Staff Reports
If you tuned into The Five this week, you saw Jesse Watters and his panel come out swinging — not at policy details, but at power itself. The clip accused a rising slate of democratic‑socialist candidates of wanting influence for its own sake, using Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s recent endorsements in New York as proof that the movement is “taking aim at the whole country.”
They don’t believe in anything but power
That line — “they don’t believe in anything but power” — is blunt, and that’s why it landed. Watters and the panel weren’t arguing policy nuance; they were saying what much of the country already suspects: when activists take over a party, ideology can become a vehicle for influence rather than a set of achievable goals. Look at the recent New York primaries, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s endorsements helped a string of insurgents win — wins the press calls a left‑wing surge.
Call it populism dressed up in red flags if you like, but the mechanics are the same. Organize the base, turn out a motivated minority in low‑turnout primaries, and you can swap incumbents for purists who pledge bold, expensive promises without a serious plan to pay for them. For voters who pay mortgages, run small businesses, or save for retirement, that’s not theory — it’s a potential hit to pocketbooks and local services.
Why New York matters (but not everything)
New York is ground zero because it’s an organizational lab. The Democratic Socialists of America and allied groups have built chapters, volunteers, and cash there; Mayor Mamdani’s role is a reminder that local power brokers can tip the balance. Reporters call it a test case for whether socialist‑aligned candidates can expand beyond their coastal enclaves into the wider Democratic coalition.
But let’s be honest: a wave in blue, dense precincts doesn’t automatically translate to victories in Michigan or Arizona. The bigger question is whether these candidates can win general elections in swing districts where independents and moderate Democrats decide races. If they can’t, the rest of us get the privilege of watching Democrats lose winnable seats because primary voters preferred purity over electability.
Real consequences for everyday Americans
This isn’t academic. When elected officials chase big, unfunded promises — massive tax hikes, aggressive de‑risking of energy and business, or expansive new entitlements — the ordinary folks who run the economy pay the price. Small-business owners face higher payroll bills or more regulation; middle‑class families face higher taxes or constrained housing supply; local services get squeezed when cities chase ideological priorities without fiscal plans.
Picture the corner diner whose supplier costs spike after a new regulatory push, or the family seeing insurance and energy bills jump because statewide experiments didn’t factor in supply realities. Those are the lived consequences, not the glossy campaign ads about “affordability” or “corporate greed.”
So what now?
Conservatives and disillusioned moderates should pay attention, and Democrats who worry about electability should too. You can call it a movement, a purge, or a corrective — labels don’t change the bottom line: politics shapes budgets, and budgets shape lives. If one faction within a major party decides the country needs to be remade on its terms, the rest of us are left to deal with the fallout.
We’ll see whether this is a momentary flare of enthusiasm or the start of something that can hold up in the general election. But one question remains: do voters want governance rooted in deliverable results, or are they ready to hand the reins to a national experiment whose first trials are being run in New York?
