In Search Of A Shared Theory Of Power

Whether you were excited by, skeptical of, or angry about Zohran Mamdani’s involvement in New York’s primaries surely turns on what his ends are, whether you support them, and how well or poorly you think he advanced his own objectives.

Everyone agrees it was a ruthless demonstration of political power. The candidates he endorsed swept their races, ousted multiple incumbents from office, and burnt some of the bridges he’d built to other powerful New York Democrats. His critics and allies are simply arguing over whether this was wise.

So the first question is, what was the point?

Mamdani’s trying to shift the balance of power in the Democratic Party (at both the federal and state level) to make it less solicitous of Israel— at least as it exists in its unenlightened state under Benjamin Netanyahu—and more intent on redistributing income downward. He wants to do this both directly—by replacing fairly progressive New York Democrats with Democrats further to their left—and through indirect force, demonstrating to other officeholders in the state and region (including the House’s top Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries) that if they don’t change their own politics, they might lose their jobs, too.

This much is pretty obvious. But you don’t have to intuit Mamdani’s motives. He has said as much. On Wednesday, he told the MSNOW host Chris Hayes that the races he’d taken sides in, “were about clarity. They were about conscience. They were about conviction.”

“New Yorkers,” he said, “want to see people who are willing to not just stand up to the federal administration, but also stand for a vision of working people at the heart of it.”

He said he’d used his political capital “to ensure that the people who will fight hardest for that same agenda are going to be there, whether it’s in Albany or whether it’s in DC,” and that the agenda should be “much closer to what we used to see from our party in the days of FDR than what we’ve seen in a time when our only vision seems to be a responsive one to Trump as opposed to one that goes beyond that.”

I admire the confidence and the conviction. Few Democrats are willing to show, rather than say, that they’re not kidding around. He’s here to play, and everyone is on notice. I also think his objectives are worthy, at least in the abstract. What’s an FDR-like agenda for the post-Trump 21st century? Basically all of the details are TBD, but Democrats will be better served by ambition than by timidity when Trump finally departs the scene.

But as to question three: I don’t think what he did reflects a carefully calibrated theory of power. It was both front-loaded, and inward looking: A bid to make as much change as possible to the factional balance of power within the party, given an opening. The biggest possible swing he could’ve taken. But that’s a bit like entering a chess tournament and bringing your queen into game one on move two.

It might work out okay in the long run, but you’re likelier to lose early. Political fortunes turn fast. Right now Mamdani has everyone’s attention. But six months from now he, and this gambit, might look more like a cautionary tale.

The most controversial Mamdani-backed nominee is Darializa Avila Chevalier, a DSA candidate who has had some…interesting things to say over the years. Not just familiar-but-maximalist progressive views on borders or policing or Israel that stem from some raw conception of justice. Things like “Fuck Kamala Harris,” Joe Biden is a “rapist,” and COVID-19 had origins in France, not China.

Mamdani also had interesting things to say before he became a household name—none this inflammatory, but many of which he walked back for pragmatic purposes on his way to becoming mayor. Perhaps Chevalier will demonstrate similar pragmatism. Perhaps she now sees that posting every stray thought isn’t a good way to husband power. That’s what she tried to convey to MSNOW’s Ali Velshi. But it’s striking, and surely not a coincidence, that Bernie Sanders did not join Mamdani in this endorsement. Sanders endorsed Brad Lander; he endorsed Claire Valdez. But he seems to recognize that live-wire DSA shitposters aren’t worth the risk. That it’s not necessarily wise to flip every possible seat from deep blue to green. That some of his factional allies could do more damage to the Democratic Party and the cause of building left-wing power within the Democratic Party than simply leaving well enough alone.