When self-described democratic-socialist Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for New York City mayor, young people across the country celebrated. Some cheered. Others cried tears of joy. On the other hand, a few portended the collapse of New York City.
I admittedly lie quite close to Mamdani when it comes to domestic politics. I am also sure saying that will subject me to straw-man attacks that frequently mention the word “communist” by people who have not seen, much less read, a social studies textbook in at least a decade.
What Mamdani does have to deal with that I do not, besides being significantly more famous on social media, is severe Islamophobia. Thus, to clear the air for those who do not consume more than one stream of news, Zohran Mamdani is certainly not anti-Semitic.
If he was anti-Semitic, I would imagine fellow candidate Brad Lander, who is Jewish, would not have endorsed him. If he was anti-Semitic, l imagine he would not have mentioned detailed plans to learn about and address anti-Semitism in New York City. If he was anti-Semitic, I imagine there would be actual evidence of him saying something anti-Semitic. The closest anyone got is his refusal to condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada.” Given his refusal to use the phrase himself and his commitment to universal human rights, this point is a red herring.
Ultimately, as hollow as these anti-Semitism claims are – and I am someone who has expressed concern about actual examples of rising anti-Semitism in a previous column – they are not the most disgusting of the attacks on Mamdani. That title falls to the numerous right-wing pundits who spewed blatant Islamophobic comments without a second’s thought.
For example, Charlie Kirk recently posted “24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City,” proving that when it comes down to it, even supposed right-wing “intellectuals” like Charlie Kirk will resort to racist tropes instead of debating policy. Representative Nancy Mace said “After 9/11 we said ‘Never Forget.’ I think we sadly have forgotten.” I will not even discuss what Laura Loomer said – if you take your cues from her, I do not know what to say at this point.
This goes to the heart of the problem. While I believe most of the right, including most politicians, reject such blatant Islamophobia, the most prominent extremists instinctively tweet and say Islamophobic things when they are not thinking – or even when they are. Then the rest of the Republican establishment is forced to follow suit when the President listens to and follows the extremists’ basest instincts.
Mamdani, in his numerous Instagram posts, expresses what appears to be genuine concern about the average New Yorker, visiting many real locations and talking to many working New Yorkers, before pitching a policy and explaining the mechanism by which it would help those New Yorkers. Donald Trump and his inner circle – and I do not mean his cabinet figureheads like Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem, but people like Loomer and Stephen Miller, whose words have immediate, real and substantive effects on his policy positions – rarely express genuine concern for average folk, much less take time to explain the mechanisms by which his policies will aid them.
When putting Mamdani and Trump side by side, who seems more genuine? More empathetic? More educated? More relatable? Less narcissistic? Who has genuinely hijacked their party and forced dissenters into early retirement? And who has drawn the ire of their party for failing to appear as out-of-touch as the rest of them? After watching both men talk and campaign, the answers you decide for yourself will point out who the real extremist is.
