Is Mamdani the right direction for American politics?
NO- Liam Sauer (Editor-in-Chief)
We live in an era of politics where everyone feels disenfranchised: almost no one feels fully represented by their political party and almost no politician is working to change that. New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamadani is undoubtedly the exception to that rule. Mamdani’s campaign targeting affordability, corruption and real issues voters actually care about, finally seemed like the change our country needs.
But here’s the problem: Mamdani and the movement he has now inspired–though well intentioned–is running on a platform that offers big radical promises; big promises that are not only impossible, but if actually allowed to go through, will destroy his city.
Let’s actually talk about Mamdani's plans; not his ability to recognize the way in which things are wrong. The latter–his ability to effectively communicate the issues and unrepresentative nature of our country–is revolutionary. But if he is really claiming to ‘build a new kind of politics’, we have to dive deep into what that means practically.
Food Insecurity: New York, like the rest of the country, is full of food deserts- low-income areas where it is too expensive to get healthy foods. So Mamdani, to ‘fix this,’ is going to open government-run grocery stores, with the basic premise that they can offer foods at lower prices and give all New Yorkers access to basic nutrition. I could detail the numerous failed examples of cities in the US and abroad that have tried government-operated stores, but Mamdani hopefuls will argue about the circumstances and contend that it will work this time. So instead let’s just look at New York: like many cities in America, New York is full of small business-style grocery stores. Known as bodegas, these neighborhood staples, often run by immigrant entrepreneurs, are the main source of food for New Yorkers. There are approximately 13,000 of them and many of them serve as community hubs. Placing these city-run grocery stores into direct competition with these bodegas would ([for the time the government grocery stores stay open)] cause many of them to close, or lower their prices to levels that are unprofitable. This not only would negatively impact thousands upon thousands of small-business owners and their workers, it would be detrimental to these centers of the New York community and economy. Instead of adopting a failed and dangerous policy, wouldn't it be better to just subsidize the bodegas, giving them extra money to provide healthier foods?
Rent Freezes and Affordable Housing: like many cities throughout the country, making due in New York is nearly impossible. Rent is way too high and there is a lack of not just proper housing, but housing in general. The thing is, what made this problem so much worse, was its initial well intentioned solution. Mamdani is advocating policy to stop the increase of rent on rent-stabilized housing. Yet, extensive rent stabilizing policies contributed to the lack of housing in the first place! There are 26,000+ vacant rent-stabilized apartments in New York according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2024 Housing and Vacancy Survey. And why are they vacant? The landlords who own them have refused to put them back on the market, because the policies that stopped them from charging the amount they wanted to for rent made it unaffordable to even offer them. Freezing rent would even further exacerbate this attitude of restricting housing among landlords, making it so that there is less housing availability for the thousands of New Yorkers who need it. Mamdani wants to borrow $70 billion dollars [New York has $104.1 billion dollars in outstanding debt as of 2024] to create alternative affordable housing–a program that has repeatedly failed in America–when there are already thousands of apartments ready to be used, that aren't because of policies like his. I wholeheartedly agree, throughout the country we need to provide adequate housing to people and stop corporations from buying up properties and making them unattainably expensive. But again, our solution to these glaring problems cannot be these one-stamp fits all projects that just result in wasted resources.
Tax Hikes: there is no reason why individuals and their companies should have billions of dollars, while people struggle to afford a meal. Unfortunately, as income and corporate taxes have increased for the highest denominator, they have left their cities and states, taking their industry with them. In our own state, as we have continued to raise taxes, we have lost millions of people to states with laxer tax laws like Texas and Florida. In 2023, California had a net loss of 533 companies who predominantly cited high taxes as their reason for moving, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. With them, they took thousands of jobs and billions in GDP away from our state. Mamdani is proposing these same tax hikes at a much larger level to pay for all the programs he wants to put in place. New York, which already had the third highest outbound rate in the country in 2024 according to United Van Lines’ National Movers Study, is in for a dire situation if these corporations and their owners leave. It will damage the city's already struggling economy and present the problem of what, or who, will actually pay for Mamdani’s proposed government projects.
Our political system is utterly broken. We have representatives who don't fight for our interests, leaving the American public without a means to advocate for themselves. I commend Mamdani for his willingness to actually acknowledge what Americans want. I urge more politicians to move towards that. But I also realize that these too-good-to-be-true policies, if followed by the rest of the country, are going to put more people in harm's way. Trying to fight for equality doesn't mean throwing out rationality. And plainly, that is what Mamdani is doing.
YES- Arturo Singer-Portnoy (Staff Writer)
For a generation growing up in a world encompassed by impossible rents, crushing debt and constant political cynicism, Zohran Mamdani’s ideas should sound less like radical theory and more like common sense. His Democratic Socialist platform represents the best direction for American politics because his ideas confront inequality head-on, they challenge systems that benefit from inequity and they aim to deliver outcomes that improve life for the many rather than the few. Before diving into why his ideas matter, however, it is imperative that we understand the conditions that shaped them.
Across the country, median rents have surged more than 30 percent since 2019, and over half of all renters are now considered cost burdened, says the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Concurrently, wealth inequality has reached staggering levels: the top one percent now holds roughly 30 percent of all household wealth, while the bottom half holds roughly three percent, according to the Federal Reserve’s Distribution of Financial Accounts. Let’s not take these numbers lightly—they represent a sad reality characterized by uncertainty, instability and a striking resemblance to the circumstances that shaped the French Revolution.
In New York (NYC) specifically, these national pressures are only magnified. NYC’s housing market is even more punishing, and its wealth divide even more drastic, making the instability felt nationwide especially intense here. Not to mention, a transit system defined by its chronic underfunding leaves working-class riders facing longer commutes, unreliable service, dirty conditions and much more. Under Mayor Eric Adams, whose administration in my view reflects profound ethical failure, the city has also tilted even further towards private interests taking even greater control over public life.
When a city feels this stretched, this neglected and this curved toward the ultra-rich and powerful, it's not hard to see why a different type of politics has begun to resonate.
At the forefront of Mamdani’s platform is a straightforward idea: housing should be treated as a basic human right, not an asset. His tenant-first approach, which expands social housing, strengthens rent protections and curbs predatory landlord practices, is paired with mechanisms that make these goals not only possible but quite achievable. Mamdani argues for publicly funded, permanently affordable housing built on the model of systems that already work in places like Vienna and Singapore, and he proposes redirecting public subsidies away from private developers and toward projects that guarantee long-term affordability. By pushing for “Good Cause” protections that prevent unjust evictions, homes can stay in the hands of communities rather than private equity firms. When the country is missing over seven million affordable units, Mamdani’s approach works because it fits the scale of the crisis and understands that public investment creates stability in the way that private doesn’t.
Mamdani’s vision for public transit follows the same logic as housing: if the people are struggling because essential systems and infrastructure have been neglected, the answer is to reform those systems rather than accept decline as inevitable. As aforementioned, New York’s bus and subway networks have faced chronic underfunding for years, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is still operating with ridership levels roughly 30 percent below pre 2020 numbers—a gap that threatens service, raises fares and pushes more people into cars. Mamdani argues for long-term investment that stabilizes service, expands access to neighborhoods that have been neglected for decades and treats transit like a public right rather than a luxury. Fortunately, these ideas aren’t unrealistic; cities that have invested in mass transit—from Seoul to London—have seen higher ridership, lower emissions and more equitable access, all outcomes that New York is positioned to replicate.
A defining pillar of Mamdani’s politics is that an economy this unequal simply isn’t sustainable. The idea that “there are no ethical billionaires," starts to make sense when you realize that we live in a country where the richest few hold staggering amounts of wealth while millions struggle to meet basic needs. And calling for a fairer distribution of wealth is not some leap into ideological extremism, or communism for that matter—it’s a basic acknowledgement that concentrating unfathomable wealth in the hands of few has never made for a healthy society.
Critics of Mamdani often argue that his ideas are economically or morally suspect, but these claims fall apart quickly. Taxing the top one percent, for instance, is entirely feasible in a state where wealth is so concentrated that even marginal increases generate billions in revenue; the idea that NYC’s economy would fall apart the second the wealthiest contribute slightly more simply isn’t supported by the data or the experience of states with similar tax structures.
When debate surrounding Mamdani and his ideas arise, the argument of antisemitism often comes about. However, refusing to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state” is a political position rooted in equal citizenship, not a denial of Jewish identity. Equally so, calling Israel’s actions “genocide” is a moral judgement shared by major human rights organizations. Defending the chant “globalize the intifada,” followed by publicly discouraging its use once he understood the fear it evoked reflects a willingness to learn and listen, not hatred. And lastly, anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, and mixing the two only serves to silence legitimate political dissent.
So when we ask whether Mamdani’s ideas should influence the future of American politics, the answer is clear. His vision meets the crises we face with solutions that match their scale, and his moral courage offers what our political system has lacked for way too long. For a nation searching for stability and fairness, his vision stands out as a rare and necessary roadmap.