Voting Sliwa as the Most Progressive Choice: A Paradoxical Take

On the surface, it might seem contradictory—or even shocking—to suggest that voting for Curtis Sliwa, a Republican, could be interpreted as a progressive act. After all, his policies do not align with traditional progressive ideals. He will push some Republican priorities, make budget cuts, potentially change or roll back laws, and advance policies that many progressive voters may dislike. But in my calculus of this election, ideology alone isn’t the only factor. I am weighing not just political alignment, but the broader consequences for the city and its people, both internally and externally. When I consider the risks posed by the other candidates, Sliwa starts to appear, paradoxically, as the option most capable of safeguarding the city in this turbulent moment.

The key factor in my decision isn’t even what happens inside the city so much as the external pressures it faces. Zohran Mamdani, while appealing to progressives and younger voters, would almost certainly provoke intense federal pushback. The Trump administration—or its lingering influence in 2025—would not tolerate a progressive agenda in New York City. Legal battles, funding freezes, federal obstruction, and political retaliation could dominate the city’s focus for months, if not years. Even if Mamdani manages to pass some policies, the cost in time, energy, and social cohesion could be catastrophic. Protests and opposition could escalate, businesses could close or leave the city, and ordinary residents would bear the brunt of these conflicts. Progressive ideals, no matter how well-intentioned, could become secondary to survival and damage control.

Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo represents the opposite problem. While he may maintain operational stability, his city governance is heavily entangled with national powers—particularly Trump-aligned forces. Even if Cuomo publicly denies connections, the signs are obvious. Behind the scenes, these relationships would likely influence city decisions, funding negotiations, and political maneuvering. Cuomo’s version of stability is not neutrality; it is compromise with interests that may not prioritize the city or its residents. Policies would be watered down, progressives would be appeased with token reforms, and systemic issues would remain unaddressed. The city would function, yes, but it would function largely to serve entrenched powers rather than the people.

Sliwa occupies an unusual, almost counterintuitive middle ground. He is a Republican, yes, but he is not Trump’s favorite. Their relationship is tense, and while Trump tolerates him, he does not actively champion him. That independence creates a buffer—a strategic space in which the city could function without being crushed by external political pressures. Sliwa’s outsider energy gives him the potential to act decisively, cut through bureaucratic inertia, and push initiatives forward without capitulating to federal threats. Unlike Mamdani, he won’t face the full wrath of a hostile administration, and unlike Cuomo, he isn’t bound by longstanding entanglements with outside powers.

From a progressive standpoint, this is about thinking beyond immediate ideological alignment. True progressivism, in my view, isn’t just about advancing specific policies—it’s about protecting communities, enabling agency, and safeguarding the conditions in which meaningful change is possible. If the city collapses into chaos or is forced into continual compromise under outside pressure, progressive goals—even those championed by Mamdani—may never have the chance to take root. Stability in governance, even if imperfect, can be a prerequisite for any long-term social or policy progress. Sliwa, paradoxically, provides that possibility.

This is not to suggest that Sliwa’s policies are progressive, or even that they align with my values. Republicans in office often pursue fiscal restraint, business-friendly agendas, and conservative social policies. Budget cuts, layoffs, and rollbacks of laws protecting vulnerable communities are all plausible under his administration. Residents and activists will need to remain vigilant and proactive to ensure that essential services and protections are not unduly compromised. Some neighborhoods may see reduced support, and some progressive goals may be delayed or undermined. The tension between ideology and practical governance is unavoidable here.

Yet Sliwa brings an advantage that the other candidates lack: the ability to cut through red tape. His personality—loud, bullish, unafraid of confrontation—may allow him to push initiatives forward in ways that Mamdani or Cuomo could not. Cuomo, with decades of status-quo politics, is likely to entrench bureaucratic inefficiency and maintain existing power hierarchies, preventing meaningful action. Mamdani, full of energy and ideas, would face constant obstruction from external actors, forcing compromises that dilute progressive intentions. Sliwa’s independence from both extremes allows him to act with more autonomy and less interference, giving the city a chance to breathe and function even amid broader political turbulence.

In evaluating this paradoxical choice, one must also consider risk management. Voting for Mamdani might feel ideologically pure, but it carries immense risk for the city’s stability. Federal retaliation, legal battles, and economic disruption could undermine any potential progress. Cuomo’s status quo offers predictability, but that predictability comes with compromises that may entrench systemic inequities and empower outside interests over local needs. Sliwa, by contrast, occupies a unique risk-reduction position. His independence from Trump-aligned forces shields the city from extreme federal interference, while his outsider status and assertive personality provide a chance to act decisively where needed. In short, Sliwa maximizes governance potential while minimizing exposure to catastrophic external pressures.

This calculus is, paradoxically, a deeply progressive act. It prioritizes outcomes for the city and its residents over strict ideological adherence. It is guided by a commitment to the collective well-being rather than narrow political identity. True progressivism, in this framework, is about preserving the capacity for the city to function, protect its citizens, and remain resilient in the face of external threats. Without that foundation, ambitious reforms, no matter how well-intentioned, could collapse under the weight of political retaliation, legal entanglements, or bureaucratic stagnation.

Voting for Sliwa, then, is about thinking strategically and ethically beyond the ballot box. It’s about understanding the broader ecosystem in which New York City operates—where federal politics, outside influence, and the city’s own complex bureaucracy all intersect. It’s about recognizing that ideology alone cannot safeguard the city. Sometimes, the most progressive choice is the one that preserves the city’s capacity to act, even if that choice is uncomfortable or counterintuitive.

In this election, residents are faced with extremes: Mamdani’s ambitious progressivism, Cuomo’s entrenched pragmatism, and Sliwa’s outsider pragmatism. Each path carries its own risks and benefits, but from a strategic, civic-minded perspective, Sliwa offers a rare combination of stability, independence, and operational potential. His victory would not mean idealistic reform or alignment with progressive ideology, but it could ensure that the city survives, functions, and retains agency—creating the conditions for progress in the future.

Ultimately, this decision is about prioritizing what matters most: the long-term health, resilience, and functionality of New York City. It’s about recognizing that chaos, compromise, and external pressures are as critical to consider as ideological alignment. Voting for Sliwa is a pragmatic, paradoxical step toward protecting the city’s ability to govern itself effectively. It is an acknowledgment that progress isn’t always about policy purity—it’s about ensuring the city remains capable of action, independent of destructive forces, and prepared for future opportunities.

In a climate of uncertainty, political tension, and external interference, Sliwa’s outsider position may be exactly what the city needs. His governance may not be ideal, and many of his policies may clash with progressive principles—but the very fact that he is independent enough to act without extreme obstruction makes him, paradoxically, the candidate best positioned to safeguard the city’s long-term well-being. In this strange calculus, voting for Sliwa becomes the most responsible, civic-minded, and, yes, progressive choice I can make in 2025.