(Column by Charles C.W. Cooke in National Review Online, June 25) I did not think that Democratic primary voters in New York City would choose a socialist to be their mayoral nominee, even if his most competitive rival was the egregious Andrew Cuomo. I was wrong. Last night, New York’s illustrious Democrats selected the thoroughly absurd Zohran Mamdani to be their standard-bearer in November — and, by the looks of it, the contest was not particularly close. In its write-up this morning, Politico proposes that Mamdani’s victory represents a “clear repudiation of the political establishment” and may even “have reordered the Big Apple’s electoral politics.” In an admirable understatement, the outlet concludes that, despite his victory, “questions persist for Mamdani.”
As it happens, I don’t have questions for Mamdani. I have questions for New York’s electorate. And one, in particular, springs to mind: What, in the name of all that is holy, are you doing?
I do not ask this because I am a conservative. Having lived in New York City, I understand that the metropolis will never have a politics that comports with my own. Nor do I ask it because I am unable to imagine that different people and different places will have different politics. In my outlook, I am a small-l liberal, and, in my preferences, I am a federalist. Florida is not Maine, and San Francisco is not Cleveland, and that’s absolutely fine with me. I have strong views, yes. But, even in the areas I feel the strongest about, I can usually comprehend the opposite perspective. Presupposed by the Constitution that I cherish is that, however long the republic lasts, its people will never abolish their heartfelt ideological divisions.
But, in the case of New York City, I am baffled. Why? Well, because, in my experience, most of the important questions that arise in that place are pre-political. My reading of history shows that, if New York is to function properly, it needs a pragmatic, no-frills mayor who is obsessed with fighting crime, with ensuring that the city’s already high taxes do not become so absurd that the taxpayers leave, and with preventing the machinery of government from being derailed by special interests. When New York has one of those mayors — as it did in Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg — it works. When New York does not have one of those mayors — as was the case in the 1970s and 1980s, and, as has been the case (to a far lesser extent) since 2014 — it works less well. Politics is a complicated endeavor, and, in consequence, it does not exhibit too many genuine “iron rules.” But this is one of them: Serious person as mayor = success. Frivolous person as mayor = failure….
the important question before voters was simply, “Do you want to keep the streets safe and the services competent?” For two decades, the resounding answer was “yes.”
Now? Not so much. Last night’s election was not the general, and it did not reflect the city as a whole. Perhaps, somehow, Mamdani will lose later in the year. But that ought not to distract from what happened here. In 2013, New Yorkers as a whole became complacent and abandoned the formula that had worked so well since 1994. Now, the city’s thoroughly dominant Democratic Party has advanced a candidate so barmy that…. [The full column is here.]
