I have both Mamdani fans and people who share your critique in my friend group. I feel like this article makes the critique legible to the fans! No small feat.
One thing we all need to bear in mind: Regardless of the face that we call leadership, they are merely puppets for a root system that runs much deeper. It does not matter who the leaders are - black, white, charismatic, handsome, beautiful, ugly, well spoken, brute. They are puppets on strings. They will deliver what needs to be delivered. Quietly like Obama. Charismatically like Mamdani. Or brutally like Trump. At the end of the day, they are delivering one thing: Colonialism in the guise of democracy and rights.
A system that presents itself as democracy and rights, while delivering the same thing: War. Extraction. Displacement. The killing of civilians. The erasure of entire populations.
The Democratic party is a far-right, neoliberal, imperialist, colonial, genocidal Zionist party and one of the two most evil political organizations in the world along with the Republicans. There is no such thing as a decent Democrat or Republican. Saying you want to change the Democratic party from the inside or push the party left is like saying you want to improve Israel from the inside. If you are a Democratic politician, you are an enemy of mankind.
The verdict remains to be seen on Mamdani. We certainly can judge Obama on the ways he let us down; he did not carry through on what he campaigned on. He campaigned as a progressive and governed as a hardcore neoliberal making sure to protect the interests of capital.
He didn't campaign as a progressive. We projected that onto him. Remember when he threw Reverend Wright under the bus? He was always a moderate. We just ignored the signs and believed the right-wing propaganda.
Charismatic legitimacy, in Weber;s conceptualization is often viewed as a unique form governmental legitimacy separate from the other forms: monarchical legitimacy and rational-legal legitimacy. We live in a rational-legal government structure like all formal western democracies. Both Obama and Momdani, regardless of the initial intentions, choose to play the game with the democratic structure. It's only logical to expect them to acquiesce to party norms. The two part system limits outcomes from beginning even if you are "progressive" candidate, that's why people like Bernie to have caucus with the Dems. Politicians all have personal ambitions and those goals cannot be realized without cooperation with the Dems. I am not saying this as a criticism of you, I just don't think a lot of well meaning critics grasp the realistic challenges of fighting the status quo within the boundaries of systemic politics.
As someone who voted for and generally holds a positive view of former President Obama, this was a searching read, forcing the acknowledgement of his function as an agent of empire. It also raised a constantly resurfacing age old question: is it possible to be a change agent within a system that demands compliance and conformity to achieve an of your goals? Great piece.
Excellent read. Most impactful sentence: 'This is what charisma does: it doesn’t erase the record but instead it reorganizes how we are allowed to feel about the person in question.'
i think above endorsing Jefferies over Osse i think what could be more disastrous is how soon he endorsed Hochul over Delgado. I'm sure, I hope, there were concessions but if after the budget gets passed in Albany and if it only includes the murky second home tax, The City had good reporting on this, then it will be an utter failure to meet his promises of an affordable NYC.
oh definitely he's my rep it's disgusting and not representative of the area. i blame the DSA folks more for cutting Osse short though and voting to not endorse. i think they, rightfully in this instance, were pissed of he had left because he wanted to distance himself from an anti-genocide anti-zionist org but still i think he would've been better than Jefferies and wayy less of a zionist. though to your essays point I think you can see the holes in the logic of supporting Chi. it's more annoying to hear like "supporting Osse would've sent socialism back ten years" from neighbours it's like gtfo.
It’s not only unrepresentative of the area, Jeffries claims to “represent” a historically radical group of Black working-class neighborhoods in BK- Bedstuy, Brownsville, East NY, Canarsie, etc. But you’ll never see him serving those communities in a million years
the article has two quotes from NYT - isn’t that the paper that printed hyperbolic stories from oct 7 that turned out to be proven false? And didn’t the paper refuse to retract them for over 6-7 months while public opinion was bought?
the bottom line, what would make Mamdani a success to this writer? That he be a reformer who refused to accept office after elected?
Im curious about the answer to those last two questions as well.
I've got my own critiques of Mamdani, some of which the author lays out in their piece. (Keeping Tish on was an error, his lack of movement on the gang task force and his acceptance of the framing around that law about protest outside of places of worship come to mind.)
Other things seem to have been the right move. Yes he didn't endorse Chi Osse's primary challenge to Jeffries. However, he expended political capital to endorse a slate of candidates and all three won! Being Pro-Palestine was a big factor in several of those races.
I'm curious what Mamdani could do to win over folks with these sorts of criticisms about his radicalism who feel he's betraying his former activist/organizer self and parts of the movement who got him elected? Should those who win power exert maximum pressure from the get-go in hopes of moving the needle? Is that a realistic expectation of any of our movement leaders?
I believe we can and should continue to critique these folks who are elevated & that we can and should push them on issues/areas where they fall short. I just wonder where the balance lies, you know?
With all due respect, Obama was directly responsible for the deaths of innumerable innocent people. He was the president of the United States.
Mamdani is the mayor of New York City; nothing he does directly impacts the situation in Palestine. To cast the two as having similar roles within empire is completely disingenuous, an oversimplification, and quite frankly, a complete disanalogue.
Had he been a congressman or president whose actions directly impact the ongoing genocide, your argument would be warranted.
He was elected first and foremost because working people are miserable and squeezed more and more by the day (which you do touch upon, without connecting the dots).
Mamdani was not elected to stop the genocide. It is a shame that he has rhetorically backed off, but ultimately, to paint him as part of Empire?
He already got a pilot program in the books for childcare; he is expanding free Pre-K. At least the second home property tax is on the table. This wouldn’t have happened without him.
If you are so negative and feel like he is part of empire, what are you doing about it besides coming up with purely negative arguments without any genuine positive program going forward???!?!?!
Mind you, many of the negative acts Mamdani has partaken in, I am not condoning. But come on! He is not even remotely the same as Obama in the very real violence and bloodshed that was perpetrated.
No one exists in a vacuume. Not once did I believe that Mamdami was going to roll up his sleeves, shake off the wrinkles of America, and make it a new. I was born from the system, into the system, in order to destroy it. Strong article, but I dont see how any of this helps any of the causes that were also highlighted along "charismatic betrayal"
Re effin tweet: “And in that tension, Mamdani increasingly finds himself not as its representative, but as its mediator”
I have both Mamdani fans and people who share your critique in my friend group. I feel like this article makes the critique legible to the fans! No small feat.
One thing we all need to bear in mind: Regardless of the face that we call leadership, they are merely puppets for a root system that runs much deeper. It does not matter who the leaders are - black, white, charismatic, handsome, beautiful, ugly, well spoken, brute. They are puppets on strings. They will deliver what needs to be delivered. Quietly like Obama. Charismatically like Mamdani. Or brutally like Trump. At the end of the day, they are delivering one thing: Colonialism in the guise of democracy and rights.
A system that presents itself as democracy and rights, while delivering the same thing: War. Extraction. Displacement. The killing of civilians. The erasure of entire populations.
Different faces. Same system.
The Democratic party is a far-right, neoliberal, imperialist, colonial, genocidal Zionist party and one of the two most evil political organizations in the world along with the Republicans. There is no such thing as a decent Democrat or Republican. Saying you want to change the Democratic party from the inside or push the party left is like saying you want to improve Israel from the inside. If you are a Democratic politician, you are an enemy of mankind.
YOU, UNFORTUNATELY,ARE SO EMBEDDED IN YOUR FANTASY THAT ONLY EDUCATION CAN CURE.😵
The verdict remains to be seen on Mamdani. We certainly can judge Obama on the ways he let us down; he did not carry through on what he campaigned on. He campaigned as a progressive and governed as a hardcore neoliberal making sure to protect the interests of capital.
He didn't campaign as a progressive. We projected that onto him. Remember when he threw Reverend Wright under the bus? He was always a moderate. We just ignored the signs and believed the right-wing propaganda.
I would disagree.
Charismatic legitimacy, in Weber;s conceptualization is often viewed as a unique form governmental legitimacy separate from the other forms: monarchical legitimacy and rational-legal legitimacy. We live in a rational-legal government structure like all formal western democracies. Both Obama and Momdani, regardless of the initial intentions, choose to play the game with the democratic structure. It's only logical to expect them to acquiesce to party norms. The two part system limits outcomes from beginning even if you are "progressive" candidate, that's why people like Bernie to have caucus with the Dems. Politicians all have personal ambitions and those goals cannot be realized without cooperation with the Dems. I am not saying this as a criticism of you, I just don't think a lot of well meaning critics grasp the realistic challenges of fighting the status quo within the boundaries of systemic politics.
Impeccably written and clear sober precise analysis. So refreshing to read. Thank you.
As someone who voted for and generally holds a positive view of former President Obama, this was a searching read, forcing the acknowledgement of his function as an agent of empire. It also raised a constantly resurfacing age old question: is it possible to be a change agent within a system that demands compliance and conformity to achieve an of your goals? Great piece.
Excellent read. Most impactful sentence: 'This is what charisma does: it doesn’t erase the record but instead it reorganizes how we are allowed to feel about the person in question.'
People have lost friends over Trump. I lost many friends over John Kerry and Obama.
i think above endorsing Jefferies over Osse i think what could be more disastrous is how soon he endorsed Hochul over Delgado. I'm sure, I hope, there were concessions but if after the budget gets passed in Albany and if it only includes the murky second home tax, The City had good reporting on this, then it will be an utter failure to meet his promises of an affordable NYC.
I use Jeffries specifically because of what a symbol of anti-Palestinian, anti-Socialist politics he openly is.
oh definitely he's my rep it's disgusting and not representative of the area. i blame the DSA folks more for cutting Osse short though and voting to not endorse. i think they, rightfully in this instance, were pissed of he had left because he wanted to distance himself from an anti-genocide anti-zionist org but still i think he would've been better than Jefferies and wayy less of a zionist. though to your essays point I think you can see the holes in the logic of supporting Chi. it's more annoying to hear like "supporting Osse would've sent socialism back ten years" from neighbours it's like gtfo.
It’s not only unrepresentative of the area, Jeffries claims to “represent” a historically radical group of Black working-class neighborhoods in BK- Bedstuy, Brownsville, East NY, Canarsie, etc. But you’ll never see him serving those communities in a million years
yeah, it’s really a mixed bag, though isn’t it?
the article has two quotes from NYT - isn’t that the paper that printed hyperbolic stories from oct 7 that turned out to be proven false? And didn’t the paper refuse to retract them for over 6-7 months while public opinion was bought?
the bottom line, what would make Mamdani a success to this writer? That he be a reformer who refused to accept office after elected?
Im curious about the answer to those last two questions as well.
I've got my own critiques of Mamdani, some of which the author lays out in their piece. (Keeping Tish on was an error, his lack of movement on the gang task force and his acceptance of the framing around that law about protest outside of places of worship come to mind.)
Other things seem to have been the right move. Yes he didn't endorse Chi Osse's primary challenge to Jeffries. However, he expended political capital to endorse a slate of candidates and all three won! Being Pro-Palestine was a big factor in several of those races.
I'm curious what Mamdani could do to win over folks with these sorts of criticisms about his radicalism who feel he's betraying his former activist/organizer self and parts of the movement who got him elected? Should those who win power exert maximum pressure from the get-go in hopes of moving the needle? Is that a realistic expectation of any of our movement leaders?
I believe we can and should continue to critique these folks who are elevated & that we can and should push them on issues/areas where they fall short. I just wonder where the balance lies, you know?
Thank you for writing this Sana, it made me feel a little less insane.
Such a good analysis. “…scrutiny and accountability are collapsed into feelings”. Spot on.
With all due respect, Obama was directly responsible for the deaths of innumerable innocent people. He was the president of the United States.
Mamdani is the mayor of New York City; nothing he does directly impacts the situation in Palestine. To cast the two as having similar roles within empire is completely disingenuous, an oversimplification, and quite frankly, a complete disanalogue.
Had he been a congressman or president whose actions directly impact the ongoing genocide, your argument would be warranted.
He was elected first and foremost because working people are miserable and squeezed more and more by the day (which you do touch upon, without connecting the dots).
Mamdani was not elected to stop the genocide. It is a shame that he has rhetorically backed off, but ultimately, to paint him as part of Empire?
He already got a pilot program in the books for childcare; he is expanding free Pre-K. At least the second home property tax is on the table. This wouldn’t have happened without him.
If you are so negative and feel like he is part of empire, what are you doing about it besides coming up with purely negative arguments without any genuine positive program going forward???!?!?!
Mind you, many of the negative acts Mamdani has partaken in, I am not condoning. But come on! He is not even remotely the same as Obama in the very real violence and bloodshed that was perpetrated.
No one exists in a vacuume. Not once did I believe that Mamdami was going to roll up his sleeves, shake off the wrinkles of America, and make it a new. I was born from the system, into the system, in order to destroy it. Strong article, but I dont see how any of this helps any of the causes that were also highlighted along "charismatic betrayal"