🔗 Share this article

The only upside to experiencing these challenging days is it pushes us to rethink and perhaps totally remake things we long considered fixed.

Take the Democratic party as an example.

For those unaware, the current Democratic party is ineffective, or close to irrelevant.

Preferable to a authoritarian movement like the Republican party under Trump. But if there were ever a moment when the nation needed a strong, vibrant Democratic party, this is that moment. And we don’t have one.

The most promising figure in the Democratic party is the New York politician, the 34-year-old figure of the political body who has a good chance of being elected the future leader of the city when city residents participate in elections soon.

His campaign addresses what concerns to most voters: the cost of living. He says this urban center should be accessible for all residents.

His platform covers the challenges New Yorkers debate over their in their homes. He’s not debating ideological debates or economic systems. He avoids proposing a typical Democratic “10-point plan” with complicated incentives that lack clarity.

He’s proposing a number of clear policies: free buses, subsidized daycare, a temporary rent control for a significant number of residents, and a $30 minimum wage. His goal is what Franklin D Roosevelt did in the past century: fix it.

Opinions may vary with every idea (some differ), but they’re understandable. And should they fail, I expect that like FDR, he’ll try something else.

The deciding factor for many observers is that he motivates a new generation of the youth. He creates engagement about politics. (My 17-year-old granddaughter is volunteering engaging voters for him, together with other youth.)

In recent history to find political figures who have motivated new voters. A prominent independent (outside the party) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Barack Obama. (I was inspired in my youth by RFK – the real Bobby Kennedy – and another political figure.)

Now Mamdani.

Which characteristics have in common? They are genuine. They have energy. They care about ordinary citizens. They aim to create the nation more equitable. They support practical solutions that people can understand.

However, Mamdani alarms the senior members of the Democratic party. A prominent Democrat has not supported him. Hillary Clinton has supported Andrew Cuomo, who’s using what are possibly the last days of his time in politics indulging in the kind of prejudiced statements we’d expect from the former president.

At the same time, the editorial board of the media outlet recommends centrism, urging party nominees to move to the political middle. Consider this: Where’s the center between freedom and fascism, and who would want to occupy that space?

Realistically, the publication's described “moderate center” is a euphemism for business-friendly politicians utilizing significant funding to attract moderate electorate – which is what the political organization has been pursuing for years.

This contributes to the cause the election of the former president. Corporate Democrats changed direction from its original goal: to support the labor force and lower-middle class and support disadvantaged communities. Rather, they advocated globalization, private ownership and the financial sector freedom. They transformed into moderate Republicans.

During recent elections, ordinary citizens observed this trend and selected a polarizing figure who at least sounded like he was on their side. He wasn’t and still isn’t – he’s on the side the billionaires to whom he delivered two whopping tax cuts. But when deciding between a seemingly supportive candidate and a conventional leader, voters often choose the former?

The former president also offered voters divisive rhetoric – pointing fingers at foreign-born individuals, Latino communities, Black people, transgender people, government workers and urban professionals. Democrats, meanwhile, presented complex policy proposals.

Media outlets argue its viewpoint that candidates must gravitate to the middle ground by referencing successful candidates in the past cycle in places Republican-leaning regions.

But that argument is bunk. These candidates succeeded in those areas by imitating Trump. One criticized the term “Latinx” and was strict on border policy. Several candidates advocated for stricter measures more aggressively on undocumented migration. Other politicians focused on law and order and neighborhood protection. Another highlighted taking on government agencies.

This is not the solution for progressive politics. Divisive rhetoric won't solve economic problems or cover healthcare costs or help with utility bills or pay the rent.

The politician endangers business-friendly politicians because he wants to tax the affluent to finance his agenda to make the city more attainable to working families.

His plan would create nine billion dollars by adjusting rates for the affluent individuals and companies. He advocates a modest percentage on million-dollar earnings, which would create substantial funds. He wants to increase the corporate levy to 11.5% to align with neighboring state's, creating around $5bn annually.

He’s right. High-net-worth people have reached unprecedented levels as they are today, while the percentage they contribute hasn’t been as low in living memory.

Financial divides are at record levels. A handful of billionaires now dominate numerous aspects of the political structure and the economic system.

Even as the equity indices continues to hit new highs, working-class and lower-middle-class families across America are {getting shaft