Mamdani’s Playbook Mirrors Kamala Harris’ Failed Tactics

Zohran Mamdani, one may wonder: Do your opinions align with the Democratic Socialists of America’s push to eliminate all minor offense policing? Make your stance clear — it better be persuasive. A recent online headline that caused quite a stir on social media declared, “Zohran Mamdani wants to end all misdemeanor charges: ‘E-ZPass for criminals.’“ This of course, is a simplified summary. The article elaborates on the 2021 DSA’s new agenda advocating to cease ‘criminalizing working-class survival,’ which involves stopping ‘all misdemeanor offenses, accounting for 80% of total court dockets’. The pot-stirring ‘E-ZPass’ argument was revealed to be an attack from his adversary.

Nevertheless, Mamdani’s supporters have reacted furiously, arguing that Mamdani’s inclination towards ceasing misdemeanor infractions stands aligned with his organization, the DSA, and not necessarily his individual stance. It seems like they overlook that Mamdani, a staunch DSA member, bears hardly any observable disparity with the DSA’s extreme take on crime. That is, of course, until it potentially jeopardizes his run for the mayoral office.

Mamdani has always voiced his support for defunding the police. He consistently advocates for the dismantling of the ‘entire carceral system.’ He deems ‘police & prison systems in America’ as a mere representation of ‘white supremacy.’ Even presently, his proclaimed intentions include closing down Rikers, eliminating police overtime, and redirecting police efforts away from ‘non-serious crimes.’

One can only wonder; what types of offenses does Mamdani consider negligible enough that they warrant no police intervention? Could they possibly fall under the category of misdemeanors? Just a reminder: the DSA is not simply a traditional political party like the Democrats or Republicans—it is an exclusive association of committed ideologues who pass stringent purity tests for continued membership.

Last year, the organization withdraw its endorsement for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after she supported a statement endorsing the strengthening of Israel’s Iron Dome. Moreover, DSA members sought to oust Rep. Jamaal Bowman for his visit to Israel in 2021. These instances serve to highlight the rigid adherence to ideology required to maintain membership in the DSA. Undeniably, the organization is known for making its members toe the party line with little tolerance for individual variations.

As food for thought, Zohran, it’s worth considering that merely revert your public standing through statements made on your behalf, as Kamala Harris tried just last year, is a strategy doomed to failure. The electorate is not likely to be deceived by the shirking of controversial positions or the avoidance of difficult discussions. Thus, cleansing one’s hands of inconvenient stances through political stand-ins has been shown to be ineffective.

Instead, perhaps it would be wise to tackle disagreements with your chosen organization head-on, making clear your position and reasoning in a display of sincerity and conviction. Failure to do so only leaves open the possibility that once in office, you could fully adopt the DSA-endorsed policies, regardless of your current public position.

This tactic of evading the clear declaration of stance from an organization one is a member of, and only expressing disdain when it proves inconvenient, is too much of a familiar play. It echoes an all but too familiar strategy Harris tried and failed with just last year, which serves as a stark warning that voters can see through such maneuvering.

The risk of adopting this tactic should not be overlooked. Straying from campaign promises and adopting a more radical platform once in office is a well-established political tactic. And the voters, if not clear on the candidate’s intentions right from the start, may end up with a leader pursuing a much more radical agenda than they had been led to believe.

So, Zohran, it may be better for you to show transparency and honesty in your campaign. Be clear about your plans, your agreements, and disagreements with the DSA. Put your agenda and beliefs into words that your electoral base can understand and trust. Pretending to be something you’re not – Kamala Harris is a prime example – would not work, particularly in this age of information explosion.

It must be clear that disguising one’s valid opinions is not the answer. Neither is misleading the public with ideological deviations that may not be representative of one’s authentic beliefs. It’s a game a politician can’t win. The stakes are too high, and the payoff is too uncertain.

And the lessons to learn from the likes of Kamala Harris are clear. It’s incumbent upon the candidate to speak with their own voice, outlining their stance clear and loud. If you don’t agree with certain perspectives put forth by the organization you are part of, resort to clarifying this disagreement in your own words rather than brushing it off as a minor convenience.

So, to reiterate, one needs to be transparent about alignment and conflicts with their party’s dogma. Just remember, simply stringing words together about how you differ from your party does not suffice. You need to demonstrate genuine conviction and rationale in your public persona. If not, are you merely biding your time until election victory to foster a staunchly DSA-backed policies? No politician should ignore this lesson, not least Harris, who faced criticism for this same misstep in the past year.