Politics is usually a game of recycled slogans, but every now and then, someone says the quiet part loud. That’s exactly what happened when Zohran Mamdani, the newly minted Mayor of New York City and a prominent Democratic Socialist, stood up for his inaugural address. He didn't just talk about better subways or more housing. He promised to replace the "frigidity of rugged individualism" with the "warmth of collectivism."
Jonah Goldberg's latest article takes a sledgehammer to this phrasing, and honestly, it’s about time someone looked at the math instead of just the vibes. Goldberg, writing for The Dispatch and syndicated in places like the LA Times, argues that Mamdani isn't just offering a new vision; he’s tilting at a windmill of "rugged individualism" that hasn't actually existed in New York—or America—for nearly a century.
It’s a classic Goldberg move. He digs into the history of the term, tracing it back to Herbert Hoover in 1928, and then points out the glaring reality of the 2026 budget. If New York City is a frozen wasteland of individualism, why is it spending billions upon billions on public assistance?
The Collectivism Trap: Why Words Matter
Goldberg’s core frustration—and it’s one you’ve likely felt if you follow policy—is the way we frame these debates. One side screams "rapacious capitalism" while the other yells "un-American socialism." The truth is a lot messier.
🔗 Read more: Lake Nyos Cameroon 1986: What Really Happened During the Silent Killer’s Release
Basically, Goldberg points out that America is a hybrid. We have a massive regulatory apparatus. We have the FCC, the EPA, and the SEC. We spend roughly half of the federal budget on entitlements like Medicare and Social Security. In New York specifically, Mamdani inherited a budget that dedicates $19.26 billion to public assistance alone. That’s not a "fend for yourself" system. It’s a massive, complex safety net.
The danger in Mamdani’s "warm collectivism" isn't just the word itself—which, let's be real, has a pretty dark history in the 20th century—it's the implication that the current system is cruel. Goldberg argues that if you convince people the status quo is "Wild West capitalism," then any attempt to reform that system or cut red tape is framed as an act of violence. It makes reasonable governance impossible.
Trump, Mamdani, and the Death of Nuance
Interestingly, Goldberg doesn't just go after the left. He’s equally annoyed with the way the right uses these terms. He notes that calling Donald Trump a champion of "unfettered capitalism" is laughable. Protectionism and industrial policy aren't the free-market ideals of Hayek or Friedman. They are, in their own way, a different flavor of state-driven economics.
💡 You might also like: Why Fox Has a Problem: The Identity Crisis at the Top of Cable News
This brings us to a weird moment in 2026. You have a socialist mayor in New York calling for collectivism while a populist president in D.C. implements tariffs and "state capitalism." Both sides are moving away from the liberal tradition Goldberg defends.
The Problem With the "Fair Share" Argument
Goldberg dives into some pretty uncomfortable numbers regarding who actually pays for the "warmth" Mamdani wants.
- In New York, millionaires make up less than 1% of tax filers but pay 40% of the city’s income tax.
- The top 10% of American earners provide three-quarters of all income tax revenue.
- The poorest 20% of Americans receive about $6 in government benefits for every $1 they pay in taxes.
Whether you think that’s "fair" is up to you. But Goldberg’s point is that you can’t call this a regime of "rugged individualism." It’s already a deeply collective effort. By ignoring this, politicians like Mamdani aren't just being idealistic; they're being factually inaccurate about the country they are leading.
📖 Related: The CIA Stars on the Wall: What the Memorial Really Represents
Why This Article Actually Matters Now
This isn't just a spat between a columnist and a mayor. It’s about the underlying health of the American conversation. When we talk about an America that doesn't exist, we can't solve the problems of the America that does.
Goldberg’s critique of the "Donroe Pretext" and the "New Americanism" (themes he has explored in other recent pieces like "Democracy Dies in Openness") all point to a single fear: that we are losing the ability to see the world as it is. We are trading reality for "martial passion" and ideological fantasies.
If you want to understand the modern political landscape, you have to look past the "warmth" and "frigidity" metaphors. Look at the actual institutions. Look at the budgets. If we keep pretending we live in a Dickensian nightmare of 1880s capitalism, we’re going to break the very real (if flawed) systems that are actually keeping the lights on.
Key Takeaways for Navigating the News
- Check the Budget: Whenever a politician claims a city is suffering from a lack of "collective" support, look at the actual spending per capita. Often, the issue isn't a lack of money, but how it's being managed.
- Watch the Labels: "Collectivism" and "Individualism" are often used as emotional triggers rather than descriptive terms. If a policy sounds too good (or too scary) to be true, it’s probably a label-based distraction.
- Nuance is Your Friend: Recognize that the U.S. economy is a "mixed economy." It isn't a pure free market, and it isn't a socialist state. Anyone telling you it’s purely one or the other is selling something.
The best way to engage with these ideas is to read Goldberg's full column at The Dispatch or catch his breakdown on The Remnant podcast. Understanding the history of these terms—from Hoover to Mamdani—is the only way to avoid being manipulated by the next catchy slogan.