Well, I think it’s time we have another conversation about Zohran Mamdani.
Mamdani has reaffirmed his support for Hakeem Jeffries becoming Speaker of the House, and when asked whether he would influence incoming Democratic representatives on their leadership decisions, he suggested that he wasn’t there to make decisions for others.
And honestly? At this point, if you still think Zohran Mamdani is some sort of anti-establishment political figure, I hate to break it to you, but I think you’re going to have to reconsider that assumption.
Now, before anyone jumps down my throat, I already know what some of his defenders are going to say.
“Oh, but he’s the mayor of New York City. He doesn’t have a vote in Congress!”
Okay. Sure. That’s technically true. He’s not a member of the House of Representatives, and he doesn’t get to cast a vote for Speaker.
But here’s the thing: You don’t need to have a congressional vote to have political influence.
Mamdani is not some random person with no political connections. He’s the mayor of the largest city in the United States. He’s a prominent figure within the Democratic Party’s progressive wing. He’s endorsed congressional candidates, campaigned alongside them, and has an established relationship with Democratic politicians.
His words carry weight.
Even if he cannot personally vote for Jeffries, he can still use his influence to encourage, discourage, or otherwise sway the people who actually can vote.
And that’s precisely why I think this matters.
If you’re someone who has been presenting yourself as an alternative to the Democratic establishment, then I think it’s entirely reasonable to question why you’re supporting the continued leadership of people who represent that very establishment.
What exactly is the point of having a new generation of progressive politicians if they’re ultimately going to help preserve the same party leadership?
And before someone argues that working with establishment Democrats is necessary to get things done, I understand that political cooperation sometimes happens. I’m not arguing that politicians should refuse to work with absolutely everyone they disagree with.
But there’s a difference between working with someone and actively supporting their continued leadership.
Those are two different things.
And I think people need to start recognizing that distinction.
Look, I’ve been making criticisms of Mamdani from the left for quite some time. This isn’t something I suddenly started doing because conservative commentators decided to criticize him. I’ve been discussing these issues consistently on my own platforms, even with a relatively small audience.
And I’m certainly not going to stop asking these questions just because some people find them inconvenient.
At some point, we need to stop confusing progressive branding with actually challenging the political establishment.
Because if you’re going to criticize the establishment, you should be willing to challenge it even when the people maintaining it are members of your own political party.
And that includes Zohran Mamdani.