I don’t think electoralism is an effective strategy, but the idea that it means that every single person who tries to win any election at any point is an active impediment to the left is absurd.
Mamdani’s approach to elections is not the only one. I don’t think a single one of his detractors here would oppose someone running third party, or even running as a (D) but being very clear that the Democratic Party as a whole is beyond reform, which is the opposite of what Mamdani has said.
God forbid Cuomo and the media attack him; they’ve been so even-handed and not platforming people calling him a jihadist so far.
“But this would be a stronger attack”
Would it? Look how Dems have totally capitulated to Trump. Even if it’s not the consensus already, it’s not a difficult argument to make. Refusing to step beyond where people are currently at to agitate in a positive direction is tailism.
On the other hand if he waits and the democrats run another centrist loser he can just withhold his endorsement and watch them squirm
This is the approach of a reformist, and a lazy one at that. As a Dem, insofar as other politicians are meaningfully in his purview to endorse or not, he should be hammering his opposition to whatever center-right lanyard he comes across. Then he can at least be an active reformist, and perhaps one day he’ll do what Corbyn is doing now, but I think he has already demonstrated that he doesn’t have the spine to break from the party (“Do you condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’?” is a much lower bar and he capitulated).
He eventually said that he would discourage people from using the phrase after doing like 20 interviews where people badgered him and he maintained his position (which was a reasonable sidestep that he just wasn’t concerned with others saying it).
Mamdani’s approach to elections is not the only one. I don’t think a single one of his detractors here would oppose someone running third party, or even running as a (D) but being very clear that the Democratic Party as a whole is beyond reform, which is the opposite of what Mamdani has said.
If he said that now he’d just be opening himself up for attacks from Cuomo and the media
On the other hand if he waits and the democrats run another centrist loser he can just withhold his endorsement and watch them squirm
God forbid Cuomo and the media attack him; they’ve been so even-handed and not platforming people calling him a jihadist so far.
“But this would be a stronger attack”
Would it? Look how Dems have totally capitulated to Trump. Even if it’s not the consensus already, it’s not a difficult argument to make. Refusing to step beyond where people are currently at to agitate in a positive direction is tailism.
This is the approach of a reformist, and a lazy one at that. As a Dem, insofar as other politicians are meaningfully in his purview to endorse or not, he should be hammering his opposition to whatever center-right lanyard he comes across. Then he can at least be an active reformist, and perhaps one day he’ll do what Corbyn is doing now, but I think he has already demonstrated that he doesn’t have the spine to break from the party (“Do you condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’?” is a much lower bar and he capitulated).
He didn’t condemn the phrase so I don’t see how that capitulation, at worst he sidestepped the issue
He eventually said that he would discourage people from using the phrase after doing like 20 interviews where people badgered him and he maintained his position (which was a reasonable sidestep that he just wasn’t concerned with others saying it).