C.M. Lewis 🦬⚔️

@thehousered.bsky.social

class war hooligan president, @7mountainsafl.bsky.social member, @newsguild.org he/him

in 2016-18, corporate democrats put up some semblance of a fight and — with the exception of a few notable upsets of extremely lazy incumbents in deep blue districts — were rewarded for it. in 2024-26, they didn’t even pretend to fight and are getting destroyed in competitive races.

His answer on how you define “working class” gets at something too many pundits and politicians forget: The raw numbers might matter for policy, but for politics, it’s more important to speak to how people *feel* about their ability to afford the life they want.

Part of this discussion, of course, is the organization that you are part of, which is the D.S.A., and it's having a moment, right?
They are being discussed in both good ways and bad, to put it mildly. And at the heart of it is this idea that they are fighting for the working class. And it made me wonder:
How do you define the working class? I think if you have to work to pay your bills, I think that that is one definition of being a part of the working class.
So someone making $250,000 a year is working class? I haven't asked myself where it starts and stops. What I would say is those who are working to try and afford the basic dignities of life and aren't able to do so, I think that that is also working class.
Oftentimes we're asked how we divide this country. I think there's only one majority in this country - it's the working class.
That just doesn't ring true to me. What do you think?
It just seems a very easy answer to what is a complicated question. Because politically, if you're saying everyone is the working class, or anyone that gets a salary is the working class, yes, that opens up your tent.
But practically speaking, we are divided by income — and especially if you want to tax people, where you draw those lines matter.
I've drawn it at about a million dollars a year.
So anyone under a million dollars a year in income is working class? [Laughs] That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying, in terms of fiscal policy, I think a lot of our politics has been a debate over who you leave out. And I'm more interested in debates of how you bring more in. But yes, I do want to raise taxes on people who make more than a million a year.
Someone who is a janitor is going to feel some kind of way about that description it you're lumping them in with someone who's a lawyer. That feels like a distinction that might matter. When I was running, a question I would face was: What does it mean to be a democratic socialist? And I only bring that up because I think sometimes there's a fixation on a definition of something. And what I found is, when I would knock on New Yorkers' doors, they would just ask, Am I part of your vision?
It's not that everyone is making the same amount of money or facing the same amount of struggle, but that they just want to know, is there any way for them to actually be able to work this hard and afford a good life in the city?
I've noticed that when I'm trying to get specifics, you detlect to talking about what New Yorkers do and don't want. And I have found that politicians, in my own experience - - Oh, no.
When I ask questions of them - - Am I one of them?

Well, you are the mayor of New York City.
When I try to get them to define something and they don't want to do it, they use a very broad brush. Look, I think I've defined it to you as someone who works to afford their life. I also think, no matter how you define it, we have an understanding that those who are struggling to afford the rent, struggling to afford their groceries, struggling to afford child care, are the people who should be at the heart of our vision for what comes next.

one of the unfortunate realities of widespread popular rejection of subject matter expertise is that it is at least, in part, because subject matter experts can be elitist dicks that use said expertise to cling to status and a self-preening sense of superiority