at age 18 on avg. I don't consider fresh 18 yr olds as able to make responsible adult decisions."

So, what should we raise the voting age to? I mean, CLEARLY, well above 18. Too immature to sign a contract, to immature to vote.

And given that colleges are the ones misleading them, should we now seize their endowments to retire these debts and never back a loan for education for the remainder of history?

[Zeb]

I won't complain if you want to change the age of majority back to 21, including voting.

[sarcasmic]

I'd go a step further. I don't think that anyone should be allowed to vote for an office unless they are old enough to hold it. Meaning nobody can vote for president unless they're thirty five or older.

[Lester75]

If you are old enough to join the army or National Guard, you are old enough to vote because some political doofus can send you into dangerous action.

[proprietist]

When I was 18, the amount of student loans I was taking out was almost incalculably high to me. I wanted to go into music production, but the size of loans pushed me towards business and IT, focusing on career payoff. And I went to a relatively cheap school.

The problem here fundamentally is we don't teach high school students consumer and personal finance. We have no earthly idea how to budget, how to file taxes, how to save for retirement. it's a failure of education and a failure of parenting if kids take out massive loans to go to colleges they can't afford and study majors that won't pay their debts. This stupid "gotta go to a great college and study what you are passionate about and worry about money later" mindset was extremely unhealthy and my generation is paying the cost for it.

Student loans are a choice. Almost all of us could have gone to cheaper colleges and/or studied more lucrative majors. The loan benefitted us alone, so there is no social interest in loan forgiveness, which involves taxpayers (many of whom already sacrificed to pay back their own loans) eating debt for bad choices you made.

"Free" tuition colleges made available going forwards? Count me in. But at most I would support freezing interest on retroactive student loans.

[Azathoth!!]

18 year olds are adults. Not children.

And they've been talking about this with parents. They didn't just spring into the world.

Stop infantilizing people.

[BenF]

You make some good points on economics, but we still need to address the illiberal elements of both MAGA and Progressives. Progressives focus on race and identity over merit. MAGA - as exhibited by Stephen Miller and the antipathy towards immigrants - clearly has some genuinely racist elements to its movement as well. Both have problems with free speech. Both have problems with genuine free markets - MAGA with its nationalist capitalism; Progressives with over regulation. I can go on.

A problem is that Classical Liberals have been basking in their previous success than addressing today's issues. This has provided space for Progressives and MAGA to rise.

[proprietist]

The reason classical liberalism does not have much political foothold is that it is not necessarily a static ideology but a response to empirical evidence and data.

Liberal Enlightenment values like democracy, free markets and individual rights have been refined through decades of evidence over countless varied implementations. The ideas Adam Smith had in the 1700s might be different if he had lived until today and witnessed socioeconomics and history the way we have witnessed it since his day. Many of the classical liberal held values and principles, but those values and principles were derived from their best but limited understanding of new rights and new economic ideas at the time.

When people say "classical liberalism" they often mean some unevolved application of the values those thinkers had onto today's very different world, as if we haven't had centuries of economic data and shifting political and economic frameworks challenging many of their assumptions and beliefs. I say this as a guy who adores Adam Smith.

Thinking in terms of a political compass, to me, "classical liberalism" and "social democracy" are side-by-side and maybe overlapping concepts in the libertarian half of "centrist". Classical liberalism is right-of-center, while social democracy is left-of-center. They both use reason and data to arrive at their conclusions (hence why they are "centrist") and share most of the same fundamental values (democracy, individual rights) with primary disagreements over how free a market or how many services a state should provide. I flip back and forth between the two myself, as they both have compelling arguments and considerations. I generally have come around to agreeing with Keynes in theory, and I think many of the classical liberals would have as well had they witnessed the history we did.

[BenF]

All good points good framing, yes. I too also flip back between the center-right and center left.

For instance, I think in 2025 we in the US have become wealthy enough that some form of universal preventative healthcare should be offered. No one would seriously argue that universal public education delivers more --- both economically, politically, and socially - than it costs to provide. Arguably, basic preventative health would deliver more than it costs as well. It would help quell much of the disquiet.

Traditional Classical Liberalism however is not pushing for better public health care, which to my mind, is bad for society and also provides the room for the Zohran Mamdani's to succeed.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Ah, that’s all bullshit. Get government out of education and healthcare. All they’ve done is ruin both.

[Square = Circle]

There is no evidence either wants to implement socialism, or workers seizing the means of production from the capitalist class.

Unless you count the evidence of his own declaration:

"But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it's BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israel), right, or whether it's the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment.

"And what I want to say is that it is critical that the way that we organize, the way that we set up our you know, set up our work and our priorities, that we do not leave any one issue for the other, that we do not meet a moment and only look at what people are ready for, but that we are doing both of these things in tandem, because it is critical for us to both meet people where they're at and to also organize and organize for what is correct and for what is right and to ensure over time we can bring people to that issue."

[proprietist]

Ok, I stand corrected. Maybe Mamdani is an actual democratic socialist, but I still think he is an exception when it comes to elected Democrats on the far left. And I think advocating for social democracy as an "interim" step is self-defeating to revolutionary change required to "seize the means of production." Because social democracy is designed to fix the major problems of capitalism while preserving its wealth-creation engine, when you make society stable there is no reason for most people to want to upset the apple cart and throw the economic system into disarray.

[Liberty_Belle]

Trump loves socialism now. This must be Biden's fault.

[Use the Schwartz]

It's weird how Trump's weathervane mood shifts are both a strength and a weakness. It's tough for leftists to get a bead on a new attack vector, when that vector is shut down within hours.

I'm no Trump fan but I do enjoy how well he exposes the weak-minded.

Keep chasing those waterfalls.

[Azathoth!!]

Trump treated Mamdani like a cutely misbehaving child.

I don't know how anyone could see anything else in that interaction.

Trump was gracious because Mamdani came, as supplicant, to beg for succor.

People can pretend that Mamdani came and spoke truth to the face of power--but he didn't.

He clearly and unequivocably was given permission by power.

And, for a Democratic socialist, that's a huge fail.

[BenF]

Horseshoe theory. MAGA right and Woke left are both illiberal and have been converging for a while now.

[sarcasmic]

Left and right is not a line. It's a circle that converges on authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Which is what MAGA and the hard left both represent.

[BenF]

yep

[mad.casual]

Democrats tell the military to reject illegal orders

Funniest part of this is the same backhanded, "Shut up (niggers) and do what we say." undertone.

Someone who disobeys orders because someone else tells them to disobey is a defector or traitor. A conscientious objector is one who looks at the facts for themselves, says, "I'm pretty sure this action is illegal/unconstitutional.", and refuses to execute.

Even at that, Dems still keep Edward Snowden cloistered away in an international zone.

[proprietist]

"Funniest part of this is the same backhanded, "Shut up (niggers) and do what we say." undertone."
Sounds like projection by you.

"Someone who disobeys orders because someone else tells them to disobey is a defector or traitor."
So Nazis who were told by their priests or family not to follow illegal orders to murder Jews were traitors, I guess.

[TJJ2000]

And exactly how-much/what 'socialism' has Trump pushed for?

- A 10% share which [D]emocrat Socialists wrote/passed the payment-on in the face of Amtrak being 90% gov owned is a pathetic excuse.
- Preventing Japan from owning 5x the US landmass of D.C. clearly would fit in the Foreign Commerce duty.
- Policies on TikTok (Foreign own) clearly would fit in the Foreign Commerce duty.

Care to give any credit at all to....
The De-Regulation.
Exiting the Paris Accord.
Cutting Agencies.
...without painting all those Anti-Socialist agenda's as some-BS way to cry authoritarian?

[TJJ2000]

The very foundation of TDS-BS resides in Trump threatening the Nazi-Empire.
It's right there in the DNC platform ... "He's hollowing out our..." Nazi-Empire.