Emancipation movements around the world rejoiced, and rightly so, at the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York. It is clear that the current populist right does not monopolize the ability to mobilize crowds and attract new or disillusioned voters. Democratic socialists can do it too.
But as Mamdani knows well, his victory will be met with attempts at economic and financial sabotage. The American political apparatus (the Republican or Democratic “deep state”) has a fundamental interest in its government failing. US President Donald Trump also called on New Yorkers to vote for Mamdani’s main challenger, the former Democratic governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo. With Mamdani in power, Trumpist populism and democratic orthodoxy will suddenly begin to speak the same language. They will do everything they can to make Mamdani look like a failure, which, in Trump’s case, could even mean another “emergency” declaration to justify sending in the National Guard.
So, for the left, it is not only time to act, but also to think about the broader context. The United States is moving from a two-party political system to one with orthodox Republicans, orthodox Democrats, far-right populists, and democratic socialists. We are starting to see the seeds of new coalitions being drawn across old party lines. Already in 2020, Joe Biden had hinted at the possibility of nominating a moderate Republican figure as vice president, while Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, had urged supporters of Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont and democratic socialist, to vote for Trump when Biden won the Democratic Party nomination.
The big difference is that Trump’s populism had no trouble gaining hegemony over the Republican apparatus (clear proof, if any were needed, that Trump’s concern for ordinary workers was a lie), but the division within the Democratic Party is ever deepening. Indeed, today the only real political battle in the United States is between the Democratic establishment and the Sanders wing. As journalist Emma Brockes said Caretaker: “The biggest danger for Mamdani is not Donald Trump, but the Democratic old guard.”
We are faced with two antagonisms (“contradictions”): one between Trump and the establishment liberal and another between the Sanders wing within the Democratic Party and the rest of the political forces. The trials to judge Trump politically impeachment During his first term there were desperate attempts by the powers that be to regain moral leadership and credibility; but it all ended up becoming a comical exercise in hypocrisy, as the deficiencies of the ruling class were also highlighted. Trump’s declared obscenity only highlighted what already existed.
Sanders supporters see this clearly. They know that there is no going back and that a radical reinvention of American political life is needed. Mamdani won because he did for the left what Trump did for the right. He expressed his radical position clearly, without worrying about losing the centrists.
But the four forces that currently exist in American politics are not on the same level. The two dying parties (the old orthodox Republicans and the Democrats) are trapped in inertia and lack a serious vision for the country. Instead, populist Trump supporters and democratic socialists represent real political movements. In this context, the only meaningful elections would be between Trump and a democratic socialist candidate.
Should democratic socialists therefore officially separate from the Democratic Party? I would advise them to adopt principled pragmatism: aim for the central goals on which their survival depends and then admit whatever seems promising in furthering them. This means embracing electoral democracy when it works, but also popular mobilization, or even more radical methods when circumstances require it.
To explain what I mean, let’s look at a recent example. In July, after his drastic break with Trump, Elon Musk announced the launch of a new party, America Party. Musk, who was not born in the United States and therefore cannot be a presidential candidate, has sought to outdo Trump by placing techno-feudalism over populism. But in the end the project was not successful.
By contrast, Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn’s new left-wing party in the UK is showing promise, with some polls showing around a third of young people and Labor voters are willing to switch their allegiance to it. However, uncertainty remains and, as befits a left-wing party, the two leaders immediately found themselves embroiled in a public dispute.
So a significant election in the UK would be between Nigel Farage’s far-right Reform UK movement and the new left, with an inert Labor party joining the eccentrically moribund Tories on the fringes. It is true that in such a direct clash one can safely predict that Farage would win, just as Boris Johnson beat Corbyn in 2019. But Corbyn managed to take control of Labor for a time, and the entire establishment trembled.
Ultimately, there are no principled answers when deciding the best strategy. Sometimes you have to try to capture a large dominant party; other times a division is necessary. I think Mamdani was right to stay in the Democratic Party for now, as this allowed him to mobilize the party’s popular base against the establishment. If he had tried to face the other three political forces alone, he would have lost.
After his victory, Mamdani must make a determined move to take control of the New York State Democratic Party. At the same time, he must network with democratic socialists in the rest of the country and (following Sanders’ advice) subtly appeal to low-income workers and farmers who voted for Trump and are disappointed in him. The future of the project that Mamdani embodies is to alienate voters disillusioned with Trump, not to conquer the inert center. Only a radical leftist can win over working-class Trumpists, an electorate whose distrust of the establishment is still fully justified.
