Why you should vote for Zohran Mamdani

Mayoral elections rarely become focal points of national politics. So when they do, there must be some fundamental reason for that.

That is a correct observation

What we must understand is why it is true

It would be lazy to explain everything with “personal charisma”. Using the Zhuangzi metaphor, a sharp knife cuts sharply because it finds the empty space, between the joints, between the bones. It cuts sharp and fast, because it finds a path of no resistance, an emptiness.

Similarly a political agenda blows up when it cuts into the empty space, and meets the pre-existing, and previously un-met demand.

Which raises a question of how did this empty space had emerged in first place

***

By the year 2025, American politics were stuck. Stuck like two rams battling on a narrow bridge

The contest between political parties has degenerated into a sort of tribal warfare, where each party was trying to inflict the maximum damage upon the opposite tribe, at whatever cost.

It is not only that they were not trying to work out some common future, or common vision. It is much uglier, and more absurd than that. Like, in theory, if you wanted to defeat the opposite tribe, the easiest way to do it would be by luring its members, its rank and file onto your side. Like, hey, abandon your current leaders and come to us, it is cooler here, and we will be offering you something they won’t.

In theory, if they were behaving rationally, both sides would be trying to woo, persuade, recruit the enemy flock, recruit the rank and file of the opposite party. Which makes perfect sense, logically. It is only sensible to say: guys, the other side does not really serve your interests very well, join our side, and will be representing them better.

But they aren’t doing that!

Yes, if you think through, it sounds absurd, looks absurd, because, yeah, it is absurd

Nobody is trying to recruit, nobody is trying to lure, nobody is trying to negotiate, and of course nobody is trying to offer anything to the “enemy”.

There is no attempt to convert, or to persuade anyone

Just threats and insults¹.

Now can we reconstruct the mental model that guides this seemingly insane mode of behaviour?

I believe, we can

The opposite party is being seen as the monolithic evil top down, from their evil leaders to their evil supporters. Their leader is Sauron, his followers are Orcs. Their leader is Hitler, his followers are Nazis. You can choose metaphor you like the best. What matters, is that the entire opposite tribe, and every member of it is ontologically evil, and deserves the excruciating punishment, and, of course we will unleash that punishment upon them, at the first opportunity.

Once we interiorise this kind of worldview, no kind of agreement, no kind of negotiation, not just with the enemy party as a whole, but even with its individual supporters becomes impossible. It would be crazy to be welcoming those Nazis, or rather ritually impurity folk onto your side, because they, naturally, would be harming the purity of your camp. They are all horrible, and all you can offer to that horrible set of people is total extermination or, should that somehow turn out to be impossible, a reeducation camp.

With this kind of attitude being normalised - and, yes, it has been normalised - you won’t be surprised to see the American politics stuck. Because naturally, both tribes, and that means both entire tribes top down have every reason to fear the opposite side, have every reason to expect any kind of evil imaginable from them, and, therefore, doesn’t really have any incentive to cooperate, let alone - change sides.

Like, why on earth would you be working with people who see you as inherently evil, and would love to put you in a camp?

Obviously, you won’t

Now this mutual hatred, and mistrust - paradoxically - explains a somewhat stuck state of the political scene. They are stuck, because both sides behave more or less symmetrically, being guided by a very similar kind of worldview.

(MAGA worldview is, of course, just the lib worldview reversed)

Two rams on a narrow bridge, cannot produce anything but a stalemate

***

By the mid-2020s, the Democratic Party basically gave up on trying to persuade or lure anyone from the opposite camp. If I were to summarise the entire Democratic style of messaging, I would put it in the following way.

1. There’s the righteous and there’s the damned. Very importantly, the line between them goes based on their identity. The shame of wrong identity, however, can be somewhat alleviated by making the right political choice (= voting for Democrats), which somewhat lessens your guilt.

2. Our cause is great and virtuous, you owe us your loyalty by definition. It is not us who should be proving ourselves before the voters, and earning their trust. It is the voters who should prove their loyalty to us. Proving your loyalty serves as a ultimate litmus test, which you cannot fail.

3. As voting for the Democrats serves as a great litmus test, telling the difference between the saved and the damned, it means that everyone who failed the test - belong to hell, and will burn there forever. That includes those who voted for the opposite party, those who abstained, and, should we fail, that honestly includes the entire country.

I am not even joking.

The circular reasoning: we are good, they are bad, we belong to heaven, they belong to hell, excludes any possibility of correcting one’s course. The very idea that you may need to amend anything sounds like a total blasphemy, a sacrilege almost. If you fail, it is not you who have failed. It is you, the voter, who have failed, proving your sexism and racism, proving you belong to the damned.

Long story short, the Democrats refused to see their opponents - and not just their political rivals, like professional politicians and activists - but like the entire voter base of Republicans and undecided as humans. It was just one generic enemy, damned, totally fallen and disgusting, that you hold no negotiations with, nor talk to, nor offer anything, nor persuade.

****

Now let’s return to the NYC mayoral elections

That is a very telling video

An aspiring Democratic politician is approaching people who have voted for Trump - or did not vote at all, despite being long-time supporters of the Democrats - and asking them why. Like what motivated them to vote Red, and what, specifically, made them disappointed in the Democrats.

Let’s look into the implicit premises this style of messaging is based upon. And the premises are:

1. They are normal. Like, some are, some are not, but the basic assumption must be that they are. You need to introduce an element of good faith into politics, and see your political opponents as normal humans with normal human interests rather than as devils with horns.

2. If they are supporting the other side, then, well, perhaps, they have a good reason. That probably means they have interests, and grievances we did not respond to. Perhaps, their decision was right (for them), perhaps, it was misguided. Anyway, they have every right to vote either way, based on their judgement.

3. Them not voting for us, is not their failure. It is our failure. It is not their responsibility to vote for us, it is our responsibility to win their vote. Nobody owes us their support, and voters most certainly don’t. If we don’t command their trust, then we must either earn it, or leave the political scene.

Notice that nothing of that sounds like rocket science, more like basic sanity. And yet, in modern America adhering to the norms of basic sanity is something that sets you apart. Because by this point in history, hysterical politics, based on the dualistic worldview (we are good, they are evil and all we need to do is to perform a great litmus test, that will set the righteous apart form the damned) became the golden standard.

Of all the major American politicians, Mamdani may be the only one who understands he must talk to, and reach understanding with people who do not share his beliefs, ideological convictions and aesthetic preferences. That people who disagree with him, may not be inherently evil. In fact, their choice is often situational and many of them you can absolutely win over, if you make a sufficient effort to.

Most of American politicians have no idea, and - facing any kind of disagreement, no matter how minuscule - all they can do is make a scene. Which is pretty disgusting to watch for everyone who does not belong to their little stupid cult. That is what unites the great majority of them, left or right. As of 2025, the cultural norm is to throw a tantrum at the sight of the first disagreement. Knowing better than that, makes you something of a giant, towering far above the dwarfish political landscape below.

That is the single most under-appreciated fact about Mamdani: an inclusive politician who is talking to everyone, negotiating with everyone, ready to offer something to everyone and not just to some favoured demography.

In modern America, it is as rare as meeting a dinosaur

1. Plus, in the case of the Democrats, a lot of moral preaching