ZOHRAN Mamdani recently won the Democratic primary race for Mayor of New York, making him likely to be the next leader of America’s largest city.
Three interesting issues surround this upset – issues which have wider implications for politics in America as a whole: the role of money in the election, Mamdani’s position on the progressive left of the mainstream establishment of the Democratic party, and how the Israel-Palestine issue was a factor in the elections.
In terms of independent expenditure, defined by Wikipedia as campaign communication that is not made in cooperation or consultation a candidate, Mamdani received about US$1mil (RM4.2mil). Cuomo on the other hand, received about US$16mil.
This vast difference called to mind the difference in money raised in the last US presidential elections by Kamala Harris and Donald Trump: US$2.9bil for Harris, versus only US$1.8bil for Trump.
These two instances point to a clearly emerging truth: money alone cannot guarantee the result of an election.
This is counterintuitive on more than one level. We have an image of billionaires working to buy elections and politicians for their own advantage, and the election of Trump most certainly appears to have benefited these billionaires – especially in terms of recent tax cuts that seem made just for them.
That said, the influence of money does not seem to be a cut and dry matter where the campaign with more money automatically wins.
One takeaway from this is that future campaigns should pay attention to just how far the right messaging can go, when told effectively.
Mamdani’s campaign featured a laser focus on the issue of affordability in New York City that obviously resonated very well with the electorate.
His campaign also employed simple but effective social media strategies – strategies that can be executed at more affordable (but usually not zero) cost, if you engage the right people.
In an era where it’s easy to think that throwing money into a campaign can put anyone across the finish line, it’s refreshing to be reminded that the candidate, their message, and their campaign strategy can still prevail over much better funded candidates.
When it comes to Mamdani’s messaging, positioning, and policies, it is clear that Mamdani is more aligned with the likes of Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (popularly known as AOC) and their further left, progressive, some might say “socialist” or “radical” leanings.
These terms are sometimes used in relation to what are considered more old guard, centrist, establishment Democrats like Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and the like.
Some view the latter as barely distinguishable from other establishment politicians on the other side of the aisle – serving larger corporate interests and special interest lobbies, and being out of touch with every day citizens.
Arguably, this is how Republican voters also saw the mainstream, centrist Republicans of yore. Disaffection with this group led people first to the Tea Party Movement, and then even further right into the arms of Trump.
The sentiment seemed to be that “politics as usual” was just about the worst thing possible, and had long, long ago stopped serving the interests of normal Americans.
Anger, resentment, and hatred against the established political class seems to have led many Americans to vote for whoever was “not like the rest”.
For those who leaned to the right, that became Trump. For those on the left, it meant people like Sanders, AOC, and now, Mamdani.
Historian Jon Meacham recently said in an interview on the Daily Show that when a pendulum swings far to one end, it does not then stop in the centre, but swings further to the other side.
Using this analogy, he speculated that a President Trump could pave the way in the future for a President AOC.
Nobody knows whether such a thing would happen, but Mamdani’s election may be the latest sign that people respond well to mavericks who display a clear willingness to break decisively away from an establishment perceived to be stuck in the mud.
Another interesting factor in Mamdani’s victory was his support for the Palestinian cause.
The influence of the Zionist lobby in American politics is nearly a thing of legend. This lobby is represented most visibly in the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (Aipac).
Aipac has been known to campaign vigorously, with millions upon millions of dollars, to bring down any candidate (whether Democrat or Republican) who refuses to support Israel vigorously.
In recent decades, they have been extremely successful.
In the primary that Mamdani won, one memorable debate had the moderator ask the candidates a tellingly odd little question: If you become Mayor, which is the first foreign country you would visit?
Every single one of the other candidates, including Cuomo, answered this question that was clearly planted as some sort of Aipac litmus test, loudly and without hesitation: “Israel” – just like anyone who felt they lived and died on Aipac’s support.
Mamdani, however, said that he would stay right here in NYC, and that if he wanted to meet his Jewish constituents, he would happily do so in the synagogues and Jewish community centres right there in New York.
The influence of Aipac is glaringly visible in debates like these. Politicians from either side of the aisle are always extremely guarded at best, when asked about anything to do with Israel or Palestine – always fearful of offending Aipac and its well-funded war machine.
Mamdani expressed no such fear. He decided he would choose to be on the side of morality and history, instead of bow to Aipac.
Politicians in the past have often been fearful of doing so, fearing it would lead to political suicide. Mamdani however stood up for what he believed in, and it would appear that voters responded – and by considerable margins. Other politicians should stand up and take note.
The momentum in global support for the Palestinian cause is reaching unprecedented heights, and public opinion has shifted strongly in our social media world where the evidence is always there to see, clear as day – even as governments all around the world lag behind painfully slowly.
Mamdani’s bravery may be a turning point in that trend, and it comes not a moment too soon.
As a brief aside, many Malaysians rejoiced at seeing a Muslim American do so well in American politics, and they are right to do so.
In the same breath however, it may be useful to remember that the victory of a candidate from a minority background is something that should be celebrated, no matter what country they are in.
Given all the troubles and challenges America is facing, having one decent man win a mayoral race will not be enough to turn the tide. But there is a chance, however small, that this victory may be the optimistic beginning of a journey of hope in the United States.
Nathaniel Tan is a strategic communications consultant who can be reached at nat@engage.my. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Get 20% OFF The Star Digital Access
Cancel anytime. Ad-free. Unlimited access with perks.
