Am I Too Hard On The Left?

Summary

Podcast Summary: Firewall with Bradley Tusk

Episode: "Am I Too Hard On The Left?"

Date: March 17, 2026

Host: Bradley Tusk
Co-host: Hugo Lindgren
Location: P&T Knitwear Bookstore/Studio, NYC

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Bradley Tusk and producer Hugo Lindgren dive into Bradley's latest essay, "Am I Being Too Judgmental? The Far Left People Want to Know." Bradley revisits and interrogates his critiques of far-left progressives—specifically whether his frequent skepticism is fair or overly harsh. Along the way, they touch on wealth, political motivations, social media, the evolution of leftist movements, and the complexities of universal basic income (UBI). The discussion is deeply self-reflective, blending social commentary with personal philosophy, and is rounded out with practical thoughts on political strategy and the role of ideology in governance.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Prediction Markets, Baseball, and Website Building

• [00:08–05:18]
  • The episode opens with banter about Bradley's success on prediction markets and a brief aside about the World Baseball Classic, setting a relaxed, personal tone.
  • Bradley shares his foray into no-code website building for his philanthropic foundation, using an app called Lovable. He reflects on the accessibility of new tech and his desire to experiment outside of high-stakes scenarios.

---

2. Why Is Bradley So Critical of the Far Left?

Self-Reflection & Thesis

• [05:18–18:26]
  • Bradley attempts an "intellectual examination" of the origins of his own aversion to far-left progressive politics:
    • He asserts, “Typically speaking, the thing that I have noticed… ultra progressive[s] will tell you that they're doing what they're doing because their goal is to help those in society who have the least. But then when you often look at their actual policy views, they're at odds with the people who have the least.” ([05:42])
  • Bradley's historic—perhaps “glib”—explanation: many far-left activists are motivated by resentment over proximity to wealth and status but not reaching the top echelons themselves, leading to a sense of moral superiority and punitive attitudes toward the 1%.

Six Observations that Complicate the Story

[Key segment: 06:50–18:26]
Bradley unpacks his broader critique through six (mainly) alternative explanations:

1. Affluence is Relative

• “Many people who are affluent in absolute terms, still don't feel affluent ... what you really have is less than you would like, which requires you to make choices.” ([06:54])
• Frustration often stems from relative deprivation and the perceived necessity of making lifestyle compromises, not real poverty.

2. The World Feels Terrible—Scapegoating Ensues

• “The world feels bad...What has become a lot more prevalent is a zero-sum mentality...Being able to define yourself in opposition to someone else is just as appealing to 30 somethings in Astoria as...pimple-faced boys at the high school dance.” ([09:06])

3. The 1% Often Behave Badly—Justifying Moral Opposition

• “So the disdain around people at the top isn't just that you're angry…some of those people at the top behave in ways that are very, very wrong...Should that...extend to public trial excoriation...on social media? That's no...That's a sign of immaturity and lack of intelligence.” ([11:28])

4. Social Media Rewards Extremes

• “If you offer a nuanced, thoughtful take online, it mainly results in silence...When you take an extreme position and then you get positive reinforcement for it, it hardens that view.” ([15:20])
• Social media incentivizes binary, oppositional thinking and performance of ideology.

5. Sometimes the Left Is Right

• “Sometimes they're right. We do need a redistribution of wealth in this country. Now...what you need is universal basic income rather than a wealth tax...If you just gave the money to the person in need, then they'd have 100 cents on the dollar instead of 60 or 70 cents.” ([16:54])
• Bradley supports UBI and some leftist critiques (e.g., health care), even as he distrusts certain implementation modes and notes party self-interest in the status quo.

6. Endemic Issues: Anti-Semitism & Anti-Asian Sentiment

• “They're blatant, open anti-semitism and they're blatant, open kind of anti-Asian behavior.” ([18:06])
• Bradley and Hugo discuss how these attitudes appear on the left and right, with similar exclusionary logic but different targets.

---

3. Comparing Far Left and Far Right Populism

• [18:26–22:34]
  • Both sides build identities around oppositional blame: the left targets the wealthy and centrists, the right targets demographics.
  • Noting similarities between Bernie Sanders' and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaigns: “These people are screwing you over. You don't have everything you want in life because of them, and I'm going to make them pay.” ([20:23])
  • “I don’t know that the entire perspective of the left is solely shaped by anger...I think that’s part of it, but I don't think it's the entirety of it.” ([21:47])
  • Ultimately sees far-left behavior as fundamentally human—complex, motivated by a mix of selfish and altruistic drives.

---

4. Universal Basic Income & The Left’s Blind Spots

• [22:34–24:52]
  • UBI is discussed as a necessary future reform, but Bradley doubts establishment leftists will embrace it because it threatens the social service ecosystem—one of their own power bases.
  • “In order for the Democratic Party to do the thing that would yield the greatest good to the most number of people…you would have to meaningfully attack your own base.” ([17:42])

---

5. Case Study: The Election of a Far-Left NYC Mayor (Zoran Mamdani)

• [24:52–29:11]
  • Mandani succeeded by mobilizing affluent-but-frustrated second and third decile voters (not the poorest)—a practical illustration of Bradley’s thesis.
  • “He tapped into a group of voters in that second and third decile of wealth who feel deprived, they feel angry…and they finally get the punishment they deserve.” ([25:06])
  • On Mandani’s performance: “Operationally, some people didn't like the snow removal...most of his appointments have been pretty good....But he has also used the mayoralty in ways to encourage anti-Semitism.” ([27:00])
  • On his own orientation: “I think he is really scurrying. I had a couple of views that I thought and that I think still think hold....I don't think any of it is playing out all that differently than I expected.” ([28:55])

---

6. Bradley’s Takeaway on Judging the Left

• [29:11–30:46]
  • Hugo pushes the central essay question: “Are you too judgmental about the far left?”
  • Bradley's answer: “I think I...should be less judgmental across the board...I am really trying to learn how to extend grace…but overall...most of the people on the far left...they want to do good. They also want to feel better about themselves…they want some sort of thing to belong to, and this is what they've chosen.” ([29:21])
  • He resolves to try to extend more grace, even as his views on certain policies do not change.

---

7. Political Operatives, Strategy, and Lessons from Campaigns

• [31:52–39:25]
  • Bradley and Hugo reflect on recent work and theories of political effectiveness (drawn from a conversation with Chris):
    • In Low Turnout Primaries, Intensity Beats Persuasion: Targeting and energizing true believers is more effective than mass persuasion ([32:48]).
    • Ideologues Make Good Legislators, Bad Executives: “Hard to look at ideologues when they take office...and point to a lot of success.” ([36:15])
    • Never Trust a Poll Before the Money Starts Moving: Traditional polling and financial strategies are losing relevance in today's fragmented and digitalized political landscape ([37:32–39:25]).

---

8. Book Talk: Audiobook Narrators

• [39:31–43:12]
  • Lighthearted conclusion discussing audiobooks, the impact of narration, and the nuances of engaging storytelling—a brief, friendly exchange that underscores the personal rapport between the hosts.

---

Notable Quotes

• “Typically speaking, the thing that I have noticed… ultra progressives… say they’re trying to help those with the least. But… their policy views are at odds with those who have the least.” – Bradley Tusk ([05:42])
• “The world feels bad...Being able to define yourself in opposition to someone else is just as appealing to 30-somethings in Astoria...as...pimple-faced boys at the high school dance.” – Bradley Tusk ([09:06])
• “If you just gave the money to the person in need, then they’d have 100 cents on the dollar instead of 60 or 70 cents.” – Bradley Tusk on UBI ([16:54])
• “A progressive extremist is no different than a MAGA extremist or a member of a group that seeks to explicitly harm others…But I don't know that the entire perspective of the left is solely shaped by anger that they don't have more money...people are complicated.” – Bradley Tusk ([21:47])
• “I think I...should be less judgmental across the board...I am really trying to learn how to extend grace...” – Bradley Tusk ([29:21])

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 00:08–05:18: Personal banter, website-building experience
• 05:18–18:26: Main topic introduction, five (six) observations on far-left motivations
• 18:26–22:34: Comparing left and right, identity politics, populism
• 22:34–24:52: UBI and critiques of left-wing establishment
• 24:52–29:11: Case study: NYC Mayor Mandani, local politics
• 29:11–30:46: The judgment theme resolved
• 31:52–39:25: Operational political lessons, campaign strategy
• 39:31–43:12: Off-topic coda: audiobook narration and recommendations

---

Tone & Style

Conversational, direct, analytically probing, and at times self-deprecating. Tusk freely admits uncertainty and repeatedly emphasizes the complexity of human motivation—even among those he criticizes. While his language is pointed ("punitive," "immature," "lacking in intelligence" for certain behaviors), he advocates for extending grace and understanding all the same.

---

Takeaway

Bradley Tusk remains critical of the far left’s often self-serving or contradictory political behavior but concludes that his judgment should be tempered with greater empathy. He recognizes that motivations on the far left are multifaceted—rooted in both genuine desire to do good and in personal frustration or status anxiety. Policy debates about the best ways to address inequality, UBI, and social services are ultimately secondary to the human need for community, purpose, and meaning.

---

Recommended next episode: The upcoming interview with Steve Philip of the Partnership for the City—previewed here as a substantive policy talk.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

Welcome back to Firewall. I'm your host, Bradley Tusk. It's a Tuesday episode, so with us is our friend and producer, Hugo Lindgren. Hugo, how you doing?

[A]

I'm doing good. Bradley, I need to congratulate you. You had your best, your best week on the prediction markets because you picked the winner, best picture. Um, one battle after another one. You bought at 76. 74 cents.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And it, it paid off at a dollar. So you, you had a return of like over 30%.

[B]

That's pretty okay. I know.

[A]

I was congratulating Bradley on that. He was like, it was the favorite, no big deal. But like, whatever.

[B]

I don't know. Picking what other people will do, I guess this is sort of the thing, honestly, just being slightly, A little too much self reflective here. For better and for worse. I just don't really care what other people do. Right. Like, I care what I do. I care what I'm interested in. I care how I can make it happen. I care what others do in the context of how it shapes the world and therefore how I want to respond to it. But, like, maybe that's why I don't really do a lot of, like, sports betting, prediction markets or whatever it is, because for me, like, just like, I'm not focused on what others are gonna do or don't do. I'm focused on what I'm doing.

[A]

Yeah, well, it's still predicting the future. It's kind of a superpower. So Rubio, you bought at 19. He's now up to 27. So do you want to close that out or do you like, you like to stick with Rubio at 27.

[B]

I'll stick with Rubio. Okay, sure.

[A]

Just. World Baseball Classic. Tonight, Venezuela is playing Italy. The odds of the US winning or the. You can buy the US winning at 74 cents, which is the same price you paid for one battle after another. Or, or you can buy Venezuela at 19 cents. Or here's the real bargain basement. Italy at 8 cents.

[B]

Yeah, I, I mean, I.

[A]

Obviously, by the time this comes out, well, those odds will have changed, but.

[B]

Right. Obviously on one hand, the US Is sort of like the, the interesting buy would be the other two. But Nolan, one, it's the US and

[A]

I care about my country against us.

[B]

Nolan McLean from the Mets is the starter in the final.

[A]

So I'm, I'm, I'm just taking a position. You're buying 74 cents.

[B]

Us to win.

[A]

There you go. Okay, that's all we need to talk about. That one other quick little piece of business. Before we get onto the main topic,

[B]

did you watch the game? You didn't watch?

[A]

No, I was at a. I went to an Oscar party for the first time in years. I will say almost nobody was watching it at the Oscar party. So that. With a gigantic TV that was as big as, like, the side of the.

[B]

Was watching the Oscars or the baseball game.

[A]

Nobody was watching the Oscars, even though

[B]

that was the party.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But the. I will say I. That Dominican lineup, even though we kept them to one run, was just incredible.

[A]

Incredible. I know.

[B]

And it.

[A]

I mean, it's not like. It's like, incredible. It's news that, like, the Dominican Republic, like, creates great baseball players, but it's still shocking.

[B]

Well, and I also went on, like, ESPN last night. Look at their top 100 baseball players right now. And of the top 25, more than half of them were playing in that game last night.

[A]

Yeah, it's beautiful.

[B]

It's fun.

[A]

Yeah, it's great. So you had your first experience with vibe coding.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

You built a website for your philanthropies. Why don't you talk about that?

[B]

Supposed to be launched now, but I don't think it's up yet. So I'll work on it. But yeah, I just, you know, people kept talking about it, and Lyle was sort of encouraging me to try it. And the TUS Philanthropy's website is pretty bad.

[A]

You've been wanting to improve it.

[B]

You know, I hadn't really been on my mind, but when I was like, oh, I want to try something, and I was like, what could I do that I could work on? The stakes would be super low. If something cool came out of it, we could use it. If nothing, no problem. And so I decided, like, given that what we have is basically nothing, why don't I try to play with that? And I had one. I use an app called Lovable, which is a website.

[A]

I know you sent me that. And I was like, wondering. It was from weird name right now. I just wasn't sure I wanted to click on it.

[B]

When I typed in what I really. And the reason I went to that one was a guy know a couple months ago had built a website for some kind of business he was thinking about. And he showed it to me and I was like, this is really good. So I text him, where'd you build that on? He said, lovable. But like, when I first lovable.com, it was like an underwear store or something. Right. So, yeah. But hopefully it'll be live by the time people hear this. And it was really cool because I took effectively. Now, look, one of the reasons I was able to build this thing in under a day was that we had so much existing material about touch philanthropists. We had our annual report. We had stuff that, you know, I fed in all of the material, but it was not hard to build. I think it came out pretty well. I think it sort of shows the breadth and impact of what we do. So it was a fun experience, for sure.

[A]

And how long did it take you? What was the whole.

[B]

I would say that the night I started working on it, I think Thursday night I started working on it. I spent maybe four or five hours, and then maybe another couple hours the next day. So seven hours, eight hours.

[A]

And what has to happen for it to actually go up?

[B]

Like, there's something. Because we have an existing thing that Basil's figuring out. Oh.

[A]

So it has to reflect what's there.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

And it is going to replace, like, this is going to be the website, your vibe coded thing.

[B]

Wow. Yeah.

[A]

Fantastic. I can't wait to see it. Okay, so you have a. A piece you've written. Is this going up today? Yeah, it's called Am I Being Too Judgmental? The far left people want to know. You've been. You've been pretty consistent on this for a while.

[B]

Yeah, I was just trying. I would say I. I try. I don't know if I'm always good at it, but I try occasionally to reexamine whatever views I hold on issues. Right. To see, like, am I right or not? Have my views changed? Am I being fair? Or have I looked at all different facts, whatever else. And Joe Klein, who I guess that episode will run soon. You and I were talking to him the other day, the journalist Joe Klein for podcast. Not Joel, but Joe, the guy that wrote Primary Colors. And somehow, as you know, he was sort of doing slightly the old guy complaining about young people on the left kind of thing.

[A]

And you didn't like the sound of that?

[B]

No, I just thought, like, a little bit, like, maybe I should just sort of like, think a little more deeply before. And so I really tried. This is. This piece is an intellectual examination of whether or not my view. So, like, typically speaking, the thing that I have noticed and talked about this podcast written about before is that the people who most identify with being kind of ultra progressive will tell you that they're doing what they're doing because their goal is to help those in society who have the least. But then when you often look at their actual policy views, they're at Odds with the people who have the least. And so when people would normally say to me, why do you think the far left sort of hates the 1% so much? Or why are their policies so focused on things that aren't necessarily about maximizing the benefit for the least among us? My view has always been that they're sort of driven by anger, that they're angry. They're not in the 1% because they are not in the 80th percent, they're in the 12th percent, they're in the 15th percent, they're in the 18th percent. And they went to somewhat similar schools to the people who are in the 1%. And they kind of had enough proximity to it to see it, but then not to achieve it for whatever reason. And ultimately, when you aren't in something that at the end of the day you'd like to have, because, let's be honest, the vast majority of us would still always prefer to have more money than less, regardless of what we then do with it, you have two choices. You could say, oh, yeah, I wasn't good enough to make partner, or would it raise the money for my fund or whatever it might be. Or the far sort of easier thing to say is, yeah, they're bad, they're corrupt, they're greedy, they're evil. I am better than them morally. And because I am so morally superior to them and virtuous, that's why I'm not one of them, because I'm above that, they're beneath me. And so that was sort of my kind of glib response, is that they're angry because they're not there, and therefore they want to punish people for that reason. Right. And I do think that's where some of it comes from. But what I tried to do is I came up with five other things. Observations to at least challenge the assumptions. The first is many people who are affluent in absolute terms, still don't feel affluent. So if you have a safe place to live and you have an iPhone and a doordash account and subscriptions to Netflix and HBO and you take vacations and you go out for dinner and you have a gym membership, you're not actually struggling in real terms, you know, not financially, no. Not financially. Right. You might be struggling otherwise, but. But financially, as much as you might think you are, what you really have is less than you would like, which requires you to make choices. Means you might not have enough money if you live in New York City to send your kids to private school, so you might have to move somewhere else to send your kids to public school, and then you have a commute and whatever else. And so you might be upset that you had to make that choice. Or childcare, which is a big issue. Most of the people who voted for Mondali on that issue, it's not that they can't afford childcare. It's that it either is eating up a bigger percentage of their discretionary income and they're upset about that, or they can't afford the best childcare and they're upset about that. Right. But ultimately, the people who, you know, are sort of typically ultra progressive, they're not really struggling in absolute financial terms. It's more that they are forced to make choices. And they don't necessarily like having to make choices, because the choices usually mean something less good than what you would want. But in fairness to that. So, look, as we said a billion times on this podcast, you know, capitalism is the greatest single system in history in that it has lifted billions and billions and billions of people out of extreme poverty. But when you take it to its full, logical conclusion to what we have in the US Today, the view is only money and status matter, and if you lack it, you don't matter. Right? And the people in the 12th percent or the 18th% or the 24th percent aren't any less susceptible to that than the rest of us. Right. And because they have proximity to the people who are at the very top, in some ways, they might even feel more deprived because even though they might have more money than everyone who makes less than them, they're like, that person's not better than me in any way. So why do they make $10 million a year and I make 140,000? So they're frustrated personally, and they live in an overall culture and system, and every advertisement is ultimately meant to take. Tell you you can only be happy when you have this skincare routine, this pair of boots, this wellness app, this truck, whatever it is. And so the fact that people on the far left would be just as susceptible to that message is not surprising at all. And in fact, if you look at, like, someone like Mayor Mandani's agenda, it's really actually a wealth transfer from the top decile to the second and third decile. Right? But saying that you're trying to revolutionize a corrupt system sounds a lot better than that. You're trying to take money from someone else. It's very rich voters. And redirect it to your pretty rich voters. So that's number one. Number two is the world feels terrible and we all want someone to blame, right? That's human nature. And Trump's obviously an easy target and he deserves all the criticism he gets and then some. But it's not just him, right? The world feels bad, as we've discussed a lot. People losing faith in institutions since the Vietnam War, or trust in basically every facet of society as low as it's ever been. And what has become a lot more prevalent is a zero sum mentality that, you know, it's every man for himself and the only thing that matters is how much you can accumulate before you die. And this notion that we're part of a greater whole and have a responsibility to adhere to certain norms of behavior has pretty much disappeared. So if you feel like you are a solution to that, or at least in opposition to that mentality, it feels good. And being able to define yourself in opposition to someone else is just as appealing to 30 somethings who live in Astoria or Silver Lake or Logan Square or East Austin as it is to like the pimple faced boys at the high school dance who are kind of hugging the walls and making fun of everyone else. 3. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the disdain around people at the top isn't just that you're angry that they have more than you do. Right. When wealth is so severely distributed, and it is in this country. Right. The top 1% own 31% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 50% own 2 1/2% of it, then you know, some of those people at the top behave in ways that are very, very wrong. Obviously this is all the Epstein stuff, but the MeToo movement or tax CEOs like an Adam Newman or Sam Bankman fried who behave like total assholes, like, it's very easy to look up, see lots of appalling behavior, and that justifies seeing yourself in opposition to that 1%. And therefore that validates you as morally superior. So, you know, should that then extend to public trial excoriation of anyone who thinks differently than you do, which then the left does quite a bit. No. When they basically couldn't conduct their version of a public trial, usually on social media, that's no, because someone was impure in some way. You know, that's no different than applying the same logic to people who look different than you. You do. And there are really good people across the ideological spectrum who use their resources to help others. And the fact that they generated these resources by engaging in capitalism doesn't make them inherently evil. They should be held in disdain. And I think if you can't use nuance or you can't think deeply. In my experience, it tends to be both a sign of immaturity and a lack of intelligence. And we see that from extremes on both sides. But with all of that said, is there a clear correlation between some really abhorrent behavior in society and people in 1%? Absolutely. And so I think every time that people on the far left see that, it validates how they feel. Next is social media, which just makes all of this so much worse, which is, you know, as we all know, if you offer a nuanced, thoughtful take online, it mainly results in silence. If you say something extreme, if you make accusations, if you point fingers, if you demand justice, that plays a lot better. Human beings want validation, we want affirmation, and we want it in pretty much every form possible. And so when it comes to social media, those likes, those retweets, those reposts, those are addictive. And in a lonely world where people are engaging physically, far less than ever, you know, they're not attending religious services, they're not volunteering, they're not engaging with organizations, then they seek sustenance from their screens instead. Right. And when you take an extreme position and then you get positive reinforcement for it, it hardens that view. So it's possible people say something initially online, they kind of only half believe, but now all of a sudden, because social media is binary, it's oppositional. If the responses were either you're incredible or you're terrible, then you really lock into the people telling you they're incredible, which means you lock into that position. And so I think a lot of times people also become more extreme because the rewards for that are significant and the rewards for being thoughtful and nuanced, they're not. And then finally, sometimes they're right. We do need a redistribution of wealth in this country. Now, I would say that what you need is universal basic income rather than a wealth tax, where the money goes into the government. And then in my experience in running governments and running, running budgets, at least 20, 30 cents, if not more, kind of gets frittered away on program administration and employees and pensions and benefits and all this other stuff. And if you just gave the money to the person in need, then they'd have 100 cents on the dollar instead of 60 or 70 cents on the dollar. And I don't think you're going to see the Democratic Party ever embrace UBI because ultimately, if you gave people money directly, then they don't need all the social services and you don't have the money to run all the social services because you just, you can't. People pay X percentage of your income in taxes and then Y&UBI. The Y&UBI is going to be deducted from the X. And if you were to say, okay, now take all the school meal stuff we do, let's say you don't need anymore because every family now has enough money to feed their kids, then you're putting, if you were to attack, basically remove a lot of the social service infrastructure because you're just letting people solve problems for themselves now, because you're giving them what they actually need most, which is money, then it's a lot fewer employees. And those people who work in social services tend to be, even on the government side, Democrats. All of the unions that represent them are big donors to the Democratic Party. All nonprofits that do all this work. Billions and billions of dollars in New York City alone that are contracted every year tend to be very progressive and Democratic. So in order for the Democratic Party to do the thing that would yield the greatest good to the most number of people in need, you would have to meaningfully attack your own base and reduce the size of your own base. And so we'll see if anyone there cares enough to live those values. I haven't seen it so far, but nonetheless, they're right about income inequality. I think Bernie Sanders is right about Medicare for all. I would do it now. I would have a public opt out. There is no reason that if you can afford a different level of care and you want to pay for it, you shouldn't be allowed to. And I know Sanders wouldn't like that because he wants to be. Being punitive is part of the point. It's part of the appeal to his voters. So, no, everyone's gonna have to have shitty healthcare, but overall, the healthcare system we have right now is wildly expensive and inaccessible and it's not sustainable. You know, left screams a lot about affordable housing. And while a lot of their positions demanding endless kind of community veto and environmental reviews and you have to use unions to build everything, are what makes affordable housing possible in the first place. To build. They're not wrong with the issue. So it's not that they're wrong about everything at all. I know there are things that they do that I find truly offensive. Right. They're blatant, open, anti Semitism and they're blatant, open kind of anti Asian behavior.

[A]

You think that's endemic to the left movement, the anti Semitism?

[B]

Seems like it. You know, look I think that anti Semitism frequently lurks beneath the surface all over the world in general. And then people are just waiting for an excuse to bring it out. And the left used October 7th to do so. But yeah, I do think that. But even with that, I don't think that by definition, because the left sort of behaves in ways that are really mature or because they have policy solutions that in and of itself might not make sense in the way that they suggest them. That doesn't mean that some of the things that they object to, they're not right to object to. I think they very much are. And to be clear, everything that we're seeing on the left, it happens on the right too. The enemy is different. So for the left, it's they hate the 1%, they hate Republicans, they hate centrist Democrats, they hate independents, and they hate liberal Democrats who are not sufficiently progressive for them. People on the right tend to apply it more to specific demographics. The left does apply specifically to Jews and Asians. You might see people on the far right apply it to more groups because I think their window of blame is different, because the underlying place where they're starting from an education and economic perspective is different. Right. If you look back at like when Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both ran for President in 2016 in their primary campaigns, they ran the exact same campaign, right? Which was, these people are screwing you over. You don't have everything you want in life because of them, and I'm going to make them pay. So their targets were different, but their narrative exactly the same. And I don't think anything has changed much since. And so look, whenever you base your identity or are belonging to a group who mainly exists to point fingers and are for theories that tend to not lack any world or experience, you're probably not adding much value to society. And I would say that a progressive extremist is no different than a MAGA extremist or a member of a group that sees to explicitly harm others because of their race or their gender or their sexuality, their religion or ethnicity. But I don't know that the entire perspective of the left is solely shaped by anger that they don't have more money. I think that's part of it, but I don't think it's the entirety of it. And I also think, just to take it down to a much more simple level, if you're an ultra progressive, you're still a person. And people are complicated. They want to be something bigger than themselves. A political identity that replaces the societal reward that goes to have wealth and status with the reward instead going to those who can demonstrate a particular type of virtue meets them where they are, which is relatively affluent, but also frustrated and wanting to find ways to punish those who are wanting to feel and display virtue by endorsing living strictly by the right progressive agenda, wanting to be in the club, wanting to find ways to subsidize their needs by making the 1% pay for it, but also in fairness to them, genuinely, truly wanting to be part of making the world better in some way. And ultimately all this is true. Everything I just said, good and bad, is true. And it's selfish and it's unselfish, it's right and it's wrong and ultimately kind of the conclusion I reached the end of this is more than anything else, the behavior and the motivations and the approach that we see from the far left is evidence of the one thing that we all know far too well, which is it's unquestionably human. And I just think that it doesn't really make me agree with want the laughs policy stances any more than I already do or don't. And I don't like being the victim of sort of purity tests and excoriations, you did this one thing we don't like, or that, so therefore you're evil. I think that's a sign of just immaturity and lack of sort of intelligence. But nonetheless, even though I wouldn't say that the review I went on radically changed my view, I think that I should try to extend grace to people in general, and I think that includes the far left.

[A]

So there's a few things I want to ask you about, but just in the very specific stuff I want to ask you about ubi, like what is required, I understand why this sort of left political establishment is against that, but a left political culture shouldn't necessarily be against that right like.

[B]

But it is. If ultimately a left political culture is not really about helping the people in the 80th percent, it's about helping people in the 18th percent, then they would be the payers into UBI, not the beneficiaries of it. Like you don't ever see Zoran Mondami say let's raise taxes on the top 20%, although in theory, if all you care about is the bottom 20%, then asking the people in the top 20%, not just the 1%, to sacrifice and have a little last of those in the UK a little more. Of course he would be for that. But I've yet never heard a progressive politician proposal.

[A]

But Andrew Yang totally broke out from nowhere. Right. And became a sort of political.

[B]

He's not from the far left.

[A]

No, no, definitely not. But, but he. But he tapped into a pretty sizable community within the Democratic Party. Yes, like. And, and why did that. Why did that not go further from there? So.

[B]

Oh, I mean, I. Cause I think, you know, ubi, but which, by the way, I entered it in create either.

[A]

No, I know, but he definitely.

[B]

King was one of the people that was really pushing that idea is we're not, I think for something as radical as UBI to happen, like what Andrew was saying in his book the War, normal people was auto. He called it automation because he wrote this, I think in the, you know, 2012 or 14 or something. So it was before sort of AI was AI, but effectively it's all the same thing is going to displace tremendous numbers of workers, and the only way to help them is directly through UBI and not through a system of taxation and appropriation and then execution that just tends to be wildly inefficient. If unemployment were 15% and it was pretty much all attributed something like UBI, I mean, I'm sorry to AI, then I think the conditions might be sad, but I think that what you would need is a. A real crisis, which I hope does not happen.

[A]

Zoramdani is mayor. He is of the far left, but does him being mayor mean that the city is actually moving left, do you think? Is that? Or is he just the best candidate who emerged from a kind of weird field?

[B]

I mean, a few things. One is, and this is the whole point of mobile voting, which is the far left, and the far right do an excellent job of voting in primaries at much rates than centrists, and therefore they elect people who say the right things, or maybe in Zoran's case, really are genuinely far left. No, I think what Zo run did was he tapped into a group of voters in that second and third decile of wealth who feel deprived, they feel angry. And the idea is like, free childcare, free mass transit, make the rich pay more in taxes, and so they finally get the punishment they deserve. And whatever else in Zoaron's agenda that they responded to, I think was effectively, he ran a campaign for people in the second and third decile because they're the ones who vote and they're the ones who feel in some ways the most aggrieved. Even the reality is they shouldn't. And he also is an exceptionally talented politician. No, if we had exponentially higher primary turnout. And you didn't have someone as bad as Andrew Cuomo as the alternative Zoran or your average council member who comes from the far left or ever might not win. But yeah, I mean, I think that you can't deny that the left has gained political power and prominence. So. Sure. And

[A]

how do you feel? You were one of the first sort of when, when Madani was looking like the presumptive favorite, a lot of people were holding on to hopes that he wouldn't win. You were like, let's get ready for it. It's happening. We need to work with him on, you know, influencing policy and getting the things that the city needs.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

How has that age since you first

[B]

sort of like, I have not talked

[A]

to him once, but I mean, how does your. How is your orientation? Because this is a pretty harsh overall

[B]

piece about the last, I mean, I would say with Mandani, I think he is really scurrying. I had a couple of views that I thought and that I think still think hold. One, was, you know, people were upset that he was a socialist in my views. Who cares in the sense of any of the things that matter from an economic policy standpoint, he has no control over whatsoever. The only thing that you really see it in is won his push to get Albany to raise taxes on the 1%. I don't know if he's going to succeed or not. He probably won't this year. But again, that's a key issue for his base. Of course he's going to talk about that. And he ran on that. So it's not like it's a surprise. But the economy of New York City, one, is more impacted by the global national economy than whatever the mayor does. But two, where the mayor can make a difference is if the city is clean and safe and well run, then the people who can come here and create jobs and ideas and businesses and our startups and everything else want to be here. And if the city is dirty and dangerous, they don't want to be here. And so it gets to an operations question, of which, you know, I think by and large, operationally, some people didn't like the snow removal. I think that's just hard, a harder issue than people realize. But, you know, most of his appointments have been pretty good. Right. So I don't really have a problem with that so far. The second question was his view on Israel, of which my view was, I don't care what he thinks about Israel because Israel doesn't care what he thinks about Israel. I care how he protects Jews in New York. I think he's been mixed. I think he's been good about when there have been incidents of anti Semitism that result in violence of some kind. I think he's been really good about it. I think he has also used the mayoralty in ways to encourage anti Semitism in some ways, too.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And I do think he truly hates. I don't think he hates Jews, but I think he hates Israel, and I don't think he loves Jews, so. But, you know, I don't think it's playing out all that differently. I don't think any of it is playing out all that differently than I expected.

[A]

So, Bradley, the title of the essay is am I Being Too Judgmental about the Far Left?

[B]

Yep. And Iran is upset.

[A]

The question is, are you?

[B]

Yeah, I think I'm, generally speaking, should be less judgmental across the board. And I think if I don't want to be like the people who I associate with being ultra judgmental, which is the far left, then I should be less judgmental. Look, generally for me, in life across the board, I am really trying to learn how to extend grace to things and to people and whatever else. And there are some people that are so terrible that I don't give Donald Trump grace. I don't think he deserves it. But overall, I think the thing that I learned from the exploration is while there's a lot of things on the far left that I still really, really don't like, and this, you know, the exploration didn't change that. There are people, you know, and there are people who are doing the generally the best they can with what they have and living in a world that's throwing a lot at them, and they're trying to make their way and find the thing that sort of what they think will make them feel happy and satisfied and whatever else, and that's what they're choosing. And I think while in some ways their choices are not necessarily best for what would help people who need it the most, if that's truly their goal, Nonetheless, most of the people on the far left, maybe not the people who are conducting these public trials constantly, but most of them, you know, they're people, they want to do good. They also want to feel better about themselves in various ways. They want some sort of thing to belong to, and this is what they've chosen.

[A]

Do you find it productive to talk to people in your life who are far left or Mumdani supporters? Do you feel like you can make sort of headway with them in terms of like the things you care about versus the things they care about, or is it.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I think that there's things we. We can agree upon and there are things that we like. My goal, and I think this is the nice thing about politics when you work at kind of the operative level is like, you can talk to most people who also work in politics and around it about most things. And if someone is a true, true ideologue and they truly hold the belief that everyone disagrees with them is automatically bad, then no, I'm not going to be able to talk to them because the truth is, I don't hold any ideological framework other than my own. Right. So there's no one that I would agree with 100%, because I'm only interested in what I think. And it would be very weird if someone had exactly the same thoughts as me on every single issue.

[A]

Right. Do you want to talk about your three theories of effective political action?

[B]

Sure.

[A]

Okay, so this is a little bit

[B]

of a. I don't think these are my three theories. This is what you took from a conversation with Chris, wrote up a list, and then of the. Of the eight or so that you're up in the list, I pick three to talk about.

[A]

Right, Right.

[B]

I don't want to positive as my theories. I put out things that are my theories all the time.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

This is like ultra derivative of a conversation leading to a list, leading to it, some choices leading to a conversation.

[A]

Well, here's. Here's the background of that. I thought the conversation you and Chris had, which was up last Thursday, you can obviously go back and listen to it. It was a really great episode. You guys talked a lot about the experience in Texas and some of the things you guys did there. So I liked it a lot. And I thought there were like a number of sort of specific ideas in there that I wanted to get you to sort of. I wanted to take them actually out of context purposely for you to talk about. So you picked the three of them. So the first one is in a low turnout. Primary intensity beats persuasion. So explain what is that? Is that a new phenomenon or is that.

[B]

Well, I guess depending on how the way I define persuasion is money being used to try to convince someone of something.

[A]

Money.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

And I think that we live in a world now where just the deinstitutionalization of the world, the fact that it has become so decentralized and that people can get their news and information, everything else in so many different ways, means that you had a system of governing, of Campaigning, I'm sorry, that was very based around a set of norms, around a political structure that I think no longer really exists today. And I think the New York City mayor's race was a perfect example of it, which was. Andrew Cuomo was one of the most devout believers in the status quo of the way we ran campaigns in 1998 is the way we should run them today. And he got his ass kicked. And so I think that right now, reaching people where they are on social, especially on short form video and in low turnout elections, especially identifying the people who are likely to turn out and really focusing on them and mobilizing them is a lot more effective than when, you know, when you buy broadcast TV ads like Andrew Cuomo did quite a bit of. In this race, you're paying to reach an audience of up to 20 million people. Cause that's the New York City media market spans from about Princeton to New haven. It's about 20 million people who live in that. And you're trying to reach like realistically persuade in terms of those who might actually vote in your election, like a tenth of a percent of them or something like that, you know, half a percent of them. So it's just wildly inefficient and ineffective. And if you put those resources instead into other things that are much more direct and a lot more targeted, I think it's just a better approach.

[A]

And do you think that that tracks to like, you know, you talked earlier about how few votes, for example, you can win in a New York City Council election with. So you can win with a few thousand.

[B]

No one's buying broadcasting.

[A]

No, of course not. But I'm just curious if like, the same phenomenon applies. Like, like how do you, how do you, how does that work on a smaller scale? Or does it.

[B]

It does. It's the same thing, which is just that ultimately, if you're competing to win in a low turnout primary, the ways to engage, I think have been proven that you need to be ultra ideological, ultra local, hyperlocal and ultra targeted. Now again, in a world of mobile voting, that might start to change in the sense that if all of a sudden you go from 10% turnout to 35% turnout than one, if you engage in forms that are more mass communication, it's a better chance of people actually seeing it who might vote in your election. Two, by having a broader base of voters, they're going to sort of definitionally be more mainstream. And therefore the most extreme candidate on either side doesn't automatically win. So I think there are opportunities but even if we succeed with mobile voting and it becomes legal and we get more turnout, that doesn't mean, like, oh, now we can just go back to the thing that we always used to do and now it'll work again. Like, the world's changed, man. You gotta change with it.

[A]

Ideologues make good legislators and bad executives.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, first, we don't even see that many examples of it, but I remember I was in Chicago in early February, and I was speaking at the business school at the University of Chicago, and we were talking about mobile voting, and someone raised their hand and said to me, like, well, if more people vote, won't we get worse people in office? And my answer was, brandon Johnson is your mayor and Donald Trump is your president. How much worse can it get? And so do they like hearing that? Most of them laughed. I don't think that particular person liked it. But I think also business students are used to being told how wonderful they are all the time, because I think, effectively, business school is a business. It's not sort of an educational product. And the business for the school is to generate a massive amount of tuition that gives them pretty cushy jobs in life. They don't have to teach or work all that much. And they make a lot of money or a lot of money for an academic. And the way you do that is to make them feel really great. Yes. But overall, the point is, it is hard to look at ideologues when they take office. That's what they're defined by, especially if they were a legislator first and point to a lot of success.

[A]

Final one, never trust a poll taken before the money starts moving. You were talking about this in the.

[B]

Yeah, I don't buy that. So that was, you know, the reason I picked it was I think we already kind of covered it, which is, I think the notion that the money is everything is an outdated notion. And therefore, I remember we had a. We were pitching a client and they went to the board and they came back and said, well, the board wants to know, like, what's Democrats, you know, here in which Republican, Harrison. Guys, this is totally outdated. It doesn't matter. Like, what matters is knowing what motivates these particular people for their next election, knowing how to reach them, and knowing how to make them feel like they need to do what we want them to do, because it will either help them politically if they do or hurt them politically if they do. And this notion that, like, everything gets done because, like, you, you went to college with someone, like, it just that world doesn't work that way anymore. So we've seen that almost every level of government. So I think the same thing is true with money, which is. It's not that money isn't important. It is. But I think that the notion that the money, you know, we did. We're on Thursday, so it's reverse order here. But Steve Phillip, who now runs New York City Partnership, which is here. And it was. I thought it really. I liked the interview. It was, you know, Hugo thought I was a little rough on him, but I liked it. Steve seemed fine when he left. He did so. But with that said, I think that's a lot of the argument that we were having. Right. Which is, you know, my view that you can't solve everything in politics with money. And I don't think Steve thinks he can either. But I think he comes from a. The partnership culture. Not him. He. Not him at all. But he is stepping into a culture that very much believes that. And I would argue they're one of the most ineffective, have been grouped politically that I've ever seen.

[A]

Well, that's coming up on Thursday. Steve, Philip, that's a partnership. Bradley, do you have a. Do you have a recommendation?

[B]

Not really. Reading the new Michael Pollan book right now, Consciousness Pollen. That's kind of been interesting.

[A]

Are you a fan of his generally?

[B]

No, not really. But Josh, I say. And I decided to read it together and, and go have lunch, talk about it. So.

[A]

Nice.

[B]

I'm doing it mainly for that. But no, I don't have any recognitions. Do you?

[A]

No, I just wanted to say that I'm. I'm reading the book that you did recommend, One of Us. I'm almost done with it. I do like it. Yeah, it's very good. It's. I'm listening to it actually on audiobook and, or.

[B]

And it's a good. Well, can I ask a quick question?

[A]

Multiple characters.

[B]

You read a lot of you. I mean, you listen to a lot of audiobooks.

[A]

I do, yeah.

[B]

So what makes for an effective audiobook?

[A]

Well, I think it's. It can be a lot of different things. I mean, the readers are obviously make a big difference in one of the things they do in this, which they don't obviously do in all audio books, is they have multiple readers. So there's. I like that too. Like, it's well done in this case, too. But the, you know, I used to, I used to think that plot was really important, you know, like, the more, you know, you like, read like a Jack Reacher book or something.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And I actually realized that the. That, like, I listened to a bunch of Don DeLillo books on, like, on audio, and I found them excellent.

[B]

Like, so true or false, the right readers can make a bad book good?

[A]

Oh, for sure. Yeah. Yeah.

[B]

And true or false, the right. The wrong readers can make a good book bad.

[A]

They're both. They both. I mean, a bad book good. I don't know about that, actually. But. But they can definitely make a good book bad. And I. And I think they can elevate a bad book, but I don't know if they can make it.

[B]

They can elevate an okay book.

[A]

They can elevate an okay book.

[B]

But.

[A]

But the. But typically the. Yeah, a bad reader could destroy a book.

[B]

And are there. Do. Are there voices that you're sort of now just used to hearing?

[A]

Yeah, you know. Yeah, there are. In fact, you know, one of the guys. I'm gonna forget his name, which is terrible. But remember, remember in Beverly Hills Cop, the guy who played Serge, the guy with the. This in the store with, like, the espresso?

[B]

Oh, yeah.

[A]

And then he became kind of a comedic actor, and I think they even had a sitcom that he's gardens up. So that guy has become one of the most prolific book readers, really. And he's excellent. I mean, he really is, like. He really is a cut. And he doesn't.

[B]

My. I. So I did the audio for the Fixer, and then the next two books, I. I didn't do it. And they did, like, in both cases, send me, like, audio samples of, like, four or five people.

[A]

Right.

[B]

I remember. Yeah.

[A]

So were you happy with how they turned out?

[B]

I didn't listen to them.

[A]

Oh, okay.

[B]

But. But I guess that, yeah, there are people who really get good at this. Would you ever.

[A]

I know I'm not. I know I wouldn't be good at it.

[B]

Would you ever listen to a book because the guy that plays Serge or whatever is doing the reading?

[A]

You know, I actually have looked up his books, but I would. I would never just read it. Like, I might. It might tip it over the line, but it would never just be for that reason.

[B]

And do you think anyone other than you is this engaged in who the reader is?

[A]

There are some geeks out there. Yeah. Like, there used to be this excellent audio journalism site called Autumn AUDM that the New York Times bought. And one of the things they did is they went out and got the best readers. And I remember meeting one of the founders and I, we geeked out on a couple of the readers, like, they were you know, Very cool. Yeah, that's great. It's a real. It's a real skill. All right, so we got Steve Phillip coming up on Thursday. I actually, I think it's a great conversation, and it's really one of the most substantive, like, it's the most substantive conversation you'll ever have with someone who works at the Partnership for the City, which is not an organization that typically engages in the way that you engage with Steve. And I think it's really worth listening to for that reason.

[B]

All right, Well, I hope people like it. Thanks. See you. Firewall is recorded at my bookstore, PNT Netware, located at 180 Orchard street on the lower east side of Manhattan. We'd love to hear from you with questions, feedbacks, or idea for a guest. Just email me at bradleyirewall Media or find me on links in. And to keep up with what's on my mind and my latest writing, please follow my new [e-mail] thanks again for listening.