The British are fond of the proverb: “One swallow does not make a summer.” This reference to migrating birds conveys the idea that one-off exception cannot be taken as a rule that applies everywhere at all times.
A young Muslim candidate of the left’s victory in the New York mayoral race is one such exception.
It’s not every day that Americans elect young men like Zohran Mamdani, who now leads the largest city and economic capital of the United States. Mamdani openly calls himself a Muslim and a socialist. This young man of Indian descent, raised in Africa (Uganda), won the race in a city that happens to have the world’s second-largest Jewish community, with around a third of Jewish New Yorkers voting for him!
This is certainly an extraordinary development, so we cannot simply overlook it.
Indeed, we immediately saw a torrent of takes from across the spectrum.
Some reacted negatively, expressing “deep concern” that the US could be lost and decrying the “fall” of New York to a four-year “Muslim occupation,” as one conservative Republican senator from Alabama, Tommy Tuberville, put it. Others were more “reassuring.” The British magazine The Economist, while critical of Mamdani and his political ideas, argued that New York has unique dynamics and that, therefore, the result does not reflect a national political shift.
In my humble opinion, The Economist is right to point out New York’s particularity, albeit with a tone that betrays a touch of wishful thinking, perhaps the result of its apprehension at seeing the left make electoral progress in the West, even when it is merely a reaction to excessively conservative policies
The fact is that many of the prominent European and American publications are not comfortable taking sides in clear-cut contests between left and right.
At present, with the far right rising on both sides of the Atlantic, “respectable” media outlets (like The Economist) find themselves faced with a dilemma. Tangible factors prevent them from endorsing what they see as the radical left. Their respect for the traditions of democracy and civil liberties, however, means that they are terrified of fascist and racist right-wing forces.
Despite its population of about 8.5 million, New York City certainly does not represent the entire country; the United States has a population of over 340 million people. The divergences of American society (between states, cities, religions, sects, and ethnic origins) are immense, and it is a country of vast disparities in wealth, financial resources, development, education, culture, and so on.
A striking post on X caught my attention a few weeks ago: an infographic highlighting some of the vast disparities between the states and how these disparities reflect on voters’ political choices. Two examples were contrasted to reflect the broad and deep political and developmental divides among America’s fifty states.
The first is Oklahoma. President Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s candidates won every electoral district there in 2024. The second is Massachusetts, where the Democratic Party’s candidates won every district.
Oklahoma, located in the heart of the American interior and along the conservative, fundamentalist “Bible Belt,” is one of the leading oil-producing states. It was among the last to join the Union, originally established as a reservation for Native American tribes.
Massachusetts, on the other hand, is in the far northeast, and it played a prominent role in shaping the American “nation” in the early stages. Its capital, Boston, is the country’s oldest major city, as well as its academic and cultural “stronghold” and the home to the old American aristocratic families who built schools and universities and founded banks and corporations.
Let’s set history aside and focus, instead, on the socioeconomic indicators that political analysts use to explain political behavior and voting patterns.
Oklahoma currently ranks 44th in education, 49th in healthcare, 44th in quality of life, and 50th- dead last- in standardized test scores. It also ranks among the ten poorest states in the country.
In contrast, Massachusetts ranks first in education, second in healthcare, first in quality of life, and first in standardized testing. It is also one of the ten least impoverished states.
These figures tell us two things. First, there are many Americas, not one. Second, the Republican and Democratic parties currently reflect a stark political divide regarding the country’s present and its future.
In the past, the Republican Party represented urban elites who advocated for a strong “centralized state.” Cities like New York and Boston were among its political strongholds. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, represented rural America, large landowners, and “state rights” advocates. Today, however, the two major parties have been transformed: the Republican Party is now a coalition of religious conservatives, the social and economic right, and libertarian oligarchs. For their part, the Democrats have become a broad “tent” uniting liberals, moderates, and socialists.
Accordingly, I believe that the battle over the United States’ “identity” has now entered a new stage, and it will be a while before we know the outcome.
I remember that when Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, many were under the impression that the United States had entered a new era. They saw his victory as a rupture that would herald an America of racial, religious, and cultural openness. However, that illusion collapsed under the weight of the slogans that figures like Steve Bannon raised during Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
For that reason, I believe it would be wise to wait and see before drawing conclusions about the real implications of Mamdani’s victory in New York, especially since we are in the age of algorithms shaped by a right-wing oligarchy.
