L.A.’s Zohran Mamdani? The Socialist Shift in California
One month ago, New York City was completely shaken up by the election of Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani to the Mayor’s Office. This sparks a major shift in one of the country’s most prominent cities, and leaves people with a lot of questions about how the financial capital of the world will continue to run under a socialist. But, New York City might not be the only major city succumbing to this shift – a new candidate for Los Angeles Mayor might just bring that trend here to California as well.
Who is Rae Chen Huang?
Rae Chen Huang announced her campaign for Los Angeles Mayor on Saturday, November 15th via social media.[1] She is running against incumbent mayor, Karen Bass, who is seeking reelection in 2026. The reason this is making headlines is because Huang is a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, similar to what we just saw happen in New York’s mayoral race with the election of Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani. Huang is purposely framing herself as to the left of Karen Bass, criticizing the current mayor for not going far enough in her liberal agendas.
Huang is currently the Deputy Director of the coalition Housing Now California, which describes its purpose as fighting tenant displacement.[2] She is an ordained Presbyterian minister, and that background seems to play a role in her political leanings as she has described herself as being called to serve God through social justice work.[3] She is, of course, a member of the Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, and is seeking their endorsement.[4] And, if she is elected, then she also touts that she will be Los Angeles’ first Asian-American mayor.[5]
What I found incredibly interesting in researching her life is how much she connects her supposed Christian faith into her political views. I want to camp on this for a minute, because it’s really important for 1) understanding why she believes the things she does politically and what motivates her, and 2) for responding not just factually to her policies, but also theologically. She focuses on faith-based anti-racism work, and works in consulting churches on their systemic bias. She is also part of a group called Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, which focuses on “educating, organizing, and mobilizing people to advocate for fair wages, better working conditions, and laws that promote economic and racial justice.”[6] So we see that a large part of her faith centers around ideas of justice – racial, social, and economic justice.
Listen to this quote from a sermon she preached on Easter Sunday in 2021:
“On a systemic level, we have seen an uncovering of the greatest evils and fears of our society: systemic racism held up in our laws and our law keepers, housing instability, disparities in our healthcare system, job instability, the fragility of our economy, leaving the most vulnerable to literally die. We’ve all known these were things, but now we know they are things. For the first time, we have been able to see all the fear and suffering that we have been clinging onto so tightly…so that we could avoid it no longer, struggles that needed attending to, fears that needed letting go, that needed healing, so that collectively we could resurrect.”[7]
This is wild! Easter Sunday is the pinnacle day of the Christian faith. This is the day that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, conquering sin and death and offering us true life if we put our faith in Him! There is no better news or greater message! But in her whole sermon – which I watched because it was only 12 minutes long – she didn’t mention Christ’s resurrection from the dead even once. She takes the opportunity to name housing instability and job instability as the greatest evils of our society and then tells us all to collectively resurrect – whatever that is supposed to mean.
Huang consistently preaches the ideas of communal salvation and collective well-being, and she makes the parallel between things like rent eviction to a modern version of Old Testament exile. It’s no wonder that she’s a socialist! She uses the Bible, not to call sin the things that God calls sin – but to overlook sin and instead put a spotlight on societal inequity and then lean on the justice of God as her Biblical backing for why you should care.
The bottom line is that she’s super liberal and has worked in liberal political organization and social justice initiatives for her entire career, and not only that, but she justifies her radical beliefs with a fake gospel.
So then, what policy positions is she promising to focus on in Los Angeles? Why should you elect her mayor? One of her flagship ideas is making public transit free, especially for bus riders. She wants to use public land to build “democratically governed, permanently affordable homes.” She wants to raise the minimum wage – super predictable move. She wants to reduce policing – which is literally CRAZY in Los Angeles – and proposes scaling “unarmed crisis response and community intervention teams” for behavioral health and non-violent emergencies. And, most socialist of all, she supports a public bank to invest in affordable housing and small businesses.[8]
If Rae Chen Huang just sounds like LA’s version of newly elected New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, then you’re not crazy, she basically is just California Mamdani. Her platform echoes Mamdani’s own agenda of rent control, public transit, social housing, and redirecting resources toward working-class and immigrant communities rather than corporate or real-estate interests. And just as Mamdani’s rise shook up New York’s political landscape and energized a younger progressive base, Huang’s candidacy has the potential to electrify L.A.’s left, offering a “Mamdani-style” challenge to established city leadership and reframing city politics around grassroots, justice-oriented priorities.
Growing Sentiment for Socialism
Huang’s and Mamdani’s policies are just evidence of a much broader issue. Rae Chen Huang herself isn’t really the problem – she represents a much bigger shift among Democrats and young people away from capitalism and toward socialism. While Republicans have held a majority favorable opinion of capitalism and negative opinion of socialism, the opposite has been true of Democrats. According to an August 2025 Gallup Poll, only 42% of Democrats view capitalism positively, an 8% decrease since 2021. Additionally, roughly two-thirds of Democrats view socialism positively.[9] Compare that with the 14% of Republicans who view socialism positively, and the gap between the two parties could not seem any wider on the issue.
It's interesting to note that historically, Democrats have tried to pivot away from being characterized as socialists. But now it seems that the label is increasingly appealing for their base, with candidates like Huang openly calling themselves socialists. This evidences efforts within the party to embrace the socialism instead of move away from it.[10]
What is the reason for the shift? Well, there are a few factors that may be at play here. One key thing to note about socialism today is that many people can’t agree on a definition of it. So, while young people are claiming to view socialism positively, oftentimes it doesn’t actually mean what they think it means. That’s because, on the whole, there has been movement away from the individualistic toward the collective in our society. This is best exemplified in wealth distribution or welfare programs. Young Democrats, like Huang herself, praise ideas like affordable housing for all, free public transportation, free health and childcare. This is a collective system where the government is seemingly paying for everything and treating these services as fundamental human rights. For young people who feel disillusioned by the “system,” or who feel like the economy today makes life much more difficult for them than it was for their parents, this is a very appealing idea.
When you look at it this way, it seems that people associate socialism with fairness – workers being treated decently and paid well, corporations not having unchecked power, healthcare and housing being accessible, and so on. They feel that the government, the market, and political parties have all failed to solve the problems hitting their generation hardest. Socialism becomes a symbol of “something different.”
But these same groups will often point to places like Norway or Denmark as the model for the type of socialism they desire. What they don’t realize is that those countries are capitalist economies with strong welfare states, not socialist systems with state ownership of industry. They’re describing heavily regulated markets, high taxes, and in turn, universal benefits. They are not describing the government-run industries, elimination of private property, and centralized economic planning that are critical to democratic socialism.
Democratic socialism is an ideology that seeks to transition major industries (energy, housing, transportation, healthcare, manufacturing) into collective or government ownership, drastically limit or abolish private enterprise, redistribute wealth through centralized state systems, and use democratic elections to guide and legitimize this process. It is a fundamentally different economic structure than capitalism, where the state controls production and distribution.[11]
What’s Wrong with Socialism?
Democratic socialism sounds humane in theory. But every place that has tried to fully implement it – not the hybrid models, the real thing – has run into the same basic structural problems.
First, concentrating economic power in the state inevitably creates inefficiency. When the government runs most industries, there is no competition, no price signals, no incentive to innovate, and no pressure to improve efficiency. You get shortages of essentials, long wait times, slow responses to crises, and outdated technology – not because of bad intentions, but because it’s the inevitable result of a system not based on the feedback of the market and the people using its services.
This is so obvious to anyone who have had firsthand experience with a government agency. Just go to the DMV or the Social Security Office – or even the post office – and then explain to me how socialism is going to work. The government is not efficient on its own, it can’t be.
Second, socialism erodes choice. Even with democratic elections, under socialism the economic system is controlled by the state. This means there is limited consumer choice, limited job mobility, and a limited ability to start businesses. People’s lives become dependent on political decisions instead of on changes in the market that are made because of their feedback. Ever heard of voting with your dollars? You can’t do that when the state controls everything.
Third, government control invites political capture. In theory, democratic socialism assumes a wise, benevolent government. In reality, whichever political faction wins the elections will then end up assuming control over housing, energy, media, healthcare, and jobs. That much centralized power is irresistible to political actors, especially when you wake up to the fact that human beings are corrupt and not everyone wants the best for everyone else.
It becomes easy for ruling parties to punish opponents, reward allies, and use the economy as leverage to achieve their own success. Even “democratic” systems drift toward soft authoritarianism because the stakes for losing power become too high. We even see this happen in capitalism, which is why we have to fight against big business monopolizing too much power in one industry. So how much worse would it be under a government that completely owns and runs everything?
Fourth, the cost of promised programs always exceeds the state’s capacity. Democratic socialist societies promise universal benefits, guaranteed employment, subsidized living, and low or no cost services. But once the tax base shrinks, because high taxes drive away investment or because the state absorbs private enterprise, the government can’t fund what it promised. This is how countries throughout history who have adopted socialism have ended up with You end up extreme poverty, rationing, failing welfare programs, and frustrated citizens who were promised more than the system can deliver.
This just takes using a little bit of basic, common sense. How is the government going to pay for everything? Under capitalism, because businesses can make profits, and people can start businesses, that money pours back into the economy and drives further innovation to address scarcity. Socialism relies on taxing the crap out of the poorest in society – the very people it claims to be designed to help.
Fifth, under socialism productivity collapses. This is a fairly obvious one. When individual effort isn’t rewarded, productivity flatlines. This isn’t because people are lazy, it’s because the system signals that working harder brings no additional benefit. Again, compare the private sector today to the government. There is far more reward, and conversely far more to lose, in the public sector, and that motivates people to work harder. The same cannot be said of the governmental sector.
And lastly, Democratic socialism depends on a level of national unity that doesn’t exist. To run a system where the state controls most resources, you need a high-trust culture, low corruption, and a unified vision of the public good. Most large, diverse societies – including the U.S. – simply don’t have the cultural homogeneity required to make such centralized systems function. We can barely agree on the Presidency.
So, here’s the core issue at hand: democratic socialism overestimates the state and underestimates people. Democratic socialists tend to believe that the state can plan a complex economy better than millions of individuals, central planners can distribute resources more “fairly,” political leaders will resist the temptation to consolidate power, and citizens will remain engaged enough to prevent corruption and inefficiency. But history shows the opposite.
Government can’t keep up with reality, they start to consolidate power and become unaccountable to the people, citizens disengage because there’s nothing they can do about it, and economic stagnation sets in – leading to poverty, starvation, and a complete and total mess. The very structure of socialism itself works against human flourishing.
What Does the Bible Say About Socialism?
And this isn’t a coincidence. Biblically, it makes sense why socialism has always failed. The Bible argues very clearly against the ideals of democratic socialism – let me walk through just a few.
First of all, Scripture affirms private stewardship, not state ownership. The Bible consistently assumes individuals, families, and communities are to steward what belongs to them. We see this clearly in the ten commandments, as it supposes private property (“You shall not steal”). In the New Testament, Jesus’ parables involve owners who decide what to do with their resources. Socialism replaces stewardship with state control, which shifts responsibility from the individual to bureaucracy.
Second, biblical generosity must be voluntary, not coerced. Second Corinthians 9:7 says that God loves a cheerful giver. Redistribution through government force erases the moral agency Scripture insists upon.
Christian charity is about transformation of the heart; socialism is about regulation of behavior through the requirements of the government. It takes away rewards for individual work – which the Bible often acknowledges and rewards – and instead forcibly distributes it to the masses.
Third, humans are fallen, and concentrated power magnifies our sin. Biblically, the more centralized the power, the more dangerous it becomes. We know that human nature is corrupt, evil, and full of sin. The heart is deceitfully wicked. When authority is taken from God and placed solely in the hands of man, there is all kinds of chaos and disorder. But socialism does just that – it places enormous authority in the hands of a few people who control food, jobs, housing, and other resources. History shows this leads not to justice, but to oppression – because it ignores human sin nature.
Fourth, the Bible’s vision of social justice is community-driven, not government-controlled. In Scripture, care for the poor is carried out by families, churches, local communities, and voluntary generosity. This is a point I touched on recently in my episode about the SNAP program. The Bible does not command the government or the state to ensure the social welfare of all people. The state has a clear role – punishing evil and maintaining order (Romans 13) – not running the entire economy or making sure every person has food on the table.
Lastly, Scripture honors work, creativity, and enterprise. Humans are made in the image of the Creator (Genesis 1). We are designed to build, create, innovate, steward, take risks, and ultimately be responsible for ourselves. We see the principles throughout Scripture that if you don’t work you don’t eat, that each person is responsible for himself and his family, that we will give an account before God for how we stewarded what was given to each of us. Systems that suppress human initiative and flatten reward structures ultimately suppress the image of God and the design He has for us that is expressed through our work as humans. We aren’t victims of everyone around us, we are responsible to take all that God has entrusted us with and to use it well.
The Ultimate Answer: Capitalism
So really, most young people who say they want “socialism” actually want housing to be affordable, healthcare not to bankrupt them, jobs that pay enough to live on, a safety net that catches people, and a government that isn’t captured by corporate interests. They want the poor to be taken care of, they want oppressed or marginalized groups to be seen by their government, and they want to feel like the system they operate in is fair.
Those are legitimate, mainstream desires, but they certainly don’t require democratic socialism, and I would argue that they DO require capitalism! They require healthy markets, strong institutions, and targeted reforms. Only capitalism can create new wealth – which is the foundation for higher wages, innovation, and opportunity. The technology young people rely on – think smartphones, apps, medical devices, clean-tech, AI – it all comes from the incentives and competition that capitalism creates. Socialist economies simply do not produce that velocity of innovation. A dynamic market gives people room to switch careers, start businesses, pursue side hustles, or climb in their industry. Socialism locks people into whatever the state controls, while capitalism provides for upward mobility. And only capitalism gives individuals the power to exercise economic self-governance. If a business underperforms, customers leave, and it dies; contrast that with the fact that if a government-run monopoly underperforms, citizens are stuck.
Capitalism is the answer to what young people are looking for because it channels human self-interest into mutual benefit. You help others by pursuing what you’re good at. You rise by serving others. Competition forces excellence, and excellence lifts society. And here’s the part young people resonate with when it’s articulated well: Capitalism gives ordinary people the power that socialism hands to the government. It disperses power, rather than concentrating it. It lets people build, create, risk, dream, and choose – all things young people who claim to love socialism desperately want more of, not less.
So here’s the bottom line: Rae Chen Huang is not just a mayoral candidate—she is a symbol of a generation searching for justice, stability, and dignity. But socialism cannot provide what it promises, because it misunderstands human nature, misunderstands economics, and misunderstands Scripture. The good news is that the things young people truly want—opportunity, fairness, affordability, and dignity—are not only compatible with capitalism, they depend on it.
References:
[1] Mason, Dave. “Socialist Candidate Runs Against Los Angeles Mayor.” The Center Square, November 17, 2025. https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_219e29b4-0e20-4cee-a98e-943357363705.amp.html.
[2] ABC7 Los Angeles. “Housing Advocate Rae Huang Announces Candidacy for LA Mayor,” November 17, 2025. https://abc7.com/post/rae-huang-deputy-director-housing-now-california-announces-candidacy-los-angeles-mayor/18165383/.
[3] Kornick, Lindsay. “Socialist Wave Reaches West Coast as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass Gets a Mamdani-like Challenger.” Fox News, November 17, 2025. https://www.foxnews.com/media/socialist-wave-reaches-west-coast-los-angeles-mayor-karen-bass-gets-mamdani-like-challenger.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “Housing Advocate Rae Huang Announces Candidacy for LA Mayor.”
[6] Clue Justice. “Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice - Clue Justice,” October 31, 2025. https://www.cluejustice.org/.
[7] “May 2, 2021 - Resurrecting Easter - Rae Chen Huang.” Uploaded by St. John’s Presbyterian Church, May 2, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k328_ZX1rE.
[8] Rae for LA. “Rae for LA,” n.d. https://www.raeforla.com/.
[9] Jones, Jeffrey M. “Image of Capitalism Slips to 54% in U.S.” Gallup.Com, September 8, 2025. https://news.gallup.com/poll/694835/image-capitalism-slips.aspx.
[10] Hurry, Dominic. “What Americans Think About Socialism and Capitalism, According to a New Gallup Poll.” The Associated Press, September 18, 2025. https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/what-americans-think-about-socialism-and-capitalism-according-to-a-new-gallup-poll/.
[11] European Center for Populism Studies. “Democratic Socialism,” n.d. https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/democratic-socialism/.
