On-Topic Is now the moment for Christian Socialism in the US? Zohran Mamdani's win and implications.

[NotHardUp1]

The win in the NYC Mayoral Democratic Primary has sent shock waves through the two major US parties.

Republicans, led by Herr Trump, wasted no time on jumping on the win as a political bonanza for conservatives. Unsurprisingly, the same party that is gleefully trashing the Constitution, with most of the actions being against the rights of the common citizen, not so much the wealthy (ruling) class. The red baiting is reminiscent of the 1950's.

Of course, America already has closet socialism, just not very good. And the same conservatives who would have us believe they are against it champion every sort of subsidy and tax break for the wealthy and corporate entities.

The Democrats are running scared. They have tolerated Bernie Sanders and AOC, but been careful to not be tarred with what they believe is the extreme left. National leaders of the DNC are avoiding Mamdani endorsement in an obvious snub.

However, increasingly the two parties are failing to meet the needs of the working class. In the GOP, Trump seized upon the disaffected in the Rust Belt and the Religious Right in the South, forging a coalition of the losers who banded together to not lose. The Democrats are now in the process of disintegrating after stellar losses in the presidential races, and passing Obamacare that still left health care unaffordable even WITH insurance. The result? The young are significantly opting out, opting out of news, work, government, and by extension, society.

A young former intern from my Albuquerque office is currently in grad school in NYC. He posted an Instagram pic of Mamdani's win, and he's not a very political young man. Like many engineers, he avers from government participation beyond voting. But, his championing of this young icon seems to reflect a sea change in politics. Yes, I know it's NYC, and my friend is Mexican born, middle class, and not from the center of the country per se, but I still think he is on a wave.

What do you think? Is an openly Socialist stance the kiss of death for Democrats, or are we about to finally see a return of the 1920's with a muscular labor movement, and a clear-eyed movement toward social justice in law?

Of course, I'm in violent agreement with Christian Socialism, or Democratic Socialist ideology. We should not have billionaires. We can afford all the costs of public welfare and infrastructure. Blather all you like about money leaving the country, but American consumerism drives the economy, and militarism. Congress can just as easily punish corporation flight from the country just as it rewarded it some decades ago.

All it takes is the will of the People. However, so many people are lazy and listen to sound bites instead of learning. The GOP may have a windfall from that apathy.

On the other hand, Mamdani is handsome, beaming, polite, articulate, intelligent, and manifestly no wack-o. Maybe NYC will be ground zero for the Revolution.

Thoughts and prayers.

 

[KaraBulut]

The media is being very reductive in trying to make this about socialism vs capitalism, and Islam versus everyone else.

Looking at some interviews before and after the primary election, Mamdani's win over Cuomo is likely to be because of three issues:

1. Mamdani isn't Bernie Sanders. Mandani listened to constituents and he came out with specific solution proposals to what he heard. Bernie is notorious for complaining about issues but never coming up with solutions. Mamdani is proposing solutions and many of those solutions are things that NYC already has in place - like rent control.
2. Cuomo ran a shitty campaign. Cuomo was MIA, his message was muddled and his teams didn't knock on doors. In the few interviews that Cuomo did, he was asked about NYC's issues and he seemed to be unfamiliar with the things that NYCers said mattered to them. There's also a lot of Cuomo fatigue from the #metoo scandals.
3. Mamdani is a good politician. He comes across handsome, likeable and well-spoken. He spoke to the concerns of NYCers, who have a very unique set of problems that the typical American doesn't have.

If there is to be a Revolution, it isn't about Socialism. It's about hearing constituents, having plans to address their concerns and finally, keeping promises that Democrats make. How many election cycles have we heard Democrats complain about the minimum wage? How many times have we heard Democrats complain about how the "one percent" isn't paying their fair share of taxes? Yet, when the Democrats get the gavel and the White House, they never manage to accomplish solutions to these problems. Democrats don't want to rock the boat and piss off any minority (i.e. billionaires, identity groups) in order to make the majority happy.

I feel like we've seen this before. In 2020, the Democratic Presidential candidates were saying all sorts of loopy, far left things because their consultants were trying to appeal to specific constituencies. Yet, we ended up with Joe Biden as President, who still did some of those things that appealed to constituencies (i.e. student loan forgiveness) but he still managed to lose the election because he wasn't listening to the current complains of voters and he didn't take credit for the things that he did get done.

Instead of worrying about Socialism, the Democrats should focus on getting young, articulate candidates who appeal to voters and have the Clintonesque, "I feel your pain" appeal.

 

[rareboy]

I agree.

It feels like we've seen all this before.

The Dems are always busy rearranging the deck chairs as the ship sinks. They see every issue as something to fundraise off of, and of clinging to the status quo, because they are now a gerontocracy and frankly out of touch and deaf on key working class issues and the issues of the younger voters.

I can guarantee that the senior Dem leadership is looking at the BBB and thinking 'oh well'...now how can we use the Medicaid disaster for the 2026 elections.

Or will they just keep sending more sternly worded letters?????

Money in politics has made whores of all federal politicians in the US, it seems. There are only few really bright lights any more.

 

[NotHardUp1]

And to think the GOP is trying to get the Congressional election spending limits lifted that have been in place since Watergate.

 

[NotHardUp1]

3. Mamdani is a good politician. He comes across handsome, likeable and well-spoken.

I'm not saying he is the new JFK, but he has a trifecta that we just haven't seen in many year.

He's young.

He's very bright.

He's as handsome as he is smart, more than Kennedy, more than Obama or Pete, and a face that conveys honesty and caring.

He might well be the voice of a generation that this new generation has been waiting for. I think AOC has somehow failed to connect with a lot of male voters, even on the left, even though she is on point many times in her positions.

Mamdani may be the figure Newsom wants to be.

 

[KaraBulut]

I'm not saying he is the new JFK, but he has a trifecta that we just haven't seen in many year.

JFK wasn't the JFK that everyone thought he was. He was the first President who sold us modern stagecraft, taking an FDR-level charisma to television. He was likeable enough that the Press covered up a lot of what was going on behind the scenes. He was an inspirational figure for a generation of Baby Boomers who were coming out of the repressed 1950s and were very socially conscious and motivated to make change.

That social consciousness is what Mamdani has in common with JFK. He also appealed to a restless group of young people who want to see things in NYC change. The irony is that now that NYC is a safe place to live, it's also ridiculously expensive to live there.

New Yorkers have two favorite sports: baseball and hating the mayor. The question is going to be whether Mamdani is a big enough asshole to manage the mess that is New York City. I'm not optimistic.

JFK was inspirational but LBJ is the one who got the agenda passed. A Texas pundit once described LBJ as being as mean as a skillet full of rattlesnakes.

Clinton accomplished a lot. Some of it was that he was a natural at triangulation and politics. But he also has a famous temper and impatience with people who aren't getting things done. He also made some wise choices for appointees and he had Gore, who was a creature of the Senate, as VP.

Obama could have accomplished a lot of things that he set out to do but he wouldn't play hardball with McConnell.

Having been a NYCer at one time, I'm not as optimistic about Mamdani as you are. I think he's a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the Democratic primary candidates. I think he's a damned good organizer and he hired the right people for his campaign. He's also from an interesting background. But I'm not sure he's mean and conniving enough to succeed in NYC politics. Cuomo would have been a better fit for the kind of cutthroat management style that it takes to get things done at NYC City Hall.

 

[NotHardUp1]

JFK wasn't the JFK that everyone thought he was. He was the first President who sold us modern stagecraft, taking an FDR-level charisma to television. He was likeable enough that the Press covered up a lot of what was going on behind the scenes. He was an inspirational figure for a generation of Baby Boomers who were coming out of the repressed 1950s and were very socially conscious and motivated to make change.

I totally agree Kennedy has been overly lionized in his martyrdom.

That social consciousness is what Mamdani has in common with JFK. He also appealed to a restless group of young people who want to see things in NYC change. The irony is that now that NYC is a safe place to live, it's also ridiculously expensive to live there.

That the majority of US citizens now live in urban areas means that the majority of young people are getting squeezed by high rents, etc.

New Yorkers have two favorite sports: baseball and hating the mayor. The question is going to be whether Mamdani is a big enough asshole to manage the mess that is New York City. I'm not optimistic.

JFK was inspirational but LBJ is the one who got the agenda passed. A Texas pundit once described LBJ as being as mean as a skillet full of rattlesnakes.

LBJ has been as unfairly damned as Kennedy has been praised. He was an adroit politician. The name of the game is politics. He was one of the best presidents in history for what he accomplished, Vietnam notwithstanding.

Clinton accomplished a lot. Some of it was that he was a natural at triangulation and politics. But he also has a famous temper and impatience with people who aren't getting things done. He also made some wise choices for appointees and he had Gore, who was a creature of the Senate, as VP.

Clinton was as much a political animal as LBJ, but had the help of his wife, whom LBJ did not.

Obama could have accomplished a lot of things that he set out to do but he wouldn't play hardball with McConnell.

He was too green in the Senate. Too inexperienced in general. He did quite well for the newbie he was and the weight carried on his shoulders as first black president.

Having been a NYCer at one time, I'm not as optimistic about Mamdani as you are. I think he's a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the Democratic primary candidates. I think he's a damned good organizer and he hired the right people for his campaign. He's also from an interesting background. But I'm not sure he's mean and conniving enough to succeed in NYC politics. Cuomo would have been a better fit for the kind of cutthroat management style that it takes to get things done at NYC City Hall.

I'm not imagining Mamdani as the Messiah. He's likely to be the John the Baptist for whoever is the Messiah. But the message is gaining followers NOW, before Herodias does her bit.

 

[KaraBulut]

LBJ has been as unfairly damned as Kennedy has been praised. He was an adroit politician. The name of the game is politics. He was one of the best presidents in history for what he accomplished, Vietnam notwithstanding.

Clinton was as much a political animal as LBJ, but had the help of his wife, whom LBJ did not.

Johnson and Clinton spouses had much more in common than one would believe. Lady Bird was as shrewd as LBJ and she had the media background that LBJ didn't.

The two ladies were products of their time. Lady Bird played the game that women were expected to play. Behind the scenes, she was LBJ's primary advisor, just like Hillary was Bill's primary adviser. Hillary wouldn't play the game and when she became the face of healthcare reform, she was pilloried by Republicans, as an indirect way to damage Clinton... until the blue dress, that is.

Lady Bird had her hands full. LBJ was a master of the Senate. He was also an insecure, unstable, coarse man who was prone to mood swings. But like many successful politicians, he knew how to be everyone's best friend and most feared enemy.

Two anecdotes about Hillary that I always remember.

Someone asked General Petraeus who was the most prepared Senator on the Armed Services Committee. Petraeus said, "Besides Hillary Clinton?". Hillary grilled Petraeus when he testified before the committee. Later when she was Secretary of State, she realized that she needed to repair the relationship. She invited Petraeus to her home for a bottle of wine and to discuss the middle east. The two enjoyed each other's company so much that evening that Petraeus returned the next evening for another bottle of wine and more discussion.

I saw an interview with once where a pundit said that Hillary was one of the smartest, most amiable people in politics. He said that unfortunately, too many men see her public persona and she reminds them too much of their wife's divorce attorney.

I'm not imagining Mamdani as the Messiah. He's likely to be the John the Baptist for whoever is the Messiah. But the message is gaining followers NOW, before Herodias does her bit.

There are some good signs. Many old guard politicians are setting up an audience with Mamdani. The word on the street is that many of them are coming out of those meetings with good things to say about him. He's apparently not the scary socialist that he's being made out to be by Fox News and Eric Adams. He stands a good chance of being the next mayor but Mamdani is going to have to take off the gloves and get Cuomo (and Cuomo's henchmen) out of the picture.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Revolution? Too comfortable for that in the western world, and immensely unwilling to give up creature comforts for the greater good, or even one's own best interest.

We're certainly going to find no reprieve in the same religious culture that brought us chattel slavery and, when the boredom was too great, lynch picnics.

 

[KaraBulut]

Robert Reich did an interview talking about Mamdani's win, or more importantly Cuomo's loss. It includes an excerpt from a 1994 speech from Reich that predicts a lot of what we're seeing 30 years later. "The only answer to organized money is organized people".

I posted this in the memes thread but it talks to the stale establishment battle with the young insurgency that Mamdani embodies:

 

[Kulindahr]

That the majority of US citizens now live in urban areas means that the majority of young people are getting squeezed by high rents, etc.

Especially where there are "urban growth boundaries" that drive up the price of land.

 

[Kulindahr]

Robert Reich did an interview talking about Mamdani's win

"Economic populism" -- interesting notion.