Sometime today, the official "ranked-choice" results from last week's NYC Democratic Primary for Mayor will be announced. Everyone expects the winner to be NY State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, who will now be the Democratic party's nominee for mayor in the General Election contest against incumbent Mayor Eric Adams (Independent), "Guardian Angel" and talk-show host Curtis Sliwa (Republican), lawyer Jim Walden (Independent), and, possibly, newly defeated (and politically and personally humiliated) ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo (Fight and Deliver). Of these, the most serious challenge to Mamdani will likely come from Adams, who (for all his recent legal difficulties) has the advantages of incumbency and could conceivably wage an effective "working-class populist" campaign against Mamdani's "progressive populist" campaign.
Post-primary, on the plus side for Mamdani, new always beats old and a good campaign beats a bad campaign (as Chuck Todd recently reminded us). Zohran Mamdani is indeed very new, and he ran a superlative primary campaign. And that, more than anything else, helps explain Mamdani's stunning success in the Democratic primary, which had started out as Andrew Cuomo's to lose. Add to that Mamdani's engaging smile, which highlights his accessible personality and apparent authenticity, demonstrated in his willingness literally to walk the length of Manhattan and talk to everyone along the way. Add to that his conventional masculine good looks, adult style of dress, and apparently happy marriage. Above all, add to that his laser-like focus on the issue most voters (especially younger, newly engaged voters) seemed actually to care about - affordability (an issue very salient to the majority of New Yorkers but perhaps less so to the moneyed elite who donated to Cuomo's campaign). Cuomo, in contrast, represented the past, politically and personally (a somewhat problematic past for him personally). Cuomo also ran a terrible, disengaged campaign and focused not on affordability but - like Eric Adams in 2021 - on safety and security. But voters clearly cared more about the cost of living than about fear mongering from the past about safety and security issues.
Issues and ideology aside, Mamdani demonstrated the kind of campaign Democrats may need to be running and the kinds of candidates the Democrats may need to be running. Whatever else the primary represented, it was a vote against an ostentatiously gerontocratic political establishment and a billionaire-class dominated politics-as-usual.
Against Mamdani, on the negative side, are his "Democratic Socialism" and his notoriously pro-Palestinian ideology and policy positions. "Socialism" is an ambiguous term, which has many meanings, not all necessarily negative. "In many respects," wrote Pope Benedict XVI in 2006, "democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness." That said however, "socialism" does unfortunately set off a lot of alarm bells for far too many American voters (not just Venezuelan immigrants in Florida). "Democratic Populism" would be a much better platform for a candidate like Mamdani to stand on. In fact (foreign policy issues aside), "Democratic Populism" describes Mamdani's policy positions just as well as - and in a more voter-friendly fashion than - does "Democratic Socialism." Obviously, his "socialist" label is here to stay, however, but the more Mamdani can present his positions on their own terms, as "populist" policies, without the terminological baggage of "socialism," the more successful he will be. Indeed, inasmuch as his primary campaign concentrated on affordability rather than the "woke" identity politics that for some reason sometimes tends to thrill his well-educated progressive base, he has already demonstrated a capacity to conduct a more "populist" campaign.
Some of Mamdani's more controversial policies are unlikely to be implemented in any case, given the need to secure the support of the state legislature. There is some political danger in that. Making promises that probably cannot be fulfilled can end up reinforcing the theme that Democratic-run cities and states are ineffectively governed.
But the candidate has another, even more fundamental challenge. Somehow, Mamdani needs to reassure Jewish voters that New York, one of the most Jewish cities in the world, is still a safe city for Jews. This is no minor matter. In general, of course, we would do well to de-nationalize local politics and somehow return to a world in which a mayor's positions on foreign policy are not decisive, because mayors, after all, do not make or implement foreign policy. Mamdani may have been trying to do that at the debate when he said that, as mayor, he wouldn't be doing foreign trips. This was in response to the question to the candidates about what their first foreign trip would be - obviously eliciting from Cuomo and others the expected answer that as mayor their first trips would be to Israel. Unfortunately, Mamdani followed up with his repugnant refusal to acknowledge Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state. This is a serious obstacle - both moral and political - which he may or may not be able to overcome, and which could in the end prove decisive for the kind of coalition which may form against him.
Mamdani's victory in the primary fundamentally reflected his ability to connect with lots of New Yorkers on their real and deeply personal anxiety about the cost of living. It would a disservice to those New Yorkers' concerns if his campaign were to be derailed by a failure to respond effectively to legitimate concerns of Jews and others about unnecessary extremist ideological posturing on his part.
In a "normal" election year, of course, Mamdani's obvious personal strengths would likely be countered by his equally obvious political weaknesses, not to mention his lack of any serious administrative experience. New York's mayor is, after all, the manager of a giant corporate enterprise, with many branches. But this is no normal year. This is, as Eleanor Roosevelt said at the 1940 Democratic Convention, "no ordinary time." There is widespread discontent with politics-as-usual. And, hovering over the political scene, both nationally and locally here in his hometown, is the present political colossus, Donald Trump.
Donald Trump did not carry New York City in any of his three runs for the presidency, but he did win 30% of the NYC vote in 2024, compared to 23% in 2020. He did well among immigrant voters - the very groups so many of his supporters continue to disparage (an inherent incoherence at the heart of the MAGA coalition!) Mamdani more or less started his campaign for mayor by engaging with disaffected New Yorkers in Queens and the Bronx who had recently voted for Trump. Mamdani focused on populist themes like housing affordability, much as Trump in 2024 had largely campaigned on a promise (so far unfulfilled) to lower the costs of groceries etc. In part, at least, they are courting similar constituencies with the same appeal to their justified grievances concerning the cost of living.
Whether and how Trump may get involved in the mayoral election campaign remains to be seen. In one sense, of course Trump is already involved because of his Administration's decision earlier this year not to prosecute the incumbent mayor, Eric Adams, who for his part has pledged not to get in the way of the Trump Administration's anti-immigrant efforts. “Let’s be clear: I’m not standing in the way. I’m collaborating,” Mayor Adams said earlier this year. What specific effect Adams' association with Trump's anti-immigrant policies may have on the election here, in the city which houses the Statue of Liberty, remains to be seen.
The general election is still four months away. Four months ago, no one would have predicted the primary's outcome. Four months ago, Mamdani was largely unknown, and Cuomo was the presumptive next mayor. A lot can happen in four months.
No comments:
Post a Comment