Mamdani’s Moment: Early Post-Election Thoughts
So, with the polls closed and the results in, Zohran Mamdani is officially the Mayor-elect of New York City! Whether you see that as cause for celebration or catastrophe likely depends on where you sit politically (I won’t pretend otherwise: having lived in the city for years and following its politics closely, I’m thrilled!) But what’s hard to dispute is that this marks a genuinely significant moment in urban politics: a generational shift and a rejection of the centrist consensus that, with few exceptions, has governed cities for decades. For those challenging that consensus, it’s also the biggest and most demanding opportunity yet to prove that a more radical, progressive politics can not only inspire but also govern effectively.
Whether that will be the case remains to be seen. What’s certain, though, is that in the days and weeks ahead we’ll hear a rerun of the same arguments about why he cannot, will not, and/or should not succeed we have heard again and again during the campaign. Some of these are, without question, more serious. Many others are not — and many, in my view, reveal less about the limits of Mamdani’s politics than about the limits of imagination – and, in some cases, frankly, the bad faith – of those who make them.
Here is a not-quite-exhaustive rundown of the objections I’ve most grown tired of hearing, and which, as early post-election coverage suggests, are about to be dusted off and paraded ad nauseam once more. For each, I offer a quick take on why I believe they either miss the point, can be challenged, or are utterly off base.
“Socialism? New York Will Become Venezuela!”
No, it won’t. Nor will it become like Cuba, the Soviet Union, or whatever other authoritarian context critics bring up to delegitimize and discredit Mamdani and his allies. The democratic socialism Mamdani champions operates squarely within liberal-democratic institutions, and in practice, what he is proposing looks far more like Scandinavian welfare-state traditions than anything resembling Caracas, Havanna, or Moscow.
In addition, it recalls earlier chapters of New York’s history, when mayors like Fiorello La Guardia boldly invested in housing, transit, parks, and public infrastructure, expanded social programs, and strengthened workers’ rights and unions – whether his critics care to acknowledge it or not.
True to form, Murdoch's New York Post announced Mamdani's victory by dressing him up in Cold War drag.
2. “Nice Ideas, But How’s He Actually Paying for This?”
This, doubtlessly, is a serious concern. Yes, implementing Mamdani’s agenda – fare-free buses, universal childcare, and all the rest of it – will be hard, not least because so many influential figures, right up to the senior ranks of the Democratic Party, would like nothing more than to see him fail. But difficulty shouldn’t be confused with impossibility, just as a political problem – building support in a resistant legislature, confronting entrenched interests, etc. – should not be mistaken for an economic one (“the money isn’t there”). There are undoubtedly real fiscal and economic questions to work through, but New York is a fantastically wealthy city, and Mamdani’s repeated point is that political possibility expands when people organise around it. That’s not magical thinking, even if the way our brains are wired after decades of neoliberalism may make many doubt it. History has shown, time and again, that this is how institutions change – and if it has happened before, it can happen again.
3. “He’s Too Young and Lacks Experience.”
Age and competence aren’t the same thing – anyone pretending they are should take a look around, especially in politics – yet it is of course understandable that some worry about Mamdani’s age (he’s thirty-four) and relative lack of (executive) experience. However, I’d argue this concern is offset somewhat by the fact that he just ran a damn good, history-making campaign: he organised neighbourhoods, built coalitions, mobilised constituencies, managed complex logistics, reliably performed under tremendous pressure – and ultimately beat numerous high-profile opponents with, guess what, far more “experience”.
That may not be the same as governing New York City, of course. But it isn’t nothing either.
More to the point, he seems fully aware that effective governance depends on bringing in capable, qualified people and does not pretend to know everything. He has said as much on more than one occasion – for example, in a recent interview with Jon Stewart, where he emphasised that implementing his agenda will require working with the best talent available, and that he is committed to doing exactly that (I, for one, trust him on this – but if it turns out, as some have suggested, that Brad Lander will not join his administration in some leading role, I’ll admit I’d feel more than a little let down).
And, finally, let’s be real: it is not despite his age but because of it – and the way it helped him connect with constituencies and issues others ignored – that he won and that we’re now talking about the possibility of a new progressive politics in New York! If he fails, we’ll know soon enough. But to assume failure in advance because of his youth or relative inexperience strikes me as a fundamental underestimation of the political talent that got him this far (and a little patronising on top of it!).
4. “But He’s Muslim… and So On, and So Forth” [Pick Your Prejudice].
As in many New York elections before it, this one got dirty – and especially in the final stretch, Mamdani’s Muslim background was regularly “problematised” – sometimes subtly, sometimes less so. This one we can keep brief: if you oppose Mamdani’s policies – on housing, taxes, public safety, Israel, take your pick – fair enough. But if your objection focuses on his background or religion, you’re not engaging in politics, but – sorry, not sorry – in bigotry. Full stop.
5. “He’ll Compromise Away His Radicalism and Principles.”
And, finally, a worry often voiced on the left – and bound to resurface now – is this: “He’s genuine, but once in office the system will chew him up, and all we’ll get is a watered-down version of his platform.” It’s a fair worry. History is full of progressive hopefuls whose ambitious agendas were diluted, or worse, once they entered office. But compromise is not surrender and, more than that, without the ability to compromise, Mamdani wouldn’t have made it this far. Mayors can’t simply snap their fingers to implement commitments; compromise is unavoidable. The question isn’t whether he’ll compromise – he will – but how and/or where, and that will depend not just on him but on those who support him.
Progressive politics – no big news here – often falters because movements on the left have a habit of tripping over their own feet, e.g. when internal divisions and purism sap their momentum. Anyone remotely interested in seeing Mamdani succeed should do their part to prevent that, give him space to find his footing, and remember that popular support and sustained grassroots mobilisation aren’t just what won him the election. They are also what will, in no small part, determine the success or failure of his mayoralty. There’s no way around it: the structures within which any mayor operates impose real limits, especially for progressives trying to push beyond the status quo. But an engaged public can expand the realm of the possible, strengthen their hands, and make it far more likely they will be able to deliver on the promises that brought them to power, while impatience, infighting, or preemptive skepticism would almost certainly do the opposite.
Where Will Things Go From Here?
Whether Mamdani succeeds or not – remains to be seen. What is clear, though, is this: what happens in New York matters far beyond the city, as what happens in the Big Apple informs how millions elsewhere imagine what cities – and democracy itself – can be. Those falling for “red-scare” hysteria or similar tropes, or simply wary of his politics or unconvinced by his platform, will watch nervously. For those of us broadly (or enthusiastically!) supportive of what he stands for, it’s a moment to celebrate. This was not just a win, but a massive win – a mandate few could have imagined only a few months ago.
Still, it’s important not to get carried away. Entrenched interests rarely leave the field without a fight, and the road ahead will be difficult – not only because of the predictable external resistance, but because changing things is generally harder than just talking about the need to change things. In other words: winning, as hard-fought and against the odds as it was, will likely look like a Kinderspiel compared to what comes next.
Wenn Ihnen dieser Beitrag gefallen hat, dann teilen Sie ihn bitte in bzw. mit Ihren Netzwerken!
