New York City Mayoral candidate Zorhan Mamdani looks likely to be the first full on communist to lead a major US city. While we have had socialist members of government in various locations, Mamdani goes further and represents the farthest left a politician has gone in the United States. Mamdani had previously agreed with the policy of police defunding in its entirety, but has recently backtracked from the policy for political reasons. His perspective is similar to former Representative Corrie Bush, another Democrat who believes that policing does not reduce crime and that other systemic “investments” need to be made in lieu of police budgets.
Mamdani was recently married at his family’s spacious compound in Uganda. Among the festive environment for such an event, was something that is very instructive about Mamdani’s perspective: more than 20 Ugandan special force operators who provided security for the wedding to ensure safety for Mamdani, his family and bride. Similar to former Representative Bush, Mamdani’s aversion to security for citizens of New York, apparently does not apply to him or his family.
The elitist perspective that showcases exceptions to the rules for politicians and government employees seems to permeate the American Democratic Party. While the Republican Party certainly rests on the “laws for thee, but not for me” mantra on specific, limited issues previously covered by Regoverance (speech, immunity, etc.), the vast basis of Democrat policy provisions seem to be to advantage one group within the electorate, at another group’s cost.
So called “progressive” (meaning Democrat) policies include transmissions from one group to another: financial, cultural, political and with respect to physical security. Nearly every policy has a winner and a loser, a provider and a recipient. The welfare state means that the nameless taxpayer provides a standard of living for those who cannot or merely won’t work. “Free healthcare” does not mean doctors, nurses, medical equipment manufacturers and drug companies do not get paid, it saddles taxpayers with other people’s medical bills. Reparations means that people who never owned slaves and who minded their own business get the honor of having their incomes substantially reduced so that others who were never slaves can get “free” money. In the current case, the call for defunding the police, thus eliminating security for citizens who do not work for the government apparently does not reduce special security for citizens who work for the government.
Dividing groups seems to be the only calculus that current Democrats use to get and, more importantly, stay elected. This is not the only way to get elected, but it is the primary Democrat approach. The use of racism, class and gender continue to be normal election strategies for the Party.
By contrast, the Republican policy portfolio generally includes those that favor Americans as a whole. Lower tax rates across all income levels, strong defense, law & order (including legal, orderly immigration) tend to be general Republican policies. There are certainly problems with Republican policies and one can legitimately disagree with them, but the point is their portfolio tends not to be divisive.
With respect to security, it raises the question about what Democrats are even thinking. Why would they support defunding police, thereby allowing crime to rise and accountability to recede? It is fairly obvious that Democrats view security as mandatory; after all they all support security for themselves. This goes beyond just being elitist, it has become a fundamental tactic in many cities such as Portland, San Fransisco, Seattle, Los Angeles and Minneapolis. While a few cities actually cut police funding, such as Portland and Minneapolis, all of these reduced punishments or the likelihood of prosecution for criminal behavior.
As expected, reducing police budgets and a refusal to take crime seriously on a broad basis increased criminal activity. Likewise, it created a larger role for agitating terror organizations of Antifa and BLM. The narratives that link these are not taken as seriously by Democrats as the “insurrection” narrative, where Trump supporters attacked the Capitol on January 6th, 2021.
Overall, this is instructive as to how Democrats look at security: one day of selfies, trespass, and a few assaults on January 6th is way more important than Antifa and BLM murders and arson during the post George Floyd insurrection. The reason is clear: the January 6th riot happened to government leaders, while other crimes merely happened to the “little people”.
Democrats are hypocrites. They'll allow crime to increase in one area to get votes. They believe that if they hurt the common people enough, they'll beg for communism over republicanism.
Think about how quickly that changed when people refused to mask or get fauxines. They couldn't hire police officers to lock people up.
Really great post!