Lessons from Mamdani World
A few words about principles
For the last two months, I’ve been working on a bigger story than usual for me. It was a couple weeks before the primary in New York, and I had a good feeling about the groundswell which would, as I predicted, carry Zohran Mamdani to the Democratic Party nomination for mayor. I liked what Mamdani was up to, both politically and stylistically, and was fascinated by the marriage of the two.
Like many others, I’m sure, whiffs of Obama ‘08 intrigued me. A generational political talent whose on-point messaging was matched by an aesthetic approach that met the moment, which is to say, it met people where they were and inspired them. In Mamdani, though, I saw something a little different. Obama was all image, which isn’t to say that wasn’t important. The image of a black man rising to the presidency, of course, was consequential and exciting, but also the image of a young(er) candidate, not quite anti-establishment, but challenging unquestioned orthodoxy, including his criticism of the Iraq War. As it turned out, though, Obama’s ideological leanings kept him too far within the bounds of the orthodoxy he seemed to stand against. This is less a criticism of him not being “left” enough than his simply not seeing how his pathbreaking campaign could be embodied in a pathbreaking presidency. One that took seriously the idea of Change (never mind Hope).
Mamdani, because of his democratic socialist ideology, is quite clear on the things that need changing. Not merely fixing or smoothing over problems of America’s largest city, but reorienting New York’s local politics toward a vision of collective enterprise. His campaign, as I have seen it, has been about connecting the place people live in to the needs and aspirations of those very people. Because, in fact, they are one and the same. This is what we call society. Fast and free buses, a rent freeze, tearing down the bureaucratic red tape that stymies regular people and privileges corporate power, all good or interesting policy proposals, but anyone can propose a policy. What Mamdani has done, through his campaign, is to communicate the spirit energizing those proposals. A vision of a city that people feel good about living in, that feels like a place to grow, where the rules are more fair, and the city works for you as much as you work for it. It’s an aspirational vision, and a progressive one in the old sense of the word.
I was seeing this, and I was marvelling at how it was all being captured and communicated through Mamdani’s campaign videos all over social media. Great, funny, engaging, unusual, informative, and sometimes challenging videos that seemed to work in tandem with an obviously impressive ground game, feeding off that energy and multiplying it. Also just so happened that I was mutuals on social media with Donald Borenstein, one of the people making those videos. So I reached out about interviewing them. Donald was happy to do it, though only after the primary, for all kinds of good reasons, including superstition. I got the story set up at Defector, Mamdani won the primary, and then came several weeks of wrangling. The campaign team was having to get itself reorganized for the general election, and there were some questions internally about whether it was a good idea to do this kind of behind-the-scenes press at all while the election was still ongoing. By that point, the story had already expanded from a simple interview with Donald into a wider story about the campaign’s video team.
Finally, with approval from the campaign, I started interviewing. I spoke with Donald, along with Anthony DiMieri, Debbie Saslaw, Olivia Becker, and Creative Director Andrew Epstein. In fact, I spoke with DiMieri twice, for over an hour each time. Most of the interviews were long, getting into all kinds of nitty-gritty details, and anecdotes that ultimately didn’t have a place in the story, but fully informed how I’d go on to write it. I’d already had an image of the campaign as a scrappy, principled operation, but talking to the video team made clear how deep those qualities ran. Mamdani’s good taste is not necessarily a replicable advantage, nor his charisma on camera, but that wasn’t the beginning or end of the story. Over and over I heard from his campaign team how focused they were on his message and platform highlights. These were constants, North Stars, which then freed the team up to be more adventurous in other areas, especially aesthetically.
One looks out at the broad political landscape—I’m talking globally—and sees a vast wasteland of corrupted power, working in advancement of all kinds of ideologies, but without any sense of principle. There’s no commitment. Even on the so-called populist right, the fascists change tack at the drop of a hat if it conveniences them politically. You’ve gotta wonder, are the fascists even fascists, or just dressed-up nihilists? A wise man once said, “Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.” What we’re living through is a long slide into post-End of History social meaninglessness. A cacophony of individual interests forming no coherent reality, only a general morass—no wonder the Billboard charts have been so depressingly stagnant lately.
The response to this contemporary nihilism needs to be bigger than any one candidate or any one set of policy proposals or even any one specific political ideology (though left is best, obviously). There is no copying the Mamdani campaign. It’s one of one. But then so is every campaign, always forced to meet a unique set of constituents at a specific moment in time under highly contingent circumstances. There is more to understand about Mamdani’s campaign than its surface style. There’s the DSA-backed organizing effort, of course, which shows the value in building affiliated infrastructure for moving an electorate. Deeper still are Mamdani’s operating principles, which are demonstrated by an openness to people and to ideas. I think a lot about the fact that, after his primary win, when asked about all the New York billionaires he believes shouldn’t exist, Mamdani made clear that he wants the city to be a better place for them to live, too. And the thing about it? You could tell he meant what he said wholeheartedly, because of course he does. His whole campaign is based on the idea that New York should be a great place to live for everyone. It’s a principle he has, and he holds to it even where one would assume conflict.
Principles are key. Ideology is important, but ideology doesn’t get you to the kind of universalism Mamdani extols. It’s the other way around. Good principles are the grounding for good ideology, and better still, they are so much easier to communicate if one holds to them truly and as consistently as possible. The principle, for example, that everyone is created equal. That’s a good one. Or that everyone should be able to live in dignity with their neighbours. Another solid principle. How you get there is up for debate, but there is political strength to be found in having principles. As Mamdani’s team attested, it literally made their job easier and more fun. And the public could feel it. That’s a good lesson.