What the rise of Mamdani in New York means for America’s Democratic Party

At the same time, this otherwise small election—after all, it is merely a party primary in a single city—has provoked the expected tropes of cultural warfare and identity politics in the US, but at a national scale: xenophobia, Islamophobia and red-baiting in particular.

Let us focus on the corruption in the Democratic party, which for the last two decades has been trying to suppress popular (and democratic) aspirations by pushing candidates for US president who are aligned with the party establishment and its centrist positions; status quo candidates rather than insurgents, disruptors or originals.

It began with the first attempt to get Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket in 2008.

Despite the best efforts of the party establishment (controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton cronies), including well-documented ‘dirty tricks,’ an unknown upstart called Barack Obama, a first term Senator and African-American to boot, swept the party and later the nation with his charm and intelligence. Progressives everywhere marvelled at the magic of democracy.

Eight Obama years later, the party establishment again backed Hillary Clinton. Veteran Joe Biden, vice-president for eight patient years, was simply pushed aside. He did not even run. But there was a big problem in the form of another unknown upstart.

Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont not only talked like the socialist he was (scandalously in favour of genuine redistribution of income), but began drawing huge crowds and winning state primaries.

He was eventually put down (but not before winning 46% of the party’s delegates) by a combination of alleged favouritism by the Democratic National Committee and an orchestrated media bias.

Sanders’ views were supposedly too ‘extreme’ for mainstream America, which allegedly made him ‘unelectable.’

As the world knows, the 2016 election was won by Donald Trump, who was considered a joke and utterly ‘unelectable’ by the same people who had argued that Sanders couldn’t win. As far as I can tell, this time there was no jubilation among progressives over the magic of democracy.

The Democratic fiasco of the 2024 election developed slowly and inexorably, like A Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Joe Biden, who had “’honourably’ stepped aside for Hillary Clinton in 2016, now refused to step aside, despite being visibly unfit, both physically and mentally. His inner circle and party elders protected him till they no longer could.

His vice-president, Kamala Harris was anointed without a primary, without hearing from ordinary party members. Harris, who had four years earlier failed miserably in her attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for president, failed at the hustings, as many of us watching expected she would.

What is the meaning of Mamdani for this party of the status quo run by a highly educated liberal elite, beholden to Wall Street and out of touch with the working class, whose preferred candidate for New York City’s mayor was Andrew Cuomo, someone accused of serial sexual abuse, and whose incumbent mayor Eric Adams is currently charged with bribery and fraud?

Danger. And the party’s immediate reaction was alarm. Mamdani’s own state’s two Democratic Senators refused to endorse him. Major party donors and politicians (including Cuomo and Adams, who plan to run as independents) seem to be ganging up to beat him.

Why this reaction? Let us count the reasons. Mamdani is 33 years old (‘too young’). He is Muslim and so also his wife and father (‘wrong religion’). He is of Indian origin, but Ugandan by birth and became an American citizen only in 2018 (‘no neat identity box to check’).

He is vociferously pro-Palestinian (therefore ‘anti-semitic’). He is a socialist (like Bernie Sanders), a critic of capitalism and in favour of state action to redistribute welfare in favour of the working class (‘wrong ideology’). For an ageing party, most of whose elected representatives sit in safe districts, Mamdani is an existential threat.

Mamdani is seen by many as toxic to the Democratic brand. His ideas may fly in New York City (because he is a smart campaigner), they say, but will never play in Peoria.

They also say that his ideology (socialism) is anathema to Americans and, more importantly, Wall Street. Everyone seems to agree that his social identity (Muslim immigrant) is a double whammy.

Mamdani does have some unrealistic ideas such as freezing rents in the city and selling affordable food through state-owned grocery stores. These Soviet style policies are so outdated that it is hard to find any city or country that practises them.

‘Defunding’ the police—whatever that may mean—is also a non-starter in any society. The same goes for ‘globalizing the Intifada’.

For these reasons, Mamdani’s success has been received with undisguised glee by Republicans. Could there be an easier way to caricature their rival party? Republican National Committee chair Michael Whatley said that Mamdani “is the face of the new Democratic Party.”

Trump first said that Mamdani was in the US “illegally” and later labelled him a “communist.” These are the usual attacks on leftist ideology and minority identity.

The question for Democrats should not be about what Republicans think of Mamdani, nor whether his politics will play outside New York City. It should be about introspection, grassroots democracy and how to make fresh new faces emerge and voices be heard (without throttling them).

This used to be a party of the working class. Can it be one again? Can they learn from Mamdani instead of being afraid of him?

The author is a professor of geography, environment and urban studies and director of global studies at Temple University.