Unable to stop Zohran Mamdani’s momentum after he won New York’s mayoral Democratic primary last June––fueled by a message of populist policies and social justice, and unperturbed by nonstop bad faith attacks by pro-Israel bullies––centrist and liberal media has adopted a different, more subtle tone in their effort to “moderate” the Mayor-elect: using the trappings of pragmatism and technocracy to whittle down the redistributive policies and class-driven language that defined his campaign. Rather than govern as he campaigned, as a crusading outsider socialist standing for tenants, Gaza, and workers, they insist it’s time for Mamdani to Grow Up, put on his big boy pants, purge his circle of Democratic Socialists, and hire Serious People motivated by Serious Solutions.
This makes sense. After all, traditional media attacks on Mamdani fell universally flat for months on end. Nothing seemed to stick, in part due to the fact that Mamdani seems to genuinely be a choir boy whose greatest transgressions are saying objectively true, but critical, statements about Israel and referring to his parent’s cousin at his “Auntie”––two things, it turns out, 90% of the world does. So a new tactic has emerged, one of attempted co-option, supposedly good faith advice, phone calls from powerful and famous Democratic luminaries, backroom meetings with “business leaders,” and the parallel implied threats of pushback if he doesn’t go along with The Way Things Are. This piece isn’t meant to be a commentary on whether this approach has been, or will be, successful (the jury is very much out on that). But it is worth documenting the way this particular mode of ideological disciplining works, and how it manifests in our media.
Those engaging in this process of moderation would not, of course, put it in these sinister terms. They would say they were simply seeking to guide a young, naive political novice through the myriad headwinds of “the second hardest job in America.” And in some cases this may be true. But for an elite media apparatus that, itself, can create these headwinds whenever it wishes, this posture serves as both warning and threat. It’s the process of establishing acceptable ideological boundaries––the crossing of which, everyone understands, will result in negative coverage and editorial scolding.
Now, the obligatory “to be sure” paragraph: I am not saying that there aren’t genuine limitations to what mayors can accomplish and real technocratic hurdles. Mayors cannot deficit spend; they require party and state support to achieve much of anything; the police manage their security and thus loom tremendous, undemocratic power over them. New York City has over 300,000 employees, all with discrete and oftentimes conflicting interests. But these complexities are very often used as cover for the nontechnocratic, ideological work of pushing politicians into taking more capital-friendly positions and priorities. This article will be a discussion of that process: of the bad faith nuance-trolling and how the narrowing of the horizon of the possible, before the ink even dries on the ballots, is less about good-faith concerns over limitations and logistics and very much about trying to turn Mamdani into Pete Buttigieg 2.0.
Complexities are very often used as cover for the nontechnocratic, ideological work of pushing politicians into taking more capital-friendly positions and priorities.
First and most prominently was the New York Times’ post-election editorial. The Times editorial board, which infamously published a cowardly anti-endorsement of Mamdani before the June Democratic primary (after saying they would not run endorsements anymore less than a year earlier), now takes on the tone of a principal calling Mamdani into their office for a stern talking-to. They’re not mad, they’re not going to attack him, they’re just disappointed and Deeply Concerned.
The Times board sets the tone early, leading off with the patronizing and false premise that Mamdani ran a “social-media-driven campaign.” The Mamdani campaign, it’s worth noting, knocked on an unprecedented 3 million doors, 1 million more than the 2 million actual votes cast, fueled by a DSA volunteer core that the Times later, of course, recommends Mamdani throw under the bus. This is followed by framing their advice as Mamdani lowering his progressive expectations. “For Mr. Mamdani to be effective, he will need to grapple with the recent history of big-city civic leaders promising bold, progressive change. They have mostly delivered disappointment, including in Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Ore., as well as in New York City itself under Bill de Blasio,” they begin. It doesn’t matter that several of the relevant mayors listed are not progressive in any meaningful sense and all of them, save perhaps Johnson in Chicago, have adopted every Tough on Crime policy the Times goes on to recommend. It’s a vibe, not an intellectually honest assessment on the limits of left-wing politics. Those cities are left-coded, and that’s all that matters.
From there, the Times lists six ways Mamdani “can improve life in New York by marrying his admirable ambition to pragmatism and compromise.” The Times advises he abandon his pledge for free buses, saying this plan “would leave the system without the revenue it needs to pay for speed improvements,” and that “free buses could also reduce the sense of security for riders, turning buses into homeless shelters.” Somewhat bizarrely, they ignore Mamdani’s other major campaign pledge, freezing rent for rent stabilized units, then praise his willingness to incentivize more private development by undoing supposedly burdensome fire regulations. The editorial then runs down a list of campaign promises he must abandon or “compromise” on: free childcare (“He is unlikely to achieve this goal in full, given its costs and the lack of an obvious revenue source.”) and alternatives to policing (which they insist should only be done “when feasible,” whatever that means). And they push Mamdani to make nice with Big Business (both Mamdani and business leaders “should recognize that they have a common interest in the city’s well-being and in preserving its status as a hub of business and finance”). The Times then finishes with the obligatory ideological tsk tsk-ing over DSA, anti-police politics and, of course, Israel:
But the reasons that many New Yorkers are skeptical of him also deserve to be taken seriously. He had almost no management experience before his campaign, and extreme rhetoric was his normal mode of communication until recently. He called the New York Police Department “a major threat to public safety.” He initially refused to condemn Hamas after its Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in Israel. To this day, he proudly identifies with the Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform supports open borders, voting access for noncitizens and a weaker U.S. military.
He can win at least some of his skeptics over by getting results as mayor. He should start by building a leadership team light on democratic socialists and heavy on officials with records of accomplishment and proven management skills.
In short: aim for small wins that do not offend capital, make peace with Big Business, purge your ranks of anyone with progressive or socialist ideological commitments, be nice to the police and its powerful union, and continue to engage in conspicuous gestures of moderation on Israel like “condemning Hamas” (with no parallel demand he, or anyone, “condemn” the entity that has killed 20,000 children and committed genocide). Put another way: shed everything that made your campaign interesting and exciting and instead just be a slightly more liberal version of Eric Adams.
Put another way: shed everything that made your campaign interesting and exciting and instead just be a slightly more liberal version of Eric Adams.
The Washington Post editorial board would scold Mamdani along similar lines, albeit more openly ideological––a result of their Bezos-driven, overt turn to the right. After lamenting Mamdani’s radical politics and what they say about The State of Things, the Post writes that “the best outcome would be for Mamdani to take a cautiously incremental approach and try pilot programs for his most radical ideas instead of immediately imposing them on the entire city. It seems that there are enough voters to put him in power — but if New Yorkers begin to flee in droves, it could force him to moderate.” This is a popular line from oligarchs and their media organs but you don’t usually see it spelled out like this––an explicit threat of a capital strike in a paper owned by the world’s second-richest person. But this is certainly what’s going on: moderate or New York’s wealthy will use their tremendous leverage to make governing more that much more difficult.
This isn’t to say slimy and racist attacks from other liberal quarters are not still ongoing. ADL chief and MSNBC mainstay Jonathan Greenblatt announced a “Mamdani monitor” Wednesday that’s basically a Canary Mission for just the Mamdani administration (and no other mayor, congressperson, or elected, much less the current White House, which is drowning in antisemites). This “monitor,” which will surveil and attempt to dig up dirt on any Mamdani hires, has been widely condemned by everyone from former Human Rights Watch Director Ken Roth to Patrick Gaspard of the Center for American Progress as selective and racially motivated. It’s yet another disciplinary mechanism designed to keep Mamdani in line, albeit more stick than carrot.
ADL chief and MSNBC mainstay Jonathan Greenblatt announced a “Mamdani monitor” Wednesday that’s basically a Canary Mission for just the Mamdani administration (and no other mayor, congressperson, or elected, much less the current White House, which is drowning in antisemites).
Politico, a reliable conduit of elite opinion, painted a picture of a “divided” city and a “narrow victory” that would force Mamdani to moderate his policies and message. Reporter Joe Anuta leans heavily into editorializing, writing that Mamdani’s “victory over moderate Democrat Andrew Cuomo was fueled by record turnout and deep enthusiasm among progressives. But it also exposed raw divides over religion, ideology and identity that will define his first days in office.” It’s unclear what elections don’t expose similar divisions but one is meant to takeaway the vague impression that it’s incumbent upon Mamdani to win over the people who loathe him, regardless of how valid or invalid their reasons––a requirement, of course, never imposed on moderate politicians when they win elected office. What follows is a series of vague threats from the extremely wealthy and their lobbyists, unsubstantiated claims of antisemitism, and rambling sour grapes.
“As he faces the dual challenge of reassuring his critics and proving that his movement can run the nation’s largest city. The degree of antipathy toward his fledgling administration complicates that dual pursuit. In practical terms, repairing relations with blocs of the city wary of his leadership will require the devotion of significant political capital — energy that could otherwise go toward delivering on his main policy planks.” Translation: moderate on taxing the rich and Israel or we’ll make governing that much more difficult.
CNN’s Van Jones, who works with a mentor program funded by pro-Israel donors and used “dead Gaza baby” as punchline on Bill Maher three weeks ago, expressed a simular attitude towards Mamdani after his victory speech Tuesday night, which he apparently believed contained too much DSA red meat:
“Is he going to be more of a class warrior even in office? I think he missed a chance tonight to open up and bring more people into the tent,” a Very Concerned Jones laments. “I think his tone was sharp. I think he was using the microphone in a way that he was almost yelling. And that’s not the Mamdani that we’ve seen on Tiktok and the great interviews and stuff like that.”
The message here is fairly consistent across high-status pundits, lobbyists-populated articles, and editorials: you won. We can’t stop you from winning (unfortunately humans still get to cast one vote each). But think very carefully about your rhetoric, the targets of your criticism, and what your priorities are. Here are the boundary lines. If you cross them, things will be made more difficult—by the rich, by pro-Israel pressure groups, by other Democrats, by us in the media. Play ball, and you can coast with modest, incremental improvements. Govern as the class warrior, govern as someone who leans into meaningfully redistributive policies, support for Palestine, and genuinely universalist policies like free transportation and childcare, and we will help fuel the very headwinds that we are now ostensibly warning you about.
This post was originally published on The Real News Network.