Not since Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign has there been this much excitement on the American Left. And for good reason: Mamdani, a Ugandan-born democratic socialist, launched his longshot bid for Gracie Mansion a year ago, before soon achieving AOC-level fame and leapfrogging past his conventional Democratic opponents, past incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, and past Cuomo, a scion of one of the most powerful liberal dynasties in the country. A victorious Mamdani would set the tone for Left-wing urban governance to a degree not seen in decades.

Yet Mamdani and his inner circle would be wise to temper their jubilation. The untested Mamdani could singly determine the course of American progressivism and its odds of countering the MAGA realignment: failure would carry an exorbitant cost. While the champion of affordability has promised to restore integrity to City Hall, there are worrisome indicators that Mamdani hasn’t grappled with the other causes of blue-city blues: namely, that crime and disorder appear to be festering once more following the historic lows reached early last decade.

It is hard to overstate the pressure on him. In a party largely bereft of compelling leaders, Mamdani has been heralded as the next great hope of progressive politics. But his opponents predict disaster as confidently as his supporters expect change. Mamdani, his foes charge, is an unabashed creature of the “woke” #DefundthePolice Left, animated by theories of criminal justice that are opposed to the common sense of ordinary New Yorkers. Mamdani and his allies have tried to parry these claims as slander, the fever dream of reactionaries who see a “loony” sectarian agenda in every  progressive cause.

Mamdani’s ground game and the media war suggest he has mostly deflected the blows. Still, his biggest challenge is not to convince ambivalent New Yorkers outside his base that his detractors are delusional. It is to demonstrate he understands unequivocally that ambitious reform and strong social trust must go hand-in-hand.

Since the June primary Mamdani has made a few efforts to telegraph as much. He has apologized for past remarks broadly condemning the NYPD, promised to “discourage” the phrase “globalize the intifada”, and met extensively with rabbis and other Jewish leaders. He has signaled that if elected, he would retain Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, one of Adams’s more respected appointees, who has combined a tough approach to crime with encouraging efforts to root out corruption in the force. 

More from this author

Gavin Newsom won’t save California

By Justin H. Vassallo

To be sure, some of the attackers exude noxious hysteria (about “Trotskyite” experiments and the rise of American-style “Islamo-gauchisme.” They traffic in sensationalist and bigoted rhetoric that makes Tea Party-era rumors about Barack Obama’s “foreign birth certificate” seem tame by comparison. Desperate and resentful, Cuomo himself has resorted to exploiting unease over Mamdani’s Muslim identity in a city whose Muslim population only modestly trails its Jewish one.

Even so, it would be unwise of Mamdani to dismiss more sober doubts about his ability to manage the city well and ensure public safety — two preconditions of lasting social-democratic reform. Millions of working- and middle-class New Yorkers are hungry for greater economic security and laws that reset the balance of power between the asset-rich and asset-poor. These same New Yorkers, however, also want a city that is safe and hospitable to families with children.

Such concerns aren’t rooted in bad faith. Since Covid, Gotham has been in limbo. It’s hardly the caricature painted by those who say the “bad old days” of the Seventies and Eighties are back, but the city nevertheless radiates an increasingly antisocial ambiance. While the pandemic-era surge in violent crime has mostly ebbed, felony assaults on public transit are up. A number of sadistic murders have frightened the public. Despite a recent decline, fatal drug overdoses are above pre-2020 levels. The city’s homelessness crisis — already severe under Adams’s Left-leaning predecessor, Bill de Blasio — hit new records in the last two years. Rough sleeping and panhandling are ubiquitous.

There is a more general sense that the city has grown indifferent to its own commons. The sight of feces and urine on buses and subways is a regular occurrence, even during school hours. Migrant children hawk candies and other goods in the subway and parks instead of attending school. The odor of synthetic drugs hangs in the air, while poorly regulated marijuana shops pop up close to school zones. Working-class and heavily immigrant neighborhoods have struggled with an explosion in prostitution and shoplifting. Vision Zero — a plan to eliminate traffic fatalities that was introduced in 2014 — backslid for most of Adams’s term.

It is easy to misinterpret distressing incidents and random violence as reflecting a broader trend. It is likewise easy to dismiss patterns that steadily erode the city’s quality of life. Amid President Trump’s threats to deploy more national guard troops to US cities, progressives are at pains to play down any and all worries about public order. Yet the decades-long effort to build a more cohesive and optimistic city seems to have plateaued, and may be unraveling. That may be an indictment of the city’s current administration and the establishment. But it doesn’t nullify the questions dogging Mamdani. Does he register what working families see with increasing frustration and alarm? And does he have the judgment to avert the dysfunction which threatens to pervade the city?

For all his thoughtfulness, Mamdani has not always conveyed that he does possess such sensitivity. He argues passionately that “New Yorkers have been betrayed by the politics of our city” – in which a corrupt and obsequious establishment has sold-out to the kinds of billionaires now racing to defeat him. And he is mostly right. Three decades of cowardly deference to the city’s wealthiest residents has favored the extravagance of the few over the common good. Preventing crime and low-level disorder requires greater poverty reduction, affordable housing, high-wage jobs, policies to reduce youth unemployment, investment in mental-health services, and intelligent programs to curb recidivism. Only through such efforts can the city fulfill its true potential as a beacon of pluralism and opportunity.

Mamdani has stressed this long overdue reform-minded agenda as the basis of his candidacy. His model, he insists, is New York’s legendary three-term mayor Fiorello La Guardia, a progressive Republican who championed workers, fought corruption and organized crime, and partnered with FDR to alleviate the Great Depression. Throughout his campaign, Mamdani has spoken eloquently of making sure “affordability” means genuine financial freedom for the 50% of New Yorkers who are rent-burdened. It’s an appeal to a greater freedom — to enjoy more family time, recreation, and community activities — that also draws inspiration from Northern Europe’s postwar social contract. As Mamdani allowed in a cozy interview on The View, he is like a Scandinavian politician, but “a little more brown.”

Suggested reading

The Zohran Mamdani I know

By Ross Barkan

Still, there is the occasional sign that Mamdani the reformer does not grasp the issues as working-class New Yorkers might see them. A case in point is his opaque stance on prostitution. When asked about his past support for decriminalizing sex work in a recent interview on Good Day New York, Mamdani emphasized there should be “no tolerance for [sex] trafficking” and violence against women, but that decriminalization is consistent with the recommendations of the World Health Organization and other international agencies. It was an answer that no doubt impressed the advanced degree-holders and NGO workers. But as during the mayoral debates, he missed a simple opportunity to reassure New Yorkers troubled by open-air prostitution and all that it signals. I’ll do everything within my power to get the girls off the street is what a strong leader who understood the ramifications of the problem should have said.

As final polls show Mamdani’s lead tightening, his team is naturally keen to keep the focus on bread-and-butter issues. His converts, moreover, would say that the notion that he, a practicing Muslim, is out-of-step with New Yorkers’ views of crime and public morality is baseless. His hyperbolic critics, they protest, are holding him to an absurdly different standard than Cuomo, who has been disgraced by far worse controversies and abuses of power. To look askance at some of his approaches to social justice and “harm reduction” is to miss the big picture and fall prey to the manipulations of vested interests who don’t want their dominance of the city challenged.

If he is to succeed, Mamdani’s allies must confront his weaknesses. His main mistake in the last days of the race has been to show he still bears the influence of the fringier elements of the Democratic Socialists of America at the very moment he ought to be assuming the mantle of La Guardia. By now he should know well enough the stakes are about more than him. Powerful organized interests want him to fail, for reasons beyond the enmity his campaign has sparked; indeed, a pall over a Mamdani administration would inevitably spread to progressive insurgents in other, more Trump-friendly parts of the country.

On the cusp of power, Mamdani’s greatest test awaits. His election would mark a sea change in city politics whose rumblings began 14 years ago, when Occupy Wall Street mobilized tens of thousands of New Yorkers fed up with what they saw as an insular and bankrupt liberal establishment. What he does with the excitement and good will he’s generated will reverberate long after his first months in office. There is little room for error.

London looks extraordinary from up here, immortal in its way, a proving ground for the capitalist dream of unending growth. In all the time I have lived here, I have never felt so blissfully remote from the economic forces embodied by that view. Since the imposition of the first lockdown last March, I have scarcely crossed the river, let alone loitered in the cultural and commercial districts, which, in times of normality, so often coaxed millions of us into their gleaming centre

In many respects, this has been a tonic. During these months of geographical constraint, our preoccupations have become localised, almost parochial: the vexatious subject of “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods”; the question of which local park cafes serve alcohol.

Only now, as Covid restrictions ease and a mayoral election comes into focus, has that spell started to break. With it comes a need to look back to that horizon, and return to the issues besetting the city at large.

The rogue’s gallery of candidates for the mayoralty betrays a city which, like the wider country, remains ill at ease with itself. To rose-tinted liberals, London is still the ultimate city, a cradle of tolerant coexistence, the place where multiculturalism works. To those on the histrionic Right, London is anarchy, plagued by terror-attacks, no-go zones and spiralling crime.

The truth, inevitably, is somewhere in between. London is not a Powellian ruin. But, for a lifelong resident like me, it is no longer possible to pretend that it is a unified, contented and enviable place either. Indeed, the most disturbing question raised in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire has not gone away: how did London become a place that no longer functions for those who live here?

I suspect the answer, if it could be boiled down into a single word, would be property. In my other life, I do occasional work as a landscape gardener, tending the lawns and flowerbeds of south London’s more affluent inner-suburbs. Recently, a neighbour sidled up to me to complain about the homogenisation of her neighbourhood. I wrote about this very subject last year for UnHerd.

Next door to where I was working, someone with a lot of money had commissioned an overhaul of their semi, and the excavation conveyors were churning all day long, puking up London clay to make space for a new basement. “When we moved here 40 years ago, I was a junior legal researcher, my husband was an assistant lecturer,” the neighbour said, over the din. “This road was all teachers and police officers. Public servants. Now it’s just bankers, bankers, bankers.”

How did this happen? The erosion of London’s social-housing stock, which once inoculated the city against the creation of rich and poor ghettoes, is certainly one reason; the globe-trotting tendencies of the super-rich another. Disproportionate city incomes have furnished a portion of residents with the financial leverage to recast an area overnight if it becomes popular with a certain milieu, while the suburban dream, which only 20 years ago still lured people out of the inner-city, seemed, prior to Covid, to have expired.

Together, these processes have combined to dissolve London’s mixed communities, as well as the post-war history of town-planning which once ensured that no area of affluence could become an island, aloof from the rest of society.

The emptiness of Central London’s commercial quarters over the past year was prefigured long before in the city’s slew of new luxury residential developments, which have been devoid of people ever since they were finished. To walk through places like the Nine Elms Regeneration Area in the early months of 2020 was to enter a grotesque dystopia of late capitalism run amok.

All over town, vast welters of such towers are still in the throes of construction, invariably encircled by hoardings depicting attractive people at rest and play. But residents know that these apartments are less homes to be lived in than bricks-and-mortar commodities; investment opportunities that until recently were seen as safer than any government bond.

The sense of dislocation created by these joyless plazas is in large part architectural. London used to be a low-slung city, but these towers are vertiginous and carbuncular, looming over the besieged remnants of what came before.

Suggested reading

What does Laurence Fox stand for?

By Tanya Gold

Arguably more significant than their aesthetic dissonance was the social upheaval they precipitated. As these towers grew, socio-demographic lines that once felt blurred became abrupt and pronounced, as people moved into economic enclaves and poverty was pushed outwards into peripheries and ghettoes of disadvantage. Traditional places of commonality, where shoulders rubbed, soon disappeared.

Prior to lockdown, I was frequently struck by the way in which once-diverse high streets were evolving to reflect these more stratified times: the poorer areas with their betting and pawn shops, the wealthier ones lined with estate agents, restaurants and prim cafes. Our civic spaces and landmarks were being commodified, as cash-strapped councils looked to make up budget shortfalls by monetising their assets, repurposing public libraries into private gyms. Boundaries, both real and imagined, had started to rise across the inner-city.

As established communities fractured and dissipated, the streets began to feel more febrile. People in their 30s, unable to afford the cost of raising a family here, were starting to leave in droves. And we who remained were left with a curious sense that we were an inconvenient vestige of a city that no longer exists, obdurate stone buildings amidst a forest of steel and glass.

Pre-pandemic London remained successful in many ways: as a summer playground for the super-rich; as a giant laundromat for the global kleptocracy; as an iconographic background for tourist photos and the glossy pages of a Hong Kong realtor’s brochure. But as a constellation of established communities? Not anymore; London’s covenant was coming undone.

The misery this has imposed in the city’s margins is all too easy to ignore. The more obvious victims, such as the council tenants living in mould-infested tower blocks, are rarely heard. Their abasement, like so much which afflicts the London underclass, is hidden away, in foodbanks concealed behind council estates, or displaced out of town.

But to focus exclusively on such misery is to miss a wider, more inchoate malaise — of a city adrift, changing in ways its residents don’t condone. Cities are always prone to endless flux, but when a city changes this fast, and on such an inhuman scale — when it starts to wear its inequality so gaudily — it is impossible to live here without feeling unmoored.

Suddenly, each new skyscraper feels like an act of violence; each house renovation a desecration. Wealthy newcomers appear not as new neighbours but as colonisers; hipster beards and vintage shops become hallmarks of an enemy within. Each international bar or café, an effigy of the melting pot it supplanted, becomes a reminder that London’s hallowed diversity is often merely ornamental — a desirable backdrop so long as it doesn’t press too close.

Suggested reading

London has become a vanity project

By Douglas Murray

So much of our yearning for the London we’ve lost seems ostensibly counter-intuitive. The city I grew up in was hardly an urban paradise. Many of my most vivid memories are recalled with a maternal hand at my back, ushering me past scenes of a recessional metropolis, rendered in grey. Cardboard shanties still proliferated beneath the Southbank undercrofts; on Oxford Street, grifters peddled counterfeit perfume from splayed suitcases. Back then the air was tubercular, the Thames flowed an effluent brown, and every road seemed dappled with litter, chewing gum, and dog shit in varying stages of putrefaction.

Yet I still yearn for that time before it was all cleaned-up and prettified. Before the pigeon-feed sellers had been turfed from Trafalgar Square. The other day I saw a car with a bumper-sticker which read: “Make Peckham Shit Again”, and I couldn’t help but smile at the oxymoron it conveyed. We have become a paradox: the progressive city nostalgic for the past.

Meanwhile, apologists for the gentrification of inner-London exonerate its degradations with platitudes about “market forces” — it’s just another reality of late capitalism, up there with sweat-shop labour and the atrophying high-street. It is something we grumble about on social media, but, for the most part, can’t bring ourselves to protest over because it would be like screaming at the tide.

Besides, don’t these market forces come with perks? As a tsunami of foreign property investment increased demand for a stagnating supply, and successive governments tailored housing policy to sustain the boom, those of us who own homes have seen their value rocket. In recent decades, owning a house in London has become the UK’s easiest path to fast cash. This is the city’s guilty secret: that so many of us have suckled on this indemnity that we cannot admit its inherent madness.

The 2016 Brexit vote exposed the intractability of these hypocrisies, as the predominantly Left-leaning city found itself in a Faustian pact, at once lamenting the financial sector’s malignant influence but terrified at the implications of its potential evacuation. Combined with the effects of the pandemic, suddenly an economy predicated on casino banking and rentier capitalism feels frail, one fiscal paroxysm from catastrophe.

Perhaps this is why we were so ready to let it go; so prepared, when Covid provided the pretext, to retreat into our respective streets, leaving the inner city to get on with its fire-sale unscrutinised.

Suggested reading

Could Brian Rose be London's next Mayor?

By David Fuller

It remains to be seen what long-term impact the Covid year will have on London’s trajectory. It doesn’t seem wholly naïve to hope that its resuscitation of civic engagement might act as a breakwater against the city’s atomisation and its darkening mood. Lockdown has forced its neophiles to engage with their local neighbourhoods, and stalled the speculation that was so ruthlessly reshaping them. In some respects, at least, the last year could prove to be for the city’s benefit.

But, still, London’s reanimation brings with it a sense of foreboding. The fact that the wider city has only really registered over the last year as a backdrop to ill-tempered protest — in images of marching lockdown sceptics and police cordons defending Churchill’s statue — may foreshadow a summer of discontent, as the city’s unleashed energy turns sour and the economic fall-out from Covid starts to pinch.

Amid the excitement of rebirth, the queasy feeling many of us experience upon seeing roads thronged with traffic and parks strewn with revellers’ litter serves as a reminder that one of the intractable problems with London is that there are a lot of people. And people are often unbearable.

Now the giant stirs. The mayor will have a job to do.