Zohran Mamdani’s ascent is not merely a political spectacle; it’s a full-blown crisis for the Democratic establishment. This self-proclaimed progressive is shaking the foundations of the party, demonstrating that party loyalty is crumbling under the weight of extreme ideologies.
Bill Clinton, the once-venerated “New Democrat,” finds himself awkwardly praising Mamdani’s triumph in the Democratic primary while refusing to give an outright endorsement. Such indecisiveness reflects the party’s growing unease with its own radical flank.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand made headlines recently, demanding that Mamdani denounce the phrase “globalize the intifada.” Ironically, she found herself backpedaling after suggesting that proponents of this rhetoric support global jihad and Hamas. The hypocrisy is glaring: Mamdani claims he won’t be the “word police,” yet his supporters feel entitled to critique Gillibrand’s choice of language. This double standard is unacceptable.
Senator Chuck Schumer is equally caught in a bind. While he condemns the phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” his silence on Mamdani’s candidacy speaks volumes. The fear of alienating their base prevents him from outright rejecting this far-left candidate, yet aligning with a figure openly antagonistic to Israel could jeopardize their chances in the general election.
Governor Kathy Hochul faces a similar dilemma as she gears up for next year’s election. To maintain her “sensible” image, she has distanced herself from Mamdani’s extremist agenda but attempts to placate the left by backing the backlash against Gillibrand’s remarks. This is a clear indication of the chaos consuming the Democratic Party at every level.
Even the New York State Senate feels the implications of this internal struggle. Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and her deputy, Michael Gianaris, have thrown their support behind the anti-police Mamdani, solidifying their allegiance with the progressive left rather than the mainstream values New Yorkers cherish.
Meanwhile, House Democrats, including Jerry Nadler and Dan Goldman, are left scrambling. Their hesitance to openly confront Mamdani signals a disarray in their ranks as they weigh political survival against fundamental values.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is caught in a tight spot as well. He eyes a path to the majority but knows the party’s success in swing districts hinges on navigating Mamdani’s controversial stance. His call for clarification on the “intifada” comment is a desperate maneuver for political cover.
In contrast, Representative Ritchie Torres, who stands firmly with Israel, remains cautious in his criticisms while reconsidering his own political ambitions. This emphasizes the fear coursing through the party as they grapple with the implications of backing Mamdani.
City unions, previously hesitant, are scrambling to align with the probable next mayor. Several have already pledged their support to Mamdani, abandoning any semblance of neutrality to secure favorable treatment.
Adding to the chaos, former Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who lost his suburban seat due to his own anti-Israel sentiments, is now positioning himself as a potential chancellor under Mamdani’s impending administration. This further illustrates the self-serving nature of politicians who prioritize ambition over integrity.
Amidst this turmoil, Mayor Eric Adams stands out as a beacon of courage. He has not wavered in his condemnation of the harmful “criminal justice reforms” that have put New Yorkers at risk, nor has he hesitated to call out the Biden administration’s failures on immigration. His willingness to tackle these issues, even at the cost of political repercussions, has preserved his honor amidst a sea of duplicity.
In a city where political expediency often overrules principle, Adams remains a lone warrior against an increasingly radical Democratic Party. The stakes are high, and the battle for the soul of the party is far from over.
