Governor Hochul’s Bizarre Mamdani Endorsement

Two weeks ago, when arch leftist Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized top Democratic leaders for their refusal to support Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayor’s race he drew attention to the sense of great unease within the party over the risks posed by the self-proclaimed socialist and his radical populist plans to remake the city.

As The New York Times reported, speaking at an evening town hall, Sanders said the party leaders’ reluctance to back Mamdani – who he described as representing, the “political wave of the future” – indicated that they’re “out of touch” with grass-roots America and that New York Democrats should be “jumping up and down” to support Mamdani after the excitement over his successful underdog campaign in the June Democratic primary election.

On the other hand, Mamdani critics contend that the progressive wing of the party has hurt Democrats and is out of step with most Americans. They point to the fact that President Trump won more votes in New York City in his re-election victory in 2024 than in his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.

At all events, Sanders doubtless had in mind top Democrats Gov. Kathy Hochul as well as Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Chuck Schumer, the majority leaders in the House and Senate. All three declined to endorse Mamdani in the months since his June primary victory, highly unusual, to say the least.

We can readily understand the dilemma the three top democratic elected officials faced. Undoubtedly, he is not their preferred candidate and as noted, a particularly fraught one at that. But as party leaders they are expected to support its nominee, and it is to be feared that if they don’t support him, they will surely be primaried by candidates from Mamdani’s newly electrified base the next time they themselves run.

However, this past Sunday, Gov. Hochul blinked, breaking ranks and endorsing Mamdani in a guest essay in The New York Times. Ironically though, what she said only underscored the problems facing Democrats. That is, she did not report that Mamdani came round to her way of thinking on controversial issues, although she implied as much through very careful phrasing – sometimes artfully and misleadingly. In fact, she actually only said that she and Mamdani exchanged views with each other and heard each other out.

Thus, one illustrative example was as follows: “In the past few months, I’ve had frank conversation with him [i.e., Mamdani]. We’ve had our disagreements. But in our conversations, I heard a leader who shares my commitment to a New York where children can grow up safe in their neighborhoods and where opportunity is within reach for every family. I heard a leader who is focused on making New York City affordable – a goal I enthusiastically support.”

But surely the problem is not commitment to desired goals but rather how to reach them. And there is more.

“I also shared with him my priorities making it very clear that our police officers should have every resource to keep our streets and subways safe. I urged him to ensure that there is strong leadership at the helm of the NYPD – and he agreed.”

But note that while she made it very clear to him that police should have adequate resources and separately urged him to ensure strong leadership at the NYPD, significantly Mamdani’s agreement only came with respect to the separate sentence pertaining to strong leadership.

Similarly, Hochul said, “We discussed the need to combat the rise of antisemitism urgently and unequivocally. I’ve been glad to see him meet with Jewish leaders across the city, listening and addressing their concerns directly. I look forward to working together to make sure New Yorkers of all faiths feel safe and welcome in New York City.”

OK. But where is Mamdani’s agreement?

And again, the governor said, “I emphasized to him my belief in keeping and attracting businesses so that New York remains the center of the global economy and we create even more good jobs for our residents.”

Did the socialist Mamdani agree? We are not told.

Given the widespread accusations that Mamdani is an antisemite, Governor Hochul’s contrived treatment of the issue within her pre-endorsement discussions with Mamdani is alarming. And the continuing failure of Jeffries and Schumer to even raise the issue with Mamdani, even more so. Would they be similarly restrained if Mamdani had made anti-Black or anti-Latino statements. We think not.

Nor is their failure to sharply rebuke Mamdani a mere matter of passive acquiescence. Their failure to address his provocations is to signal that his brand of politics has a place in the Democratic party.

Just as importantly, it signals that antisemitism is not that big of a deal, and legitimizes it in the eyes of new voters Mamdani drew to the primary polls, most of whom were from younger, more impressionable age groups. So, to wax somewhat cynical, Schumer et al., may be willing to risk being labeled soft on antisemitism since antisemitism seems to more and more be finding a place in the Democratic party, to say nothing of its growing presence on college and university campuses.

Separate and apart from the issue of antisemitism, Mamdani’s agenda includes such specifics as a freeze on rents, making bus transportation free and increasing taxes on the wealthy. And then there are the general goals of emasculating law enforcement, canceling and remaking our culture, fostering transgenderism and sanctuary cities, adopting such discriminatory anti-business policies as affirmative action and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives.

It’s time for the Democratic leadership to step up to the plate and declare unequivocally that antisemitism is a disqualifier as are economy-hobbling policies and tradition revisionism.