By Noah Rothman
Thursday, July 03, 2025
In the days since Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory,
Americans have received an education in the philosophy that guides the man who
is likely to be the next mayor of America’s largest metropolis. It hasn’t been
pretty.
Occurring far too late in life to be dismissed as a
youthful indiscretion, Mamdani endorsed
the Leninist goals of augmenting “class consciousness” and “seizing the means
of production.” With the power he seeks, “we can . . . gradually buy up housing
on the private market and convert it to community ownership,” he
promised. He lavished
praise on the Bolshevik putsch in Russia. He feted the Black Liberation
Army figure Fred Hampton, a figure who “believed” in the “socialist
revolution.” His model
for a successful mayor is an explicitly communist revolutionary who helmed
a “detachment of Red Volunteers” in India.
Mamdani sure walks like a duck. Now that there’s nothing
much to be done about his political ascension, the truth can be told.
The press has not ignored these revelations, even if they
did little to uncover them. On Sunday, Mamdani was asked by NBC News host
Kristen Welker about his apparent communist sympathies. “Are you a communist?”
she asked. “No, I am not,” Mamdani replied. He suggested the allegation was an
outgrowth of his accusers’ racism more than their powers of observation.
Who knows? Maybe Mamdani is less a communist
revolutionary than he is a generic revolutionary with an affinity for
anti-American radicals, whatever their ideological stripe.
In his NBC News interview, Mamdani insisted that his
economic prescriptions mirror those of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s, insofar as
he seeks “a better distribution of wealth.” But if Mamdani supports Dr. King’s
economics, he rejects the civil rights leader’s adherence to nonviolence.
That’s what we must conclude from a recently uncovered
series of social media posts in which Mamdani extolled the wisdom of a leading
figure in al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that murdered thousands in the very
city Mamdani seeks to lead.
Kyle’s right. Why is it that Mamdani had to become the
prohibitive favorite for NYC’s mayoralty before inquiring minds learned that
the candidate has a soft spot for a man who advocated violence against
Americans and “played an important role” in plotting terrorist attacks
against the United States? Indeed, why is this probe still largely the
exclusive province of conservative journalists?
The press will be quick to blame Andrew Cuomo’s languid and entitled campaign for the oversight. But it
wasn’t the Cuomo campaign’s job to inform the public of developments with vital
civic importance. That’s the political media’s mission statement. Kyle raises
the possibility that the Cuomo campaign did manage to conduct a cursory
search of Mamdani’s past remarks — indeed, it would be bizarre if curiosity
alone didn’t move Cuomo’s staffers to execute a handful of keystrokes. It’s
possible, even likely, that the Cuomo camp determined that this “oppo” wouldn’t
play with the Democratic electorate in New York City.
That is a searing indictment via implication. If the
insurgent mayoral candidate is a secret Marxist, that’s a story. If the Cuomo
campaign concluded that New York City’s Democratic primary voters wouldn’t
recoil in revulsion from an unreconstructed Trotskyite with a soft spot for the
Islamist terrorists, that’s a story, too. On their merits and irrespective of
their effect on the race for mayor, these allegations demand extensive
coverage. Voters’ ignorance on these matters could have serious consequences for
New York City residents.
Uncharitable though it may be, observers could be
forgiven for thinking the media establishment overlooked these stories because
they were invested in the outcomes that could be secured only through the
cultivation of voters’ ignorance. More understandably, if not excusably, the
political press might have dismissed Mamdani’s chances, or folded coverage of
his radicalism into horserace coverage of the contest for mayor — muting its
significance. Regardless, we’re witnessing the consequences of a profound journalistic
failure. It’s not the first and it won’t be the last, but it might become one
of the most consequential political media fiascoes in a very long time.
No comments:
Post a Comment