You just did what your article is preaching against. “I’m not a democratic socialist “, “half-baked ideas “, the businessmen being the “adults in the room “, at least he’s not Cuomo, etc. let’s cut him down some more. Weren’t there a lot of the same issues with Obama? I’m in Alaska, not NYC but I think he’s a great candidate. Please practice what you preach.
Thank you for leaving a comment! For what it's worth, I'm not a Democratic Socialist, and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying so. My point in this case is that the business community is failing to act like adults in the room. And I do think worry that his policies ignore some basic realities - like the fact that the mayor can't raise taxes unilaterally. But he won the primary, I think and hope he'll win the general election, and I hope I'm wrong and that either his policies are successful or he has the flexibility to change course as needed. We don't all have to love everything about every Democratic candidate. (And for the record, while I haven't described it in this reply, there's a lot about Mamdani I very much like.)
The New York Times seems apoplectic at the prospect of Mamdani as mayor and seems determined to be a voice for those who profit from unaffordability.
There was a time when the concern was floated that JFK, a Catholic, would answer to the Pope, not the American people. I see concerns about Mamdani's religion as equally ridiculous.
Yeah I think the Islamophobia is (obviously) abhorrent. I think the NYT made a huge mistake in not endorsing candidates any more - if they think someone should be mayor they should say so!
The Democratic Party is really the democratic socialist party and we need to claim that mantle, not run from it. We are the party of free market capitalism AND big government intervention in areas where the free market cannot provide a sufficient standard of living for all our citizens. We should be proud of this and shout it from the rooftops at every opportunity.
However, we should also acknowledge our complicity in the “trickle down” economy from roughly 1980-2010 when most of the working class was thrown under the bus. The game has been rigged against working people for almost two generations now and we need to publicly state that and then forcefully remind people of our noble role in creating a system which protected them from the abuses of big corporate business and enhanced their lives in so many other ways..
I don’t think claiming the democratic socialist mantle will work outside the bluest parts of the country. And I also think the 1990s were a good example of a time when the economy improved for most Americans, in large part because Dems rejected trickle down economics. Ditto in the Obama years although inequality increased.
Exactly! There needs to be BALANCE, or RE-balance, between social policies and capitalism.
The post-WWII years created the world's greatest middle class because labor unions fought for & won concessions from management. The U.S. was at its strongest then, the envy of the world.
We still had problems, but those were being worked on (e.g. Johnson's Great Society).
Then along comes Reagan, gutting so many things that gov't was doing right, starting by dumbing down the population and cutting care for the less fortunate among us.
The only legitimate "concern" that all -- all -- Democrats should have about Mamdani is whether or not he has the actual ability, know-how, knowledge and understanding to run, manage, operate this trillion dollar city. Schools. Streets. Sanitation. Public safety. Parks. Housing. Water. Health. Thousands of workers. Finances. He's got vision and values and integrity. Necessary but oh, boy. Not enough.
He also was elected to the New York State Assembly in an NYC district three times..which means he has held more elected positions that either Giuliani or Bloomberg did at the times they were elected.
Eric Adams had the most experience as an elected New York City official of any recent NYC Mayor..and that turned out...not so great.
But still, Democrats around the country fell over themselves when Adams won to praise him and talk about him as the future of the Democratic Party, even though he barely scraped a win by 7000 votes after several rounds of ranked choice vote tallies.
Mamdani, on the other hand, won more votes than another other Democratic candidate for mayor in NYC history, bring out new and young voters in an unprecedented turnout.
As typical for Democratic Party 'moderates', Litt focuses on three words Mamdani said while largely ignoring the many reasons for Mamdani's astounding win.
I am waiting for the day when 'liberals' give the same level of criticism to the many leading Democrats who have openly and emphatically supported Israel throughout its genocidal onslaught in Gaza, its major acceleration of its apartheid-driven assault on the West Bank, and its attacks and occupations in several other countries...not to mention decades of violence and oppression before the last 20 months.
The US/Israeli 'Gaza Humanitarian Foundation' has been luring in intentionally-starved Palestinians, then mowing them down in cold blood for several weeks now...while Trump hosts an indicted war criminal in the White House to discuss the forced relocation of the entire Palestinian population of Gaza...and the Democratic response has been crickets, while finding plenty of time to attack Mamdani for one comment, with plenty of Democrats calling him antisemitic or worse.
The US has now sanctioned the ICC, sanctioned UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, and continues to veto UN resolution after resolution, all for condemning Israel's constant war crimes.....where is the 'concern' from Litt and other 'centrist' Democrats?
Genocide scholars and human rights groups the world over have affirmed that Israel is committing genocide..where is Litt's outrage about this? Does he really think a few words remotely compare to the horror the bulk of the Democratic Party has been supporting and enabling for many years?
His other comments about Mamdani are not much better. Mamdani was not simply 'charismatic'. He won more votes in a Democratic mayoral primary than any other candidate in history with an incredible campaign that mobilized volunteers at an unprecedented level. Instead of learning from Mamdani, mainstream Democrats continue to undermine him or at best, ignore him, or refuse to endorse him, or, as Litt does here, dismissively patronize him.
It was not just 'the business community ' the fought tooth and nail to keep Mamdani from winning. It was Democrats all over NYC and across the country, right up to Bill Clinton...and again, nearly every single one of these Dems that would rather side with a disgraced sexual predator than have Mamdani win are also not just ok with Israel's generations of violence, they actively support it.
NYC Democratic voters demonstrated without any doubt that they do not see the Democratic Party as a 'paragon of responsibility'...and Litt's comments here provide yet another example why.
Thank you for commenting. I wrote this piece because I think a lot of Democrats care more passionately about intramural fights within the party than they do about fighting Trump. And I think that’s misguided and dangerous. I don’t agree with your characterization of what I said (or what Mamdani said - he’s never used the words globalize the intifada himself) but I think this is helpful example of the kind of thing I’m talking about.
You just did what your article is preaching against. “I’m not a democratic socialist “, “half-baked ideas “, the businessmen being the “adults in the room “, at least he’s not Cuomo, etc. let’s cut him down some more. Weren’t there a lot of the same issues with Obama? I’m in Alaska, not NYC but I think he’s a great candidate. Please practice what you preach.
Thank you for leaving a comment! For what it's worth, I'm not a Democratic Socialist, and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying so. My point in this case is that the business community is failing to act like adults in the room. And I do think worry that his policies ignore some basic realities - like the fact that the mayor can't raise taxes unilaterally. But he won the primary, I think and hope he'll win the general election, and I hope I'm wrong and that either his policies are successful or he has the flexibility to change course as needed. We don't all have to love everything about every Democratic candidate. (And for the record, while I haven't described it in this reply, there's a lot about Mamdani I very much like.)
The New York Times seems apoplectic at the prospect of Mamdani as mayor and seems determined to be a voice for those who profit from unaffordability.
There was a time when the concern was floated that JFK, a Catholic, would answer to the Pope, not the American people. I see concerns about Mamdani's religion as equally ridiculous.
Yeah I think the Islamophobia is (obviously) abhorrent. I think the NYT made a huge mistake in not endorsing candidates any more - if they think someone should be mayor they should say so!
The Democratic Party is really the democratic socialist party and we need to claim that mantle, not run from it. We are the party of free market capitalism AND big government intervention in areas where the free market cannot provide a sufficient standard of living for all our citizens. We should be proud of this and shout it from the rooftops at every opportunity.
However, we should also acknowledge our complicity in the “trickle down” economy from roughly 1980-2010 when most of the working class was thrown under the bus. The game has been rigged against working people for almost two generations now and we need to publicly state that and then forcefully remind people of our noble role in creating a system which protected them from the abuses of big corporate business and enhanced their lives in so many other ways..
I don’t think claiming the democratic socialist mantle will work outside the bluest parts of the country. And I also think the 1990s were a good example of a time when the economy improved for most Americans, in large part because Dems rejected trickle down economics. Ditto in the Obama years although inequality increased.
Exactly! There needs to be BALANCE, or RE-balance, between social policies and capitalism.
The post-WWII years created the world's greatest middle class because labor unions fought for & won concessions from management. The U.S. was at its strongest then, the envy of the world.
We still had problems, but those were being worked on (e.g. Johnson's Great Society).
Then along comes Reagan, gutting so many things that gov't was doing right, starting by dumbing down the population and cutting care for the less fortunate among us.
One could go on, but you get the drift . . .
Meant to add: he's still our best bet
I agree - being mayor is tough! And I also agree he’s our best bet at this point. That’s what primaries are for.
The only legitimate "concern" that all -- all -- Democrats should have about Mamdani is whether or not he has the actual ability, know-how, knowledge and understanding to run, manage, operate this trillion dollar city. Schools. Streets. Sanitation. Public safety. Parks. Housing. Water. Health. Thousands of workers. Finances. He's got vision and values and integrity. Necessary but oh, boy. Not enough.
He also was elected to the New York State Assembly in an NYC district three times..which means he has held more elected positions that either Giuliani or Bloomberg did at the times they were elected.
Eric Adams had the most experience as an elected New York City official of any recent NYC Mayor..and that turned out...not so great.
But still, Democrats around the country fell over themselves when Adams won to praise him and talk about him as the future of the Democratic Party, even though he barely scraped a win by 7000 votes after several rounds of ranked choice vote tallies.
Mamdani, on the other hand, won more votes than another other Democratic candidate for mayor in NYC history, bring out new and young voters in an unprecedented turnout.
As typical for Democratic Party 'moderates', Litt focuses on three words Mamdani said while largely ignoring the many reasons for Mamdani's astounding win.
I am waiting for the day when 'liberals' give the same level of criticism to the many leading Democrats who have openly and emphatically supported Israel throughout its genocidal onslaught in Gaza, its major acceleration of its apartheid-driven assault on the West Bank, and its attacks and occupations in several other countries...not to mention decades of violence and oppression before the last 20 months.
The US/Israeli 'Gaza Humanitarian Foundation' has been luring in intentionally-starved Palestinians, then mowing them down in cold blood for several weeks now...while Trump hosts an indicted war criminal in the White House to discuss the forced relocation of the entire Palestinian population of Gaza...and the Democratic response has been crickets, while finding plenty of time to attack Mamdani for one comment, with plenty of Democrats calling him antisemitic or worse.
The US has now sanctioned the ICC, sanctioned UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, and continues to veto UN resolution after resolution, all for condemning Israel's constant war crimes.....where is the 'concern' from Litt and other 'centrist' Democrats?
Genocide scholars and human rights groups the world over have affirmed that Israel is committing genocide..where is Litt's outrage about this? Does he really think a few words remotely compare to the horror the bulk of the Democratic Party has been supporting and enabling for many years?
His other comments about Mamdani are not much better. Mamdani was not simply 'charismatic'. He won more votes in a Democratic mayoral primary than any other candidate in history with an incredible campaign that mobilized volunteers at an unprecedented level. Instead of learning from Mamdani, mainstream Democrats continue to undermine him or at best, ignore him, or refuse to endorse him, or, as Litt does here, dismissively patronize him.
It was not just 'the business community ' the fought tooth and nail to keep Mamdani from winning. It was Democrats all over NYC and across the country, right up to Bill Clinton...and again, nearly every single one of these Dems that would rather side with a disgraced sexual predator than have Mamdani win are also not just ok with Israel's generations of violence, they actively support it.
NYC Democratic voters demonstrated without any doubt that they do not see the Democratic Party as a 'paragon of responsibility'...and Litt's comments here provide yet another example why.
Thank you for commenting. I wrote this piece because I think a lot of Democrats care more passionately about intramural fights within the party than they do about fighting Trump. And I think that’s misguided and dangerous. I don’t agree with your characterization of what I said (or what Mamdani said - he’s never used the words globalize the intifada himself) but I think this is helpful example of the kind of thing I’m talking about.