Sixty years ago, a charismatic young politician took New York City by storm. His record in office offers some warnings to the current Democratic candidate for mayor.
Zohran Mamdani’s victory last week in the Democratic primary to become mayor of New York stunned many observers. The 33-year-old outsider defeated a flawed former governor, but one with huge name recognition and an established political reputation. A member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Mamdani presented a more radical vision for city government and has caused controversy with past statements on Israel and law enforcement. (Mamdani would not be the first democratic socialist to become mayor. Many forget that David Dinkins was a member of the DSA, but he was also a product of the Harlem Democratic machine, which exerted just as much influence on his politics as any left-wing affiliation.)
Young and charismatic, Mamdani brought energy to the Democratic race and stood in stark contrast to the older Andrew Cuomo, who represented another era in Democratic politics. Yes, Mamdani was able to motivate large numbers of voters to the polls — a wide range of New Yorkers, but especially younger people, campaigning on the idea that the city is too expensive and there are too many people struggling to make ends meet. On the trail, Mamdani made “woke” cultural politics secondary to a left-wing populist economic message.
Sixty years ago, New Yorkers elected another young, charismatic political voice who ran on a message that New York was a “city in crisis” and was becoming unlivable. John Lindsay condemned the city’s “power brokers” whom he believed ran Gotham to their own benefit, not in the interests of the common good. He promised to bring a new energy to city government and was in sync with the idealistic, good-government movement of the early Great Society, when optimism about the ability of government to solve problems was high.
Lindsay was not quite the outsider that Mamdani is. He was a Manhattan congressman with deep roots in the city’s leadership class. Though Mamdani criticizes the wealthy, Lindsay was a Republican from the Silk Stocking district of the Upper East Side of Manhattan and had the support of much of the business community. While Mamdani is driven by left-wing ideology, Lindsay was a classic urban reformer determined to right the city from the damages of Democratic machine politics.
Still, even though the old machine-reform dialectic in urban politics within which Lindsay operated is long dead, there are important historical lessons to learn from Lindsay’s tumultuous eight years as mayor.
It is fine to be animated by larger moral and ideological concerns, but if people do not feel safe on the streets, snow is not plowed after snowstorms and schools fail to teach their students basic reading and math, then any mayor will lose popular support.
First, New York has always been a cauldron of different racial, ethnic and religious groups. Tensions — and even on rare occasions, violence — are inevitable. In the late 1960s, racial tensions in the city and in the nation worsened. Lindsay found himself the target of a backlash from white ethnic voters who resented the elite liberalism of the mayor and his supporters. The fear of street crime, demands for racial justice, a fight between a mostly white, Jewish teachers union and an African-American school district in Brooklyn, and changing demographics in some city neighborhoods all made for a combustible mix. Whatever the issue, many middle- and working-class whites found themselves pitted against Lindsay and his liberal supporters, who blamed white racism for many of these issues. It is no surprise that the term “limousine liberal” was coined in New York at this time by one of Lindsay’s political opponents.
Successful politicians are those who are able to navigate group tensions, not exacerbate them. Mamdani is a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause and a strong critic of the Israeli government, both of which are fine, but he must take great pains to understand the trepidation that many Jewish New Yorkers feel over his past words and actions.
Second, crime and disorder affect New Yorkers on a daily basis and can make or break a mayor. Under Lindsay, the city saw a dramatic increase in crime rates across the board, with murders more than doubling between the beginning and the end of his term. The bold reformer had a difficult relationship with the NYPD and was never able to adequately deal with the crime problem.
In the past, Mamdani has made pointed criticisms of law enforcement and supported the “Defund the Police” movement. Would Mayor Mamdani further drive down police morale? Would Mamdani’s proposed “Department of Community Safety” — which comes with a hefty price tag — make the streets safer? Any sense that crime and disorder are increasing under Mamdani will quickly sink his approval ratings and make it hard for him to govern, just as it did with Lindsay.
Third, Lindsay’s eight years led to the city’s infamous fiscal crisis of 1975. Although Lindsay was not solely to blame, his administration greatly increased city spending. The many needs of city residents, Lindsay found, come with great costs that are difficult to cover by taxes and funding from the state and federal government. In the economic boom of the 1960s, New York could cover the new city spending (with help from the new city income tax). When the economy slowed down, it made city finances more unstable.
Mamdani has made many promises that carry large price tags. City revenues are not infinite, and if his policies drive wealthy New Yorkers and employers out of the city, it will make the city’s fiscal problems more precarious. A Mayor Mamdani will need to balance his promises to increase City spending and address social needs with a larger eye toward the city’s fiscal health.
Lastly, Lindsay possessed a deep moralistic strain. Mamdani is a deeply ideological politician. If elected mayor, will he govern as a kind of performative progressive, an inverse Donald Trump at the city level? In the end, running a large city is about providing basic public services to residents. It is fine to be animated by larger moral and ideological concerns, but if people do not feel safe on the streets, snow is not plowed after snowstorms and schools fail to teach their students basic reading and math, then any mayor will lose popular support.
Mamdani is the favorite to win in November, although in the next few months, moderate New Yorkers will try to coalesce around a candidate that can stop the progressive socialist in the general election. Given the circumstances and the flawed alternatives in Cuomo and Adams, this seems like a tall order.
If Mamdani is elected, New Yorkers will be taking a big risk. It is unclear how much he understands about the city’s history and its political past. As was said during the Lindsay years, New York is the “second toughest job in the country.” In order to succeed as mayor, Mamdani will need to grapple with the city’s history and hopefully find some helpful parallels.