🔗 Share this article

A potential silver lining to enduring the current era is it compels us to rethink and perhaps totally remake things we long considered unchangeable.

Consider the Democratic party.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the present-day Democratic party is not functioning properly, or perhaps even obsolete.

Better dysfunctional than a authoritarian movement like the Trump-led GOP. But should there ever be a time when the nation required a powerful, lively Democratic party, that time is now. And we don’t have one.

The most promising figure in the Democratic movement is Zohran Mamdani, the young representative of the New York state assembly who has a good chance of being voted in the next mayor of New York City when voters participate in elections a week from Tuesday.

His campaign addresses what matters to the electorate: economic pressures. He says this urban center should be affordable for all residents.

He’s addressing the problems citizens talk about over their dinner tables. He’s not debating “Trumpism” or economic systems. He’s not offering a typical Democratic “10-point plan” with complicated incentives that lack clarity.

He advocates for a handful clear policies: free buses, free childcare, a temporary rent control for a significant number of tenants, and a $30 minimum wage. He’s aiming to do what FDR did in the Great Depression era: address issues.

Some might disagree with every idea (some differ), but they make sense. And should they fail, it's anticipated like FDR, he’ll try something else.

What truly stands out for many observers is that he motivates a youth movement of young people. He generates enthusiasm about the political process. (My 17-year-old granddaughter is spending her weekends engaging voters for him, as are her friends.)

You don’t have to reach too far to find leaders who have motivated the youth. Bernie Sanders (though not a Democrat) and the New York representative. The former president. (Many were motivated in my youth by RFK – the real Bobby Kennedy – and another political figure.)

This new voice.

What common traits have in common? They are genuine. They have energy. They are concerned with ordinary citizens. They aim to create America more just. They promote achievable policies that people can understand.

Nonetheless, Mamdani is horrifying the establishment figures of the Democratic party. Chuck Schumer has not supported him. The former candidate has supported a political rival, who’s spending what are probably the final chapter of his time in politics indulging in the kind of prejudiced statements commonly seen from Republican figures.

Meanwhile, the opinion section of the media outlet counsels “moderation”, urging party nominees to move to the political middle. Tell me: Where’s the center between democracy and authoritarianism, and what reason is there to choose that path?

In truth, the Times’s so-called “moderate center” is a euphemism for business-friendly politicians utilizing significant funding to pursue culturally conservative “swing” voters – a strategy that the Democratic party has been doing for decades.

This is part of the reason the rise of a controversial figure. Establishment figures took the party away from its real mission: to lift up the blue-collar workers and ordinary Americans and help the poor. Instead, they supported international trade, corporate control and the deregulation of Wall Street. They evolved into Republican-lite.

During recent elections, ordinary citizens noticed this shift and chose a controversial businessman who at least sounded like he was understanding their struggles. The reality differed – he’s on the side the rich individuals to whom he provided major financial benefits. But when deciding between a seemingly supportive candidate and a conventional leader, guess who wins?

Trump also fed voters divisive rhetoric – pointing fingers at foreign-born individuals, Latino communities, Black people, gender minorities, bureaucrats and educated classes. In contrast, offered confusing platforms.

Media outlets argue its argument that candidates must gravitate to the middle ground by pointing to Democrats who won election in the past cycle in places Trump also won.

This reasoning is flawed. These candidates succeeded in such districts by using comparable strategies. An individual ridiculed the term “Latinx” and was conservative regarding newcomers. Several candidates supported harsh policies more aggressively on illegal immigration. Other politicians highlighted public safety and public safety. One candidate touted confronting Washington officials.

This approach fails for the party. Controversial talking points doesn’t fill hungry bellies or pay medical bills or address financial pressures or solve housing issues.

Mamdani poses a particular threat the establishment figures because he wants to tax the affluent to pay for his plan to make the city more affordable to people who aren’t wealthy.

His plan would create significant funding by increasing levies for the affluent individuals and businesses. He’s calling for a 2% tax on high salaries, which would produce $4bn in tax revenue. He wants to increase the state’s corporate tax rate to this level to align with neighboring state's, generating about significant annual revenue.

The reasoning is sound. Affluent individuals have accumulated historic riches as they are now, while the tax rate they pay hasn’t been as low in living memory.

Inequalities of income and wealth are at unprecedented points. Several ultra-rich people now influence multiple areas of the political structure and the economic system.

While the financial markets achieves unprecedented values, ordinary Americans throughout the country are {getting shaft