The Democratic primary for mayor of New York produced a surprising result last Tuesday when New Yorkers nominated a socialist named Zohran Mamdani as their candidate for mayor. His opponents in the November election are likely to be the current mayor, Eric Adams, and possibly Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York. Mamdani soundly defeated Cuomo in the primary, but Cuomo is qualified to run as an independent in November, so he might stay in the race if he thinks he can win.
Mamdani was heavily supported by middle and high-income people, college graduates, white people, and renters. Black voters backed Cuomo strongly.
Mamdani is a bona fide socialist, and his platform includes many socialist programs. For example, he would open up government-run grocery stores to serve the public. He is also backing free public transportation, freezing rents, and providing no-cost childcare. These programs would be funded by imposing a tax on the wealthy.
What do the New York results tell us about the state of the Democratic Party?
Since Mamdani is a radical leftist, one might think his popularity is a continuation of the Obama-Biden progressive ideology. That may or may not be true because we must consider his constituency as the primary influencing factor. New York is a strong blue city in a strong blue state. New Yorkers elected Bill de Blasio as mayor in 2014, and he was in office for seven years. de Blasio was a progressive, but he was not as radical as Mamdani. It’s reasonable to think that Mamdani is a product of a continuing radical left trend in New York politics.
Two other factors may have influenced the primary outcome: a rejection of Andrew Cuomo and a desire for change. Andrew Cuomo represents the traditional Democrat wing of the party, and he was forced to resign his governorship over sexual indiscretions and his handling of the COVID crisis. Maybe his brand is permanently damaged.
New York may be reflective of a groundswell of enthusiasm for a change across the country among younger voters. There is a populist left, headed by Bernie Sanders, but left populism is roadblocked by identity politics. Socialism and socialist ideas are designed to leverage economic inequality. Identity politics is focused on something very different, namely the inequality arising from race, gender, or sexual identity. The Democratic Party is currently at war with itself over this difference.
Mamdani’s election in November is not guaranteed because he must convince the entire electorate to accept his platform. Typically, radical platforms used in primaries are moderated during the general election campaign to make them more appealing. If Mamdani doesn’t moderate, he risks losing the November election. His backers have to walk a fine line on policy to make him electable.
Mamdani’s nomination is a typical case of a candidate who is a charismatic speaker and touts radical programs popular with the public, aiming to generate votes. This profile is the essence of Trumpian populism. But what happens if Mamdani is elected? It is unlikely that his programs would make significant headway because they are too radical and too offensive to the New York establishment. In that scenario, his supporters would have expressed their wishes for a more socialist world, with no chance of success.
According to Jacobin (a socialist publication),
His triumph sends a clear message: a bold populist campaign and a laser-like focus on economic issues can break through to voters, even when insiders, billionaires, and the party establishment line up in opposition. Mamdani’s stunning victory offers some vivid lessons for left-wing politics, both in New York City and beyond.
For progressives, the race was a strong vindication of the economic-populist strategy we have long advocated in our work at the Center for Working-Class Politics (CWCP). As CWCP research associates Matt Karp and Dustin Guastella wrote in a 2021 Guardian article, to win, Democrats must “embrace bread and butter economic issues.
The big blue cities remain an interesting study in American politics. Polls indicate that liberals tend to prefer living in large cities. They choose the lifestyle and the opportunity for new experiences available there. That motivation is able to overcome what others would see as the negative aspects of urban life, including crime, high living costs, weak school systems, and a lack of green spaces.
It’s interesting to speculate on the future of these asphalt jungles. Will they eventually bankrupt themselves due to the inefficient delivery of services and the high cost of living? If the wealthy leave, they take with them the taxpayer base that is needed to keep these cities solvent.
In any event, New York politics has no chance of becoming the norm across America. It will have some influence over the politics of other large blue cities, but nowhere else. Trump carried 86% of the counties in the United States but only 16 of the 100 largest counties. Blue city publics are an important constituency, but their ideology does not fit the rest of the country.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
LA already has a very radical city council many of whom are chomping at the bit to become mayor. TDS is a very real thing that will usher in such a mayor.