Since we learned the election results in New York City early on Wednesday, social media has been filled with enthusiasm for Zohran Mamdani’s victory.
As a democratic socialist, I recognize the importance of having a candidate who accepts himself, without any fear or trepidation, as a socialist, especially when it is a candidate who historically wins an election in the financial capital of the planet. Therefore, I also celebrated Mamdani’s victory and I also hope that it can represent a breath of fresh air.
I saw a lot of people saying that it is commendable that, in the United States, we have a candidate who clearly identifies as a socialist. But the truth is that, these days, the political reality in our country is increasingly similar to the North American one. There are fewer and fewer people who consider themselves socialists and, even among Socialist Party activists, it seems that the word progressive is being used more and more, a kind of rebranding language that turns out to be quite poor. A progressive is not necessarily someone from the center-left or left, while the designations “socialist” or “social democrat” end up being more precise and clear from an ideological point of view.
The problem is that, in our times, any socialist or social democrat needs to swear that he is not radical, a kind of footnote required by the spirit of the time. But the truth is that Zohran didn’t win just because he was a socialist, much less because he was a radical.
The Democrats had a victorious night and won across the board in the United States, regardless of whether the candidates they presented were more left-wing or more centrist, more socialist or more progressive, in more or less conservative areas.
Looking at the examples of Mikie Sherrill, who was elected governor of the State of New Jersey, or Abigail Spanberger, who was elected governor of the State of Virginia, we see precisely this. Both represent more centrist and moderate wings within the Democratic Party, with Spanberger even assuming herself as a pragmatist.
What do these centrist candidacies have in common with Zohran Mamdani’s? Both focused on the issue of combating the increase in the cost of livingpresenting concrete proposals, aimed at the majority of voters.
Basically, they campaigned with great clarity, knew how to understand the main problems of the communities and managed to present, as Rui Tavares tells us, “objects of political desire” that mobilized voters and, in the case of Mamdani, particularly the youngest.
They ran campaigns less based on post-materialist identity politics and more on concrete reality, on economic problemsin growing inequality in a country that moves at different speeds, where the same people are always left behind.
Zohran Mamdani realized this. He could have run a campaign just talking about his ethnic and racial origin, but he understood that free, quality public transport and the fight against pornographic rent prices attracted more voters, in addition to being more interesting issues from a political point of view.
Another fundamental aspect is the fact that Mamdani really wanted to win the election. He did not take refuge in a small group of people, he mobilized tens of thousands of volunteers who knocked on almost two million doors throughout the campaign, creating a true winning platform.
He demonstrated something that seems obvious, but which, in most cases, is little understood by the politicians of our time: some ideas communicated with conviction and a team that reaches all areas of the community are much more important than any other issue.
We live in a country where it is possible to practice politics and rise in the party machines without defending a single idea. There are many people in this condition, whose aseptic, silent and orderly existence has led them to occupy positions of responsibility. That’s why seeing a convinced politician, even if in a distant country, is a kind of oasis in the middle of the desert that politics has become today.
Another essential aspect of Mamdani’s campaign was political communication, something that, with talent and skill, managed to mobilize a number of supporters on social media. These supporters put down their cell phones and started campaigning on the streets. Even in our time, proximity continues to be the great formula for winning elections.
At a time when the global left is in crisis, many will seek to imitate Zohran’s strategies. The vast majority will possibly fail. It will fail because it will try to copy the aesthetics, when that, in itself, is not enough. There is little or no point in making good videos if there are no ideas to communicate. There is little or no point in going into an election without any kind of conviction.
Every time a politician without real convictions, without clear positions on the essential issues of our time, wins an election, democracy becomes weaker and, sooner or later, voters discover the deception. And it is at this moment that disillusionment gives way to cynicism and populism.
Perhaps one of the successes of right-wing populism is being emphatic and appearing convinced. The center-left and the left are also lacking, to be active instead of reactive, to seek to set the agenda instead of just passively debating under the assumptions of their political opponents.