In the months leading up to the New York City mayoral election, there had been some unease in leftist online spaces about the possible results. Polling consistently showed for months that Cuomo was running behind Mamdani, and it may not have even mattered if the race narrowed to the two men. No, the anxiety over the election results was not whether Zohran Mamdani was going to win, but how Mamdani would govern. Every statement was scrutinized for possible concessions; every compromise seemed to portend even more.
Before the primary election, the dream of a leftist mayor could bathe in the promise of his most ambitious proposals without having to dwell on the realities of politics. Now that the general election is over, these very real concerns will need to be confronted, and those who decry electoral work (or of running DSA candidates on the Democratic party line) seem ready to call out any betrayal of the DSA by Mamdani. But it’s important to first understand what a ‘betrayal of DSA’ would look like, or even mean.
I’ve heard a similar spiel answer this question countless times at general chapter meetings and branch meetings, and in conversations with the press and interested non-members – what is DSA? The response generally includes some of the following phrases: We are a multi-tendency, multi-caucus organization; we are a mass-politics organization that is dedicated to anti-capitalism, anti-racism, and anti-imperialism; we include people from a broad range of ideological backgrounds on the left. Sometimes people talk about our ‘agenda’ in a local context, and sometimes they talk about national policy goals, like a Green New Deal or universal health insurance. Sometimes people talk about concrete next steps, and sometimes they talk about long-term ideals, like democratizing the workplace or decommodifying housing. All of this is to say that many people have overlapping, yet still different, ideas about who and what we are as an organization, and why we exist. These definitions are all true, but not completely true. How, then, can we be ‘betrayed?’
To start off with an obvious example, Mamdani could cancel his membership and denounce the DSA. Maybe he will do this after some huge break with NYC-DSA leadership in the future; but I doubt it.
Oftentimes, activists will talk about an elected official ‘betraying’ their constituents. This may take the form of accusing them of abandoning their campaign promises, or opposing what they had promised to support. Other times, activists just use the language of the ‘betrayal’ to mean that policies which they oppose are harming constituents. Plenty of MAGA activists will accuse left-wing politicians of ‘betraying’ America by allowing ‘open borders.’
In this case, Mamdani will almost assuredly be accused of betraying New York by the right and center when he simply pursues the policies he has campaigned on. But in the former, there could also be campaign policy reversals that may be considered a betrayal of DSA.
The New York Times asked Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of NYC-DSA, about Mamdani’s then recent policy choices and whether they would alienate him from cadre membership.
The mayor-elect has made well-documented overtures to the business world, telling leaders in private meetings that he would discourage the use of the phrase, “globalize the intifada,” and was open to funding his proposals by means other than tax increases. He has also offered to keep Jessica Tisch, scion of a billionaire New York family, as police commissioner.
So far, none of these moves have angered Mr. Mamdani’s base. But Gustavo Gordillo, the co-chair of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America, said there was a line that Mr. Mamdani could not cross.
“Siding with the 1 percent over his base and the rest of the city is what would really pose problems to his governing coalition,” Mr. Gordillo said.
While none of the issues mentioned were part of the core affordability agenda (except, arguably, taxing the rich, although one could argue the spending is what matters more than the revenue raising), Gordillo makes clear that it’s more about the stance of the mayoralty and with whom it positions itself that will determine whether there is a betrayal. But what about the specific policies?
I think this is a gray area because of the nature of politics. In any negotiation, political or otherwise, you always demand more than you think you’re going to get. The other side will assuredly do the same. When the other side scoffs at your proposal, don’t offer concessions before they’ve made a counter-offer. So, with this in mind, it’s possible to see that not all of Mamdani’s agenda will get enacted, or that he even thought these policies could be enacted. If you want to lower universal pre-K from four years to three, you don’t ask for 3K. The other side will always fight expansions of welfare programs, so Mamdani might as well stake out a maximalist demand, knowing that he may have to negotiate down to a phased-in timeline or something later than 6 weeks. Would settling for less be considered a betrayal of the campaign promise, and therefore DSA? It probably depends on how much is compromised.
By now, the reader may feel the framework I have outlined here is nothing more than a slippery slope into rejecting accountability for our electeds. Rather than arguing that social democracy is good enough, I am asking us to think more fundamentally about what we are as an organization, and what expectations members can make of others. Consider first, for example, the differences between NYC-DSA and the national DSA’s agenda.
Time and again, both New York and national political media sought to tie Mamdani to planks of the DSA’s platform. The New York Post accused him of dodging questions about enforcing misdemeanors. NPR at least had the decency to quote our national website when they sought to define DSA’s priorities. When pressed on his position on nationals, Mamdani always clarified that his platform is on his campaign website, not on DSA’s. NYC-DSA leadership has also pointed to discrepancies between the chapter and national. The differences between the two reflect the varied backgrounds and experiences of members from across the country, and how delegates sought to shape national priorities at successive conventions. Part of the backgrounds and experiences that some delegates brought reflect a dearth of political power or opportunity from their chapters’ region; moreover, the political ideologies and tendencies which guide strategies in rural or suburban America no doubt differ from that of blue state, urban organizers. Again, these are all parts of DSA, but not completely DSA.
If our organization includes people who describe themselves as communists, Marxist-Leninists, and democratic socialists, it means that our organization will have long-standing disagreements over goals, practices, strategies, and more. When a chapter endorses a candidate for office, though, they are not endorsing a multitude – they are endorsing a single person who is from one of those tendencies, or doesn’t clearly identify with any one of them. When a democratic socialist candidate who believes in a dirty break strategy, for example, gets elected and governs as a democratic socialist who believes in the dirty break strategy, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. It should also come as no surprise that the Maoists or Trotskyists who believe in a clean break would find reason to disagree with this new elected official. But when an organization contains so many multitudes and allows for diversity of thought, it also means that the accusation of ‘betrayal’ is harder to justify. A democratic socialist elected official who governs according to their own beliefs is not betraying the other factions within DSA by not suddenly adopting someone else’s beliefs. You can disagree with someone in shades or degrees, and still appreciate the capacity of your organization to put forward candidates who will advance a movement that allows for greater consideration of left-wing ideas.
As the Mamdani mayoralty will soon take hold, we should hold true to our vision of a better future and demand the most that we can from him. We do this as we demand the city council, state legislature, and Governor Hochul to work with him, too. That there will be compromises made to his campaign platform, we can only assume. I would never counsel anyone to give over absolute trust to a politician. Just remember, though, that if people accuse Mamdani or others of ‘betraying’ DSA, we should ask if there’s good reason to believe it, or if these accusations are just manifestations of the ideological and strategic disagreements between people that existed long before the election.
