logo
Here's what the Democrats can learn from Zohran Mamdani

Here's what the Democrats can learn from Zohran Mamdani

The Guardian01-07-2025
In a lifetime of activism, I have canvassed and phone-banked, raised money, and twisted arms for dozens of political candidates. Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old Indian-Ugandan democratic socialist and presumptive winner of the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, is the only one I've both supported without reservation and believed could win.
Volunteering for a campaign always teaches you something. Often, it's discouraging – like the moment my partner and I saw Hillary Clinton's team selling lawn signs for $25 instead of blanketing Philadelphia by distributing them free, and predicted she'd lose. But the lessons of Zohran's victory are hopeful for the left and the Democrats – if the party takes them to heart.
'A city we can afford.' Zohran's slogan is unremarkably moderate and unabashedly progressive. In a city whose median income is rising sharply in spite of a 25% poverty rate, only the rich are comfortable, while everyone else, from students to firefighters to families with more than one kid struggle – or leave.
Asked by a local Fox TV interviewer what a democratic socialist is, Mamdani answered: 'To me it means that every New Yorker has what they need to live a dignified life – it's local government's responsibility to provide that.' His platform includes a rent freeze on the city's 2.3m regulated apartments; free childcare starting at six months; no-fare buses; and a $30 minimum wage – about the city's living wage – by 2030. Basically, he believes life in the city can be easier and happier.
This platform resonates. When you canvass, you ask people what concerns them. A woman with a baby on her hip nodded toward the baby and sighed. I got what she meant. At a shabby industrial building surrounded by new glass towers, a woman descended four flights because the landlord won't fix the buzzer, or anything else; he's trying to push out the tenants and sell the lot. She said cheap rent allowed her to start a business, which she feared Mamdani would tax to death. I told her he supported a crackdown on bad landlords and commercial rent control. 'Hmm,' she said. By the conversation's end, I entered 'leans yes' in the canvassing app.
Mamdani's ideas are not pie-in-the-sky. The rent guidelines board, appointed by the mayor, voted 0% increases on some leases in 2015, 2016, and on all leases in 2020, during the pandemic. The Democratic mayor Bill De Blasio got universal pre-kindergarten staffed, funded and full almost immediately upon election in 2014.
Chicago and Atlanta may be moving ahead with municipal groceries. A 2023 pilot program waiving fares on five New York bus routes was largely successful, and its failures can inform the next attempt.
How would Mamdani pay for all this? Impose a 2% tax on the top 1% residents earning more than $1m annually; and raise the top corporate tax rate to match neighboring New Jersey's, to 11.5% from 7.25%.
New York has the resources. Nationally, corporate profits have risen 80% since the pandemic. In New York, 34,000 households, a thin skin on the Big Apple, take home 35% of the earnings. Other cities and states have tapped the windfall that companies and the rich have reaped from federal income tax cuts. Combined with such Republican-sounding ideas as eliminating waste in procurement and boosting small business by cutting red tape, Mamdani says these reforms can bring in $10bn in revenue, pay for the services that improve city life and ultimately grow the tax base.
'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need': that's socialism 101. 'The greatest good for the greatest number': old-fashioned utilitarianism. These policies are also sensible municipal management.
Since founding his college's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, Mamdani, an east African Muslim, has been a vocal critic of Israel's occupation. A week after Hamas's attacks – which he calls a war crime – he joined Jewish Voice for Peace in a protest of Israel's outsized response. For this position, his closest rival, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, and the rightwing press have hammered Mamdani as an antisemite and a Holocaust denier; on one mailer, his photo was doctored to make his beard bushier and longer. Cuomo kept mispronouncing his name, insinuating that Zohran Mamdani is inscrutably, dangerously foreign.
Establishment Democrats – Kamala Harris, Cory Booker – keep running from condemnation of what most of the world calls Israel's crimes against humanity. This is not just a moral failing. It's politically unnecessary. A recent Pew poll found that almost seven in 10 Democrats – and half of Republicans under 50 – have negative views of Israel. In a couple of months of canvassing, I met only two people who wouldn't vote for Mamdani because of his position on Israel-Palestine. One had Hebrew tattooed on his forearm. Among the volunteers, several of whom were drawn to Zohran for his stance on Palestine, were Jewish people.
The question may be moot. In an Emerson poll, 46% of New York voters said their candidate did not need to be pro-Israel. The journalist Peter Beinart believes that Mamdani's victory suggests that the movement for Palestinian freedom has entered mainstream politics and can be an asset to Democrats.
Confronted repeatedly by false accusations of antisemitism, Mamdani has been frustrated and hurt. Yet he is neither defensive nor evasive. 'At the core of my position about Israel, Palestine, anyplace in the world, is consistency, international law and human rights,' he told Fox. 'I believe that justice, freedom, safety – those are things that should be applied to all people.'
In his victory speech, he said: 'I cannot promise that you will always agree with me, but I will never hide from you.' He would 'wrestle with' opinions that differed from his own, he added, implying he meant feelings about the Middle East.
Mamdani is a gifted politician – and an honest man who doesn't dismiss those he disagrees with. A person can be all these, and win.
Mamdani's campaign was partially, appropriately, fueled by economic anxiety. But try as his detractors did to shift the focus, it was not fueled by fear of crime. He does not advocate defunding the police. Instead, he's proposed a department of community safety, to deal with volatile mental health crises in the subways and to attack hate crimes at their source, leaving cops to pursue violent crime. He recognizes that good public services and personal economic stability, not more police, constitute public safety.
More striking, Zohran mobilized civic pride, solidarity and joy. These too are winning political emotions.
At the beginning of a canvassing shift, everybody introduces themselves and says why they're there. I am usually the oldest. As a white person, I'm one of maybe half the group. Many of my comrades' genders are less recognizable than my own. As a homeowner with an adequate income, I'm in the minority.
'I can't even afford the Bronx' – the cheapest borough for renters – a recent college graduate with her parents moaned, to knowing laughter. A pregnant woman has 'a panic attack' whenever she contemplates paying for daycare. A man in his 30s who drives an Uber 12 hours a day would like to be home when his kids are awake. A first-generation Chinese American fears for her undocumented parents and feels an obligation to elect someone who will protect them.
Their jobs are precarious, their credit cards overcharged. They have no health insurance and wonder if they'll ever retire their student debt. They come from mixed immigration status families and imagine middle age on a broiling planet. And they are the young voters who turned out overwhelmingly for a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. If the Democrats want the same results, they need to offer these voters, who personify America's troubled working and middle classes, a progressive vision.
Mamdani crushed it in presumed Cuomo strongholds throughout the five boroughs. Of course, he ruled in the youth-dominated 'commie corridor' from Astoria, Queens to Bushwick, Brooklyn (80%). But he also carried communities such as Asian Flushing, Sunset Park, Elmhurst, and Chinatown Queens, by no means presumed progressive.
In February, Cuomo polled at 33% of potential votes; Zohran had 1%.
By primary day, the pro-Cuomo Super Pac, bankrolled by billionaires including Trump supporters like Wall Street bigwig Bill Ackman, had spent $25m, largely on smear ads. Mamdani's Pac spent $1.2m, and a Working Families party-affiliated Pac put in $500,000.
Mamdani had as many as 50,000 volunteers, who knocked over a million doors. Cuomo avoided the public and the press.
Money isn't everything.
The general election will be tougher. Mamdani beat a badly compromised rival with only 432,000 votes in a city with 4.7 million 'active voters' in 2024, not all of whom vote. If Cuomo runs as an independent, he will double down on the Islamophobia and red-baiting. So will the now independent mayor Eric Adams and Republican Curtis Sliwa, founder of the quasi-vigilante Guardian Angels. The Republican party is already making Mamdani the poster boy of a Marxist, terrorist, criminal immigrant Democratic party. Wall Street is preparing for battle.
But whether Mamdani wins or loses, pundits on all sides will avow that what happens in liberal New York stays in liberal New York. It can't transplant to national, or even statewide, elections. That's a cynical error.
In his primary night speech, Mamdani promised to use his office 'to reject Donald Trump's fascism, to stop masked Ice agents from deporting our neighbors, and to govern our city as a model for the Democratic party. A party where we fight for working people with no apologies.'
This is not today's Democratic party. But it has everything to gain from watching Zohran Mamdani and the extraordinary coalition of superhumanly enthusiastic volunteers he has inspired. Theirs are the faces of a political party that democracy, and Americans, deserve.
Judith Levine is a Brooklyn journalist and essayist, a contributing writer to the Intercept and the author of five books
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump tells Chuck Schumer to 'go to hell' as tensions escalate in senate nominee deal funding
Donald Trump tells Chuck Schumer to 'go to hell' as tensions escalate in senate nominee deal funding

Daily Mail​

time24 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Donald Trump tells Chuck Schumer to 'go to hell' as tensions escalate in senate nominee deal funding

President Donald Trump detonated a high-stakes Senate negotiation with an outburst on social media on Saturday night telling Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to 'GO TO HELL' and abruptly ending talks over dozens of pending nominee confirmations. The president's Truth Social tirade came just hours before lawmakers were expected to strike a deal and depart for their month-long recess. Instead, the Senate adjourned in chaos after voting on only seven of the more than 60 nominees in limbo. 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!' Trump wrote. 'Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country. Have a great RECESS and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!' The outburst from the president came just as Senate leaders thought they were closing in on a long-sought agreement to confirm the nominees before the August break. Instead, the Senate rapidly voted through just seven names before adjourning until September. One nominee did break through the gridlock however, Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News personality and New York judge, was confirmed 50-45 as the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. The president's Truth Social tirade came just hours before lawmakers were expected to strike a deal and depart for their monthlong recess The high-profile appointment that drew fierce opposition from Democrats. Pirro has been serving in the role in an acting capacity since May but her appointment drew sharp criticism from House Democrats, who warned she would be a 'partisan tool' for the White House. 'Over the past decade, Ms. Pirro has consistently demonstrated that her loyalty lies with Donald Trump the person, not with the Constitution or the rule of law,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wrote in a letter to Senate leadership. Trump accused Schumer of demanding 'over One Billion Dollars' in return for advancing a limited slate of bipartisan nominees - a claim Schumer did not directly address but which derailed the fragile progress. The now-collapsed deal had been the product of marathon talks between Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Schumer, and the White House. Both parties hoped to finalize a package that would greenlight Trump's nominees in exchange for Democrats' demands on National Institutes of Health (NIH) and foreign aid funding. The Senate held a rare weekend session as the two parties tried to work out the final details of a deal. But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump launched his attack on Schumer and told Republicans to pack it up and go home. Lawmakers had been expected to strike a deal before departing for their monthlong recess but the negotiations fell apart after Trump's online outburst Trump's Truth Social post blindsided negotiators and threw the entire Senate into disarray. 'This demand is egregious and unprecedented,' Trump wrote. 'It is political extortion, by any other name.' Schumer, speaking on the Senate floor hours later while flanked by a poster-sized copy of Trump's post, declared the negotiations dead and blamed the president directly. 'He took his ball, he went home, leaving Democrats and Republicans alike wondering what the hell happened,' Schumer said. 'Trump's all-caps tweet said it all. In a fit of rage, Trump threw in the towel.' Although Republicans and Democrats traded blame all weekend, there had been broad consensus that a deal was within reach. 'There were several different times where I think either or both sides maybe thought there was a deal,' said Thune. 'But in the end, we never got to a place where we had both sides agree to lock it in.' Democrats insisted their offer never changed, while Republicans claimed Schumer kept escalating his demands, especially by tying nominee confirmations to reversals of Trump's proposed spending claw backs. 'We've had three different deals since last night,' said Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK). 'And every time it's been, every time it's 'I want more.' According to Mullin, Trump's dramatic post didn't catch the GOP off guard - the White House had been heavily involved in the negotiations from the start. 'They want to go out and say the President's being unrealistic,' Mullin said. 'But this was never about making a deal.' With the Senate now gone until September, Republican leaders are already threatening to change Senate rules to break the logjam when they return. 'I think they're desperately in need of change,' Thune said of Senate rules following the breakdown of negotiations. 'I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.' Schumer responded sharply, warning that Republicans will need Democratic votes to fund the government this fall and that any unilateral rule changes would be a 'huge mistake'. 'Donald Trump tried to bully us, go around us, threaten us, call us names, but he got nothing,' Schumer said. It's the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn't allowed at least some quick confirmations. Thune has already kept the Senate in session for more days, and with longer hours, this year to try and confirm as many of Trump's nominees as possible. This latest standoff is only the most recent escalation in the decades-long battle over judicial and executive branch confirmations. But Democrats had little desire to give in without the spending cut reversals or some other incentive, even though they too were eager to skip town after several long months of work and bitter partisan fights over legislation. Since 2013, both parties have changed Senate rules to erode the 60-vote threshold for nominees. In 2013, Democrats changed Senate rules for lower court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations as Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's judicial picks. In 2017, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees as Democrats tried to block Trump's nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch. With Republicans unable to secure unanimous consent for Trump's nominees, each confirmation vote has required full roll calls, a grueling process that can take hours or days for each nominee. 'We have never seen nominees as flawed, as compromised, as unqualified as we have right now,' Schumer said. Trump has been demanding for weeks that Republicans cancel recess and grind through the nominations, but his fury seems to have undone whatever deal was on the table. Democrats say they remain open to resuming talks in September.

Republicans slam Trump's firing of Bureau of Labor Statistics chief
Republicans slam Trump's firing of Bureau of Labor Statistics chief

The Guardian

time40 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Republicans slam Trump's firing of Bureau of Labor Statistics chief

Senior Republican lawmakers are condemning the decision of their party leader, Donald Trump, to fire the leading US labor market statistician after a report that showed the national economy added just 73,000 jobs – far fewer than expected – in July. The disappointing figures – coupled with a downward revision of the two previous months amounting to 258,000 fewer jobs and data showing that economic output and consumer spending slowed in the first half of the year – point to an overall economic deterioration in the US. Trump defended his decision to fire US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) commissioner Erika McEntarfer. Without evidence to back his claims, the president wrote on social media that were numbers were 'RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad' and the US economy was, in fact, 'BOOMING' on his watch. But the firing of McEntarfer, who had been confirmed to her role in January 2024 during Joe Biden's presidency, has alarmed members of Trump's own party. 'If the president is firing the statistician because he doesn't like the numbers but they are accurate, then that's a problem,' said Wyoming Republican senator Cynthia Lummis. 'It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for.' Lummis added that if the numbers are unreliable, the public should be told – but firing McEntarfer was 'kind of impetuous'. North Carolina senator Thom Tillis, a Republican, said: 'If she was just fired because the president or whoever decided to fire the director just … because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up.' Kentucky senator Rand Paul, another Republican, questioned whether McEntarfer's firing was an effective way of improving the numbers. 'We have to look somewhere for objective statistics,' he said. 'When the people providing the statistics are fired, it makes it much harder to make judgments that you know, the statistics won't be politicized.' According to NBC News, Paul said his 'first impression' was that 'you can't really make the numbers different or better by firing the people doing the counting'. Tillis and Paul were both opponents of Trump's recent economic legislative package, which the president dubbed the 'big, beautiful bill'. But Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who supported the legislation after winning substantial economic support for her state, remarked that the jobs numbers could not be trusted – and 'that's the problem'. 'And when you fire people, then it makes people trust them even less,' she said. William Beach, a former BLS commissioner appointed by Trump in his first presidency, posted on X that McEntarfer's firing was 'totally groundless'. He added that the dismissal set a dangerous precedent and undermined the BLS's statistical mission. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Beach also co-signed a letter by 'the Friends of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' that went further, accusing Trump of seeking to blame someone for bad news and calling the rationale for McEntarfer's firing 'without merit'. The letter asserted that the dismissal 'undermines the credibility of federal economic statistics that are a cornerstone of intelligent economic decision-making by businesses, families and policymakers'. The letter pointed out that the jobs tabulation process 'is decentralized by design to avoid opportunities for interference', adding that US official statistics 'are the gold standard globally'. 'When leaders of other nations have politicized economic data, it has destroyed public trust in all official statistics and in government science,' the letter said. Democrats have also hit out at Trump's decision. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders described it as 'the sign of an authoritarian type', and he said the decision would make it harder for the American people 'to believe the information that comes out of the government'. Paul Schroeder, executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, described the president's allegation against McEntarfer as 'very damaging and outrageous'. He said: 'Not only does it undermine the integrity of federal economic statistics, but it also politicizes data which need to remain independent and trustworthy. This action is a grave error by the administration and one that will have ramifications for years to come.'

Victory for attorneys who waved guns at BLM protesters as they are rewarded after five-year battle
Victory for attorneys who waved guns at BLM protesters as they are rewarded after five-year battle

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Victory for attorneys who waved guns at BLM protesters as they are rewarded after five-year battle

The St. Louis couple who drew national attention in 2020 for pointing firearms at Black Lives Matter protesters outside their home has finally regained possession of one of those weapons after a years-long legal dispute. Mark and Patricia McCloskey, both attorneys, went viral during the summer of 2020 when they were seen armed on their front lawn as demonstrators passed through their private neighborhood. The couple said they felt threatened after protesters broke through a gate and ignored 'No Trespassing' signs displayed on their private street - no one was hurt in the instance. Now, five years after the viral spectacle, Mark posted a video to X showing himself collecting the AR-15 rifle from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department as he was finally rewarded with the return of the firearm after the lengthy fight. He wrote: 'It only took 3 lawsuits, 2 trips to the Court of Appeals and 1,847 days, but I got my AR15 back!' 'We defended our home, were persecuted by the left, smeared by the press, and threatened with death, but we never backed down,' he added. The McCloskeys were initially charged with unlawful use of a weapon. They later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges in 2021 - Mark to fourth-degree assault and Patricia to second-degree harassment - and agreed to forfeit the weapons. However, the couple was pardoned by Missouri Governor Mike Parson shortly thereafter. In 2024, a Missouri appeals court approved the expungement of those misdemeanor convictions, and under state law, the ruling meant the offenses were effectively erased from the couple's records - paving the way for them to reclaim the confiscated firearms. 'That gun may have only been worth $1,500 or something, and it cost me a lot of time and a lot of effort to get it back, but you have to do that,' Mark told Fox News Digital. 'You have to let them know that you will never back down.' According to Mark, the AR-15 had been in the possession of St. Louis police, while Patricia's Bryco .380-caliber pistol was held by the St. Louis Sheriff's Department. He said he expects the pistol to be returned sometime next week. The firearms were initially ordered destroyed after the couple entered their guilty pleas. However, court proceedings later revealed that both weapons still existed. Mark sued in 2021 to get the guns back, but his request was denied multiple times. He eventually prevailed following the expungement ruling last month, which came despite opposition from city attorneys, who argued the couple still posed a threat and cited McCloskey's use of the incident in political advertisements during his unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign. He also noted that the protesters' statements addressed only perceived threats on the day of the incident, not any ongoing danger. Judge Joseph P. Whyte rejected those arguments, the Daily Mail previously reported, writing in his decision that the court was bound to rule based on the expungement statute and not on political grounds. He also noted that the protesters' statements addressed only perceived threats on the day of the incident, not any ongoing danger. The case drew national attention and political reaction at the time, with President Donald Trump and several Republican leaders expressing support for the St Louis natives. The couple later appeared in a video message during the 2020 Republican National Convention.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store