The Mamdani Moment

Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani at a campaign event on May 31 in Brooklyn. Michael Nigro/Sipa via AP

Pundits like to make proclamations. Especially if they can declare a grand political shift. Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution in 1994 was going to downsize government forever. Sixteen years later we had Obamacare. Barack Obama’s 2008 election signaled the United States was a post-racial nation. Eight years later, the country elected the most racist president since Andrew Jackson. In November, a surge in Latino, Black, and young voters in New York City and elsewhere for Donald Trump showed Democrats were drifting right. Seven months later, NYC Democrats chose state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old socialist, over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the scandalized, big-money-backed centrist, in the mayoral primary.

After Mamdani’s inspiring and stunning victory, political commentators immediately started jabbering about the Democrats veering to the left and whether a socialist agenda that addresses the high cost of living (free buses, a rent freeze, and a pilot program for city-owned grocery stores) was the future of the party—as well as potent ammo for Trump and Republicans. (The Dems go commie!) In such a moment, the best response to such sweeping pronouncements is: Hold your horses.

Progressives ought to be overjoyed by Mamdani’s come-from-behind triumph. But it’s far from certain this is a sign of an ideological shift within the party writ large. Earlier this month, two centrist Democrats won gubernatorial primaries, Abigail Spanberger in Virginia and Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey. That did not mean the party was heading right.

Every election contains multitudes. Had Cuomo not been a carpetbagger who resigned the governorship after being credibly accused of sexual harassment, would Mamdani have won? We don’t know. And what factors led to this Muslim immigrant’s success? Was it mostly his progressive agenda? Or was it that he ran an exciting campaign and convinced voters he’s an authentic champion who really does care about affordability in the Big Apple? His social media game was superb. His campaign videos were entertaining and engaging. Here’s one:

He displayed verve, joy, and energy. On the other side, Cuomo was dour and mounted a listless campaign. He came across as a bad boss (which he was) and ran as if this was Plan B for him (which it was). After all, once upon a time, he looked forward to a White House bid.

In politics, performance counts as much as policy. If not more so. People tend to vote for the person more than the message. There is, of course, a connection between the two. Policies indicate values. Agendas establish priorities. Mamdani’s lefty proposals—pithy and easy to understand—showed he understands the concerns of a swath of voters. (Trump did the same with Build the Wall and Mass Deportation.) And that’s more important than their details. A different candidate pushing the same ideas might not have fared as well.

But it’s also possible that Mamdani has indeed identified for his party a winning theme: affordability. The high cost of living is hammering young, old, and middle-aged voters in many cities and states across the nation. Such an approach doesn’t have to yield programs for every Democratic candidate explicitly branded as socialism. But highlighting this challenge and addressing it in a concrete fashion could buoy Democrats beyond the five boroughs.

As Democrats continue to debate and beat themselves up over whether they should steer to the left or the center, I would not read Mamdani’s win as evidence that one side here is correct. Particularly if we’re thinking of general elections—and the one coming up in New York will be a doozy. The Democratic primary results show that an exciting candidate full of sass and smarts who mirrors what voters are experiencing in their own lives and who’s armed with a well-honed message that hits voters’ concerns can beat a tired and cynical candidate backed by the party establishment. And perhaps that can provide a roadmap for future elections. It’s not left versus right; it’s fight or no fight.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) recognized this with a post-victory social media post: “Congrats to Zohran Mamdani. Important lessons. Focus on shifting economic power. Relentlessly. Have big ideas on how to do it. Be joyful and authentic. Even if your ideas aren't considered ‘mainstream’ by elites. The elites have little idea what's actually mainstream.”

As for the general election, it will be a wild ride. Eric Adams, the disgraced current mayor, is competing as an independent. Cuomo may do the same. Bill Ackman, the Trump-supporting billionaire, has said he and his plutocrat pals can raise an unlimited amount of money for a credible and centrist newcomer to the race. (As of this writing, Ackman has not named a name.) Meanwhile, the right is salivating over the opportunity to smear Mamdani as an antisemitic communist. As soon as his triumph became clear on Tuesday night, conservative influencers and GOP politicians began hurling these epithets at him, with many pointing out he’s a Muslim (as if that’s an automatic disqualification) and some baselessly calling for his deportation. The racism was rampant. (See Dumbass Comment of the Week below.) A handful of Democrats joined in, a bit less virulently.

Mamdani will face a blitzkrieg of hate and bigotry in the months ahead. Ackman and others will spend millions (tens of millions, likely, and maybe more) to try to cast him as an antisemite and radical whose policies would lead the city to ruin. (Here’s a piece in which Mamdani, an advocate of Palestinian rights, counters the antisemitism charge.) The scare tactics will be DEFCON-1 level, with the right and the oligarchy doing all they can to generate hysteria and fear of the Muslim guy.

Mamdani’s defeat of Cuomo was monumental. He demonstrated that an ebullient and vibrant delivery of an unapologetic progressive message can excite hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters in New York. How much of an example this can be for the party and other Democratic candidates elsewhere remains to be seen. But it’s a grand and impressive start.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com

In the past two issues, I’ve written about how Donald Trump’s inability to tell the truth or honestly handle intelligence reports is especially a problem during wartime. After the events of the past few days, I delved into this a bit more. You can check that out here.

Donald Trump’s strike on Iranian nuclear facilities predictably provoked a lot of unhinged and unbelievable statements from Trump and his enablers. He claimed the targets had been completely and fully “obliterated.” But when CNN and the New York Times reported the initial assessments found that might not be the case, Trump and his team went ballistic. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted, “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.” Apparently, specialists at the Defense Intelligence Agency are not part of this “everyone.”

At a press conference at the end of the NATO summit in the Hague, Trump blasted the outlets that disclosed this preliminary conclusion, calling them “real scum” and saying their aim was to “discredit the brave fighter pilots.” That was quite the scoundrel-ish tact, to insist accurate reporting was an insult to the troops. Not surprisingly, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was by Trump’s side, joined in and accused these journalists of “trying to hurt our country.” He added, “They don’t care what the troops think.”

Accusing the media of purposefully harming American military personnel is dangerous stuff. By the way, at the Pentagon’s first post-attack press briefing, Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, refused to say the Iranian targets were annihilated. He said they “sustained extremely severe damage”—which could mean many different things. Was he dissing the troops by not claiming total destruction?

One of the more absurd exchanges occurred when Vice President JD Vance hit Meet the Press the morning after. Host Kristen Welker asked him, “Do you and President Trump trust the US intelligence community and its assessments?” He replied, “Of course we trust our intelligence community, but we also trust our instincts.” Meaning our hunches trump intelligence. That’s a problem.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared before Congress this past week. His testimony included the usual number of misleading remarks. The judges randomly picked one to honor: His statement that “we are completely committed to solving the problem of Alzheimer's.” After he said that, Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) reminded RFK Jr. that he’s proposing to cut $1.7 billion from the NIH’s National Institute on Aging, which conducts Alzheimer's and dementia research.

Obviously, the Trump administration’s commitment to fighting Alzheimer’s is not full and complete. So said the Alzheimer’s Association, which zapped out a press release noting that Kennedy made a number of false statements during his testimony. It pointed out that he incorrectly characterized Alzheimer’s as Type 3 diabetes and was unfamiliar with the federal government’s Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers, which have already experienced funding cuts this year. Kennedy had testified that “we have not cut any clinical trials on Alzheimer’s.” But the association said, “Delays to the ADRCs' funding are impacting clinical trials and there have been cancellations and postponements of grant review meetings, putting trials' futures at risk.”

Meanwhile, Mamdani’s stunning victory triggered many conservatives, who hurled racist invective at the candidate, predicted the collapse of NYC (should he win the general election), and called on people to “evacuate” the city. You can read a host of the ridiculous responses here. Right-wing, anti-Muslim activist Laura Loomer (who has Trump’s ear), tweeted, “There will be another 9/11 in NYC and @ZohranKMamdani will be to blame.” Trump fanboy Charlie Kirk took the same stance: “There will be another 9/11 in NYC and @ZohranKMamdani will be to blame.”

In Trump’s MAGA world, there is no shame in being an anti-Muslim bigot. It’s considered a credential.

Fox News was hysterical:

Baby baskets! Didn’t Stalin do that? Actually, the Trump White House has proposed giving $1,000 baby bonuses to parents of newborns. But it’s not socialism when Trump does it.

The judges highlighted a combined entry from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and conservative commentator Matt Walsh. It brims with hatred, with the pair claiming that Mamdani’s win shows there’s a plot to replace native New Yorkers with immigrants.

One problem, boys: facts. According to the mayor’s office, about 38 percent of New York City residents are immigrants (with half of them being naturalized citizens). Check out this chart:

That 38 percent is close to what it was in 2000 (35.9 percent), lower than 1910 (40.8 percent), and, historically, no outlier. New York has always been a city of immigrants.

House Speaker Mike Johnson continued lying to pitch the massive tax-breaks-for-the-rich-and-spending-cuts-for-the-poor legislation. He insisted, "We are not cutting Medicaid. The president has said that, and I have said that. We've all said that. We are strengthening the program."

Yet as he was pitching this bunk, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was handing out to his fellow Senate Republicans a list of how the bill’s deep Medicaid cuts—an estimated $800 billion over ten years—would hit their states. Tillis noted his own state would lose nearly $40 billion in Medicaid support over 10 years and 600,000 of its residents would be at risk of losing coverage. Johnson should spend some time with him.

Amid so much prevarication this week, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a prior victor, claimed the prize. In a long social media post, she issued in response to right-wing commentator Mark Levin’s harsh criticism of her opposition to the US attack on Iran, she observed, “There once was a great President that the American people loved. He opposed Israel’s nuclear program. And then he was assassinated.”

It seemed Greene was suggesting John F. Kennedy was murdered in 1963 because he was trying to prevent Israel from developing a nuclear weapon. He was opposed to Israel obtaining the bomb. But there’s never been any indication that led to his killing. It takes a lot of work and imagination at this stage to cook up a new JFK assassination conspiracy theory. But let’s give MTG, the gal who pushed the Jewish space laser conspiracy theory, credit: Kennedy was killed by the CIA, LBJ, the Mafia, and also the Jews. What about the pope?

There were many encouraging elements of Mamdani’s win in New York City. A big one was the fact that he beat back a flood of money from billionaires and oligarchs terrified of his possible victory. Big money tends to win out in elections. It’s a positive sign when it does not.

Diego Luna, the Mexican actor who stars in Andor, the best Star Wars spinoff in the history of that franchise, was the guest host for Jimmy Kimmel’s show this past week. He opened his weeklong stint with a monologue on the value of immigration and migrants. “Nobody leaves their land unless their survival depends on it,” he said. “Nobody leaves their past behind just for fun.” It was a humane and poignant 10 minutes of late-night television.

Several readers wrote in to respond to the comparison I drew between Trump’s actions on Iran and the 2003 Iraq invasion. 

Anne Bridgeman emailed:

I recall being one of the lonely ones back in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. I was then living in Prague with my husband, who worked at the US embassy. When Colin Powell came to town for a visit, I finagled my way into a receiving line at the airport as he was departing and pulled him aside. I asked him to please consider not invading Iraq and listed several reasons. As he shook my hand, he promised to take my concerns under advisement. Of course, we all know what happened after that. Please continue to spread the word about the errors of the Iraq War—before, during, and after.

Anne also recalled a story I did in 2009 about a brave Iraqi official named Salam Adhoob who tried to fight corruption in Baghdad and who was subsequently mistreated by the US government. She noted that she knows Adhoob and reported, “The trauma that family suffered continues to be evident today.” That is unfortunate. Here’s my article.

Stephen Wend shared this:

One of the things that bothers me about the current situation is the label of imminent danger/risk without further information. While I recognize the concern over the level of enrichment, that in and of itself is not an imminent risk. You have to be able to actually do something with the material to bring about a nuclear reaction/explosion. The mainstream media should do a better job of educating the public regarding the complexity of the issues mentioned above. Maybe then the public wouldn't be led around by the nose-and frightened-so easily.

Great picture of the doe and her fawn.

The presence of highly enriched uranium in Iran was indeed a nuclear proliferation concern that needed to be addressed by the United States and other nations. But the Trump administration didn’t bother to cite or produce any evidence that a threat was imminent before launching the attack. Failing to do that was a violation of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. As for the doe and her fawn, see below.

Teresa Harper had something to say about my item on the new Surviving Ohio State documentary:

Of course, OSU officials wanted to conceal what was happening. The coaches and administrators were aware of what was happening. The worst thing for a university is bad publicity. I found it ironic that it was a female coach who reported Dr. Strauss. For a decade, she filed complaints, but the only remedy was that her fencing students did not have to be under the care of the pervert. I hope the documentary will spark a discussion about Jim Jordan's knowledge of the abuse. Particularly maddening about this is that OSU is still fighting against fairly compensating the students for the abuse. The athletic department takes in $1.2 billion a year. My husband's best friend is a huge OSU fan (and a Republican). I'm going to encourage him to watch it. As one of the former students said, he is a survivor of Strauss's abuse, but a victim of OSU. 

Last week we had a special guest for this feature: a fawn born in the yard next door who hunkered down behind our house. As I’ve learned, it is the job of a newborn deer to remain hidden for five to eight days, while its mother forages for food and stays away from the fawn as to not draw predators toward the little one. Alas, in my town, there are no predators for the deer (except cars), and that is why they are overrunning our streets and ruining our gardens.

Still, the fawn did what it was supposed to. It curled into a ball and blended in with the flora. The doe kept its distance. Only once over five days did I spot it feeding her offspring. It was early in the morning. After the fawn finished sucking, the doe licked it clean and then hopped the fence and trotted off. The fawn, with its spindly legs, ran up and down along the fence, until it found a spot to tuck into. It lay there motionless.

The next day, the fawn was gone. Maybe it had relocated to another hiding spot after a visit from the doe. I searched and did not find it. Perhaps it had left with the doe. I hope it returns for a visit someday—and that Moxie and I can shoo it away before it eats our hollyhocks.