Kamala Harris’s dismal performance in the 2024 US presidential election elicited typical reactions from progressively-minded folks worldwide, who swiftly turned to pointing fingers at each other. Centrists approached the debacle with a strange strain of reasoning. Harris, it was admitted, was far from outstanding. She barely addressed the crucial issues of intensifying income disparity and plummeting living standards in America – her lackadaisical performance was a carbon copy of Joe Biden’s own indifference. Yet, they wondered if voting for Harris, despite obvious red flags, was preferable, merely to keep Donald Trump at bay.
The leftist section vehemently disagreed. They held that even if voters had chosen to ignore Harris’ lukewarm centrism, her hesitant stance on the Israel-Gaza issue, and her overall lack of relatable charm, it would barely have altered the eventual outcome. The Trump wave was already in full force. They argued that Harris’s approach to politics – essentially carrying forward the status quo – was not resolving any pressing issues. Her defeat, they claimed, must pave the way for a critical reassessment and rejection of any future candidates who take the path of compromise.
They asserted that if the left wished to regain power, they needed to start endorsing something fundamentally reformative. Enter Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist who claimed victory against Andrew Cuomo in New York’s Democratic primary. He did so with a committed and localized campaign that focused on issues that directly impacted citizens, such as living costs, rent, transportation, groceries, and childcare. Proclaiming himself the Democratic candidate for New York City Mayor, he signalled an potential shift towards a more radical, socialist political approach.
Superficially, this could be seen as a much-needed resurgence of socialist forces and a call to arms for the left. However, what distinguished Mamdani was not his radical approach, but his eloquent commands of the narrative. He utilized his platform not for showmanship, but for effective communication. He provided insightful commentary on the daily challenges faced by New Yorkers, which gave him an unexpected kinship with non-traditional populists such as Donald Trump or Nigel Farage, who addressed voters’ material struggles directly.
The British left should take lessons from this. Yes, they would do well to absorb some ideological directions, such as Mamdani’s clear-cut leftist solutions, though they fell short of full-blown Marxism. However, this was a straightforward task for Mamdani since his proposals, like rent controls, minimum wage raises, and corporate tax hikes, have lost their fringe status and become mainstream suggestions for actual issues.
In a striking campaign video, Mamdani states, “Every politician says New York is the greatest city in the world, but what good is that if no one can afford to live here?” His appeal is uncomplicated and can arguably be termed as grounded in common sense. This starkly contrasts with the Labour party, which often resorts to dry, technocratic language about bond markets, fiscal rules, and GDP per capita, while evading any substantial reform of the tax system or curbing profit-making schemes. In the face of rising costs, such rhetoric seems irrelevant and indifferent.
Another aspect of Mamdani’s appeal was his regularly human presence compared to the artificial persona projected by many politicians. He appeared to be steadfast and unafraid to assert his core beliefs, refusing to try to be all things to all people. He wouldn’t be drawn into vacant culture wars or identity politics. His consistent message was one of equality, justice, and fairness.
In contrast, Labour seems perpetually caught up in placating fickle swing voters and ends up masking all intentions behind a veil of uninspiring managerial drivel. This strategy fails to resonate with voters who feel marginalised and disenfranchised by politicians from Westminster. The broader left could certainly learn from Mamdani’s approach in rejecting obsessing over ideological purity.
In his successful campaign, Mamdani wasn’t alone. He was supported by progressive figures like NYC Comptroller Brad Lander, who forsook personal biases to endorse him, recognizing the value of unity in the struggle for a better city. This united purpose played a crucial role in toppling Cuomo’s monumental backing. Meanwhile, Labour is crumbling under its internal conflicts, with Starmer’s welfare policies causing open dissent within the ranks.
Mamdani’s victory sends a clear message – it is not necessary for the left to water down its principles in order to achieve success. Instead, it needs to hone its focus, employ clearer language, and ensure that policies are rooted in the real experiences of everyday people. His win underlines the fact that principles and practicality can successfully co-exist, a crucial lesson that seems to be lost on current Labour leadership.
As political tides shift, the tepid indecisiveness of centrism is fading. What the voters require is not managed decline. They seek proactive politics with a clear purpose, led by someone who is clear in intent and willing to act on it. These lessons from across the Atlantic could serve as crucial guide-posts for political parties everywhere.