Top Stories Daily Listen Now
RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "zohran mamdani"

Fox News host ridiculed over New York City tirade: 'He’s historically illiterate'

Fox News host Jesse Watters was mocked for ranting and dropping unfounded claims about New York City during a live broadcast on Friday.

The conservative host of "The Five" was responding to President Donald Trump's comments about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's rent freeze, which was approved by the New York City Board, and remarks about what the president called "commies."

"I just found out — New York City — half of the city is on Medicaid," Watters said. "Twenty percent of the city is on food stamps, five percent of the city lives in the projects, 70 percent of the city is not white, 40 percent of the city wasn't even born in America. We're going down a dangerous road."

Social media users reacted to the Fox News personality's comments.

"He’s historically illiterate: 40% of NYC, a higher percentage than now, was foreign born in 1910 (!) This is not new," Zeteo’s Mehdi Hasan wrote on X.

"Jesse needs a history lesson. Here are the percentages of NYC foreign born residents going back to 1850 (Source: US Census). This is nothing new and it's not dangerous. What really bothers him is the "not white" part," Geoff Brown, political commentator and retired school district administrator, wrote on X.

"Jesse Watters 100% full of s---," Navy veteran Louella Hopkins wrote on X.

"That's how New York has always been you racist little t--- waffle," political commentator Rodger Williams wrote on X.

Mamdani makes good on promise as NYC board votes to freeze rents citywide

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and tenant organizers celebrated a “historic victory” on Thursday after the city’s Rent Guidelines Board approved a two-year rent freeze affecting roughly a million apartments—around 40% of NYC’s rental housing.

The freeze, approved in a 7-1 vote, applies to tenants in rent-stabilized apartments on new one- and two-year leases beginning on or after October 1, 2026. Mamdani, whose mayoral campaign platform vowed to “immediately freeze the rent for all stabilized tenants,” said in a statement that the vote provides “the relief that working people across our city deserve.”

The mayor, who named six of the rent board’s nine members, pledged to “continue working to deliver a more affordable city by building and preserving affordable housing, lowering building operating costs like insurance, and ensuring tenants know their rights.”

“I’m grateful for the board members’ thoughtful consideration of the data, including tenants’ ability to pay, cost of living, and building operating costs,” said Mamdani.

Celebrations broke out in response to the vote, with Gothamist reporting that jubilant tenants erupted in applause and “spilled into the street” to cheer the rent freeze, which marked the first time the city board has paused rent for both one- and two-year leases.

“Hundreds of tenants packed the theater at El Museo del Barrio, singing and chanting about tenant power ahead of the board’s decision,” Gothamist noted. “Many in attendance, who had helped propel Mamdani’s successful campaign for mayor, which featured a viral vow to ‘freeze the rent,’ held signs demanding a rent freeze. At least one attendee blew a whistle to punctuate the slogans resonating through the auditorium.”

Fernanda P., a Brooklyn resident and member of the advocacy group Make the Road New York, said in a statement late Thursday that “our communities have spent years organizing and advocating for a rent freeze, and today our efforts have finally paid off.”

“This rent freeze is a relief for the thousands of New Yorkers, like myself, who are struggling every day to pay for increasingly unaffordable housing,” said Fernanda. “We are so glad to have a partner in Mayor Mamdani who heeded our communities’ years of calls for a rent freeze and understands the needs of working families. We will continue our fight for a New York that is affordable for everybody.”

'Again! I'm speaking!' CNN pundit explodes during fiery debate with right-winger

A CNN pundit shut down a conservative who kept interrupting her by yelling in his face.

Leigh McGowan, a political commentator and the host of the PoliticsGirl podcast, got locked in a fiery exchange with Jason Rantz, a conservative radio host, during their appearance on CNN on Tuesday.

The debate centered around Zohran Mamdani and Darializa Avila Chevalier, a congressional candidate who won the Democratic primary for New York's 13th Congressional District on Tuesday. Rantz argued that socialism and antisemitism will help Republicans win congressional seats in the midterms, while McGowan countered that he was exaggerating extreme views as mainstream in the Democratic Party.

"There are people struggling in this country, and we need representatives that don't just represent the donors and the lobbying groups and the billionaires," McGowan said. "Mamdani is showing us that you can deliver it."

As she made that point, Rantz continued talking and demanded, "Could you find one?" and "Can you find any who don't hold antisemitic views?"

"I would love to talk without you talking over me the entire time," McGowan shot back.

Rantz accused McGowan of praising Avila Chevalier, who's known for far-left views and as a democratic socialist. McGowan denied that. She tried to clarify that she said Avila Chevalier's race was the closest among the New York races on Tuesday and that she celebrated Mamdani's messaging, not Avila Chevalier's.

Rantz kept trying to talk over her, however, and stressed his argument about Democrats veering further left. That's when McGowan snapped.

"Again! I'm speaking, and you keep talking over me!" she yelled. "I would love to finish my point."

CNN anchor Abby Phillip had to intervene, saying "hold on a second," and asking Rantz to let McGowan finish her point.

"Mamdani, in six months, has shown what the Democrats have not been able to show," McGowan said in a quiet voice. "That you can say you're going to get something done, and then get it done."

Trump DHS chief torched after telling New Yorkers to 'wise up'

The head of the Department of Homeland Security is getting an earful after he told New Yorkers to "wise up."

During a press conference, Markwayne Mullin went after New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his constituents.

"He and I don't get along," Mullin said about Mamdani. "It's shameful, and hopefully people in New York will wise up and get a true leader in there in a few years."

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, fired back, writing, "Nothing like an Oklahoman with no ties to New York City trying to tell the city what to think about its highly popular mayor."

"New Yorkers definitely want a plumber from Oklahoma telling them what to do," journalist John Harwood wrote.

"The leader of American Gestapo is both dumb as a rock and purely evil," Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and contributing editor for The Atlantic, posted.

"It really is shameful that ol' Markwayne is so hateable that even he can't get along with someone as likeable as Mamdani," podcaster Roy Bellamy wrote. "Hopefully America will wise up and get true leaders in here in November and beyond."

"Does Donald Trump know that Markwayne is insulting his friend Mamdani?" asked author and editor Grant Stern, referring to reports that the two elected leaders are friendly.

"Any attacks on Mamdani from the admin appointees only make Trump's genuine affection for him even funnier," Max Steele, the senior director for communications for Everytown for Gun Safety, agreed.

Expert warns sleeper cells could be activated in US over Trump's war: ‘The threat is real'

A terrorism analyst on Monday explained how the United States-Israel war against Iran might have activated sleeper cells and has concerned law enforcement.

Alex Plitsas, counterterrorism program director for the Atlantic Council, told CNN anchor Jake Tapper that recent attacks had suggested increased activity among terrorist sleeper cells. Plitsas cited the attempted attack Saturday by two men charged with using weapons of mass destruction and supporting the Islamic State after throwing a bomb near New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's Gracie Mansion, in addition to two other recent terrorism-related incidents — the attack on a nightclub in Austin, Texas, and a bombing outside the U.S. embassy in Oslo, Norway. He also described a new report that revealed an encrypted transmission was intercepted by the U.S., which has prompted concern among security experts and law enforcement.

Tapper asked Plitsas how worried he was about the recent attacks.

"Significantly concerned," Plitsas said. "You know, not that there's a particular plot that I'm aware of and not to be alarmist for folks who are listening, but let's we can kind of walk through some of the facts that we that have come out and come to light recently about why I would make that comment. So there's been three cells that have been arrested in Qatar, in the UK and Azerbaijan over the last week that were affiliated with the IRGC, the Quds force — that's Iran special operations folks — that have an external cell that were engaged either intelligence collection or surveillance and preparation, likely for sabotage or terrorist operations. We saw a bombing outside of the U.S. embassy in Oslo. We still don't know who was responsible for that. And then there was reporting that came out earlier today that code words appear to have been intercepted where the Iranians may have activated sleeper cells globally amongst their IRGC folks or potentially Hezbollah. And so they've been known to have folks slip in and out of the United States, intelligence officers from Iran in covert status who have been in the United States conducting surveillance on targets who have also attempted to contract hitmen in some cases you know, there was a plot against President Trump himself."

He also mentioned how these operations had targeted others.

"There's a very famous female dissident who lives in Brooklyn, they were attempting to assassinate her as well," Plitsas said. "They've become exceptionally bold in recent years. And this all sort of came to light during the Obama administration when it was revealed and disrupted that they were looking at actually bombing a restaurant in Washington at one point, where the Saudi ambassador was said to have been eating. So the threat is real. And as Iran gets further backed into a corner and its military capabilities are further degraded, there's a possibility it could turn to asymmetric threats."

Plitsas argued there could be more attacks and that law enforcement would continue investigating.

"And as we like to say in the business, you know one time is an instance, two times a coincidence, three times is hostile enemy action," Plitsas added. "We had three cells arrested this week, a bombing outside Oslo. And then potential chatter now about sleeper cells being activated. So the JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force) and speaking to contacts within the FBI and law enforcement community are actively monitoring and aggressively pursuing any leads that are out there right now, including with international partners. So confidence in the efforts are federal law enforcement along with their local partners, have but they only have to be right once, and we have to be right every time."


NYC bomb suspects planned attack worse than the Boston Marathon bombing: officials

Two men were charged Monday on suspicion of using weapons of mass destruction and supporting the Islamic State after throwing a bomb near New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's Gracie Mansion.

Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi were arrested Saturday night after authorities alleged they tried to detonate two explosive devices, according to The New York Times. One of the explosives reportedly tested positive for TATP, which is a highly volatile material that has been used in terrorist attacks over the last 10 years.

United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton said that one of the suspects said they were apparently plotting an attack worse than the Boston Marathon bombing.

"They admitted to authorities that they had traveled to New York City to watch ISIS videos, and that their actions that day were partly inspired by ISIS,” Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch told reporters.

Rebecca Weiner, NYPD's deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism, said the arrests were consistent with what authorities have seen, as “younger and younger individuals are radicalizing.” The attack was “very much in keeping with the trend we were seeing with ISIS inspired adherence,” she said.

The improvised explosive devices were detonated in isolation by officials, CNN reported. The materials were now under FBI investigation.

Bernie and AOC wouldn't be known without this American giant

By Bert Johnson, Professor of Political Science, Middlebury College.

Jesse Jackson’s two campaigns for president, in 1984 and 1988, were unsuccessful but historic. The civil rights activist and organizer, who died on Feb. 17, 2026, helped pave the way for Barack Obama’s election a generation later as the nation’s first – and so far only – African American president.

Jackson’s campaigns energized a multiracial coalition that not only provided support for other late-20th-century Democratic politicians, including President Bill Clinton, but helped create an organizing template – a so-called Rainbow Coalition combining Black, Latino, working-class white and young voters – that continues to resonate in progressive politics today.

Vermont, where I teach political science, did not look like fertile ground for Jackson when he first ran for president. Then, as now, Vermont was one of the most homogeneous, predominantly white states. But if Jackson seemed like an awkward fit for a mostly rural, lily-white state, he nonetheless saw possibilities.

He campaigned in Vermont twice in 1984, buoyantly declaring in Montpelier, the state capital, “If I win Vermont, the nation will never be the same again.”

He did not win Vermont, taking just 8 percent of the Democratic primary vote in 1984 but tripling his share to 26 percent in 1988. Appealing to voters in small, rural New England precincts was a remarkable achievement for a candidate identified with Chicago and civil rights campaigns in the South.

Jackson’s presidential ambitions coincided with a pivotal moment in Vermont politics: The state’s voting patterns were shifting left, with new residents arriving and changing the state’s culture and economy. In 1970, nearly 70 percent of Vermonters had been born there. By 1990, that figure had dropped by 10 percentage points.

The Vermont Rainbow Coalition, which was formed to support Jackson’s first campaign, organized a crucial constituency in a fluid time, establishing patterns that would persist for decades.

Setting the standard

Jackson created a “People’s Platform” that would sound familiar to today’s progressives, calling for higher taxes on businesses, higher minimum wages and single-payer, universal health care.

In light of Jackson’s efforts, Vermont activists saw the potential for a durable statewide organization. Rather than disband the Vermont Rainbow Coalition after the 1984 primary, they kept the group going, endorsing candidates in campaigns for the legislature and statewide office in each of the next three election cycles. The coalition also endorsed Bernie Sanders’ failed bid for Congress in 1988.

Sanders served eight years as mayor of Burlington as an “independent socialist,” cultivating a core collection of local allies known as the Progressive Coalition who sought to wrest power away from establishment members of the city’s Board of Aldermen.

In 1992, the Vermont Rainbow Coalition merged with Burlington’s Progressive Coalition to form the statewide Progressive Coalition.

Jackson-Sanders lineage

Sanders eventually went on to win election to the House as an independent in 1990, serving in the chamber until winning his Senate seat, also as an independent, in 2006. His presidential runs in 2016 and 2020 made him a prominent national figure and a leader among progressives.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who unseated a member of the House Democratic leadership in a stunning 2018 primary upset in New York, had been a Sanders campaign organizer and remains his close ally. On Jan. 1, 2026, Sanders swore in Zohran Mamdani – like Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic socialist – as mayor of New York City.

Sanders had endorsed Jackson for president in 1988. Years later, Jackson returned the favor.

Sanders paid tribute to Jackson at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.

“Jesse Jackson is one of the very most significant political leaders in this country in the last 100 years,” Sanders said. “Jesse’s contribution to modern history is not just bringing us together – it is bringing us together around a progressive agenda.”

Not just Vermont

In Vermont, Jackson performed surprisingly well in unlikely places – taking nearly 20 percent of the 1984 primary vote in working-class Bakersfield and Belvidere, for example.

Today’s Vermont Progressive Party, which emerged out of the old Vermont Progressive Coalition, is one of the most successful third parties in the nation, winning official “major party” status in the state shortly after its official founding in 2000. The party has elected candidates to the state legislature, city councils and even a few statewide offices, including that of lieutenant governor.

Vermont was not alone in experiencing the catalyzing effect of Jackson’s presidential runs. Jackson had a significant mobilizing impact on Black voters nationwide. In Washington state, the Washington Rainbow Coalition started in Seattle and spread across the state between 1984 and 1996. New Jersey and Pennsylvania had their own successful and independent Rainbow Coalitions. In 2003, the Rainbow Coalition Party of Massachusetts joined the Green Party to become the Green Rainbow Party.

In my own research, I’ve investigated the durability of the “Jackson effect” in Vermont. There is no better test of what differentiates the Vermont Progressive Party from the state’s Democratic Party than the 2016 Democratic primary race for lieutenant governor, which pitted progressive David Zuckerman against two prominent, mainstream Democrats.

Zuckerman beat the Democrats most handily in towns that had voted the most heavily for Jesse Jackson in 1984, an effect that persisted even when controlling for population, partisanship and liberalism.

Many people would point to Sanders as the catalyst for Vermont’s continuing progressive movement. But Sanders and the progressives owe much to Jackson.

  • Bert Johnson has taught American politics at Middlebury since 2004. His research and teaching interests include campaign finance, federalism, and state and local politics. Johnson is author of Political Giving: Making Sense of Individual Campaign Contributions (Boulder: FirstForum Press, 2013), and coauthor (with Morris Fiorina, Paul E. Peterson, and William Mayer) of The New American Democracy (Longman, 2011). His articles have appeared in Social Science History, Urban Affairs Review, and American Politics Research. He is owner and author of Basicsplainer.com.

Stop coddling these selfish elites — they're bluffing

On Tuesday, New York City’s new mayor Zohran Mamdani proposed raising property taxes in the city by nearly 10 percent — if he can’t persuade New York Governor Kathy Hochul to raise income taxes on the wealthy. She’s been reluctant.

In California, meanwhile, Google co-founder Sergei Brin along with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and other billionaires are financing several voter initiatives to limit the creation of a new billionaire tax in California. California Governor Gavin Newsom is also against it.

Why are the governors of the most progressive and richest states in America so unenthusiastic about raising taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy?

The kindest answer is they’re worried that the rich will abandon their states. (The unkinder is that they’re in the pockets of said rich.)

Governors Hochul and Newsom: Don’t worry about raising taxes on the rich.

True, a few rich people may abandon New York or California if taxes on them are raised, but evidence suggests the vast majority will stay put.

When billionaire New York mayor Mike Bloomberg faced a budget deficit in his first term, he raised property taxes by 18.5 percent. Rich New Yorkers threatened to leave. Most did not.

A graph from the “Citizens Budget Commission” (financed by rich New Yorkers) purports to show New York’s “shrinking share” of the nation’s millionaires — from 12.7 percent in 2010 to 8.7 in 2022 — as evidence New Yorkers are fleeing high taxes.

But that “shrinking share” isn’t due to New Yorkers fleeing; it’s because a growing number of millionaires are being hatched in Texas, Florida, and California.

A study by the Fiscal Policy Institute found no significant out-migration by wealthy residents of New York state in response to tax increases in either 2017 or 2021. The latter tax increase is estimated to have raised approximately $3.6 billion annually. Since then, the number of wealthy in New Yorkers has increased.

When Massachusetts passed its “millionaire’s tax” in 2022, rich residents of the Bay State threatened to leave. They didn’t. Instead, the state has collected $5.7 billion in additional revenue, while the number of millionaires in the state has grown, according to a study by People’s Policy Project.

After New Jersey raised its top tax rates, researchers found little out-migration among millionaires. The measure generated substantial revenue.

Other research examined 45 million U.S. tax filings of families or individuals with over $1 million in income. It shows that affluent households are even less likely to move to another state than middle-income or poor households.

Why are the rich staying put, even though their taxes are being raised? Because they’re rich! They can afford to stay put.

Most people don’t want to move — either because their friends or parents or children live in the vicinity, or they don’t want to disrupt the education of their younger children, or they have networks of business associates and clients in the area, or they like the cultural amenities, or they don’t want the legal and administrative hassles of moving.

Most people move because they have to. Their employer tells them they must. Or the best job they can get forces them to. Or they they have to take care of a sick parent. Or their own aging bodies can no longer abide the cold.

But the rich don’t have to move. The Fiscal Policy Institute study previously mentioned shows that in 2023, earners in the top 1 percent migrated out of New York less frequently than those in all other income groups.

New York’s and California’s super-rich are richer than they’ve ever been; the wealth they’ve amassed is larger than any group of Americans has ever possessed; they don’t know what to do with all their money. The taxes they would pay under the proposals put forward are infinitesimally small, almost rounding errors, compared to their fortunes.

Yes, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel (who financed JD Vance’s senate run) has abandoned California, complaining about the billionaire tax. So have venture capitalist David Sacks (now Trump’s “czar” for crypto and AI), Elon Musk, and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg (who reportedly bought a mansion in Miami).

But the question must be asked: is California really that much worse for losing Thiel, Musk, and Zuckerberg?

Maybe raising taxes on the super-rich not only provides critically-needed tax revenue but also acts as a kind of disinfectant, purging a city or state of a few of its most noxious and socially-irresponsible inhabitants. Another reason to do so!

  • Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

The right can howl all it wants — Muslims have always been part of the American story

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” — Frederick Douglass

America’s story has always been a story of struggle — for liberty, for justice, for recognition. On a cold January afternoon outside City Hall, Zohran Mamdani stepped into that struggle. Raising his right hand, he took the oath of office as mayor of New York City — the first Muslim ever to hold the city’s highest office — embodying Douglass’ truth: Progress demands courage, perseverance, and the relentless pursuit of inclusion.

The headlines captured the surface: a 25-minute inaugural address, roughly 4,000 spectators, a private swearing in just after midnight at the Old City Hall subway station, appearances by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). But the moment ran far deeper. Mamdani’s inauguration was not only a municipal milestone; it was the latest chapter in a debate as old as the republic itself: where Muslims belong in the American story — and whether they ever truly have.

That question stretches back to July 30, 1788, when North Carolina ratified the Constitution. Anti-federalist William Lancaster warned that by rejecting religious tests for office, the new nation might allow Muslims to govern.

“Papists may occupy that chair,” he cautioned, “and Mahometans may take it. I see nothing against it.”

A warning, then. A prophecy, now.

There were no Muslim candidates in 1788. But there were Muslims in America — thousands of enslaved Africans whose presence exposed the republic’s deepest contradiction. Between 5 percent and 20 percent of enslaved Africans were Muslim, many literate in Arabic, bearing names like Fatima, Ali, Hassan, and Said. Their faith was violently suppressed, yet fragments endured — in memory, language, and resistance.

Even the founding generation reflected this tension. Thomas Jefferson studied the Quran and treated Islam as a serious intellectual tradition, even as he owned enslaved Muslims. Islam existed in theory, in human reality, and yet was denied civic recognition.

That tension carried forward into the nation’s greatest moral reckoning: the Civil War.

Muslims fought for the Union. Mohammed Kahn enlisted in the 43rd New York Infantry. Nicholas Said — born Mohammed Ali ben Said in Nigeria, raised Muslim, later converted to Christianity — served as a sergeant in the 55th Massachusetts Colored Regiment and as a Union clerk. Captain Moses Osman held a high-ranking post in the 104th Illinois Infantry. Union rosters show names like Ali, Hassan, and Said, hinting at a wider Muslim presence than history often acknowledges.

Yet rifles were not the only weapons. Islam entered the moral imagination through words and witness. Sen. Charles Sumner, nearly beaten to death on the Senate floor, quoted the Quran to condemn slavery. Ayuba Suleiman Diallo — Job ben Solomon — had already unsettled transatlantic assumptions through literacy, eloquence, and dignity. His story endured into the Civil War, republished in 1864 to reinforce the war’s moral purpose. Overseas, Hussein Pasha of Tunisia urged the US to abolish slavery “in the name of humanity,” showing Muslim advocacy was part of a global ethical conversation.

Muslims remained largely invisible in America’s public self-understanding — until the 20th century produced a figure too large to ignore.

Muhammad Ali, still the most recognizable man on Earth decades after his gold medal at the 1960 Rome Olympics, transformed boxing and American consciousness alike. He was named “Athlete of the Century” by Sports Illustrated, GQ, and the BBC; “Kentuckian of the Century” by his home state; and became a global icon through speed, grace, and audacious charm.

Ali’s significance extended far beyond the ring. By insisting on the name Muhammad Ali instead of Cassius Clay, he forced America to confront the legacy of slavery embedded in naming itself. His embrace of Islam was unapologetic and public. His refusal to be drafted into the Vietnam War cost him his title and livelihood, yet anticipated the anti-war movement. His fights in Kinshasa, Manila, and Kuala Lumpur shifted attention from superpower dominance toward global conscience.

Ali’s humanitarian work was relentless: delivering over 232 million meals, medical supplies to children in Jakarta, orphans in Liberia, street children in Morocco. At home, he visited soup kitchens, hospitals, advocated for children’s protections, and taught tolerance in schools through his book Healing. For this, he was honored as a United Nations Messenger of Peace, cited by Amnesty International, and recognized by President Jimmy Carter as “Mr. International Friendship.”

Ali showed the nation something fundamental: that Islam is American. That Muslims have always belonged to the moral and civic fabric of this country. That a nation built on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, on religious tolerance, on care for the poor, is naturally aligned with Islam. Mamdani is American not in spite of his faith, but because Islam is American.

It is against this long arc — from slavery to abolition, civil rights, global conscience, and the moral courage of Muhammad Ali — that Zohran Mamdani’s inauguration comes into focus.

Mamdani’s life traces modern routes of migration and belonging. Born in Kampala, Uganda to parents with roots in South Asia, he was raised in New York City. Yet his rise fulfills an older constitutional promise. In his inaugural address, he thanked his parents — “Mama and Baba” — acknowledged family “from Kampala to Delhi,” and recalled taking his oath of American citizenship on Pearl Street.

When Mamdani declared, “New York belongs to all who live in it,” he answered a question first posed in fear in 1788, tested in war, dramatized by Muhammad Ali, and deferred for generations. He named mosques alongside churches, synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, and mandirs, making visible what history had long rendered partial. When he spoke of halal cart vendors, Palestinian New Yorkers, Black homeowners, and immigrant families bound together by labor and hope, he articulated a civic vision rooted in lived American reality.

Notably, Mamdani did not frame his Muslim identity as something to defend. It simply existed.

“Where else,” he asked, “could a Muslim kid like me grow up eating bagels and lox every Sunday?”

Hybridity was not an exception. It was inheritance.

Yet it is equally important to recognize that Mamdani’s historic victory does not make him infallible, nor should it. The fact that he is the first Muslim mayor of New York City is not a personal achievement alone — it reflects the barriers that Muslims, like many others, have historically faced in participating fully in American democracy. Discrimination, racial and religious bias, and systemic obstacles made this moment possible only now, not because of any failing on his part. He will, like all mayors before him, make mistakes. He will face limits, criticism, and flaws — because he is human. To hold him to an impossible standard would be to misunderstand both history and democracy.

There is, too, something unmistakably American about Mamdani’s politics. By invoking La Guardia, Dinkins, and de Blasio; by embracing democratic socialism without apology; by grounding his agenda in labor, affordability, and collective responsibility, he situates himself firmly in an American tradition — one that echoes the abolitionists, the New Deal, and the moral courage of Ali.

And as Malcolm X reminds us, this is the guiding principle for American civic life: “I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in forcing anyone to accept it.”

This is what makes the moment historic. Not that a Muslim has finally entered American politics, but that an old constitutional anxiety — once voiced as a warning — has become an ordinary fact of civic life. Islam, Mamdani, and the ideals of this nation converge in a single, undeniable truth: America is not a Christian nation, nor a nation for whites, nor a nation for the rich alone. It is a nation built on principles shared by all who live in it, and Islam has always been part of that inheritance.

The work, as Mamdani said, has only just begun. But the story his inauguration tells — that Muslims were enslaved at the nation’s birth, debated at its founding, fought in its wars, shaped its abolitionist conscience, transformed its civil rights culture, and now govern its greatest city — is no longer hypothetical.

It stands, unmistakably, on the steps of City Hall.

These signs show a new force is coming to clean out the White House

The media is freaking out over a new Rasmussen poll that found:

“A majority of voters under 40 want a democratic socialist to win the White House in the next presidential election.

“… 51 percent of Likely U.S. Voters ages 18 to 39 would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election. Thirty-six percent (36 percent) don’t want a democratic socialist to win in 2028, while 17 percent are not sure…

“Among the youngest cohort (ages 18-24) of voters, 57 percent want a democratic socialist to win the next presidential election…

“Among those who voted for Kamala Harris in last year’s presidential election, 78 percent would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election…” (emphasis added).

I was on Ali Velshi’s MSNOW show discussing this, along with Michael Green who recently wrote a thought-provoking article about how the official poverty line in America is completely out-of-date and out of touch with the needs of most Americans. I shared a few statistics from my recent book The Hidden History of the American Dream: the Demise of the Middle Class and How to Rescue Our Future:

  • When, in 1957, my dad bought the house I grew up in, the average cost of a single-family home in America was about 2.2 times the average annual wage. Today it’s more than ten times the average wage.
  • When my Boomer generation was the same age as today’s Millennials, we owned a bit over 22 percent of the nation’s wealth; Millennials today control only about 4 percent of the country’s wealth (and it’s the same for Zoomers).
  • From the 1930s right up until the Reagan Revolution, it was possible for seniors to live comfortably on Social Security alone; Reagan undid that with his “reforms” so today that’s nearly impossible.
  • When I ran my first seriously successful business in the early 1970s, it cost me around $35/month for comprehensive health insurance for each of my 18 employees; at that time hospitals and health insurance companies were required by Michigan law (where I lived; most other states were identical) to be run as non-profits. Today, health insurance can be as much as one-fifth of a company’s payroll expense.
  • When Reagan came into office in 1981, a single wage earner could support a family with a middle-class lifestyle, and fully 65 percent of us were in the middle class (up from around 20 percent in the 1930s). Today, after 44 years of Reaganomics, it takes two full-time people to achieve the same status, which triggers huge childcare expenses, which is part of why only 43 percent of us are middle class .

FDR’s great — and successful — Democratic Socialist experiment following the Republican Great Depression was to drive the economy from the bottom up, reversing the “Horse and Sparrow” trickle-down economics and deregulation of the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations that provoked the Great Crash.

He did that by:

  • Expanding the notion of the commons — the stuff we all collectively own and is administered or funded and regulated by government — to include free public education nationwide (and cheap college), old-age retirement (Social Security), and public power and transportation systems (Tennessee Valley Authority, federal support for local transit, roads and highways).
  • Legalizing unions, an effort that was so successful that when Reagan came into office fully a third of us had good union jobs and, because they set the local wage floors, two-thirds of Americans had the equivalent of a union wage and benefit package.
  • Establishing a minimum wage on which a single worker could raise a family of three and still stay above the federal poverty level (today’s federal minimum wage is $7.25: adjusted with the Consumer Price Index, that $1.60 minimum wage in 1968 is equivalent to about $14.90 an hour in 2025 dollars).

In the years since, we’ve continued to expand the commons by establishing national single-payer healthcare systems for low-income people (Medicaid) and retired people (Medicare), both of which came out of LBJ’s Democratic Socialist program that he called The Great Society.

Meanwhile, Republicans and a few neoliberal Democrats have pushed back against these Democratic Socialist programs that made the American middle class the first in the history of the world to exceed more than half the population.

  • Reagan’s war on unions has cut our union membership down to well under 10 percent in the private sector.
  • His gutting federal funding for education has exploded college costs to the point where three generations are saddled with over $2 trillion in debt that can’t be discharged by bankruptcy.
  • Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich (from 74 percent down to 27 percent) and corporations tripled the national debt (from $800 billion to $2.4 trillion) just in his eight years; since then the four GW Bush and Trump tax cuts have, when combined with Reagan’s, produced a $38 trillion national debt so big that we now spend more on servicing their debt than we do on our defense budget or would on administering a national healthcare system.

Back in the 1940s, after the incredible success of the New Deal, President Roosevelt wanted to further expand the commons by expanding the scope of his Democratic Socialist programs. Just before he died, he proposed a “Second Bill of Rights” that included:

  • “The right to a useful and remunerative job in the nation’s industries, shops, farms, or mines. (Unionization and an above-poverty-level minimum wage.)
  • “The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation. (Ditto and government as the employer of last resort.)
  • “The right of every farmer to raise and sell products at a return that gives his family a decent living. (Don’t manipulate farm prices with stupid tariff wars, etc., and make the government the purchaser of last resort.)
  • “The right of every businessperson, large and small, to trade free from unfair competition and domination by monopolies. (Break up the giant corporations and encourage average people to start small businesses, including with loan supports.)
  • “The right of every family to a decent home. (Today this would mean no more corporations, hedge funds, and foreign billionaires owning single-family homes to squeeze us dry by jacking up rents.)
  • “The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health. (FDR favored a single-payer healthcare system like Medicare for All.)
  • “The right to protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment (i.e., robust Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance).
  • “The right to a good education.” (Free or inexpensive college, quality public schools in every community.)

Much to the chagrin of my Republican-activist father, my grandfather (a 1917 Norwegian immigrant) frequently and proudly described himself as a socialist. When I asked him what he meant, he always pointed me to FDR, the New Deal, and his proposed Second Bill of Rights.

And here we are again.

My grandfather’s generation saw up-close and firsthand the tax-cutting and deregulation binge of the Roaring 20s (which were only “roaring” for the morbidly rich), and then had the lived experience of watching FDR put the country back together and create the world’s first widespread middle class.

Millennials and Zoomers today are seeing the same thing, between the Bush Housing Crash of 2008, the botched Covid Crash of 2020, and the GOP’s relentless program to drive the wealth of the nation into the money bins of the billionaires who own that party.

They see the example of most European countries, where the commons includes college (many will actually pay you a stipend to attend), healthcare, and daycare/preschool, and union density is often well above 80%. Housing is subsidized or heavily regulated, leading several to have essentially ended homelessness. Giant corporate monopolies are prohibited and local small businesses are encouraged.

Europeans call these programs Democratic Socialism or social democracy, and young Americans clearly are enthusiastic about bringing the “European Dream” to this country.

My sense is that — much like in the 1930s — a significant majority of Americans are sick of the neoliberal “let the rich run things because they know best” bullshit that Republicans, “Tech Bros,” and a shrinking minority of on-the-take Democratic politicians embrace.

Meanwhile, nobody’s sure why the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is refusing to release the autopsy they did of the 2024 election, producing speculation it may have uncovered examples of Russian and Republican manipulation of both voters and the vote, but I’m guessing the real reason is that the neoliberals who largely run the DNC saw feedback that reflected the Rasmussen poll I opened this article with.

The exploding popularity of progressive politicians from Zohran Mamdani to Bernie Sanders, Jasmine Crockett, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren’t an anomaly; they’re a signpost to both electoral and governing success for the next generation of genuinely progressive Democratic politicians.