I first met Rep Rabb — the populist moniker of our congressman-in-waiting, Chris Rabb — in the summer of 2018. The Philadelphia Citizen was hosting a “Business for Good” event at the then-Navy Yard offices of the financial services company now known as Future Standard. (Full disclosure: Future Standard sponsors Citizen events.) Among our panelists, before a packed crowd, was Jay Coen Gilbert, one of the driving forces behind B Lab, the suburban Philly nonprofit instrumental in jumpstarting the global B Corp revolution.
Listen to the audio edition here:
Coen Gilbert was among a handful of disruptors rethinking capitalism’s tenets and guardrails, arguing that our widening income and wealth gaps demanded attention. One of the main problems with our system, this reformist thinking held, was shareholder primacy. The goal was to expand corporate fiduciary responsibility beyond serving shareholders alone to serving employees, communities and the environment as well.
It was a line of thinking Rep Rabb had shown up to champion. It’s not often that elected officials turn out for thought leadership events at which they haven’t been invited to speak. But that night, Rabb, who had challenged and beaten a Democratic incumbent to win a state House seat in 2016, went out of his way to introduce himself after the discussion and talk about the evening’s topic.
He passionately agreed with the program’s thesis, emphasizing how urgently we needed to rethink the philosophical underpinnings of free enterprise. What we needed, he said, was a business model that went beyond the tyranny of the bottom line and could advance social good. He’d even written a book on the topic in 2010, he told me: Invisible Capital: How Unseen Forces Shape Entrepreneurial Opportunity.
When I picked up a copy, I found an argument that critiqued capitalism’s excesses but also laid out an opportunity agenda. Rabb went beyond the limits of safety net politics; he eschewed the easy left-wing populist call for handouts for all in favor of a more thoughtful approach to how business could drive jobs and justice at the same time. While Rabb argued, like any good Democrat, that the rich should pay more in taxes, he also held that “it’s not taxes that are thwarting the creation of new, viable enterprises in this country. It’s invisible capital … that is limiting our economic potential for shared prosperity.”
This was Rabb’s big thesis, and it was ahead of its time. More recently, a related idea has gained currency under the name “social capital.” Harvard economist Raj Chetty has mapped the nation’s opportunity gap and made a compelling case that our social divides reinforce our economic ones. Chetty’s research has shown how access to people with higher incomes can shape economic mobility. Rabb’s “invisible capital” was a version of this same notion, more than a decade before Chetty:
Entrepreneurship is about much more than money. Entrepreneurs bring innovation and opportunity to the table. Entrepreneurs build wealth, create jobs, and bring us new products, services, technologies, processes—even new ways of thinking. The businesses they create are not just financially profitable, but offer the possibility for our whole society to profit. When someone starts a hair salon in an inner-city neighborhood and employs local residents to cut hair, the entire neighborhood profits. When an entrepreneur devises a new seat for bicycles so that women can safely bicycle their children to day care, the whole community—and the environment—profits. Entrepreneurship done well can create profits with principles.
Rabb outlined his own entrepreneurial bona fides: He’d co-founded a high-tech product-design firm, run a business incubator and worked for a chamber of commerce outside Chicago.
Neither that perspective nor that résumé seems to square neatly with Rabb’s place today as the newest darling of the the ascendant Democratic Socialists of America, whose national platform calls for universal basic income, a federal jobs guarantee, Medicare for All, the elimination of the U.S. Senate and Supreme Court, and “public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries.” Asked about specifics of the national DSA platform, Rabb has said, “That’s not what I ran on,” and notes that he received the DSA endorsement only late in his primary campaign.
I reached out to him this fall to ask how much his thinking has evolved since he wrote his book. In our past conversations, he seemed more excited by innovation that could spur inclusive growth than the candidate I heard in last spring’s primary, repeating Bernie Sanders and DSA redistribution talking points.
So what happened to Chris Rabb? Has he – as some suggest – been radicalized by Trumpism? Has he been seduced by the lure of performative politics, offering up pie-in-the-sky proposals that masquerade as practical remedies? Or, as the gaps between have and have-not have widened, has he evolved into a righteous class warrior? Perhaps some combination of all three?
A “rare socialist”
Rabb’s primary win, I’m convinced, owed not just to the momentum of progressive politics. He’s also a candidate immensely comfortable in his own skin, eager to riff, more stand-up comic than policy-touting pol. “That’s because I’ve been a standup comedian,” he told me during our two recent conversations. “Yeah, and improv, too, that’s been part of my training ever since I was in high school. A highly transferable skill particularly in my space. If you can’t be authentic, what’s the point?”
I reminded Rabb of his long-ago book. Did he still stand by its notion that entrepreneurship — capitalism, to use what has become a trigger word — can advance society? “Absolutely,” Rabb said. “I’m a rare socialist who believes that. It’s easy to critique things, but if you don’t give a substantive, implementable solution, it’s just all blather. These young socialist types, they work for corporations and their family wealth comes from capitalist endeavors. So we are all on the grid. We’re all in it — the question is, what is it?”
Rabb argues that we talk a lot about capitalism and socialism today, but few of us can even define the terms. I’m not so sure. When Zohran Mamdani tweets about “taking over the means of production,” that’s classic Marx, right? Like the DSA platform itself, there’s not a lot of gray area there. Nor does it have much in common with the market economies and robust social safety nets of Sweden and Denmark.
“Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron; we can indeed channel the power of the market to serve society.” – Joseph Stiglitz
“Forget capitalism,” I said. “Let’s use free enterprise. The Economist reported a decade ago that nearly one billion people worldwide were lifted out of poverty due to free enterprise. As flawed as capitalism is, isn’t that a good result?”
“I need to know how you define the free part of enterprise — that’s the part I’d push back harder on,” Rabb said. “Because I don’t know when it’s ever been free. Most of us do not have capital and will never have any form of capital — financial capital, anyway. I’m not against free enterprise. I’m against what crushes it. When you talk about free enterprise, are you just talking about the expanse of economic opportunity for people irrespective of backgrounds?”
It’s a good question, and one Rabb answered in the affirmative in his now-16-year-old book. His proposed solutions ranged from B Corps to community development corporations to employee stock ownership programs. He was a pro-growth reformer. Now, even in our two recent conversations, he talks more about taxing the rich, investing in green spaces and raising the minimum wage than about creating jobs and providing a pathway to the middle class. That was once the Democratic Party’s raison d’être. President John F. Kennedy had signs reading “What Have You Done for Growth Today?” placed on West Wing desks, an emphasis echoed decades later by Bill Clinton’s “It’s the economy, stupid!” clarion call.
“I think you and I are perhaps on different sides of the same innovation coin,” Rabb told me. “We both believe in markets with rules. I just want more people to own a piece of them. I think you’re right that markets have lifted people up. The question is, why the elevator stops at the same floor for the same people. I’m not asking whether we should have markets. I’m asking who gets to be an owner in them. And if you look at the data, it will show that there are members of marginalized communities who are significantly increasing their presence in the entrepreneurial sector, but they’re not creating wealth.”
The case for progressive capitalism
Rabb is right to critique capitalism’s shortcomings. But for someone intent on defining terms, he seems to overlook the distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism. After all, in the second half of the 20th century, the American economy generated extraordinary growth with significantly less inequality than we see now — a history Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz explores in his case for reform, People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent. Stiglitz calls for a renewal of that era’s social compact between employer and employee, government and the governed.
“Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron; we can indeed channel the power of the market to serve society,” he writes. Government as umpire, ensuring fairness – but not serving as commissioner of the game. Similarly, Denise Hearn and Jonathan Tepper argue in The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition that too many so-called capitalists believe in capitalism for me, but not for thee.
“If you believe in competitive free markets, you should be very concerned,” they write. “If you believe in fair play and hate cronyism, you should be worried. Fake capitalism CEOs cozy up to regulators to get the kind of rules they want and donate to get the laws they desire. Larger companies get larger, while the small disappear, and the consumer and worker are left with no choice …”
“We both believe in markets with rules. I just want more people to own a piece of them.” — Chris Rabb
In other words: Rather than focusing just on redistribution, an opportunity democrat today would argue for more companies and more competition between them, not less. Hearn and Tepper catalog the damage, and it’s devastating:
At 40 of the 100 largest U.S. airports, a single airline controls a majority of the market…Two corporations control 90 percent of the beer Americans drink. Five banks control about half of the nation’s banking assets. Many states have health insurance markets where the top two insurers have an 80 percent to 90 percent market share…When it comes to high-speed Internet access, almost all markets are local monopolies; over 75 percent of households have no choice with only one provider. Four players control the entire U.S. beef market and have carved up the country. After two mergers this year, three companies will control 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market. Google completely dominates internet searches with an almost 90 percent market share. Facebook has an almost 80 percent share of social networks. Both have a duopoly in advertising with no credible competition or regulation. Amazon is crushing retailers and faces conflicts of interest as both the dominant e-commerce seller and the leading online platform for third-party sellers. It can determine what products can and cannot sell on its platform…
So, yes, there is a real need for reform. But are those who want government to take over the means of production actually reforming anything? Opposition to Mamdani’s proposed government-run grocery stores has been led by mom-and-pop bodega owners, who have sued to stop a policy they see as a competitive threat. Shouldn’t government be on the side of hardworking immigrant entrepreneurs?
Rabb supports Medicare for All. But most versions of that policy would eliminate 1.8 million middle class jobs in the health insurance industry. The policy response to such a seismic shift from Rabb and his DSA brethren is not unlike the impractical cure floated by the purveyors of AI: Some form of Universal Basic Income – government subsidy– will also have to pass our vastly divided government. What are the chances of all that?
The innovative Rabb of 2010 might have agreed that the Affordable Care Act, while expanding access, didn’t bend health care’s cost curve — but that public and private investment in eradicating one or two major diseases just might. Cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s and diabetes account for roughly a quarter of all health care spending. Make progress against two of them in a bold moonshot (using AI for good!), and you’d really be investing in inclusive economic growth. Or — to take another new idea bouncing around out there — jumpstarting a campaign to activate the $400 billion in DAFs (donor advised funds), much of it currently being held by a new cohort of wealthy scions in search of meaning, just might free up new dollars to invest in social good.
But talking points borrowed from Emma Goldman have crowded out solutions, particularly new ones. A colleague of Rabb’s — who likes him personally and spoke on condition of anonymity — observes that, during his congressional campaign, Rabb became a performative panderer to the proclivities of the left. That might help explain Rabb’s decision to make the Gaza war an issue in the spring primary. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Rabb is unprincipled, according to this colleague: “I think Chris truly was radicalized by the last 10 years of Trump.”
That might also explain his campaigning alongside the despicable podcaster Hasan Piker, who famously said, “America deserved 9/11.” That quote has broken through the noise, and Piker has tried to walk it back. But what about this: “I fuck the Constitution. I wipe my ass with the Constitution. It’s a fucking piece of paper, dude. Shut the fuck up. Motherfuck the Constitution and motherfuck this country, okay. You stupid bitch.” Then there’s this gem, speaking about landlords: “Murder those motherfuckers in the street. Let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist blood, dude.” We won’t even get into his ghastly praise for the terrorist death cult Hamas.
Standing side-by-side with Piker doesn’t square with the thoughtful Rabb who penned Invisible Capital. Or, I asked him, am I missing the moment? Has Trump so damaged America that you felt you had no choice but to join those who react to Trump as Trump would?
“It’s easy to critique things, but if you don’t give a substantive, implementable solution, it’s just all blather. — Chris Rabb
“Here’s the challenge with cherry picking like that,” he said. “If we were all held to account for things that we’ve said in our 20s, there’d be no room for any of us. The 9/11 piece, Hasan apologized. There are other people who are far more moderate, who also said there are consequences to imperialism and militarism. It doesn’t mean that anyone deserves to die, but it shouldn’t be surprising that we’ve built a lot of terrorists because of how we show up in different parts of the world. Just because you’re uncivil does not mean that you’re wrong. I appeared with Hasan because he reached young people who weren’t reading The Philadelphia Citizen. He put me on the map amongst a demographic that I was not reaching.”
Our conversation went on, and will continue, because what’s refreshing about Chris Rabb is his willingness to have the debate. He even went into the lion’s den on Fox’s Hannity; it did not go well. Rabb began by calling Sean Hannity “Scott,” then somehow got maneuvered into endorsing Ronald Reagan’s 1980s tax cuts. Game, set, match, Hannity. Rabb might not be ready for prime time, but he at least leads with his chin.
Chris Rabb is about to represent much of Philadelphia in Congress. Here’s hoping he uses the opportunity to address an abiding regret from his time in Harrisburg. His mother, he told me, is deeply disappointed that, in his decade in the state House, not a single bill bearing his name passed into law. “I try to explain that’s politics,” he said. He notes that he persuaded a Republican colleague to include one of his amendments in a bill, but that’s not quite the same as passing a law of his own. Especially to Madeline Murphy Rabb, a political force in her own right who has deeply influenced her son. His yen for public service came early, watching his mother serve as Executive Director of the Chicago Office of Fine Arts under legendary Mayor Harold Washington in the ‘80s. She’s a civil rights pioneer and remains a politically active artist and African American art collector and dealer.
Here’s hoping that Madeline Murphy Rabb’s dismay over her son’s partisan record bodes well for our future. Because Chris Rabb now has a chance to be a different kind of legislator. The easy, tempting route is to join AOC and the Squad, make headlines and enjoy that MS NOW perch. But he will represent a large swath of the city that was essentially the nation’s first startup. What an opportunity for someone who, as an author, told us we need more entrepreneurial spirit, not less. In our talks with one another, he pledged to stand up to his friends when he doesn’t think they’re making the right call.
That’s the touchstone of political character. Frustrated comic that he is, Chris Rabb could become a wisecracking member of Congress, saying outrageous things alongside the likes of Piker. Or he could channel the thinker who wrote Invisible Capital and make his mother proud.
MORE ON THE 2026 ELECTION
