In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
On the evening of Monday, Nov. 3, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was pronounced dead at his home in McLean, VA. About 24 hours later, Zohran Mamdani was pronounced the next mayor of the city of New York.
There could not be two more divergent symbols of American politics, with Cheney representing the old and Mamdani potentially the new.
From the end of the 20th and into the 21st centuries, Cheney stood for almost everything wrong with governance in the United States: an all-powerful “unitary executive” in the White House; foreign wars of aggression; mass surveillance of Americans; oil industry profits over people and the environment.
Mamdani on the other hand, seems to represent a clean break from decades of repressive policies crushing the American people. He has denounced Israel’s genocide and U.S. support for it; he wants government to serve the interests of working people: free child health care; free city buses; affordable city-owned grocery stores; a four-year rent freeze and community controls over police.
In his acceptance speech, he said:
“For as long as we can remember, the working people of New York have been told by the wealthy and the well-connected that power does not belong in their hands. […] Tonight, against all odds, we have grasped it. The future is in our hands. My friends, we have toppled a political dynasty.
I wish Andrew Cuomo only the best in private life. But let tonight be the final time I utter his name, as we turn the page on a politics that abandons the many and answers only to the few.
New York, tonight you have delivered. A mandate for change. A mandate for a new kind of politics. A mandate for a city we can afford. And a mandate for a government that delivers exactly that. […]
Standing before you, I think of the words of Jawaharlal Nehru: “A moment comes, but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.”
Tonight we have stepped out from the old into the new. So let us speak now, with clarity and conviction that cannot be misunderstood, about what this new age will deliver, and for whom. […] For years, those in City Hall have only helped those who can help them. But on 1 January, we will usher in a city government that helps everyone. […]
And if we embrace this brave new course, rather than fleeing from it, we can respond to oligarchy and authoritarianism with the strength it fears, not the appeasement it craves.”
Everything he stands for infuriates Cheney-style politicians and billionaires of both parties. They despise anyone who dares challenge them. Despite conciliatory words they may utter, they are mortal enemies to someone espousing the views Mamdani espouses and will work double time to defeat him in governance after they could not defeat him at the polls.
The big question for a lot of progressives, many of whom are skeptical of Mamdani, is whether he treats his enemies with strategies of war rather than cozying up to become part of the club since he too now has political power.
We have seen it all too often before, supposed leftists who, once in power, are dazzled and co-opted by the powerful people they were meant to oppose. In his acceptance speech Mamdani certainly laid out a confrontational course to “respond to oligarchy and authoritarianism with the strength it fears, not the appeasement it craves.”
In an interview with Chris Hedges earlier this year, former socialist Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant, warned:
“If you don’t understand that careerism is one of the death knells of winning anything substantial for the working class, then you will sell out even with those good intentions because you will make it about yourself and you will immediately get the memo that in order to fight for working people, you will need to be in battle mode every single day when you enter City Hall.”
Sawant suggested that Mamdani:
” …move away from this talking point of Oh, billionaires will also love a city with a rent freeze and I’m looking forward to working with [New York Governor] Kathy Hochul. Moving away from that to saying, look, the Democratic Party establishment itself, the Democratic Party itself is opposed to the things that I’m calling for.
And that’s why I need working people to join me, rather than continually bringing up this idea that it’s all about discussions and meetings with the powers that be, and I’ll talk to the governor, and I’ll talk to the billionaire. All this emphasis on the halls of power. Instead his talking point should be: We’re calling for a rally on such and such date. I want working people to show up. […]
They have declared war against him, and that is why he needs to declare war back at them, not try to hug them to death.”
Few Clues So Far
We have few clues in the four weeks since he was elected. He has taken part in two high profile events. The first was the annual post-election retreat to Puerto Rico by New York City and State politicians surrounded by lobbyists. Among the lobbyists was the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
“Elected officials could accept one free drink from a lobbyist, but no more: The state’s limit on gifts is $15,” reportsThe New York Times.
Then Cheney was memorialized on Nov. 21. Trump wasn’t invited. The next day, he invited Mamdani to the Oval Office.
“I think he’s going to surprise a lot of conservative people,” Trump told reporters after they had met. “There is no difference in party. There is no difference in anything, and we’re going to be helping him to make everybody’s dream come true,” which sounded particularly condescending.
Asked why he called Mamdani a communist, Trump said: “He’s got views out there, but who knows — I mean, we’re going to see what works. He’s going to change also. We all change. I changed a lot, changed a lot from when I first came to office.”
The conciliatory tone of the meeting surprised many people. But what did Trump mean by change? Is he sincere in wanting to help Mamdani or is it a ploy to lure him in, to dazzle him with the trappings of the White House, to co-opt and change him?
Mamdani did not seem lured. At least not at this meeting. He refused to withdraw his remarks that Trump was a “despot” with a “fascist agenda.” He said:
“I think both President Trump and I, we are very clear about our positions and our views. And what I really appreciate about the president is the meeting that we had focused not on places of disagreement, which there are many, and also focused on the shared purpose that we have in serving New Yorkers.”
Trump chimed in: “I’ve been called much worse than a despot. It’s not that insulting. Maybe — I think he’ll change his mind after we get to working together.” Another possible lure.
Mamdani did not back down on socialism:
“I am someone who is a democratic socialist, I have been very open about that. And I know that there might be differences about ideology, but the place of agreement is the work that needs to be done to make New York City affordable. That’s what I look forward to.”
And Mamdani also stood his ground on the most internationally explosive issue — Gaza. He said:
“I have spoken about the Israeli government committing genocide, and I have spoken about our government funding it. And I shared with the president in our meeting about the concern that many New Yorkers have of wanting their tax dollars to go toward the benefit of New Yorkers and their ability to afford basic dignity.”
“The endorsement Trump lent to Mamdani in the Oval Office, who by all logic represents everything the president detests, was something Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have only received in his wildest dreams. […]
Mamdani did not shy away from reiterating his salient points about opposing Israel’s ‘genocide’ in Gaza and his constituents’ opposition to U.S. taxpayer funds supporting such atrocities. Sitting next to the mayor-elect, Trump avoided interjecting, defended Mamdani from hostile questioning from a right-wing reporter and dismissed Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik’s classification of the Muslim mayor as a ‘jihadist.’”
Trump’s conduct in the meeting will go down as one of the most alarming moments for Netanyahu’s allies in Washington, who have desperately been trying to hold the fort within Trump’s orbit and the greater Republican Party as support for Israel wanes.”
As’ad AbuKhalil, a Middle East scholar and Consortium News columnist, tweeted:
The mayor-elect of New York City dared to denounce Israeli genocide right in the Oval Office. None of the Arab and Muslim leaders who went through the Oval Office dared to speak about the plight of the Palestinians. https://t.co/L49HtCIicm
President Roosevelt delivering Fireside Chat No. 6, Sept. 30, 1934. (F.D.R. Presidential Library & Museum, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
Bill Clinton had the most profound effect on the Democratic Party since Franklin D. Roosevelt.
He moved the party to the center-right, aligning it with the neoliberal policies of the Chicago School, which was in direct opposition to F.D.R.’s New Deal. Ironically, Hillary Clinton made a show of idolizing Eleanor Roosevelt, but not because of policy, but as a model for her own success.
The Clintons hurt working Americans with NAFTA, unleashed greed with the repeal of the F.D.R.-era Glass Steagall Act, made assaults on social welfare, deregulated communications and privatized federal agencies and prisons.
The party remains captive to those policies. The unexpected rise of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential campaign showed huge numbers of Democrats want to revive the New Deal. But WikiLeaks’ publication of Clinton campaign emails revealed that the party essentially rigged the nomination for the neo-liberal Clinton.
“Unless the Democrats find a candidate seriously committed to reversing the betrayal of the party’s traditional working-class base and restore the badly eroded New Deal, voters will be faced once more with two unattractive choices. There are solutions to economic injustice and an end to regime change aggression, but few in power pursue them because it’s not in their interests, nor of those who back them. Without a sharp turn to the left to regain workers’ support, the Democratic Party risks becoming irrelevant. Anti-Trump rhetoric alone is unlikely to save it and an emphasis on identity, instead of class, will continue to inflict damage on its relationship with its traditional base.”
That was more than eight years ago. Establishment Democrats have yet to learn from their party’s thrashing a second time by the plutocrat Trump.
But the lesson may come in the form of Mamdani, whom they worked hard to defeat.
Corporate Democrats must first stop blaming the voters, the Russians and just about everyone but themselves and realize, after self-reflection, that the party’s future is in its past — a reconnection with working class and anti-war Americans, many of whom have gone over to the other party.
The party must pick up where F.D.R. and J.F.K. left it, pushing beyond the later Medicare and Medicaid to full Medicare for All, and the end of U.S. militarism that Kennedy sought.
The Meaning of Gaza
Economics is as a rule more consequential in U.S. elections than foreign policy, which almost never plays a role in local elections like in New York.
Yet the Gaza war split Democratic voters nationally and was crucial in Mamdani’s victory. “It was fundamental,” said Theodore Hamm, author of Run, Zohran, Run. “Zohran got arrested six days after October 7th, outside of Chuck Schumer’s home. And at that event, he was describing what he was referring to as the impending genocide.”
Slowly Democratic leaders are opening their eyes on Gaza, recognizing that those who called out Israel’s genocide from the beginning were right. It may have taken the Biden administration’s complicity with a genocide to open a pathway to a radical shift in the party.
Establishment Democrat Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser, wrote an essay in The New York Times on Sunday about how the Democrats “blew it on Gaza.” Supporting Israel’s murderous campaign “made Democrats hypocrites when defending a ‘rules-based order’,” he wrote. “It alienated elements of their base and placed them out of step with younger voters.”
Rhodes said that:
” … many scholars, human rights organizations and U.N. bodies […] conclude that Israel committed genocide, using weapons supplied by the U.S. — a moral stain that cannot be removed. Yet many Democrats are left trapped in a no man’s land sticking to talking points detached from the reality of the Middle East. […]
Voters grasp this reality. Polls have shown that only a third of Democrats have a favorable view of Israel, down from 73 percent in 2014. Majorities of Americans opposed providing military assistance to the Israeli government this summer, and 77 percent of Democrats agree that a genocide has taken place in Gaza.
By letting go of an outdated approach, Democrats can reclaim their values, foster a bigger and more stable coalition and start building the world they want, rather than defending the indefensible. …”
So, could we be looking at the beginning of the end of the Clinton-era of the Democratic Party? One thing is certain. If the party changes direction, it will not be decided by party elites, but by the mass of its voters, clamoring for leaders like Mamdani.
Jill Stein, the three-time Green Party candidate for president, while impressed by Mamdani’s victory, cautioned that we have seen similar enthusiasm upon the election of Obama and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fizzle as both became hopelessly compromised. She said:
“It’s important to hold his feet to the fire. But even if he doesn’t backpedal, it still hasn’t solved our problem. We still need independent politics. We still need an alternative.
The Democrats cannot win because they are bought and paid for. So they can’t provide an alternative to Trump. They are not an alternative to Republicans, which is why they work double time to silence, progressive alternatives.”
So if the Democratic Party wants to defeat MAGA it must defy donors and align its policies with stirred-up working class voters by opposing U.S. militarism and reining in inequality.
Mamdani could spark such a trend if he rides the momentum of his voters and sticks to his principles, such as he did by standing in the Oval Office and denouncing genocide.
Of course, New York is not the United States. Even if Mamdani succeeds beyond expectations with his policies, his win would have to be replicated in other major U.S. cities and ultimately in state capitals and then at the national level before one could declare a new era in American politics in a fundamentally conservative country.
It is a largely conservative population that is, however, under growing economic stress and is increasingly anti-war (and even anti-Israel because of the genocide, which has stained an entire political class of both parties, allowing new leaders like Mamdani to stand out.) Support for the genocide could prove to be political suicide.
But one could only consider such a new era if there arises a generation of young political leaders across the country in the mould of Mamdani, who like him, can actually win elections. That remains a very tall order indeed.
As Stein pointed out, on the day Mamdani won, two Establishment Democrats, both former intelligence officers, were elected governor in Virginia and New Jersey.
‘The Art of the Next Best’
Otto von Bismarck said, “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.” What is possible can depend on what voters demand. If they are angry enough and motivated enough they can push political leaders in directions no one thought possible.
Democracy is not up to politicians. It’s a tool the public must use. Otherwise it remains dormant.
We see what leaders do when left to their own devices. They serve their donors’ and their own interests and give lip service to the public at election time.
The remarkable turn of the public against Israel after more than two years of genocide is a significant indicator of a substantial part of the American people no longer being submissive to politicians, but boldly proclaiming it is unacceptable that U.S. leaders of both parties have been complicit in that monstrous crime.
Mamdani more than any politician in the country drove that turnaround and then rode its wave into Gracie Mansion. As New York mayor, of course he has no control over foreign policy. He will be judged on whether he can get the city’s minimum wage raised, make city buses free, freeze rents and open city-owned grocery shops.
His success hinges on overcoming obstacles with little compromise. “What is their strategy going to be now?” asked Hamm. “The Mike Bloombergs, the Bill Ackmans, Rupert Murdoch, all these billionaires who were doing everything they could to stop this, to stop democracy, basically to stop the people deciding who they want their leader to be in this city. What are they going to do now?
“Well, I guess they can try to jam things up in terms of tax revenue funding the programs that he’s talked about,” Hamm said. “So two of the main campaign agenda items do require tax revenue … free busses and … universal childcare. The third one, the rent freeze is pretty much revenue neutral. … But I guess they could try to make it seem like this guy made promises that he can’t deliver.”
Policies that need tax revenue depend significantly on the state legislature and Gov. Kathy Hocul. Hocul faces re-election next November. She cannot win without carrying New York City, where 39 percent of New York State voters reside.
That appears to explain why Hocul, despite being an Establishment Democrat, saw which way the wind was blowing in the city and endorsed Mamdani while other powerful New York politicians like U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would not.
Like F.D.R, Mamdani appeared to welcome their hatred.
Commenting on the coincidence of Cheney’s death and Mamdani’s election, the Middle East Research and Information Project wrote:
“That his death comes on the eve of Mamdani’s presumed victory serves as a reminder of how far the forces of resistance that first gathered in opposition to George W. Bush and Cheney’s wars have come, and how far we have to go. Mamdani’s campaign has shown that a politics of justice and accountability in the face of creeping authoritarianism at home and genocide abroad can win.”
Now the hard part is about to begin. Mamdani takes the oath of office at City Hall on New Year’s Day at noon.
Editor’s Note:At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.
Joe Lauria
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe
