You're aware, I presume, that EVERY Democrat in Congress currently CO-SPONSORS a bill to make gender self-ID instantaneous and unquestionable nationwide: that is, to allow boys on girls teams at the whim of each individual boy. (And in girls changing rooms and showers.) And that Joe Biden called for the immediate passge of this bill in every one of his four state-of-the-union addresses.
So: there ARE NO MODERATES among Democrats in office.
None, zero, zip, nada.
They are all already dead and buried.
EDIT: I assumed that people here would know that I was referring to the so-called "Equality Act". Apparently not, per comment below.
The 2025-26 version of the "Equality Act" is H.R.15 and S.1503, and it does exaclty what I claimed above. We know this because most blue states have passed equivalent state laws, and that's how they are interpreted by state agencies (eg Ed Dept) and by courts. Additionally, the Biden Administration claimed (falsely) that this interpretation was already implied by the SCOTUS Bostock decision, a claim that was finally struck down by federal courts just before Biden left office.
Are you talking about the Transgender Bill of Rights (H.Res. 1058 and S.Res. 604)?
It has 108 co-sponsors in the House (where there are 200 Democrats) and only 9 co-sponsors in the Senate (where there are 45 or 47 Democrats depending on how you count).
In addition, it doesn't actually have any effect on sports participation.
Where are you getting your information MarkS that you have this so badly wrong?
While I still don't think your characterization of the bill is accurate (the main purposes of the bill have nothing to do with sports or bathrooms and the implications of it on those areas aren't clear), you are right about the co-sponsors and the question of the implications for sports are open. So my error.
My characterizition is completely accurate. We know this because because most blue states have passed equivalent state laws, with very similar or identical language, and that's how they are interpreted by state agencies (eg Ed Depts) and by courts. Furthermore, the Biden administration claimed that this interpretation was ALREADY federal law under the SCOTUS Bostock decision. This was an obvious overreach (the decision is very clear that it applies to employment discrimination only), and it was eventually struck down by federal courts near the very end of Biden's term. But this shows the mindset of elected Democrats on the meaning of this law. Blue states with gender-self-ID laws like the Equality Act allow at-will change of the sex marker on state-issued IDs (and Biden allowed it on US passports). Here for example is the form you need to fill out in Pennsylvania to do that: https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/penndot/documents/public/dvspubsforms/bdl/bdl-form/dl-32.pdf
The Equality Act is not merely a symbolic “be nice to LGBTQ people” bill. It would write sexual orientation and gender identity into major federal civil-rights statutes. It would apply across employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and other areas. And the bill does explicitly say that, with respect to gender identity, a person shall not be denied access to shared facilities, including restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms, consistent with gender identity.
So I do think it is fair for you to say the bill has real implications for sex-separated spaces. I also think it is fair to say that, given the education and federal-funding provisions, people are not irrational for asking how this would affect school athletics.
Where I think your claim overreaches is in turning that legal concern into “boys on girls teams at the whim of each individual boy.”
That phrase does more than describe the bill. It frames trans girls as ordinary boys acting opportunistically. The bill does not say “sports,” “athletics,” or “any boy can instantly join a girls team.” The sports claim is an inference from how gender-identity nondiscrimination could be applied in schools. It may be a serious inference, but it is still an inference.
The more accurate conservative critique would be:
“The Equality Act would create federal gender-identity nondiscrimination rules that likely affect bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and possibly school athletics. Supporters should be honest about that and should explain how they would handle sex-based privacy, safety, and competitive-fairness concerns.”
That is a much stronger argument than “there are no moderates” or “every Democrat wants boys in girls showers.” The first version identifies a real legal and policy conflict. The second version collapses every trans person into a threat and every Democrat into a caricature.
The hard question is not whether LGBTQ people deserve civil-rights protection. They do. The hard question is how to protect trans people from discrimination while also taking seriously the reasons sex-separated spaces and sex-separated sports exist.
That question deserves more honesty than either side usually gives it.
The bill defines "gender identity" as "the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth." So it is completely up to the individual to decide. There is no gatekeeping of any kind. This is how equivalent state laws have been interpreted: you can change the sex marker on your state-issued ID at will. Boys who claim to be "trans" are allowed on girls teams and in girls showers at schools in states with equivalent laws. The Biden administration furthermore falsely claimed that this was required nationwide by the SCOTUS Bostock decision (that false claim being eventually struck down by federal judges). Convicted male rapists who suddenly claim to be "trans" have been transferred to women's prisons, and raped women prisoners there. Predatory men have taken plenty of advantage of these laws, and more will do so as their existence becomes better known.
There is no "hard question" here. People who claim to be "trans" have full access to spaces for their sex, just like everyone else, under existing law.
People need, want, and deserve sex-segregated spaces, sports, prisons, etc. This law obliterates them.
EVERY Democrat in Congress has signed on to this obliteration. That makes none of them "moderate" by any reasonable definition.
Mark, I am willing to keep engaging with you, and I do not harbor ill will toward you. We have never met, and I do not want to reduce you to the most heated version of this disagreement.
But I do want to slow the conversation down, because I think we are moving between several different questions at once.
One question is whether LGBTQ people should have explicit federal civil-rights protections in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and related areas.
A second question is how gender-identity protections should interact with sex-separated spaces, sports, prisons, changing rooms, and safety concerns.
Those questions are related, but they are not identical. If we collapse them into one another too quickly, we lose the ability to find any starting point.
So let me ask this as directly and respectfully as I can:
If we bracket the shared-facility, sports, and prison questions for a moment, can we agree that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people should not be fired, denied housing, refused credit, excluded from ordinary public accommodations, or denied basic civil participation simply because they are LGBTQ?
I understand that you have serious objections to the gender-identity provisions and their implications for sex-separated spaces. I am not pretending that concern is not there. I am trying to find the first place where we may actually agree before moving to the harder dispute.
I may be a democratic socialist, and you and I may disagree deeply here, but I am willing to remain engaged and civil as long as we both keep treating each other as people rather than caricatures.
>If we bracket the shared-facility, sports, and prison questions for a moment, can we agree that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people should not be fired, denied housing, refused credit, excluded from ordinary public accommodations, or denied basic civil participation simply because they are LGBTQ?
And I want to pause on it for a second, because that is not a small point. We came into this from very different directions, but we were still able to agree that LGBTQ people should not be fired, denied housing, refused credit, or pushed out of ordinary public life just because they are LGBTQ. I wish our politics could start there more often.
I also hear you on the harder part. The shared-space, sports, and prison questions are not simple. I do not want any policy used in a way that lets predators exploit vulnerable people. Children, women, prisoners, and anyone in a vulnerable position deserve real safety.
Where I struggle is that trans people are also vulnerable people in this conversation. They also have dignity and safety at stake. So I do not want to solve one fear by making another group disappear from civil life.
That is the tension for me. How do we protect privacy and safety where those concerns are real, while also making sure LGBTQ people, including trans people, are not treated as threats by default?
I know we may not answer that the same way. But I appreciate that we found at least one honest place to begin.
> I do not want any policy used in a way that lets predators exploit vulnerable people.
Then there must be some form of gatekeeping on who can enter opposite-sex spaces.
Already there have been multiple cases of predatory straight men hanging out, nude and erect, in female-only changing and shower facilities in public accommodations (eg gyms). When challenged they claim to be trans. Blue state laws equivalent to the Equality Act allow them to do this (as confirmed by police and courts in such incidents).
But all Democrats in Congress (and all Democrat governors, and >99% of Democrat state legislators) firmly reject any form of gatekeeping. To even discuss it is "transphobic".
You say you are a democratic socialist. Does that mean that you believe in democracy? Literally, "rule by the common people"?
I do. And if we actually had a democracy (of course we do not), then this issue would be settled. Reliable polling by the NYT and others shows that a large majority of people want single-sex spaces.
I believe this is actually a fundamental human right. The Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War of 1949 mandated sex-segrated facilities. We have abandoned this fundamental human right in this country (and in many other Western countries), and I want it back.
Damn Joe— more excellent if sobering commentary. As a Republican, I fear the continuing drift to the left of the Democrats; Socialism is cancerous to our country, to say nothing of the accompanying antisemitism and class envy.
We Republicans have our own issues as well, from Trump’s coarse irrationality to Vance’s ugly populism. A rational conservative party would showcase Rubio, Cotton, Kemp or DeSanctimonious (sorry but I love that nickname 🤭) Alas, Mitch Daniel ain’t walking through that door.
The Democrats would be wise to take up Joe’s perspicacious prescriptions. (Hell— the policies are so sensible that I would support most of them)…but we know they won’t. So neither of us will get what we want and our skies will continue to darken in our 250th year.
President Trump is the greatest president in our lifetime. People who don't understand that obviously can't think for themselves and believe whatever the Trump hating media tell them.
When I met with you and your parents for lunch, the talk was about Rockaway Beach when my father drove his dad, John F Curry, from Manhattan Beach , to see your granddad, Joe Klein, his partner in the Insurance business. (My parents were married in Far Rockaway.)
I share your nostalgia for a period when ethnicity flourished, but not to the detriment of the City or its peoples. I learned Yiddish from my neighbors in our apartment building where our German superintendent was a member with other superintendents of the Liederkranz Club at 87th, just off Fifth Ave. Who knew?
BUT
Those days are behind us, and today we're dealing with a different and much less integrated society. I'm hoping for change, but regret it is not likely to be in my lifetime.
Good luck and Godspeed in your new abode And thank you for your articulate insights -- which I hope keep on coming.
The tidal wave is running for the pro-Hamas branch of the Democratic Party. It may end up BEING the Democratic Party. That’s no longer some kind of extreme horror-fantasy. I’d ask Joe Klein to consider what that would mean. Morally. Electorally.
In reading todays excellent column I also got the feeling that Joe was leaving not only New York but his incessant anti Trump drumbeat. The gloriousness of what is called a glimmer.
Klein, I've now challenged you for over a dozen times that your your assertation that "President Trump is a "charlatan"", and you have not once yet provided a single example to prove your false assertation. Klein; it is now time to either put up or shut up.
Strongly disagree about New York. My wife of 40+ years and I have a place in Sunnyside, Queens. Prices are reasonable, sidewalks are broad, tree-lined and uncrowded. The 7 train is a block away. Citifield is 20 minutes in one direction, Grand Central is 20 minutes in the other.
Come join us, Joe! Life is good, and we have the best pizza.
Am one to wait things out, see how it going, before making a lot of opinions on how it will unfold.
This country has a lot further to go, Trump will pass, one way or another. What works in New York does not always work outside of it. Have faith, this too shall pass.
First off, socialism seems to work pretty well in China.
But past that, I find all this pearl clutching very unlike you and I wonder why you're so upset. I actually mostly agree with what you've written here. These ideologies won't last but they just might, just might wake the Democratic Party up. God knows they need it. Be of good cheer man, these guys are bad but preferable to the Trump cult
Actually, capitalism has saved China. What do you think is driving that economy? State-run coal mines? Have you been to China? Have you seen the free enterprise glory and diversity of Shanghai or Guangjou? And as for pearl-clutching: socialists, historically, have wanted to take the pearls of the bourgeoisie. It is a fool's errand. Socialism will only lead the Dems to continue their misinterpretation of economics and freedom.
We are not there yet, which unfortunately does not mean we won’t get there, but it does include the possibility of getting back to decent politics and a people who are willing to listen not just hear what’s going on.
Thank you for the article, Mr. Klein. I have been to New York. I was hoping, that George Conway would win, but last place! That was a surprise to me. I use to be an institutional democrat until I found out that dark money controlled the party.
I grew up in rural America. Like you, over the past few decades I have felt my home change around me. Unlike you, though, I find myself edging closer and closer to Chicago, a place I never thought I would live.
You say the left has gone too far. From where I stand, the right has gone too far. You worry that Democrats should reject the socialist wing before Republicans weaponize it. I understand that concern. But I also find myself asking: what about the right going too far? What about the extremism already reshaping rural America, churches, schools, libraries, hospitals, and ordinary civic life?
I do not come here this morning to fight or argue. I read you because I find you to be a decent and honest good-faith writer. I may fervently disagree with you at times, but that is partly why I am here. I do not wish to live in an echo chamber.
I am one of the democratic socialists you generalized toward. I promise I am not nearly as scary as I am sometimes made out to be. I suspect we go to bed at night with many of the same fears: fear for our country, fear for our communities, fear that something humane and decent is slipping away.
So I simply want to offer this from one man to another: let us not forget that we are both persons with inherent moral worth. Dignity matters, even across disagreement.
I do not say this to accuse you. I say it as a reminder, because the news can make all of us worse if we let it. Sometimes we need to mentally shake hands with people we disagree with, especially the people we disagree with, so we do not lose sight of their humanity.
As a knee-jerk, pro-Democratic Socialist, NY Liberal, progressive school-educated, born across the street from Bloomingdale's, this really made me think
Rusty trust me. You're not a socialist. You're a social democrat. There is a difference. And it is extremely important to understand how disastrous--and historically foolish--the term "socialist" is. It is also Donald Trump's fondest dream that Democrats use that term.
Sorry you have left town, Joe - but if you ever need a place to stay in New Rochelle, you are welcome to hang your hat here at Premium Point Park. And New Rochelle, it should be noted, has been making a strong effort to solve that housing crunch everyone is always grousing about.
Like you, I was disappointed in the NYC primary results, particularly the Chevalier victory. It sounds as though it was at least partly attributable to Espaillat never having really made up with the Black community still sore about him displacing Charlie Rangel all those years ago. The larger story is the inability of more moderate candidates to get their people to the polls in late June, allowing a very small slice of committed ideologues to flip a seat with minimal roots. We need to go back to a September primary, as we did when the city recovered in 1982-2016. And may the good folks of Wagington Heights find their George Latimer in '28.
The indulgences of the DSA crowd make it more important than ever to defend the string of governors we have from North Carolina to Maine, from Stein to Shapiro, Spanberger to Hochel, Sherrill to Healey, who have the unenviable task of keeping the hip mayors from ruining the cities that have come so far since the dark days of the '70s. And Mamdani, like the orange haired menace that he resembles in a lot of ways (heavy on the performance, light on the admin), has shown a tendency to pull up and move on when one of his ideas hit a speed bump. The fact that the city is kinda broke may not be a terrible thing for now.
There is no question that things look a bit depressing at this moment, but I submit that it is no worse than on that night in December, 1941 when someone said "welcome back to the fight, this time I know our side will win." A line, let us remember, written by a couple of Jewish guys.
The core problem is not that moderate Dems cannot rally their supporters to vote in elections.
Rather, the moderates are a cohort of mumbling, aging wafflers, who, it seems, lack not only the courage of their convictions, but any convictions at all.
Fearful, ever-prudent Democratic moderates have ceded the terms of debate to the shrill Puritans of the left, whose arrogance, self-assurance, and presumption are exceeded only by their abject ignorance and utter lack of curiosity.
At a time when the country is assailed by the ill winds of MAGA authoritarianism and woke mania, principled liberals and conservatives must speak up, no matter what the consequences.
"No boys on girls teams"
You're aware, I presume, that EVERY Democrat in Congress currently CO-SPONSORS a bill to make gender self-ID instantaneous and unquestionable nationwide: that is, to allow boys on girls teams at the whim of each individual boy. (And in girls changing rooms and showers.) And that Joe Biden called for the immediate passge of this bill in every one of his four state-of-the-union addresses.
So: there ARE NO MODERATES among Democrats in office.
None, zero, zip, nada.
They are all already dead and buried.
EDIT: I assumed that people here would know that I was referring to the so-called "Equality Act". Apparently not, per comment below.
The 2025-26 version of the "Equality Act" is H.R.15 and S.1503, and it does exaclty what I claimed above. We know this because most blue states have passed equivalent state laws, and that's how they are interpreted by state agencies (eg Ed Dept) and by courts. Additionally, the Biden Administration claimed (falsely) that this interpretation was already implied by the SCOTUS Bostock decision, a claim that was finally struck down by federal courts just before Biden left office.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/15
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1503
https://equality.house.gov/equality-act-introduced-119
Are you talking about the Transgender Bill of Rights (H.Res. 1058 and S.Res. 604)?
It has 108 co-sponsors in the House (where there are 200 Democrats) and only 9 co-sponsors in the Senate (where there are 45 or 47 Democrats depending on how you count).
In addition, it doesn't actually have any effect on sports participation.
Where are you getting your information MarkS that you have this so badly wrong?
Equality Act, 2025-26 version is H.R.15 and S.1503:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/15
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1503
https://equality.house.gov/equality-act-introduced-119
Thanks for the correction MarkS.
While I still don't think your characterization of the bill is accurate (the main purposes of the bill have nothing to do with sports or bathrooms and the implications of it on those areas aren't clear), you are right about the co-sponsors and the question of the implications for sports are open. So my error.
My characterizition is completely accurate. We know this because because most blue states have passed equivalent state laws, with very similar or identical language, and that's how they are interpreted by state agencies (eg Ed Depts) and by courts. Furthermore, the Biden administration claimed that this interpretation was ALREADY federal law under the SCOTUS Bostock decision. This was an obvious overreach (the decision is very clear that it applies to employment discrimination only), and it was eventually struck down by federal courts near the very end of Biden's term. But this shows the mindset of elected Democrats on the meaning of this law. Blue states with gender-self-ID laws like the Equality Act allow at-will change of the sex marker on state-issued IDs (and Biden allowed it on US passports). Here for example is the form you need to fill out in Pennsylvania to do that: https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/penndot/documents/public/dvspubsforms/bdl/bdl-form/dl-32.pdf
The Equality Act is not merely a symbolic “be nice to LGBTQ people” bill. It would write sexual orientation and gender identity into major federal civil-rights statutes. It would apply across employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and other areas. And the bill does explicitly say that, with respect to gender identity, a person shall not be denied access to shared facilities, including restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms, consistent with gender identity.
So I do think it is fair for you to say the bill has real implications for sex-separated spaces. I also think it is fair to say that, given the education and federal-funding provisions, people are not irrational for asking how this would affect school athletics.
Where I think your claim overreaches is in turning that legal concern into “boys on girls teams at the whim of each individual boy.”
That phrase does more than describe the bill. It frames trans girls as ordinary boys acting opportunistically. The bill does not say “sports,” “athletics,” or “any boy can instantly join a girls team.” The sports claim is an inference from how gender-identity nondiscrimination could be applied in schools. It may be a serious inference, but it is still an inference.
The more accurate conservative critique would be:
“The Equality Act would create federal gender-identity nondiscrimination rules that likely affect bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and possibly school athletics. Supporters should be honest about that and should explain how they would handle sex-based privacy, safety, and competitive-fairness concerns.”
That is a much stronger argument than “there are no moderates” or “every Democrat wants boys in girls showers.” The first version identifies a real legal and policy conflict. The second version collapses every trans person into a threat and every Democrat into a caricature.
The hard question is not whether LGBTQ people deserve civil-rights protection. They do. The hard question is how to protect trans people from discrimination while also taking seriously the reasons sex-separated spaces and sex-separated sports exist.
That question deserves more honesty than either side usually gives it.
The bill defines "gender identity" as "the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth." So it is completely up to the individual to decide. There is no gatekeeping of any kind. This is how equivalent state laws have been interpreted: you can change the sex marker on your state-issued ID at will. Boys who claim to be "trans" are allowed on girls teams and in girls showers at schools in states with equivalent laws. The Biden administration furthermore falsely claimed that this was required nationwide by the SCOTUS Bostock decision (that false claim being eventually struck down by federal judges). Convicted male rapists who suddenly claim to be "trans" have been transferred to women's prisons, and raped women prisoners there. Predatory men have taken plenty of advantage of these laws, and more will do so as their existence becomes better known.
There is no "hard question" here. People who claim to be "trans" have full access to spaces for their sex, just like everyone else, under existing law.
People need, want, and deserve sex-segregated spaces, sports, prisons, etc. This law obliterates them.
EVERY Democrat in Congress has signed on to this obliteration. That makes none of them "moderate" by any reasonable definition.
Mark, I am willing to keep engaging with you, and I do not harbor ill will toward you. We have never met, and I do not want to reduce you to the most heated version of this disagreement.
But I do want to slow the conversation down, because I think we are moving between several different questions at once.
One question is whether LGBTQ people should have explicit federal civil-rights protections in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and related areas.
A second question is how gender-identity protections should interact with sex-separated spaces, sports, prisons, changing rooms, and safety concerns.
Those questions are related, but they are not identical. If we collapse them into one another too quickly, we lose the ability to find any starting point.
So let me ask this as directly and respectfully as I can:
If we bracket the shared-facility, sports, and prison questions for a moment, can we agree that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people should not be fired, denied housing, refused credit, excluded from ordinary public accommodations, or denied basic civil participation simply because they are LGBTQ?
I understand that you have serious objections to the gender-identity provisions and their implications for sex-separated spaces. I am not pretending that concern is not there. I am trying to find the first place where we may actually agree before moving to the harder dispute.
I may be a democratic socialist, and you and I may disagree deeply here, but I am willing to remain engaged and civil as long as we both keep treating each other as people rather than caricatures.
>If we bracket the shared-facility, sports, and prison questions for a moment, can we agree that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people should not be fired, denied housing, refused credit, excluded from ordinary public accommodations, or denied basic civil participation simply because they are LGBTQ?
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you. I honestly appreciate that.
And I want to pause on it for a second, because that is not a small point. We came into this from very different directions, but we were still able to agree that LGBTQ people should not be fired, denied housing, refused credit, or pushed out of ordinary public life just because they are LGBTQ. I wish our politics could start there more often.
I also hear you on the harder part. The shared-space, sports, and prison questions are not simple. I do not want any policy used in a way that lets predators exploit vulnerable people. Children, women, prisoners, and anyone in a vulnerable position deserve real safety.
Where I struggle is that trans people are also vulnerable people in this conversation. They also have dignity and safety at stake. So I do not want to solve one fear by making another group disappear from civil life.
That is the tension for me. How do we protect privacy and safety where those concerns are real, while also making sure LGBTQ people, including trans people, are not treated as threats by default?
I know we may not answer that the same way. But I appreciate that we found at least one honest place to begin.
> I do not want any policy used in a way that lets predators exploit vulnerable people.
Then there must be some form of gatekeeping on who can enter opposite-sex spaces.
Already there have been multiple cases of predatory straight men hanging out, nude and erect, in female-only changing and shower facilities in public accommodations (eg gyms). When challenged they claim to be trans. Blue state laws equivalent to the Equality Act allow them to do this (as confirmed by police and courts in such incidents).
But all Democrats in Congress (and all Democrat governors, and >99% of Democrat state legislators) firmly reject any form of gatekeeping. To even discuss it is "transphobic".
You say you are a democratic socialist. Does that mean that you believe in democracy? Literally, "rule by the common people"?
I do. And if we actually had a democracy (of course we do not), then this issue would be settled. Reliable polling by the NYT and others shows that a large majority of people want single-sex spaces.
I believe this is actually a fundamental human right. The Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War of 1949 mandated sex-segrated facilities. We have abandoned this fundamental human right in this country (and in many other Western countries), and I want it back.
Damn Joe— more excellent if sobering commentary. As a Republican, I fear the continuing drift to the left of the Democrats; Socialism is cancerous to our country, to say nothing of the accompanying antisemitism and class envy.
We Republicans have our own issues as well, from Trump’s coarse irrationality to Vance’s ugly populism. A rational conservative party would showcase Rubio, Cotton, Kemp or DeSanctimonious (sorry but I love that nickname 🤭) Alas, Mitch Daniel ain’t walking through that door.
The Democrats would be wise to take up Joe’s perspicacious prescriptions. (Hell— the policies are so sensible that I would support most of them)…but we know they won’t. So neither of us will get what we want and our skies will continue to darken in our 250th year.
Once again President Trump was correct. You democrats ruined it for everyone. You should be ashamed.
Hard to believe anyone who backed Trump is still not ashamed.
President Trump is the greatest president in our lifetime. People who don't understand that obviously can't think for themselves and believe whatever the Trump hating media tell them.
Sorry to see you go, Joe.
When I met with you and your parents for lunch, the talk was about Rockaway Beach when my father drove his dad, John F Curry, from Manhattan Beach , to see your granddad, Joe Klein, his partner in the Insurance business. (My parents were married in Far Rockaway.)
I share your nostalgia for a period when ethnicity flourished, but not to the detriment of the City or its peoples. I learned Yiddish from my neighbors in our apartment building where our German superintendent was a member with other superintendents of the Liederkranz Club at 87th, just off Fifth Ave. Who knew?
BUT
Those days are behind us, and today we're dealing with a different and much less integrated society. I'm hoping for change, but regret it is not likely to be in my lifetime.
Good luck and Godspeed in your new abode And thank you for your articulate insights -- which I hope keep on coming.
Emmet--how do we keep in touch?
My email address is CurryEnergy @ g m a i l . com. Please shoot me a note
The tidal wave is running for the pro-Hamas branch of the Democratic Party. It may end up BEING the Democratic Party. That’s no longer some kind of extreme horror-fantasy. I’d ask Joe Klein to consider what that would mean. Morally. Electorally.
It is not a pro-Hamas branch. It is an anti-Israeli government branch.
When did either of these three candidates ever criticize Hamas? Answer: never. One is an overt supporter.
Everyone should read: “Courage Can Save US”
In reading todays excellent column I also got the feeling that Joe was leaving not only New York but his incessant anti Trump drumbeat. The gloriousness of what is called a glimmer.
Nope. Socialism is dead meat, but Trump is the most dangerous sort of charlatan. Sanity Clause is for people who want neither.
Klein, I've now challenged you for over a dozen times that your your assertation that "President Trump is a "charlatan"", and you have not once yet provided a single example to prove your false assertation. Klein; it is now time to either put up or shut up.
The best part is that I know that you can't.
You are really a fool to think you are worth Joe’s time to respond to your ignorance.
Joe can't respond, he has no facts to prove his Trump derangement syndrome isn't a mental illness.
I agree with your politics.
Strongly disagree about New York. My wife of 40+ years and I have a place in Sunnyside, Queens. Prices are reasonable, sidewalks are broad, tree-lined and uncrowded. The 7 train is a block away. Citifield is 20 minutes in one direction, Grand Central is 20 minutes in the other.
Come join us, Joe! Life is good, and we have the best pizza.
You make a strong case, Richard.I've always loved Sunnyside. But we're happy where we are now.
Good fortune where ever you move to.
Am one to wait things out, see how it going, before making a lot of opinions on how it will unfold.
This country has a lot further to go, Trump will pass, one way or another. What works in New York does not always work outside of it. Have faith, this too shall pass.
I agree.
First off, socialism seems to work pretty well in China.
But past that, I find all this pearl clutching very unlike you and I wonder why you're so upset. I actually mostly agree with what you've written here. These ideologies won't last but they just might, just might wake the Democratic Party up. God knows they need it. Be of good cheer man, these guys are bad but preferable to the Trump cult
Actually, capitalism has saved China. What do you think is driving that economy? State-run coal mines? Have you been to China? Have you seen the free enterprise glory and diversity of Shanghai or Guangjou? And as for pearl-clutching: socialists, historically, have wanted to take the pearls of the bourgeoisie. It is a fool's errand. Socialism will only lead the Dems to continue their misinterpretation of economics and freedom.
Klein, the CCP has built an economy based upon enslavement of over one million Uyghurs. And I have been to China.
But I agree on your assessment of socialism.
Only if one is willing to live in an authoritarian regime, where what you say and can read is governed by the government.
Like the United States?
We are not there yet, which unfortunately does not mean we won’t get there, but it does include the possibility of getting back to decent politics and a people who are willing to listen not just hear what’s going on.
Point taken. But I fear we’re closer than you think. Thanks for your comments
Your welcome
Thank you for the article, Mr. Klein. I have been to New York. I was hoping, that George Conway would win, but last place! That was a surprise to me. I use to be an institutional democrat until I found out that dark money controlled the party.
Your riff on NYC always reinventing itself & covering the city for the magazine made me think it's something Pete Hamill would have said. 👍
Hello Joe,
I grew up in rural America. Like you, over the past few decades I have felt my home change around me. Unlike you, though, I find myself edging closer and closer to Chicago, a place I never thought I would live.
You say the left has gone too far. From where I stand, the right has gone too far. You worry that Democrats should reject the socialist wing before Republicans weaponize it. I understand that concern. But I also find myself asking: what about the right going too far? What about the extremism already reshaping rural America, churches, schools, libraries, hospitals, and ordinary civic life?
I do not come here this morning to fight or argue. I read you because I find you to be a decent and honest good-faith writer. I may fervently disagree with you at times, but that is partly why I am here. I do not wish to live in an echo chamber.
I am one of the democratic socialists you generalized toward. I promise I am not nearly as scary as I am sometimes made out to be. I suspect we go to bed at night with many of the same fears: fear for our country, fear for our communities, fear that something humane and decent is slipping away.
So I simply want to offer this from one man to another: let us not forget that we are both persons with inherent moral worth. Dignity matters, even across disagreement.
I do not say this to accuse you. I say it as a reminder, because the news can make all of us worse if we let it. Sometimes we need to mentally shake hands with people we disagree with, especially the people we disagree with, so we do not lose sight of their humanity.
Respectfully,
Josh
Say it ain’t so, Joe. I fear for America’s future. I think we’re all fubar.
As a knee-jerk, pro-Democratic Socialist, NY Liberal, progressive school-educated, born across the street from Bloomingdale's, this really made me think
Rusty trust me. You're not a socialist. You're a social democrat. There is a difference. And it is extremely important to understand how disastrous--and historically foolish--the term "socialist" is. It is also Donald Trump's fondest dream that Democrats use that term.
Sorry you have left town, Joe - but if you ever need a place to stay in New Rochelle, you are welcome to hang your hat here at Premium Point Park. And New Rochelle, it should be noted, has been making a strong effort to solve that housing crunch everyone is always grousing about.
Like you, I was disappointed in the NYC primary results, particularly the Chevalier victory. It sounds as though it was at least partly attributable to Espaillat never having really made up with the Black community still sore about him displacing Charlie Rangel all those years ago. The larger story is the inability of more moderate candidates to get their people to the polls in late June, allowing a very small slice of committed ideologues to flip a seat with minimal roots. We need to go back to a September primary, as we did when the city recovered in 1982-2016. And may the good folks of Wagington Heights find their George Latimer in '28.
The indulgences of the DSA crowd make it more important than ever to defend the string of governors we have from North Carolina to Maine, from Stein to Shapiro, Spanberger to Hochel, Sherrill to Healey, who have the unenviable task of keeping the hip mayors from ruining the cities that have come so far since the dark days of the '70s. And Mamdani, like the orange haired menace that he resembles in a lot of ways (heavy on the performance, light on the admin), has shown a tendency to pull up and move on when one of his ideas hit a speed bump. The fact that the city is kinda broke may not be a terrible thing for now.
There is no question that things look a bit depressing at this moment, but I submit that it is no worse than on that night in December, 1941 when someone said "welcome back to the fight, this time I know our side will win." A line, let us remember, written by a couple of Jewish guys.
The core problem is not that moderate Dems cannot rally their supporters to vote in elections.
Rather, the moderates are a cohort of mumbling, aging wafflers, who, it seems, lack not only the courage of their convictions, but any convictions at all.
Fearful, ever-prudent Democratic moderates have ceded the terms of debate to the shrill Puritans of the left, whose arrogance, self-assurance, and presumption are exceeded only by their abject ignorance and utter lack of curiosity.
At a time when the country is assailed by the ill winds of MAGA authoritarianism and woke mania, principled liberals and conservatives must speak up, no matter what the consequences.
You got it, William.