Very good article, and I agree that throwing out the "white supremacy!" smear anytime they don't agree with Yang on something is a terrible strategy for any of the other candidates. However, you're making it seem that there's something sinister in that "Yang’s strategy has been to identify the most high-salience, emotionally charged issue within a particular segment of the electorate and pledge to champion the most common opinion on it" because those opinions are united by "Yang’s desire to be the mayor." But while both those things may be true, a different analysis could be that there's nothing sinister about that, and that he's surveying the city and listening to its people, without molding all of his stances to fit into some underlying ideology. In my opinion, this is what sets him apart from other candidates and is responsible for his popularity.
Yang is acting like a typical politician. Btw, I should probably be happy that he's siding with more right leaning folks. But I am not happy because he's not siding with populist types - he's siding with neocons like Lindsey Graham - someone majority of the right hates too.
As a New Yorker, I'm not a huge Yang fan, but the crowd of identity-politics fetishists and career political cronies running against him are the scum of the earth. If you can't understand why normal people want nothing to do with "progressives" like Deblaso who have destroyed New York you are seriously out of touch with average New Yorkers.
Thanks for your perspective. It just seems to me that NYers, after the reign of the current mayor, have got to be looking for pragmatic solutions to improve everyday living in the city. Promising those kind of solutions would appeal to me if I lived there.
"There are two class problems with the wokeists. Elite leftist minorities know little of the poor and middle-class rural whites whom they demonize—but in reality, do not patronize minorities and are more likely to ignore race entirely. And wealthy woke whites know little and care less about poor and lower-middle-class minorities whom they seem assiduously to avoid—and then virtue-signal their recompensatory guilt.”"
I'm so confused. Allowing unfettered free enterprise is a right-libertarian position. Why would progressives support it? Is it merely because the street vendors tend to be nonwhite? If street vendors tended to be domestic white folks, should I presume the progressives would want to regulate them out of existence?
Also, “unfettered free enterprise” does not mean someone can ignore things like property rights (!)
The issue is confused because there is “public” property on which the vendor resides, and he or she is in effect getting free rent. Tax payers are in effect subsidizing the street vendors overhead. In a “true” “unfettered free enterprise” system there would not be much public property. But in reality there is public property so the government ends up having to find a solution. Letting an unlimited number of vendors sell is NOT a free market position- because it ignores that the government (tax payers) are being forced to subsidize the vendors.
The other confusion source in these types of articles is that economics (an actual science based on reality) is tossed around like a malleable thing. It isn’t malleable and every action or intervention has a reaction or consequence. Some consequences are not so obvious (Bastiat’s infamous the “seen versus the unseen”).
In summary, unless the actual issues are identified, there *is no honest way* to take from some people for the unearned benefit of others. It’s inherently dishonest and requires force. As such, it is also inherently divisive and pits people against one another in an impossible never ending conflict. Which is why “public” spaces being leased (or not) always end up becoming a divisive cluster fuck.
You are confused because there exists no clear, non-contradictory definition of what a “progressive” is. Every single time someone attacks the “left”, so called progressives assert “that’s not progressive” or that’s not leftist. Okay, fair enough. Then what is? You will never get what it *is* without contradiction.
It is because street vendors are small business. The problem is not free enterprise as such, but corporate power. In the current system, free enterprise is used as an excuse by corporations to increase their power.
Would it be correct to say progressives support white small business owners who seek to make a living while avoiding taxes and regulations? This is the exact opposite of my understanding of what a progressive is.
There is no understanding of what a “progressive” is. It’s routinely used in a vague undefinable way so the user’s can always say “that’s not what progressive means”.
"There are two class problems with the wokeists. Elite leftist minorities know little of the poor and middle-class rural whites whom they demonize—but in reality, do not patronize minorities and are more likely to ignore race entirely. And wealthy woke whites know little and care less about poor and lower-middle-class minorities whom they seem assiduously to avoid—and then virtue-signal their recompensatory guilt.”"
I am not sure whether there really is a well-defined class of people characterized by the label "progressive". What I am saying is that we the people should oppose corporate power, whether we are on the right or on the left (whatever right and left actually means).
I think it's b/c progressive economics have been usurped by identity politics.
And, frankly I think that's b/c of the post-modern critical race yadda yadda that's been so prevalent in the grievance studies depts in colleges that bled into the rest of the humanities, resulting in an American Cultural Revolution that brooks no dissent on campus.
Instead of learning to actually 'critically think' the young elites are being force fed cultural imperatives. Just look at Glenn's critique of the ACLU to get my drift.
I am an old school liberal, invested in class and lots of other concerns, like free speech, that used to seem like liberal prerogatives. Now they are throwing those things away, nearly always claiming identity politics as the rationale. It's a shame, it's so obviously a political loser.
Political success is founded on large coalitions (or money). Why would you treat an issue as if it only concerns black people, for instance, when the same issue is a problem for white people as well. It's an inconvenient fact, but there still lots of white people out here. Don't you WANT a larger coalition, to help win the thing that you claim to want. Seems like they're only interested in impressing, or even just placating, like-minded people on Twitter, and in their peer groups.
But that's not going to build a larger, potentially winning, coalition. Many people who dislike them are afraid to express it online, but polling keeps telling the same stories: even BIPOC don't like these policies, often a majority of each group. And they're offering nothing to the largest group in the country, even when those policies would actually help some white people.
As a liberal, this stuff really bothers me and there are areas, like free speech, where I am desperate to see "liberals" take losses. But the still prevalent zombie Reaganism of Republicans (regardless of their rhetoric; I mean policy) really is intellectually bankrupt and nowhere near sufficient for our current problems. In short: this sucks.
So it's fine when Wall Street donated overwhelmingly to Obama, and it's great when Biden attracted support from Republicans who didn't like Trump, but God forbid if some Chinese-American business owners support Yang! And how dare Yang has some policies based on common sense rather than left or right orthodoxy!
Thank you for this article. If I need a push to donate to Yang's campaign, this certainly does it.
Yeah. That gratuitous inventory of “look at all the RICH REPUBLICANS who donated to Yang, and therefore he’s problematic” was pretty weak, and right on the heels of calling out the bogus racism accusations. Did not compute.
I am right leaning but Lindsey Graham is hated by vast majority of us on the right because he's a neocon. Yang getting support from his people isn't pleasing to me - even though I am right leaning. All I will say is be careful what you are wishing for.
Glenn, I've been supporting your new publishing effort from day one. I know, it's only at the basic subscription price, and all I want is the basic i.e. your writing. I'm inundated with news and opinions as it is, and seriously behind with my reading on this front. Is there a way to limit on the number of posts I receive in my mailbox to your own writing?
I opened this email and this piece is so tedious, slanted, and a....Captrap, that I would rather avoid getting more of such in my mailbox. There's no inherent value in diversity per se, or a multitude of opinions: everybody's got one. Iwante to redead your reporting, and Im interested in your opinion,
because its grounded in Reporting.
Let's focus on the quality of reporting and opinions! I don't have to agree with them but I should be able to appreciate the quality and relevancy.
One day in 1997 or so, when I lived in San Diego, I opened the CNN Headline News. The channel served me a Breaking News from Houston: firemen were trying to rescue a cat stuck on a tree, there was a dearth of crises to fill 24/7 format. This piece reminds me of that when it comes to relevancy for me and most of the readers outside of NYC. I question whether it has any relevancy outside of Mr. Mathews' cafeteria compatriots.
As to the piece itself:
"They were more concerned with what his comment revealed about his character - lack of empathy for the downtrodden, or perhaps even latent racism against Black and brown street vendors.",
he doesn't just describe the criticism but identifies with it i.e. "latent racism" of Andrew Young. This the Claptrap that should be below your publishing standards.
Then again, maybe it's not a Claptrap but a calculated opportunistic political attack.
After all, Mr. Mathews has been not just reporting on NYC politics, and he doesn't just have an opinion: he has been a professional operative for various candidates.
But, maybe, let's not put Mr. Mathews in a box: it's both a Claptrap and a calculated opportunistic political attack.
I was just going to click the 'like' button, but I agree too strongly w/what you have to say to be so superficial. For straight up balanced reporting, check out Michael Tracy's work. He's on the ground in Minneapolis right now and his latest piece is as good as Glenn's work. Also Zaid Jilani is doing pretty good work too.
The author of this article Glenn was kind enough to publish is a good indicator of the NYC Woke community. It's deeply flawed as you've pointed out (as have I), but the telling aspect of it is that it's continued Yang bashing. And that's a <b>good </b> thing- because it shows just how shallow and weak their foundational ideas really are:
Specifically- they have NO answers to the class/economic war that's been going on in the USA for the last 40+ years (dawn of Regan) Instead, they simply take the precepts they were force fed in college and wrap them up in identity.
But why?
Matt Stoeller (check him out too) called it a couple months ago:
The left is genuinely too lazy to actually get their hands dirty examining policy at a deep level. I've personally seen that dynamic in action when i worked on a campaign for a progressive candidate. Tons of claptrap, but no workable policies. And when challenged, rabid responses wrapped in moral virputation.
Small wonder that the right has gained such power: they're the only ones doing actual work.
Stoeller wrote an article about just that. He used the term 'Cantillion Effect'. I had never heard that term and thot I was pretty schmart. Not so much as I thought! So... yeah.
I subscribe to Stoller, and it's a great value to say the least. This column predates my subscription so I had never read it. Outstanding, thanks.
I think that the divisions (often artificial) of culture war are the only thing preventing open class warfare. Even Republicans have figured out that rich people are screwing them (let's face it, most used to essentially worship the "successful" wealthy). I don't think that many people at all are consciously using culture to hold down class warfare, but the effect is the same regardless.
I agree. The Culture Wars are nothing more than a distraction to prevent ppl from seeing the class warfare that's been going on. I remember Regan's campaign clearly: it was the 2nd prez election I voted in. He made a big deal about the welfare queens driving up in Caddys to get their checks and used that as the tip of the spear to gut much of LBJ's great society programs (Head Start for example). At the same time, he pushed trickle down economics... IDK if you were around at the time, but a big shot in his admin admitted that the theory was no more than a Trojan Horse for tax cuts for the wealthy. Stockman's interview was in the Rolling Stone.
But yet, Regan was re-elected. Bush played culture war using Willy Horton ads. His camp. mgr regretted his strategy on his deathbed, but the damage was done.
Culture wars have worked.
Today, CW's keep Main Stream Media in biz, and through them both sides further entrench. I mean...look at the drivel of this article for a modern example. Addresses NOTHING of the underlying facets, instead relying on volatile language to distract. Do you know that there are lists of 'active' verbs you can find online to punch up an article?
CW's work, and both sides play it. Once I realized that the NYT gives a much bigger damn about profit than truth it became clear...you should see their hit pieces on Amazon self publishing from a few years ago. (Damn, I should do a deep dive on that issue...)
The hope on the horizon is the fact that MSMedia's influence is waning. Cable news ratings have tanked. The view of MSM in the mind of the public is at all time lows, yet good sites such as this one on Substack are flourishing. Rising on Hill.tv is adding 10K subscribers a month since Jan.
It's economics, not culture. If you haven't yet, check out 'Pitchfork Economics' podcast. Fantastic show.
There really are only 5 MSM co's today. Just 5. And the olig's at the top REALLY REALLY don't want the masses to look behind the curtain and see how we're being played. Hence, culture wars employing Weapons Of Mass Distraction.
I don't live in NYC..., but, in general, I don't see a reason why street vendors shouldn't be required to get a license, be subject to some operating requirements, and pay some reasonable fee. Fees shouldn't be excessive and a barrier, operating rules shouldn't be onerous: this shouldn't be difficult to establish whether they are or aren't by reasonable advocates.
As for Mr. Young, I haven't followed him closely enough, but I'm for anybody with new, but cogent, ideas to make the System work for the average citizen.
We are at the beginning of massive economic and technological changes/trends, which are going to impact everything on the level of humanity and society. A. Young thinks and talks about it. He doesn't strike me, as suggested by Mr. Mathews, as just an opportunist when it comes to his position, politics and society are based on compromises. For now, it's for NYC voters to pass judgment of his ideas.
This writer is a socialist. A hardcore one, he states he is an organizer for the NYC Democratic Socialists of America. He is obviously out to damage Andrew Yang as a candidate with this article. Sly innuendo's of connections to horror of horrors "Republicans" (Insert soundtrack from Nightmare on Elm Street.)!!!!
Glenn, the reason I subscribed to your substack is because despite the fact that (very) occasionally your personal leftist bias occasionally rears it's (ugly) head, when it does, its very clear it's a personal opinion and it's rarely in your articles. When I've seen it it's usually on twitter. All your actual reporting is, from my view, unbiased and as full of actual facts as you can make it.
I am sorry, you would not have written this article. You don't write articles purposely intended to leave a bad taste in the mouth about a person by carefully worded tidbits. You write articles that are sometimes brutal with the harsh reality of hard cold FACTS. That's why you are great. IMO.
Here is my take-away from this article by Matthew Thomas: He is just another wannabe slime-bag journo, trying to get some traction on a few articles so he can slime it into a position with Politico, HuffPost, Mediaite, or some other far left slimebag rag. This guy does not deserve your shared news airspace. This is how I see it.
You missed the point completely of my comment, just immediately jumped to conclusions. The "substance" you refer to is incomplete and from my view intended to slime Andrew and boost Springer. It is not just cold hard facts like Glenn does in his writing. Calm down about right and left. I have voted both. This guy is a socialist. They have no good intentions towards America. Even if they are individually nice persons. Listen to Bill Maher for a while if you don't believe me.
I am not a fan of Yang plus I am right leaning. But this article didn't come across as a hit job really. It just seemed to show that Yang is a typical politician - something I knew already considering he endorsed Biden and endorsed the most vile racist Saira Rao.
I agree. I think the 'Outside Voices' is a great idea. It's perfect for breaking the Corporate Media's hammer lock on 'The Narrative'. And GG's platform is the perfect place for it.
I'm happy to see Glenn give the kid a shot on this forum. Gee whiz... you'd think socialism ran in his family! LOL
Sadly, junior is clueless. He's invoking woke identity metrics to deal with a genuine real world problem of economics. This article's bias got boring halfway through. I'd prefer it if Dr Wolfe and not some kid weighed in here in this space.
Thanks! I’m not familiar with NYC politics, so this was interesting...
I would say that I can absolutely relate to business owners who “follow the rules” and end up with an unlicensed street vendor outside their door competing with virtually no overhead. Business is hard enough without the City turning a blind eye to the free use of a public sidewalk and an unregulated business...
P.S. I do find that the “racism” angle is starting to wear very thin.....it’s like: yea, yea, yea...whatever...
Yes. Frankly, they cry racism and fascism on incidents that are clearly not racist or fascistic to anyone who knows the meaning of those words, and I think that many of us tune it out. I think some right wingers did a similar thing with socialism by using it on Obama all the time. Usually when you dig in, you find that they seem to poorly understand the word. After a while, I started tuning that out as well.
Great (though very localized and therefore for many of little interest) example of how the liberal-left’s obsession with making everything about race/gender identity above all else is actually alienating voters and likely losing them/us otherwise winnable elections.
You just have to ask -- if a brick and mortar restaurant can't compete with a hot dog cart parked across the street, in terms of cuisine, then maybe that restaurant simply isn't that good in the first place. Or charges unrealistic prices.
A similar battle took place in Los Angeles in the early 00's where food trucks (many of them selling incredible food) were being targeted by the B&M's who were losing business. City officials, never ones to shirk their duty to a well funded lobby, began harassing the food trucks with junk laws like can't park on the street for more than one hour. The resistance coined the tag line "Carne asada is not a crime".
I think the problem is: The licensed business pay the city for the license and their prices reflect that, as opposed to the unlicensed businesses which can charge a lower price.
No license = no sales tax, no unemployment fund contribution, no social security tax, no income tax, no health inspections and no other overhead. Want fair? Drop all of the above for businesses or enforce the law on non-compliant "businesses." Having laws and looking the other way when they are broken by "some" groups exposes the failure to govern. Which level of crime or compliance then becomes the next to be ignored? Who picks and chooses to whom the law applies?
Yours is the thinking that runs parallel with mine. Either you choose to sit down to the entire restaurant *experience* or you are happy walking and eating. Just because they sell "identical" foods, does not indicate that anything re the flavor or size or ingredients or ambience is the same.
I don't completely agree. The roach coaches have an edge b/c of a much, much lower overhead burden than the restaurants. Also, health enforcement doesn't really mean as much: they get slapped w/ a health dept violation, just throw a new name on the truck or even just relocate. B&M can't do that.
I don't begrudge ANYONE trying to work for their living. In the trenches- at street level- it's a tough, tough go. For all people concerned.
Regarding the LA case you mentioned, isn't it interesting that the city fathers didn't think to lower taxes on the restaurants? Or do any WORK to try to even a playing field? Nahhh...that's too complex, right? Yeah. Right.
The vids I've seen of LA today are horrifying. Small wonder.
DING DING DING DING DING! In any sane world, commercial rents would be CRASHING. But landlords would rather have empty lots than lower the rent. Something is wrong.
“You know what I hear over and over again - that NYC is not enforcing rules against unlicensed street vendors,” tweeted Andrew Yang one Sunday, apparently exorcised of the spirit of entrepreneurialism that previously animated his campaign. “I’m for increasing licenses, but we should do more for the retailers who are paying rent and trying to survive.” As with many progressives, the author seems to have a problem with democracy. Laws passed by the people's representatives should be enforced by the executive branch. There is nothing wrong with advocating for changes in laws and lawmakers, but attitudes about non-enforcement of laws have a far greater negative impact on the rule-of-law than the buffoon Trump.
Soo... what I'm reading here is that Yang is a populist who tries to build broad coalitions spanning from the poor and working class to the upper-middle class, using a nonsensical and patchwork economic policy vaguely evoking the "American Dream". The only people he leaves out are the Ivy League elite and Twitterati, who predictably attack him as a "racist" because that's the only move in their playbook. Gosh this sounds familiar.
Minor note to the author: I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't characterize politicians as "far right". Regardless of whether you use the term narrowly and responsibly, I have no idea what it means anymore. It's been applied to everything from actual neo-nazis to liberal moderates. It's about as useless as "racist". Try substituting with a meaningful term like "pro-big-business" or "anti-immigration" or whatever it is you're actually trying to assert or imply about them. I don't think I'm alone in just rolling my eyes when I see the words "far right" on a page.
The knee jerk assumption, without evidence, that Yang is racist because so many street vendors are black or brown is highly corrosive to both civil discourse and truth. I'm not a New Yorker, and won't pretend to understand all issues concerning street vendors there. But there is a quite reasonable argument that street vendors have an unfair competitive advantage over brick and mortar businesses. On the one hand b and m businesses have sizable fixed costs, especially rent in a city like NY. On the other street vendors use publicly owner streets and sidewalks at no cost (I assume). While the ladies selling jade trinkets may not be so much of a problem, food vendors directly competing with restaurants likely is. Yang's position is amply supported on these grounds, and evidence free racism chargers are just wrong.
The mayorship of NYC is a strange animal. On the one hand most people elsewhere aren't looking for political ideology in a mayor as much as efficient administration. I suspect many in NY share this point of view, but I'm just guessing. While Yangs tendency you describe to tailor a solution for every neighborhood and constituency may be cynical, it may equally be likely that it is pragmatic. After the current mayor I suspect there are a lot of folks looking for some pragmatism, and not woke ideology.
Again, I don't have any basis to fully understand the street vendor issues in NY. But I have to think there must be a limit on the numbers. Maybe the current license number is too low. But if it's a free for all in some places excessive street vending could overcrowd the sidewalks, and make it near impossible for b and m business to survive, let alone thrive.
There's always problems when you just assume people are the same because of the way they look. People are unique and have unique problems. Assuming that you know the way they act based on skin color is.......racist.
So true! Life is complex, so are problems and solutions. Calling someone racist without evidence is just a lazy way to stop discussion. And, as you say, its racist.
The issue of these vendors really highlights the hypocrisy of the left, especially assuming that Mr. Thomas is a socialist of some sort. Many of these vendors can and will become larger businesses providing jobs and better products and service to the community. These are all win-win. They only way they can do this in NYC is to break the laws that most left-wing politicians support. According to the orthodoxy of Bernie supporters these vendors should be considered criminals. Do they pay a living wage? No. Do they provide sick pay and health insurance? No. These vendors are just as anti-Bernie as any other business. At the same time, if these vendors followed the law (by closing) they would be stuck being poor and wage slaves. I often suspect that key and highly influential leftists understand this very well. They WANT people to stay poor, so they advocate policies that hold people back. This maintains their status and power.
This isn’t an anti-establishment viewpoint, it’s an anti-Yang viewpoint. Yang was as anti-establishment as you could get during the Presidential campaign. Yes, he learned how to temper that – he’s intelligent. Surprised and disappointed that Greenwald would allow a muckraking article of this low caliber be attached to his name.
Very good article, and I agree that throwing out the "white supremacy!" smear anytime they don't agree with Yang on something is a terrible strategy for any of the other candidates. However, you're making it seem that there's something sinister in that "Yang’s strategy has been to identify the most high-salience, emotionally charged issue within a particular segment of the electorate and pledge to champion the most common opinion on it" because those opinions are united by "Yang’s desire to be the mayor." But while both those things may be true, a different analysis could be that there's nothing sinister about that, and that he's surveying the city and listening to its people, without molding all of his stances to fit into some underlying ideology. In my opinion, this is what sets him apart from other candidates and is responsible for his popularity.
Yang is acting like a typical politician. Btw, I should probably be happy that he's siding with more right leaning folks. But I am not happy because he's not siding with populist types - he's siding with neocons like Lindsey Graham - someone majority of the right hates too.
As a New Yorker, I'm not a huge Yang fan, but the crowd of identity-politics fetishists and career political cronies running against him are the scum of the earth. If you can't understand why normal people want nothing to do with "progressives" like Deblaso who have destroyed New York you are seriously out of touch with average New Yorkers.
Thanks for your perspective. It just seems to me that NYers, after the reign of the current mayor, have got to be looking for pragmatic solutions to improve everyday living in the city. Promising those kind of solutions would appeal to me if I lived there.
"There are two class problems with the wokeists. Elite leftist minorities know little of the poor and middle-class rural whites whom they demonize—but in reality, do not patronize minorities and are more likely to ignore race entirely. And wealthy woke whites know little and care less about poor and lower-middle-class minorities whom they seem assiduously to avoid—and then virtue-signal their recompensatory guilt.”"
- Victor Davis Hanson
https://amgreatness.com/2021/04/25/the-new-antiracism-is-the-old-racism/
I'm so confused. Allowing unfettered free enterprise is a right-libertarian position. Why would progressives support it? Is it merely because the street vendors tend to be nonwhite? If street vendors tended to be domestic white folks, should I presume the progressives would want to regulate them out of existence?
Also, “unfettered free enterprise” does not mean someone can ignore things like property rights (!)
The issue is confused because there is “public” property on which the vendor resides, and he or she is in effect getting free rent. Tax payers are in effect subsidizing the street vendors overhead. In a “true” “unfettered free enterprise” system there would not be much public property. But in reality there is public property so the government ends up having to find a solution. Letting an unlimited number of vendors sell is NOT a free market position- because it ignores that the government (tax payers) are being forced to subsidize the vendors.
The other confusion source in these types of articles is that economics (an actual science based on reality) is tossed around like a malleable thing. It isn’t malleable and every action or intervention has a reaction or consequence. Some consequences are not so obvious (Bastiat’s infamous the “seen versus the unseen”).
In summary, unless the actual issues are identified, there *is no honest way* to take from some people for the unearned benefit of others. It’s inherently dishonest and requires force. As such, it is also inherently divisive and pits people against one another in an impossible never ending conflict. Which is why “public” spaces being leased (or not) always end up becoming a divisive cluster fuck.
You are confused because there exists no clear, non-contradictory definition of what a “progressive” is. Every single time someone attacks the “left”, so called progressives assert “that’s not progressive” or that’s not leftist. Okay, fair enough. Then what is? You will never get what it *is* without contradiction.
It is because street vendors are small business. The problem is not free enterprise as such, but corporate power. In the current system, free enterprise is used as an excuse by corporations to increase their power.
Would it be correct to say progressives support white small business owners who seek to make a living while avoiding taxes and regulations? This is the exact opposite of my understanding of what a progressive is.
There is no understanding of what a “progressive” is. It’s routinely used in a vague undefinable way so the user’s can always say “that’s not what progressive means”.
"There are two class problems with the wokeists. Elite leftist minorities know little of the poor and middle-class rural whites whom they demonize—but in reality, do not patronize minorities and are more likely to ignore race entirely. And wealthy woke whites know little and care less about poor and lower-middle-class minorities whom they seem assiduously to avoid—and then virtue-signal their recompensatory guilt.”"
- Victor Davis Hanson
https://amgreatness.com/2021/04/25/the-new-antiracism-is-the-old-racism/
I am not sure whether there really is a well-defined class of people characterized by the label "progressive". What I am saying is that we the people should oppose corporate power, whether we are on the right or on the left (whatever right and left actually means).
I think it's b/c progressive economics have been usurped by identity politics.
And, frankly I think that's b/c of the post-modern critical race yadda yadda that's been so prevalent in the grievance studies depts in colleges that bled into the rest of the humanities, resulting in an American Cultural Revolution that brooks no dissent on campus.
Instead of learning to actually 'critically think' the young elites are being force fed cultural imperatives. Just look at Glenn's critique of the ACLU to get my drift.
I am an old school liberal, invested in class and lots of other concerns, like free speech, that used to seem like liberal prerogatives. Now they are throwing those things away, nearly always claiming identity politics as the rationale. It's a shame, it's so obviously a political loser.
Political success is founded on large coalitions (or money). Why would you treat an issue as if it only concerns black people, for instance, when the same issue is a problem for white people as well. It's an inconvenient fact, but there still lots of white people out here. Don't you WANT a larger coalition, to help win the thing that you claim to want. Seems like they're only interested in impressing, or even just placating, like-minded people on Twitter, and in their peer groups.
But that's not going to build a larger, potentially winning, coalition. Many people who dislike them are afraid to express it online, but polling keeps telling the same stories: even BIPOC don't like these policies, often a majority of each group. And they're offering nothing to the largest group in the country, even when those policies would actually help some white people.
As a liberal, this stuff really bothers me and there are areas, like free speech, where I am desperate to see "liberals" take losses. But the still prevalent zombie Reaganism of Republicans (regardless of their rhetoric; I mean policy) really is intellectually bankrupt and nowhere near sufficient for our current problems. In short: this sucks.
So it's fine when Wall Street donated overwhelmingly to Obama, and it's great when Biden attracted support from Republicans who didn't like Trump, but God forbid if some Chinese-American business owners support Yang! And how dare Yang has some policies based on common sense rather than left or right orthodoxy!
Thank you for this article. If I need a push to donate to Yang's campaign, this certainly does it.
Yeah. That gratuitous inventory of “look at all the RICH REPUBLICANS who donated to Yang, and therefore he’s problematic” was pretty weak, and right on the heels of calling out the bogus racism accusations. Did not compute.
I am right leaning but Lindsey Graham is hated by vast majority of us on the right because he's a neocon. Yang getting support from his people isn't pleasing to me - even though I am right leaning. All I will say is be careful what you are wishing for.
Glenn, I've been supporting your new publishing effort from day one. I know, it's only at the basic subscription price, and all I want is the basic i.e. your writing. I'm inundated with news and opinions as it is, and seriously behind with my reading on this front. Is there a way to limit on the number of posts I receive in my mailbox to your own writing?
I opened this email and this piece is so tedious, slanted, and a....Captrap, that I would rather avoid getting more of such in my mailbox. There's no inherent value in diversity per se, or a multitude of opinions: everybody's got one. Iwante to redead your reporting, and Im interested in your opinion,
because its grounded in Reporting.
Let's focus on the quality of reporting and opinions! I don't have to agree with them but I should be able to appreciate the quality and relevancy.
One day in 1997 or so, when I lived in San Diego, I opened the CNN Headline News. The channel served me a Breaking News from Houston: firemen were trying to rescue a cat stuck on a tree, there was a dearth of crises to fill 24/7 format. This piece reminds me of that when it comes to relevancy for me and most of the readers outside of NYC. I question whether it has any relevancy outside of Mr. Mathews' cafeteria compatriots.
As to the piece itself:
"They were more concerned with what his comment revealed about his character - lack of empathy for the downtrodden, or perhaps even latent racism against Black and brown street vendors.",
he doesn't just describe the criticism but identifies with it i.e. "latent racism" of Andrew Young. This the Claptrap that should be below your publishing standards.
Then again, maybe it's not a Claptrap but a calculated opportunistic political attack.
After all, Mr. Mathews has been not just reporting on NYC politics, and he doesn't just have an opinion: he has been a professional operative for various candidates.
But, maybe, let's not put Mr. Mathews in a box: it's both a Claptrap and a calculated opportunistic political attack.
I was just going to click the 'like' button, but I agree too strongly w/what you have to say to be so superficial. For straight up balanced reporting, check out Michael Tracy's work. He's on the ground in Minneapolis right now and his latest piece is as good as Glenn's work. Also Zaid Jilani is doing pretty good work too.
The author of this article Glenn was kind enough to publish is a good indicator of the NYC Woke community. It's deeply flawed as you've pointed out (as have I), but the telling aspect of it is that it's continued Yang bashing. And that's a <b>good </b> thing- because it shows just how shallow and weak their foundational ideas really are:
Specifically- they have NO answers to the class/economic war that's been going on in the USA for the last 40+ years (dawn of Regan) Instead, they simply take the precepts they were force fed in college and wrap them up in identity.
But why?
Matt Stoeller (check him out too) called it a couple months ago:
The left is genuinely too lazy to actually get their hands dirty examining policy at a deep level. I've personally seen that dynamic in action when i worked on a campaign for a progressive candidate. Tons of claptrap, but no workable policies. And when challenged, rabid responses wrapped in moral virputation.
Small wonder that the right has gained such power: they're the only ones doing actual work.
It's not hard to see where this ends up: Trillions of dollars sloshing around for those close to government, and despair for the rest of us.
Stoeller wrote an article about just that. He used the term 'Cantillion Effect'. I had never heard that term and thot I was pretty schmart. Not so much as I thought! So... yeah.
I subscribe to Stoller, and it's a great value to say the least. This column predates my subscription so I had never read it. Outstanding, thanks.
I think that the divisions (often artificial) of culture war are the only thing preventing open class warfare. Even Republicans have figured out that rich people are screwing them (let's face it, most used to essentially worship the "successful" wealthy). I don't think that many people at all are consciously using culture to hold down class warfare, but the effect is the same regardless.
I agree. The Culture Wars are nothing more than a distraction to prevent ppl from seeing the class warfare that's been going on. I remember Regan's campaign clearly: it was the 2nd prez election I voted in. He made a big deal about the welfare queens driving up in Caddys to get their checks and used that as the tip of the spear to gut much of LBJ's great society programs (Head Start for example). At the same time, he pushed trickle down economics... IDK if you were around at the time, but a big shot in his admin admitted that the theory was no more than a Trojan Horse for tax cuts for the wealthy. Stockman's interview was in the Rolling Stone.
But yet, Regan was re-elected. Bush played culture war using Willy Horton ads. His camp. mgr regretted his strategy on his deathbed, but the damage was done.
Culture wars have worked.
Today, CW's keep Main Stream Media in biz, and through them both sides further entrench. I mean...look at the drivel of this article for a modern example. Addresses NOTHING of the underlying facets, instead relying on volatile language to distract. Do you know that there are lists of 'active' verbs you can find online to punch up an article?
CW's work, and both sides play it. Once I realized that the NYT gives a much bigger damn about profit than truth it became clear...you should see their hit pieces on Amazon self publishing from a few years ago. (Damn, I should do a deep dive on that issue...)
The hope on the horizon is the fact that MSMedia's influence is waning. Cable news ratings have tanked. The view of MSM in the mind of the public is at all time lows, yet good sites such as this one on Substack are flourishing. Rising on Hill.tv is adding 10K subscribers a month since Jan.
It's economics, not culture. If you haven't yet, check out 'Pitchfork Economics' podcast. Fantastic show.
There really are only 5 MSM co's today. Just 5. And the olig's at the top REALLY REALLY don't want the masses to look behind the curtain and see how we're being played. Hence, culture wars employing Weapons Of Mass Distraction.
“I’m interested in your opinion” with u on that. And, I like Mr. Yang.
I don't live in NYC..., but, in general, I don't see a reason why street vendors shouldn't be required to get a license, be subject to some operating requirements, and pay some reasonable fee. Fees shouldn't be excessive and a barrier, operating rules shouldn't be onerous: this shouldn't be difficult to establish whether they are or aren't by reasonable advocates.
As for Mr. Young, I haven't followed him closely enough, but I'm for anybody with new, but cogent, ideas to make the System work for the average citizen.
We are at the beginning of massive economic and technological changes/trends, which are going to impact everything on the level of humanity and society. A. Young thinks and talks about it. He doesn't strike me, as suggested by Mr. Mathews, as just an opportunist when it comes to his position, politics and society are based on compromises. For now, it's for NYC voters to pass judgment of his ideas.
This writer is a socialist. A hardcore one, he states he is an organizer for the NYC Democratic Socialists of America. He is obviously out to damage Andrew Yang as a candidate with this article. Sly innuendo's of connections to horror of horrors "Republicans" (Insert soundtrack from Nightmare on Elm Street.)!!!!
Glenn, the reason I subscribed to your substack is because despite the fact that (very) occasionally your personal leftist bias occasionally rears it's (ugly) head, when it does, its very clear it's a personal opinion and it's rarely in your articles. When I've seen it it's usually on twitter. All your actual reporting is, from my view, unbiased and as full of actual facts as you can make it.
I am sorry, you would not have written this article. You don't write articles purposely intended to leave a bad taste in the mouth about a person by carefully worded tidbits. You write articles that are sometimes brutal with the harsh reality of hard cold FACTS. That's why you are great. IMO.
Here is my take-away from this article by Matthew Thomas: He is just another wannabe slime-bag journo, trying to get some traction on a few articles so he can slime it into a position with Politico, HuffPost, Mediaite, or some other far left slimebag rag. This guy does not deserve your shared news airspace. This is how I see it.
You missed the point completely of my comment, just immediately jumped to conclusions. The "substance" you refer to is incomplete and from my view intended to slime Andrew and boost Springer. It is not just cold hard facts like Glenn does in his writing. Calm down about right and left. I have voted both. This guy is a socialist. They have no good intentions towards America. Even if they are individually nice persons. Listen to Bill Maher for a while if you don't believe me.
Whatever but -- socialism is the likely future for humanity...
The piece does read like a hit job on Yang, and booster for Springer. Those terms are probably a bit overstated, but that's how it leans.
I am not a fan of Yang plus I am right leaning. But this article didn't come across as a hit job really. It just seemed to show that Yang is a typical politician - something I knew already considering he endorsed Biden and endorsed the most vile racist Saira Rao.
I love this new addition to Glenn Greenwald's substack account, Outside Voices. The second article is just as interesting and nuanced as the first.
I agree. I think the 'Outside Voices' is a great idea. It's perfect for breaking the Corporate Media's hammer lock on 'The Narrative'. And GG's platform is the perfect place for it.
I'm happy to see Glenn give the kid a shot on this forum. Gee whiz... you'd think socialism ran in his family! LOL
Sadly, junior is clueless. He's invoking woke identity metrics to deal with a genuine real world problem of economics. This article's bias got boring halfway through. I'd prefer it if Dr Wolfe and not some kid weighed in here in this space.
Mr. Greenwald:
Thanks! I’m not familiar with NYC politics, so this was interesting...
I would say that I can absolutely relate to business owners who “follow the rules” and end up with an unlicensed street vendor outside their door competing with virtually no overhead. Business is hard enough without the City turning a blind eye to the free use of a public sidewalk and an unregulated business...
P.S. I do find that the “racism” angle is starting to wear very thin.....it’s like: yea, yea, yea...whatever...
One of the problems with idle claims of racism is it takes the wind out of calling iut real racism. Like the boy who cried wolf.
Yes. Frankly, they cry racism and fascism on incidents that are clearly not racist or fascistic to anyone who knows the meaning of those words, and I think that many of us tune it out. I think some right wingers did a similar thing with socialism by using it on Obama all the time. Usually when you dig in, you find that they seem to poorly understand the word. After a while, I started tuning that out as well.
Great (though very localized and therefore for many of little interest) example of how the liberal-left’s obsession with making everything about race/gender identity above all else is actually alienating voters and likely losing them/us otherwise winnable elections.
Maybe one day we will be woke enough to judge people on character instead of on their superficial characteristics.
We can dream.
Indeed. Too bad no one ever thought of that before!
How soon before the wokes cancel MLK?
You just have to ask -- if a brick and mortar restaurant can't compete with a hot dog cart parked across the street, in terms of cuisine, then maybe that restaurant simply isn't that good in the first place. Or charges unrealistic prices.
A similar battle took place in Los Angeles in the early 00's where food trucks (many of them selling incredible food) were being targeted by the B&M's who were losing business. City officials, never ones to shirk their duty to a well funded lobby, began harassing the food trucks with junk laws like can't park on the street for more than one hour. The resistance coined the tag line "Carne asada is not a crime".
I think the problem is: The licensed business pay the city for the license and their prices reflect that, as opposed to the unlicensed businesses which can charge a lower price.
No license = no sales tax, no unemployment fund contribution, no social security tax, no income tax, no health inspections and no other overhead. Want fair? Drop all of the above for businesses or enforce the law on non-compliant "businesses." Having laws and looking the other way when they are broken by "some" groups exposes the failure to govern. Which level of crime or compliance then becomes the next to be ignored? Who picks and chooses to whom the law applies?
Yours is the thinking that runs parallel with mine. Either you choose to sit down to the entire restaurant *experience* or you are happy walking and eating. Just because they sell "identical" foods, does not indicate that anything re the flavor or size or ingredients or ambience is the same.
I don't completely agree. The roach coaches have an edge b/c of a much, much lower overhead burden than the restaurants. Also, health enforcement doesn't really mean as much: they get slapped w/ a health dept violation, just throw a new name on the truck or even just relocate. B&M can't do that.
I don't begrudge ANYONE trying to work for their living. In the trenches- at street level- it's a tough, tough go. For all people concerned.
Regarding the LA case you mentioned, isn't it interesting that the city fathers didn't think to lower taxes on the restaurants? Or do any WORK to try to even a playing field? Nahhh...that's too complex, right? Yeah. Right.
The vids I've seen of LA today are horrifying. Small wonder.
DING DING DING DING DING! In any sane world, commercial rents would be CRASHING. But landlords would rather have empty lots than lower the rent. Something is wrong.
“You know what I hear over and over again - that NYC is not enforcing rules against unlicensed street vendors,” tweeted Andrew Yang one Sunday, apparently exorcised of the spirit of entrepreneurialism that previously animated his campaign. “I’m for increasing licenses, but we should do more for the retailers who are paying rent and trying to survive.” As with many progressives, the author seems to have a problem with democracy. Laws passed by the people's representatives should be enforced by the executive branch. There is nothing wrong with advocating for changes in laws and lawmakers, but attitudes about non-enforcement of laws have a far greater negative impact on the rule-of-law than the buffoon Trump.
Wonder how an outbreak of food poisoning would change the discussion.
Soo... what I'm reading here is that Yang is a populist who tries to build broad coalitions spanning from the poor and working class to the upper-middle class, using a nonsensical and patchwork economic policy vaguely evoking the "American Dream". The only people he leaves out are the Ivy League elite and Twitterati, who predictably attack him as a "racist" because that's the only move in their playbook. Gosh this sounds familiar.
Minor note to the author: I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't characterize politicians as "far right". Regardless of whether you use the term narrowly and responsibly, I have no idea what it means anymore. It's been applied to everything from actual neo-nazis to liberal moderates. It's about as useless as "racist". Try substituting with a meaningful term like "pro-big-business" or "anti-immigration" or whatever it is you're actually trying to assert or imply about them. I don't think I'm alone in just rolling my eyes when I see the words "far right" on a page.
In no particular order:
The knee jerk assumption, without evidence, that Yang is racist because so many street vendors are black or brown is highly corrosive to both civil discourse and truth. I'm not a New Yorker, and won't pretend to understand all issues concerning street vendors there. But there is a quite reasonable argument that street vendors have an unfair competitive advantage over brick and mortar businesses. On the one hand b and m businesses have sizable fixed costs, especially rent in a city like NY. On the other street vendors use publicly owner streets and sidewalks at no cost (I assume). While the ladies selling jade trinkets may not be so much of a problem, food vendors directly competing with restaurants likely is. Yang's position is amply supported on these grounds, and evidence free racism chargers are just wrong.
The mayorship of NYC is a strange animal. On the one hand most people elsewhere aren't looking for political ideology in a mayor as much as efficient administration. I suspect many in NY share this point of view, but I'm just guessing. While Yangs tendency you describe to tailor a solution for every neighborhood and constituency may be cynical, it may equally be likely that it is pragmatic. After the current mayor I suspect there are a lot of folks looking for some pragmatism, and not woke ideology.
Again, I don't have any basis to fully understand the street vendor issues in NY. But I have to think there must be a limit on the numbers. Maybe the current license number is too low. But if it's a free for all in some places excessive street vending could overcrowd the sidewalks, and make it near impossible for b and m business to survive, let alone thrive.
There's always problems when you just assume people are the same because of the way they look. People are unique and have unique problems. Assuming that you know the way they act based on skin color is.......racist.
So true! Life is complex, so are problems and solutions. Calling someone racist without evidence is just a lazy way to stop discussion. And, as you say, its racist.
The issue of these vendors really highlights the hypocrisy of the left, especially assuming that Mr. Thomas is a socialist of some sort. Many of these vendors can and will become larger businesses providing jobs and better products and service to the community. These are all win-win. They only way they can do this in NYC is to break the laws that most left-wing politicians support. According to the orthodoxy of Bernie supporters these vendors should be considered criminals. Do they pay a living wage? No. Do they provide sick pay and health insurance? No. These vendors are just as anti-Bernie as any other business. At the same time, if these vendors followed the law (by closing) they would be stuck being poor and wage slaves. I often suspect that key and highly influential leftists understand this very well. They WANT people to stay poor, so they advocate policies that hold people back. This maintains their status and power.
This isn’t an anti-establishment viewpoint, it’s an anti-Yang viewpoint. Yang was as anti-establishment as you could get during the Presidential campaign. Yes, he learned how to temper that – he’s intelligent. Surprised and disappointed that Greenwald would allow a muckraking article of this low caliber be attached to his name.