Good Government Backsliding

One of Zohran Mamdani's signature policy initiatives just launched -- a tax on pied-à-terres. The tax would apply to second homes (i.e., those not occupied as a primary residence) worth over $1 million.

I won't claim to be a housing (or tax) policy expert, but this seems perfectly reasonable to me. Admittedly, given the cost of NYC real estate a one million dollar home maybe isn't as opulent as one might imagine elsewhere.  But a one million dollar second home undoubtedly qualifies as a luxury, and it is no foul to ask people who live in luxury to pay a little extra to support the rest of society.

So far, so good. Unfortunately, the rollout of the tax has apparently been beset with problems. The city released a list of 960,000 properties it thought "could" be subjected to the tax, far in excess of the 10,000 units predicted to actually qualify for the assessment. Reportedly, even though the tax is explicitly targeted at second homes, quite a few homeowners received letters telling them they were on the hook for their primary residence. And a relatively quick deadline set for challenging the assessment (near the end of August) has been paired with a malfunctioning mechanism for actually filing the challenge, causing panic amongst a significant quotient of homeowners who were not intended to and should not be covered by the tax:

Ohlerking’s notice said he could apply for an exemption to the tax by submitting proof online that the home was his primary residence. 

But, when Ohlerking, who is blind, logged on to the prescribed website with the help of his friend Jennifer Stadnik, they were met with a nonfunctioning blank white screen.  

So, the pair printed out a cache of documents to take to the Department of Finance’s Brooklyn office—only to be told by employees that the office couldn’t accept Ohlerking’s proof of residency at that time because they were busy setting up a designated intake center for people claiming they wrongfully received pied-à-terre tax notices, Stadnik said.

On Friday, Stadnik said the office called Ohlerking to tell him it would be able to help him on Monday morning.

I'll pause here to say two things. One is that part of good government is good execution, no matter what it is you're doing. Whatever one might think about the policy, the execution seems to have been a screw-up here, and for that the Mamdani administration deserves to take a few lumps. The other is that mistakes happen. No administration ever does everything perfectly. Taking a few lumps is one thing, but stories like this don't on their own justify some sweeping indictment that the Mamdani administration is essentially or uniquely incompetent.

And in an ideal world, that's all that would need to be said. But on BlueSky, I've seen an alarming number of posts not just excusing the rollout mishaps, but taking a tone of sadistic glee that people are being subjected to these mistakes (and an apparently Kafka-esque process for challenging said mistakes). "Oh yes, what a colossal mess, asking wealthy property owners to prove they live in those properties," sneered one journalist. An article in the Free Press titled "Why Mamdani Is Asking My Mom to Pay His Pied-à-Terre Tax" was met with a snarky "I'm guessing he's asking her because she owns a pied-a-terre" -- but the point of the article is that no, she doesn't, this is her primary residence (the author in question is Alex Berenson, and I deeply resent having to say anything remotely defensive on his behalf).

At the risk of being cringe liberal, it is never good to revel in another's suffering for its own sake. If Mamdani's tax is good, it's because it raises revenue from those who can most afford to pay to fund projects necessary for the good of the city as a whole. It's not good because it aggravates people who own lavish second homes in New York that they don't live in. It's certainly not good because it aggravates people who are mistakenly asserted to be owners of lavish second homes in New York that they don't live in. At that point, one is saying that it is good to immiserate the innocent in the service of attempting to immiserate the enemy class. This is not a healthy attitude. Once that sort of atavistic sadism is allowed to let slip, it always leads to dark places.

A few days ago, I said that "Half of Mamdani’s genius is convincing ordinary people that progressive ideas will materially benefit their lives and aren’t scary communism, and the other half is convincing terminally online leftists that basic good government is progressive and isn’t neoliberal shilling for evil corporations." I stand by that, and I don't think this blip falsifies the broader point that for the most part Mamdani genuinely has tried to focus on basic good government and that doing so is part of being a progressive, not a betrayal of it.

But it's pretty clear that many of his supporters, at least, have not quite internalized the lesson yet.

Say That I Do, Not That I Say

The other day, I put up a skeet complaining about the faction of progressive commentators who were mad at Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear for not just declaring Mitch McConnell dead and calling a special election to replace him. Their complaints generally took on the theme of aggrievement at Democrats who don't "fight" and a concurrent demand that Beshear "do something" rather than just sit around and vegetate while another Republican lie goes unchallenged. Why don't Democrats ever play hardball?

The problem with this hue and cry, I pointed out, is that it completely misreads what the "hardball" play is. As long as Mitch McConnell is missing, he can't cast votes -- functionally losing the GOP one sorely needed seat. If he dies (or we just decide he's dead), and Beshear calls a special election to replace him, that special election will be won by a Republican who can cast votes, giving the Senate GOP its seat back. Calling a special election helps Republicans. Keeping McConnell's seat in purgatory indefinitely helps Democrats. The hardball move isn't for Beshear to just unilaterally declare Mitch McConnell dead; the hardball move is for Beshear to say he'll do nothing until he sees a long form death certificate and then disconnect his phone.

Nonetheless, the amount of traction the "do something" calls against Beshear has gotten is worrisome. For starters, we shouldn't look past the fact that it is at best conspiracy theory adjacent (it is extremely unlikely that McConnell is secretly dead and that fact is being hidden by nefarious GOP operative -- if for no other reason than, again, his death would be good for the GOP as against the alternative of him lingering but incapable of casting votes). But beyond that, it is the apex of a certain type of brainrot which is so mad at supposedly sclerotic Democratic leadership that it fetishizes the appearance of "doing something" above all else. This is itself a gateway to fascism -- a feature of which Umberto Eco identified 30 years ago as including the cult of action for action’s sake. (“Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”) -- but even if it wasn't, it's just stupidity wrapped in an angry self-righteous shell. It's a large part of what gave us Graham Platner, and what made Platner immune to so many normally career-ended scandals until he finally wasn't -- all could be forgiven because "at least he's a fighter."

This is the problem. Too much of our political energy is being channeled exclusively through the lens of "doing something", where that marks out the sole criteria for goodness or badness, in a way that leads to counterproductive or just bizarre contortions. To give a different example, earlier today Nexus issued a statement defending New York City major Zohran Mamdani from allegations of antisemitism leveled by ADL chieftain Jonathan Greenblatt. Someone on BlueSky, while purporting to "applaud" Nexus for calling Greenblatt out, found the statement to be woefully insufficient. The "absence of action is deafening," he wrote. Nexus' "commitment to fight antisemitism rests on what you do, not just what you say/post."

So what is it that Nexus should have "done", as opposed to just "said"? They should have issued a "call for [Greenblatt's] removal from leadership."

Now, maybe that's a good thing for them to do, maybe not. But I could not help but point out that "calling" for Greenblatt's removal is ... a call. It is words. Again, that doesn't make it pointless -- Nexus doesn't sit on the ADL's board, so they can't actually "do" anything. The point is, though, that if there is a divide between "what you say" and "what you do", this falls pretty decisively on the "say" side of the line. And I flag this here because it seems pretty clear that this was an example of someone for whom "doing" is inherently good and "saying" is inherently inadequate, and so they just instinctively decided that their own preferred tactical intervention had to be a "do" even though it was exactly as much of a "say" as the statement whose inaction was so deafening.

To be clear, I'm not urging a return to cautious moderation. Much the opposite, I think Democrats need to be bold, and when they take back power, they need to exercise it. Recall my wishlist for the first week of the next Democratic administration:

By the end of the first week, I'd want to a complete pro-democracy package (including DC statehood) on the president's desk. I want to see prominent Republicans and ICE leaders who've committed crimes frog-marched in handcuffs. I want the corporate executives who approved "settlements" for Trump's frivolous lawsuits indicted for bribery. I want to see public resources and opportunities expressly redirected away from companies and firms who caved to Trump, and towards those who showed backbone, to show that there are penalties to being a quisling. I want the DOJ to announce an anti-corruption task force geared at identifying all the money stolen from the American taxpayer by the Trump family and clawing back as much of it as possible, and I want them to name and shame the Supreme Court as among the primary obstacles to providing accountability for their crimes. I want to uncover the corrupt insiders who bet on the lives of American servicemembers and have their identities blasted across every newspaper in America in advance of their trials. Do it all, do it fast, weather the storm, then consolidate your position.

These are, I hope one would agree, pretty "fight-y" in character. And importantly, I'd defend all of them on the merits of being good policy, not just as short-term political expediency but in terms of long-term political health. Critically, they are not good just because they give a powerful aura of fighting and acting. And by the same token, while many of these good things can be announced quickly, a lot of them to be fully operationalized do require a lot of the "boring" work of planning and organizing and thinking and researching in order to actually accomplish what they set out to do. Doing that sort of thing isn't backsliding, it's part of making action work.

It is absolutely true that a political movement, to be worthwhile, has to do some things. We're not a philosophy club; the point is to translate some ideals into practice. But the thirst for action needs to be tempered -- it cannot be its own justification. When we let ourselves indulge action for actions sake (again, even leaving aside the pipeline to fascism risk), we will continually bash our heads into easily avoidable walls and be mad at those not running full speed along side us. That's what we're seeing with the attacks on Beshear, that's what we saw for too long from those demanding everyone hop aboard the Platner train, and that will ultimately rip the party and the movement to shreds.

The New Politics of Jewish Invisibility

New York City has put out a map of its "immigrant neighborhoods", and some people are complaining that Jewish neighborhoods aren't represented. These complaints, in turn, are generating a counternarrative expressing the irony of insisting on the foreignness of Jews when the Jews in these neighborhoods are, overwhelmingly, not immigrants.

I'm going to try to fall in the middle on this. First, let's highlight the words of one activist quoted in the article, Isaac Choua, a board member of the Sephardic Jewish Brotherhood of America who specifically flagged a "major Sephardi corridor" in south Brooklyn that was not found on the map:

"This is not a small omission," he went on. "It is one of New York’s most distinctive immigrant-descended Jewish communities, and it gets erased from the story. Weirdly enough, Zohran Mamdani’s office wanted to speak with me about this very issue and has not followed up since the election."

The emphasis is mine, and of course it is a telling descriptor: immigrant-descended. An odd phrase, that, since it raises the question of which neighborhoods in NYC have residents who are not predominantly descended from immigrants (I don't think there's currently a "Little Lenape" in New York). Assuming that the map covers neighborhoods that have large quotients of immigrants (and the article does quote a city official as saying the map is meant to cover neighborhoods with "substantial foreign-born populations"), and assuming further that the Jews in most of the predominantly Jewish neighborhoods are not generally "foreign-born", that could be the end of that.

In terms of this being a scandal, I do think that basically suffices as an explanation (again, assuming the premises are true, which I can't verify). But I also think that lurking behind this is a more legitimate concern that's worth excavating. As in many things, Legitimate Concern + Mamdani Derangement Syndrome = Unnecessary Hysteria, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't figure out what the legitimate concern is.

What's being pushed against here is a sense that Jewish distinctiveness is being erased -- that when we talk about diversity and difference in American politics, Jewishness is elided as a relevant contributor. Obviously, this was a theme of my White Jews article as well as "The Baggage of Whiteness", and it's one reason I think the counter-claim that the protesters here are themselves being antisemitic by presenting Jews as "foreign" is too cute by half. The critique presumes that being associated with "immigrant" is inherently endangering to the targeted community. In certain contexts that might be true, but this map hardly seems one of them. "Immigrant" is a focus of celebration for this map, not a vector of threat. We can imagine a critic lambasting this map as providing a target list for ICE, but that critic is a product of our imagination -- the actual communities listed seem to find security in recognition, which should make it legible why another community, not included, might feel vulnerable for the omission. It is not the case now (if it ever was) that highlighting a minority group's distinctiveness (or even "foreign" roots) is necessarily a harbinger of discrimination, and there's no reason why Jews must be different in this respect.

So while at first blush this debate (in the Jewish case) may seem to be another iteration of the age-old assimilation vs. differentiation contretemps, I actually think it's a somewhat novel and mutant version of it. In its original form, assimilation vs. differentiation was a debate over what would keep Jews most safe as against antisemitism. But, despite the claim that Jew-as-immigrant-as-"foreign" = antisemitism, I don't really think the argument being made here is about maximizing Jewish safety. Those who push back most aggressively on Jewish attempts to highlight our differentiation, these days, tend to treat Jewish assimilation not as a normative goal but as a descriptive reality, and then treat those Jews who resist that description as engaging in a sort of stolen valor. We're not actually different from the White American majority, and when we pretend otherwise we're trying to unfairly claim a share of the diversity spoils from communities actually entitled to it. I flagged this dynamic in my White Jews article:

As one Jewish feminist [Joyce Antler] related being told (at a conference that featured presentations by Black, Latina, and Irish Catholic women), “Jewish women are just White middle-class women.” Consequently, her interlocutor went on, “There is nothing that differentiates them from the ruling majority. There is no reason to treat them as a specialized minority or to devote any of our time to their particular experience.” To demand significant time and attention be devoted to the Jewish case is little different from demanding still more resources and consideration be accorded to White people—that is, an insistence from those who already have so much that they should be given yet more.

That style of argument -- one which treats Jewish efforts to mark out Jewish difference as a form of cheating -- is one that will rightfully chafe many Jews who recoil at the notion that highlighting our community's distinctiveness is an illegitimate move, particularly in political contexts that for other groups treat such highlighting as constitutive of social inclusion.

If we go back to Mr. Choua's complaint, it seems pretty clear that something like this is playing a role (and the last sentence, where he indicates that Mamdani initially did express interest in highlighting the distinctive NYC Sephardi story but then ghosted them, is a further clue unlocking this particular reaction). The American Sephardic community, in particular, is very sensitive (and appropriately so) to how its narrative and history is regularly elided both when speaking of "Jewish" history but also "ethnic" history (see also: the California Ethnic Studies curriculum controversy). They feel like they are perpetually rendered invisible, and that stings. They feel as if the same people perpetuating their invisible status are too often those who are -- at the very same moment they suppress Jewish difference -- proudly in the midst of highlighting the diversity of others, and that stings more. They want representation. That's a legitimate want. And to reduce it to a sort of self-inflicted antisemitism attributable to Islamophobic ressentiment is I think profoundly disrespectful (in addition to completely missing the mark as to what's happening).

So there's a real, legitimate sore spot here, that extends well beyond this particular map project.  To be clear, I have no doubt that this real sore spot is being mixed with a healthy dose of Mamdani-hate to bring matters to a frothy boil. Again, it is perfectly appropriate that a map of immigrant neighborhoods not include neighborhoods whose residents are predominantly non-immigrant (Jewish or otherwise).

But it is true, and it has been true for a while, that many Jews feel as if Jewish distinctiveness is systematically occluded when we as a society purport to celebrate difference. And that rawness that exclusion engenders won't go away until it's made clear not just that Jews are welcome, but that Jews are welcome as Jews -- as a distinct group, with a distinct history and distinct triumphs and tribulations, and it isn't treated as cheating when that distinctiveness is explicitly claimed.

Grieving Alone (But Not Entirely Alone) After Michigan

You might recall my post after the attempted synagogue massacre in Michigan, where I wrote that I had basically become numb to such attacks. Even though my baby attends a preschool program very similar to the one that was in session at Temple Israel, I realized that I had mentally "priced in" the possibility of such an assault. It didn't shock me; it barely affected me. I already knew things like that might happen.

There is a common line one hears from more humanitarian-inclined anti-Zionists, condemning attacks like we saw in Michigan on the grounds that they make the Zionist's point (that Jews will never be safe in the diaspora, that our only hope for security lies in an armed fortress of our own). Antisemitism hurts the Palestinian cause. I've always hated this line. For starters, I'm dubious of its truth as an empirical matter. The antisemites, after all, posit that antisemitic terrorism will not harden Jewish resolve, it will cow Jews into submission. Are they wrong? That's an empirical question, not an article of faith. More broadly, antisemitism is one of the most powerful tools of social mobilization the world has ever seen. It is not only not implausible that antisemitism might help those social movements which can successfully harness it, it would be weird if it didn't. The real question is whether anti-Zionists will oppose antisemitism even where it helps their cause. The jury is still out there.

But the more I think about it, the more I think this entire framing -- that antisemitic attacks in the diaspora are what push diaspora Jews to cleave to Zionism -- is slightly off-kilter. For me at least, it is not the attack itself that causes that sort of recoil. It's the response of the public to the attack.

Like a 10/7 in miniature, most people responded to the Michigan assault exactly appropriately -- with horror, grief, and condemnation. Good, and it's good not to overlook the fact that the humane majority was humane. 

But there was a small but vocal slice of individuals, often self-styled pro-Palestinian "progressives", who were insistent that the synagogue was a fair and justified target. And then there was another small but somewhat larger slice of individuals who bent over to explain why the first slice could not be called antisemitic -- uncouth, emotional, un-PC, anything but antisemitic -- and were in fact the primary victims of a smear machine which had the temerity to use the dread slur "antisemitic".

Far more than the attack itself, that's the response that makes me despair. I can accept (maybe I shouldn't accept, but I do) that bad things might happen to me as a Jew. But it is a horribly alienating sensation to feel certain that, if something bad did happen to me, a large chunk of political energy will be dedicated to explaining why I had it coming, to poring over my social media feeds to find "evidence" that I'm one of the bad ones, and to being aghast and appalled that anyone would be so gauche as to find any of this antisemitic.

The anti-Zionist counterproposal to policing and militarism and wall-building as a response to antisemitism is "safety through solidarity". Yet it is ironic that in spite of this rhetorical commitment, solidarity is the last thing they extend. Josh Yunis had a provocative post the other day, where he observed the following:

Antizionists (including antizionist Jews) like to observe – with a feigned helplessness, as if observing a passing cloud – the “inevitable” correlation between increased antisemitism in the diaspora and the actions of the state of Israel. But if we lived in a world in which antizionists were successfully making the case for their worldview, anti-Jewish hatred would decrease or remain steady in spite of Israel’s actions abroad. Antizionists would be springing into action, forming protective rings around synagogues and organizing multi-faith solidarity rallies after each new anti-Jewish atrocity, in which they proclaim that “in spite of our strong, even visceral disagreement on Israel, we want Jews of all kinds, regardless of their views on Israel and Palestine, to know that they are welcome in our communities.” (Surely by now, they’ve had enough time to internalize this lesson and organize such efforts.)

And yet: when was the last time you saw a self-identified antizionist show up at a vandalized kosher restaurant to help clean up its windows, broken in the name of a Free Palestine? Or clean the swastika graffiti off the wall of a synagogue? What we get instead from this camp is the usual dissembling, in which defenders of anti-Jewish harassment rifle through the dumpster for some kind of receipt that indicts this Jew and that Jew for having failed to sufficiently distance themselves from Israeli crimes.

The most compelling antizionist argument imaginable would be to point at the news and tell Jews, “see, even when Israel does horrific things, you are safe here.” But of course, the reverse has happened. It’s one thing for the movement to be doing the valiant work of trying to keep Jews safe, albeit unsuccessfully; it’s another entirely to not even try. Each new retreat to the same old talking point about the regrettable, but inevitable correlation between Israeli policy and antisemitism is itself evidence of a movement that isn’t really interested in trying. On the contrary, each new instance of anti-Jewish violence is trotted out not as a pained expression of their movement’s failures, of the need to do better – of asking “where did we go wrong?” (such hand-wringing questions are de rigueur for leftist Jews when it comes to Zionism) – but as a barely-veiled threat: here’s what happens when you don’t distance yourself from Israel – and you can expect a lot more of where that came from.

That possibility Yunis alludes to, of unconditional love and support, stands out because it is simultaneously so obvious and so fanciful. Of course one could do that. And of course it's actually the opposite happening. The energy here isn't actually around promoting solidarity, it's around justifying abandonment -- here's why you should shun synagogues, here's why you must expel Jewish organizations, here's why the Israeli food truck must be kicked out, here's why the Jewish lesbians can't march with us. The fact that I cannot even imagine any of these people "showing up at a vandalized kosher restaurant to help clean up its windows" -- that is what feeds the sense that the diaspora will never be there for us.

One of the first bad October 7 takes I responded to -- less than a week after the attack -- was a truly wretched essay by Gabriel Winant urging progressives not to grieve the Jews slaughtered by Hamas. Winant's argument was not exactly "these were settlers and colonizers and so had it coming." It was rather that grief over dead Israeli Jews is the fuel for Israel's genocidal machine, so we must resist our humanist impulses lest we feed the beast. My basic critique of the argument was that it was terrible causal inference -- the Israeli response to October 7 would not materially change by whether the broader world grieved or didn't grieve, so one might as well do the humanist thing and grieve. But I also wrote:

If there is even the slightest truth in Winant's framework, it is not that Israel transmutes grief into power. It's that Israel transmutes grieving alone into power. The impetus behind Zionism -- I've been in enough of these conversations to speak confidently here -- is not (just) that bad, dreadful things happen to Jews. It's that bad, dreadful things happen to Jews and Jews are the only ones who will ever care. The only people who will grieve dead Jews are Jews; the only people who will rally to the defense of threatened Jews are Jews; the only people who will feel empathy (or anything at all, really) towards frightened or traumatized Jews are Jews; the only people who will erect fortresses to protect Jews are Jews; and so ultimately the only people who can be entrusted to protect and ensure the lives of Jews are Jews. It is not grief alone, but grief alone, that fuels these instincts.

Taken from that vantage point, the scenes of collective global grief over dead Jews represent what might be the closest thing Israelis can get to a non-violent catharsis for their trauma -- the knowledge that Jews aren't actually alone, that others do care when we are pricked and bleed. If you want something that might actually sap the machine of violence and vengeance of some of its forward momentum, that's by far your best bet -- not enforced loneliness, but unconditional embrace and empathy in the moments where it is needed most.

As I said, the contretemps following Michigan felt like a miniature version of what we saw post-10/7. Thankfully, the Michigan attack was largely thwarted and had no casualties other than the attacker, but that also made the alienation from the aftermath come into sharper relief.  Once again, we're confronted with the fact that in our moments of intense pain and fear the response from a non-trivial segment of our peers will be to explain why we deserve it, and the response from another segment will be to bend over backwards to explain why the true victims are their friends in the first segment who are oh-so-unfairly being maligned. With regard to Winant, I argued that even if he personally wasn't quite saying "the Jews got what was coming to them," the appetite for his argument came largely from those who "desperately don't want to accede to the overwhelming power of 'Who can begrudge tears for those lost to violence?' [and who want] an excuse, an apologia they can wield to begrudge, begrudge, begrudge." The sheer amount of energy and enthusiasm dedicated to propping up that horrible point is itself proof of the problem.

Again, I don't want to exaggerate the prevalence of these sorts of responses -- they are and remain a distinct minority compared to most people responding with basic human empathy. But if one is looking for a causal chain that ends in "and here's why diaspora Jews still believe in Zionism", I think these responses are more germane than the attack itself.

I'll close with one more thought. When New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani condemned antisemitic remarks from prominent Palestinian author Susan Abulhawa in the wake of the Michigan attack, he took some serious heat from the more irredentist wing of the pro-Palestinian movement who, of course, presented him as a traitor even as they mocked the idea that Mamdani's words would put him in the good graces of the "Zionists" (the possibility that Mamdani might not be doing this for credit, but because he actually believes it, is apparently beyond consideration). There were some Jewish voices that sought to poo-poo Mamdani's words since condemning Abulhawa's obvious antisemitism -- among other things, she's been promoting neo-Nazi "noticer" accounts and said no Israeli or Jew (she specifically clarified she didn't care if the two were conflated) should "feel safe anywhere in the world" -- was "the bare minimum". Arguable, but that's not the point. 

The point was that, although Mayor Mamdani clearly has substantial, deep-felt disagreements with many (if not most) Jews on a matter of deep personal importance to him, he was saying that those disagreements do not matter in the context of a larger threat to Jewish safety and equal standing. He was committing himself to the protective ring, he was saying that no matter what Israel does over there he won't compromise on keeping Jews safe here. That's laudable. That's meaningful. I disagree with Mamdani on some important things, he disagrees with me on some important things. But the reality is he's performing the actual hard work of solidarity -- extending even to those who aren't in his political camp, even to those who represent a very hostile audience -- and that really does stand out as deserving considerable credit.

Why Should We View the JDL as a "False Equivalency"?

A few weeks ago, there was a protest in front of a New York City synagogue which was hosting a real estate event featuring, in part, properties in Jerusalem. Pro-Palestine protesters, notably, chanted their support for Hamas ("Say it loud, say it clear, we support Hamas here."), the internationally-recognized terrorist organization responsible for (among other crimes) the massacres on October 7. A smaller group of pro-Israel protesters affiliated with the far-right Jewish Defense League chanted their own racist slogans, including "death to Palestine."

The next day, NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani released a statement condemning the pro-Hamas chants: "Chants in support of a terrorist organization have no place in our city." There was some consternation about the supposed delay (of one day), but it appears that time lag occurred because Mamdani was consulting with high-level members of the Jewish community to ensure he got the statement right.

I noticed at the time, though, that the ultimate statement rightfully condemned the pro-Hamas chanting but not the equally appalling that came from the JDL. "We support Hamas here" is a despicable thing to say anywhere, but especially in front of a synagogue. No person of conscience should defend it (it is not surprising that there are several notable left-wing figures who lack any such conscience). But "death to Palestine" is equally rancid and should be equally indefensible. So why was it not included in Mamdani's condemnation?

I suspected at the time that it was left out because some factions of the Jewish community would have denounced its inclusion. Many of these figures would claim that they do not, of course, defend the JDL or chants like "Death to Palestine". But they would present including it in Mamdani's statement as "both-sidesing" or "all lives mattering" or in some other way diluting of the message condemning the pro-Hamas chants. And it seems the reporting bears my intuition out. An earlier draft of the condemnation was going to condemn the Jewish Defense League, but it was removed following protests by Jewish leaders who viewed it as a "false equivalence."

This is rotten. It's not just that complaints about "both sidesing" lack legs when both sides really did chant despicable things. It's also the choice -- and it is a choice -- by certain Jewish leaders to decide that condemnations of pro-Palestine extremists are in some way "diluted" or are less sincere when they come tied to calling out pro-Israel extremists present at the same event. Why should we feel that way? I don't feel that way. In fact, I feel rather ill at the notion that someone might think my equal standing as a Jew is threatened by condemning phrases like "death to Palestine." What does that say about ourselves? What does that say about what we are saying about ourselves, that we make such demands?

This is, I think, the end result of the tremendously destructive road too many Jewish leaders have committed to trotting down, where we have become obsessed with "all lives mattering" or "us too-ism" to the point that anything that even purports to tie Jewish safety to any sort of political universalism or solidarity is presented as an affront. It is not unrelated to the bone-jarringly stupid choice by the ADL (among others) to self-consciously cut itself off from historic allies because antisemitism must be fought alone or not at all. I don't mean to suggest that there are not serious challenges in the relationships Jews have with other communities, historic allies included. But in all of these cases, we are choosing to isolate ourselves. These are not instances where we are being forced out of coalitions or compelled to go alone. We are choosing to believe that the entire concept of allyship is a form of disrespect.

We don't have to think like this. Nobody is forcing us to hear "chants of 'death to Palestine' have no place in our city" and decide it means "Jews are lesser." There's no reason to make that inference, and there are many reasons not to make that inference. And so while at one level I am glad that Mamdani was consulting with and attentive to Jewish community concerns in the wake of the synagogue protest, it is a very bad thing that we've decided our "concerns" compel him not to condemn obviously despicable and indefensible rhetoric from the likes of the JDL. That Jewish leaders -- especially Jewish leaders who do recognize how wretched the JDL is -- think in those terms speaks to rot in our own psyche that we need to address, and quick.

Two Queens

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and Donald Trump met today, and it went ... well? For all of Trump's prior bloviating about Mamdani being a communist, he seemed quite taken with Mamdani's charisma and was pretty much all praise during the meeting.

Obviously, there is an angle on this that goes "can you imagine if Hakeem Jeffries ....!?!" Trump is (as Mamdani described him on the campaign trail) a despot and an autocrat. If pretty much any other Democrat did an Oval Office meeting with Trump and made nice-y nice, the left would have gone ballistic.

For my part, I take the opposite lesson. One does, indeed, have to recognize that Trump is a despot and an autocrat. Yet even holding that recognition, that doesn't mean the right play is always the one that most performs "resistance". There is space for maneuvering, and we should recognize that savvy actors sometimes have maneuver. Of course, that does not mean that any "maneuver" is always savvy, and sometimes one does need to dig in one's heels. But it is a good thing to give good Democrats some latitude on this -- we don't truly know what the best strategy is going to be.

So no, one does not have to go full Ryan Grim and decide that actually Trump has now revealed himself as a champion of the working class. That remains as gullible as all get out.

But one also does not have to view Mamdani as some sort of traitor for taking this meeting. The true moral here is to not treat the mere fact of a meeting like this as sufficient evidence on its own that a Democratic politician is a traitor.

If I Am Only For Myself, Who Will Be For Me?

The first two lines of Hillel's famous maxim read as follows:

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

If I am only for myself, who am I?

It's obviously famous for a reason. The first line endorses some measure of self-regard or at least self-reliance -- we have to advocate for ourselves. The second cabins the first -- if we only care about our personal self-interest, who are we? As in so many things, the best path lies somewhere in the middle.

Hillel's line came to mind for me when I was reading reports of a prominent New York City Rabbi urging his congregants to oppose Zohran Mamdani for mayor. His call was framed in terms of urging Jews to "prioritize their Jewish selves" -- to self-consciously elevate "ahavat yisrael ... over other loves." They should not vote on "affordability, food instability, education, policing, sanitation, taxes – the everyday issues that shape our great city’s life." They must vote in a way that first and foremost "safeguards the Jewish people." Everything else is secondary.

I don't think Mamdani represents the sort of existential threat to the Jewish people that warrants this sort of reaction. This is not the same thing as saying Jews aren't allowed to have concerns over some part of his record. But sermons like this strike me as more than a little histrionic, except for the fact that to me they read like a desperate attempt to spur on a Jewish community which by and large is not reacting hysterically to Mamdani. Again, it isn't so much that Mamdani is being greeted with gushing support (the most recent polling shows that among Jews Cuomo is ahead of Mamdani, but just barely). They're just not converting their various concerns and misgivings into the all-out existential panic this Rabbi would like to see.

But leave all of that aside. My actual quarrel with the Rabbi's sermon is that, as a prescription for political action, it presents an incredibly short-sighted political vision for Jews. For if Jews can legitimately say to various other groups and communities "we hear your concerns (about affordability or policing or Islamophobia or what have you), but we ultimately have to look out for ourselves first"; well, those other communities are equally entitled to reply "and we hear your concerns (about antisemitism), but we ultimately have to look out for ourselves first." And even in New York City, there are a lot more of them than there are of us. So remind me how exactly this will redound to the benefit of Jews?

I raised this same argument six years ago in the context of British elections, where Jews were pleading with non-Jews to not vote for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party given Corbyn's rank antisemitism (and Corbyn, to be clear, is on his best day far more antisemitic than Mamdani is on his worst). Many of these Jewish figures harbored no illusions about the Tories, including that party's own sordid involvement in racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia (and, for that matter, antisemitism). But, they argued, as terrible as Boris Johnson may be, "stopping Corbyn has to be the number one priority for British Jews. And a vote for anyone but the Tory candidates is, ultimately, a vote for Jeremy Corbyn."

Jewish voters who act under this logic, they would say, are by no means endorsing Brexit, which they detest, or xenophobia, which they abhor. They hate these things, genuinely and sincerely. But their hand has been forced. In this moment, they have to look out for Number One. 

I understand this logic. I understand why some Jews might believe that in this moment, we cannot spare the luxury of thinking of others.

I understand it. But it is, ultimately, spectacularly short-sighted. 

To begin, if we accept that British Jews are justified in voting Tory because we are justified looking out for our own existential self-preservation, then we have to accept that non-Jewish minorities are similarly justified in voting Labour in pursuit of their own communal security and safety. We cannot simultaneously say that our vote for the Tories cannot be construed as an endorsement of Conservative xenophobia but their vote for Labour represents tacit approval of Corbynista antisemitism. Maybe both groups feel their hands are tied; trapped between a bad option and a disastrous one. And so we get one letter from the Chief Rabbi, excoriating Jeremy Corbyn as an “unfit” leader, and another competing letter from the Muslim Council of Britain, bemoaning Conservatives open tolerance of Islamophobia. 

But if the Jews reluctantly vote Conservative “in our self-interest” and BAME citizens reluctantly vote Labour “in their self-interest”—well, there are a lot more BAME voters in Britain than there are Jewish voters. So the result would be a massive net gain for Labour. Some pursuit of self-interest. 

Meanwhile, those Brits who are neither Jewish nor members of any other minority group are given no guidance by this approach. There is no particular reason, after all, for why they should favor ameliorating Jewish fears of antisemitism over BAME fears of xenophobia. From their vantage point, these issues effectively cancel out, and they are freed to vote without regard to caring about either antisemitism or Islamophobia. At the very moment where these issues have been foregrounded in the British public imagination in an unprecedented way, insisting upon the primacy of pure self-interest would ensure that this attention would be squandered and rendered moot. 

Of course, all this does not even contemplate the horrible dilemma imposed upon those persons who are both Jewish and BAME—the Afro-Caribbean Jew, for instance. They are truly being torn asunder, told that no matter how they vote they will be betraying a part of their whole self.

And so too here. The argument from self-interest -- aside from ignoring those whose intersecting identities may make them acutely perceive a threat from both Mamdani and Cuomo -- ultimately licenses every other group to not care about Jewish concerns. After all, they have the same license to prioritize their own communal needs and values as we do.

So much of contemporary Jewish discourse is a plea for solidarity, against the pain of feeling dismissed or viewed as extraneous whenever a peer says something to effect of "I'm not happy with how he's alienating Jews, but X Y Z matters more to me." Yet here we see that exact same argument run, and it is a logic that effectively endorses (for the non-Jewish majority) ignoring Jewish concerns.

Indeed, I might daresay that Hillel was, if not wrong, then at least incomplete: If I am only for myself, who will be for me? Aside from me, nobody. And that is a very lonely place to be.

Abstaining on Mamdani

Even after his upset primary win a few weeks ago, there have been some Democrats who have been trying to rally an "independent" candidate to beat Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani in the general election. It's an endeavor I view as scurrilous, for the same reason I found third party protest voting in 2024 or 2020 or 2016 scurrilous: Democrats should support the results of the Democratic primary, and certainly should not risk letting in a reactionary because their heart just isn't moved by the Democratic nominee. There may be extraordinary exceptions to this rule, but Zohran Mamdani is not one of them. If Joe Walsh gets it, the rest of us can too.

But to be honest, I view this as a bit of a moot point, because the attempt to rally an anti-Mamdani seems to be sputtering.  As the Wall Street Journal puts it, the anti-Mamdani initiative suffers from missing a few key ingredients, such as "a positive message" and "a candidate" and "enough votes to win." Seems problematic.

This broader fizzling out has, I think, a more specified Jewish parallel. Reports of Jewish loathing of Mamdani are wildly overstated, but there's no doubt many have concerns, and some of those concerns are legitimate. While I think the criticisms of his condemnations of the Colorado and DC attacks are wildly unfair, his statement immediately following 10/7 was genuinely bad, and Jews are allowed to find worrisome his support for BDS and his refusal to denounce the slogan "globalize the intifada."

Yet while there's been a lot of media froth about these issues, my sense is these concerns haven't actually manifested in widespread Jewish backlash to Mamdani. There are concerns, but not panic. And more often than not, it seems, many NYC Jews are just not venturing that loud of an opinion at all, even where they do disagree with Mamdani, on issue areas that in years past we might have really seen a widespread blowup. What's going on?

My mind returns to a post I wrote at the very tail-end of the Obama administration, following his decision to, for the first and only time, abstain from voting on or vetoing an anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution reaffirming that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank were unlawful (you might remember the abstention as the one Tim Walz voted to condemn).

The usual suspects on the right went ballistic about the Obama administration's "betrayal of Israel". And for my part, I was well-familiar with all the arguments against enabling such UN resolutions -- the general bias of the institution, its naked double-standards where Israel was concerned, specific language in the resolution itself that seemed to downplay legitimate Jewish connection to Jerusalem. But my post was about why, in spite of all that, I just could not bring myself to get mad about it.

But I just can't bring myself to be angry. I read the usual suspects falling over themselves in histrionic rage -- Mort Klein ranting that "Obama’s anti-Semitism runs so deep that he also apparently needed to drive one more knife into Israel’s back," Netanyahu saying he "colluded against Israel", David French fulminating against the supposed "50 years of foreign policy" undone by a single abstention -- and I just can't do it. I can't.

The ADL -- which murmurs empty platitudes about the President's right to implement policy when picking avowedly anti-two-stater David Friedman for Ambassador -- suddenly is "incredibly disappointed" that the Obama administration followed consistent American policy in opposition to the settlements? The JFNA -- which (and this was forwarded to me by an AIPAC-attending friend of mine) "has not said ONE THING about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism from Trump and his appointees" -- sure found its voice on this one.

[....]

Will this resolution do any good? I doubt it. It's empty words from a body whose words deservedly carry little credit. Still, much of international diplomacy is the art of using empty words to send messages. Maybe the message here is that breathless hysterics about Obama selling Israel out! over and over and over again won't carry the day forever. Certainly that's a message I can get behind, regardless of whether anyone pays attention to the substance of the resolution.

I just can't take seriously anymore people who simultaneously decry America's policy towards Syria as being naught but words, while breathlessly characterizing one -- one -- abstention on a UN resolution that is consistent with longstanding American policy towards Israel as an act of "aggression". One would think that those "mere words" would pale in comparison to $38 billion in aid America will be giving Israel thanks to Obama's leadership. The UN is not the only entity whose words carry little credit these days. I've completely lost whatever confidence I had in mainline Jewish groups to maintain a sense of proportion and principle when it comes to defending a secure, democratic, Jewish state of Israel.

The UN resolution won't accomplish anything. Perhaps its only tangible impact is that it is felt as a rebuke by the Israeli government. Given their behavior over the past eight years towards the Obama administration and the American Jewish community writ large, I can't even be mad about that. You're not getting everything you want, all the time, from your "friends"? Welcome to the club.

So I abstain on this fight. Why shouldn't I? If I believe -- and I do -- that the settlements are "a" (not "the") obstacle to peace, and I believe -- and I do -- that Israeli settlement on territories in the West Bank should be contingent on a final, negotiated status agreement with the Palestinians, and I believe -- and I do -- that part of any remotely plausible peace plan means that not everyone will get to live on the precise acre of land that they wish, why should I muster up any outrage on this resolution? Because its verbiage isn't perfect? When is it ever? Because the UN is biased? Of course it is, but so what? Because the Netanyahu administration is trying its level best to negotiate a two-state solution and this throws a wrench in their delicate plans? Don't make me laugh.

Fast forward to today, and I think a lot of people are feeling something similar to this. A simple way of putting it would be that the comportment of the Israeli government over the past (at least) 18 months has been so abysmal that it has made many of us considerably more tolerant of anti-Israel criticism than we might have been in years past. Even the criticisms we don't personally agree with, don't seem so far out-of-bounds -- they might not be what we believe, but they're not wildly out of range of what we believe.

But things run deeper than that. Part of what we're seeing is an exhaustion over being asked to go to the mat for an Israeli government that we know -- we know -- would never lift a finger for us in return. They view people like us with the utmost contempt, even as they scream at us to show good Jewish solidarity and back them to the hilt. The post-10/7 story has been Jewish liberals patiently extolling the need to understand military necessity and holding complexity and remembering the hostages, with the Israeli government responding by openly promising to starve out Gazans while selling out the hostages, all to keep the war going as long as possible in order to save Netanyahu's political skin and satisfy the far-right's expansionist agenda of ethnic cleansing. Virtually every narrative of justice that could have been mustered on Israel's behalf in the wake of 10/7 has, by Israel's own hand, been made out to be a cruel joke. Jay Michaelson got it exactly right: they've made us feel like freiers -- suckers, fools, saps.

At some point, one just doesn't want to do it anymore. What's the point? Again, it's not that we don't have reasonable concerns. But after the 50th iteration of having a reasonable concern about someone's 10/7 tweet transmogrified by right-wing extremists into "hell yeah, we should cut all of Columbia's funding and deport the students to South Sudan!", one eventually learns to keep quiet.

So that's what I think we're seeing. Partially, it's a greater tolerance for sharper criticisms of Israel than might have been accepted in year's past. But partially, it's just a decision to abstain -- to withdraw from the one-sided bargain where American Jews serve as Israel's defense attorney and Israel thanks us by spitting in our food and calling us suckers. Enough is enough.

Who Wants Zohran Mamdani To Stand Up For Jews?

When Karen Diamond, one of the victims of the attack on Jews marching on behalf of the hostages still held by Hamas, died of her wounds, Zohran Mamdani posted a heartfelt message of condolences.

I am heartbroken by the news from Colorado where Karen Diamond, a victim of the vicious attack earlier this month, has passed away.

May Karen’s memory be a blessing and a reminder that we must constantly work to eradicate hatred and violence.

This isn't something new or out of character for Mamdani. He condemned the Boulder attack when it happened, as well as the shooting of two Israeli diplomats outside the Jewish Museum in DC (which he linked to "the appalling rise in antisemitic violence.").

But after this latest post, I saw quite a few people reply to Mamdani with the same basic quip: "Why are you heartbroken? They globalized the intifada."

The line, of course, is a reference to Mamdani refusing to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada" (while also saying it's "not the language I use"). And the people who posted it feel very clever about themselves.

But if the goal is for Mamdani to actually stand up for Jews (and, to be fair, I think presenting that as the goal is giving these people far too much credit) they are being remarkably short-sighted. As should be obvious, responding with sneering hostility when a politician does stand with the Jewish community facing threats disincentivizes them from doing it in the future. 

It's not just the negative reinforcement, though it is that. It's that even -- especially -- for a politician attentive to Jewish feelings, hearing that one's messages of support are unwelcome indicates that one should refrain from giving those messages when the community is in pain. Why ladle pain on top of pain? If the above sentiments represent the consensus Jewish view -- and to be clear, I see no evidence that they are, significant reservations towards Mamdani notwithstanding -- then the respectful thing for Mamdani to do would be to refrain from issuing further supportive comments. Which, of course, would then be used against him as well ("he couldn't even issue a statement!").

Now, there's a sense in which I'm being too harsh. These sorts of rejectionist comments are rational if one actively desires to remain in a state of hostility towards the speaker. If one views the putative expression of sympathy as being made in bad faith, for example, then one doesn't want to allow it to be leveraged to give them impression of a positive, reciprocal relationship that doesn't actually exist. Or even if the statement itself is concededly sincere, one might nonetheless want to remain in a hostile relationship if one finds the person's values so repugnant that you'd actively prefer they not stand up for you. If we think about Donald Trump purporting to condemn antisemitism, for instance, we can see both rationales: in many cases, it's obviously insincere, and even to the extent he does "genuinely" oppose certain forms of antisemitism, most Jews have no interest in aligning ourselves with Donald Trump and tying the noble cause of Jewish safety to his hateful, fascistic agenda.

For Mamdani, by contrast, the former (bad faith) rationale I think is entirely implausible -- I see no basis for assuming Mamdani is at all insincere in grieving the victims of the Boulder and DC attacks. So the impetus behind these rejectionist responses is more likely a version of the latter -- these people detest Mamdani and what he stands for so much that they actually don't want him to stand with the Jewish people when we face threat. Again, I'm not going to say that's per se irrational in the sense that one could never harbor such a desire for antagonism (see the Trump example) -- but note how it flies in the face of what so many people say they want out of Mamdani. They say they want him to stand up for the Jewish community; but what they actually want is to hate him for not standing up for the Jewish community. They want to bask in an anger that by design can never be placated.

And what upsets me the most about all of this is that there are valid concerns Jews can have over things Mamdani has said and done, and it's important that there be open lines of communication to talk through those concerns and to see how Mamdani responds to them. That process is being sabotaged, possibly irreparably, by irresponsible rabble-rousers who engage in histrionics about Mamdani's alleged elation over antisemitic violence (or who nitpick the tiniest details of every one of his posts to explain why it's woefully insufficient).'

But again, the sabotage is the point, because the process might yield the realization that Mamdani is not our enemy -- and that, far more than imagined or even real antisemitism, is the saboteurs greatest fear of all.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXXIV: Zohran Mamdani

A disproportionate chunk of oxygen surrounding Zohran Mamdani's decisive victory in the NYC mayoral Democratic primary has been taken up by the question "is he antisemitic?" The main hinge points for the charge, aside from a generic linkage to his sharp criticisms of Israel, are his support for the BDS movement and his refusal to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada" (some have wrongly suggested that Mamdani himself uses the phrase, but that doesn't appear to be true). 

Predictably, things have spiraled out of control -- for what's it worth, I do think Jews are permitted to object both to Mamdani's BDS support and his apologia for "globalize the intifada", but the possibility of reasonable objections has been obliterated thanks to a glut of hysterics urging Jews to flee the city or, perhaps, the country.

In any event, while it does seem like Mamdani did not win NYC's Jewish vote this cycle, it's undeniable that he has a non-trivial amount of Jewish supporters. Some would point to these supporters (cynically or not) as a bulwark against the antisemitism charge. And others, well, others would see Mamdani's entire rise as part of Soros-led plot dating back to Mamdani's teenage years.

The above linked article is by Asra Nomani, and I encourage you to read it because it is a good example of what I've called Potemkin expertise. It rattles off a dizzying array of facts and numbers and connections to create the illusion of being deeply-researched, but it's actually the written equivalent of a corkboard with red string connecting names with wild abandon. It is unsurprising to anyone with a familiarity with this sort of "it's all connected!" raving that George Soros will be at the center of it, and so too here. But the short version is that Soros funded a range of post-9/11 initiatives that pushed back on racial and religious targeting of Muslim, Middle Eastern, and South Asian Americans, and these projects should actually be seen as a systematic attempt to create a "red-green-blue spider's web" that will take over American politics in pursuit of a Islamist-socialism.

There are people who have called Islamophobia "the new antisemitism"; a maneuver I generally hate because it wrongly suggests the "old" antisemitism has gone away when it clearly hasn't. That said, it is clear that certain aspects of Islamophobia move to very familiar beats vis-a-vis antisemitism, and that's illustrated almost too neatly here, where utterly mundane Muslim political mobilization against discrimination is recast as a devious plot to destroy America (with the shadowy Jewish financier at the center of course).

On that note, I have to give an honorable mention to Inez Stepman who, as one wag put it, basically "reinvented antisemitism from first principles" in her description of Mamdani.

A man "essentially from nowhere", an "elite class global citizen with no loyalty to a place or its people"  -- boy, does that ever sound familiar. New York hasn't had a Jewish mayor since Bloomberg, but if antisemites were missing the chance to pull out the old hits they've found a new mark with Mamdani.

Don't Rank Cuomo, and Other Less Important Thoughts

The Democratic primary for the NYC mayoral race is today. The front-runner has been former Governor Andrew Cuomo, but he's facing a stiff challenge from a surging Zohran Mamdani, who's aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America.

I don't live in New York, obviously. But I've been casually following the race, and I do have some thoughts.

1) Don't rank Cuomo. That's the mantra of nearly all the progressives in the race, and it is correct. It's not just that Cuomo is a sex pest (though, dayenu). He was also an awful governor who actively sabotaged Democratic prospects in New York in order to promote his own presidential ambitions -- and yet was so manifestly incompetent he ended up wrecking his presidential ambitions too! Personally mendacious, hostile to his own party, and piss-poor political instincts? No. Get this guy out of here. And honestly, "don't rank Cuomo" is, far and away, the most important thought.

2) David endorses Lander. Not that it matters, but if I had a vote in New York I'd probably rank Brad Lander first. I always liked him. And with ranked choice voting, I could do it without worrying that I was tossing my vote away and/or involuntarily supporting Cuomo.

3) The NYT's cowardly Cuomo quasi-endorsement is nauseating. The NYT recently said it would stop issuing endorsements in local races (why?). But that makes this editorial, where it twisted itself in knots to not-expressly-say it is endorsing Cuomo while effectively endorsing Cuomo because Mamdani is just too lefty and scary, the most spineless thing I've seen in opinion journalism since everything the Washington Post has done over the past 8 months.

4) I'd rank Mamdani. But... I think there is a lot to like about Mamdani. He's clearly better than Cuomo (see #1, above). And I don't think he's antisemitic. But people are allowed to not like his evasive defense of the phrase "globalize the intifada". His response to that question is a reasonable source of criticism, and he can take those lumps.

5) It's not cheating when they don't roll over. On that note, one of the single most annoying habits of the Bernie/DSA wing of the left is how they act as if it's cheating when more centrist candidates don't just roll over and let them win. "The DNC conspired to defeat Bernie Sanders and coronate Joe Biden" -- no it didn't. Biden ran a campaign and beat Sanders, fair and square. That's how democracy works. In any given race, I hope my preferred candidate or faction wins, but I don't expect the opponent to not try (see also: Democrats are responsible for MAGAism because Barack Obama inexcusably refused to just concede the 2012 race to Mitt Romney). We're already seeing similar moaning about how "the Democratic establishment" apparently moved heaven and earth to anoint Cuomo and defeat Mamdani. Again, I think Cuomo is scum, and there are absolutely things he's done in his campaign which aren't kosher. But yes, the left-wing of the Democratic Party is going to have to actually win races where their opponents show up -- it's not going to have things handed to them. Grow up. 

6) If Mamdani does win, he should get a chance to govern. That's the perquisite of winning, and he deserves a fair shot. And I'm still curious how DSA domestic policies will play out if implemented (though I still wish we had gotten a test-run a bit further from spotlight in Buffalo). That said, the fact that he won't have a perfectly pliant city council and agreeable municipal bureaucracy putting his policies on a glide path is not sabotage, it's city politics. Much like having to actually win an election against an opposition that's actively campaigning, one is not being sabotaged when one faces the same basic set of obstacles and frictions that are inherent features of local governance in a large city with diverse stakeholders