A century ago, the American left looked with distrust at large urban centres: places of compromise, not revolution. Today, it is precisely from an iconic metropolis like New York that the strongest signal of progressive radicalisation within the Democratic Party emerges. Theelection of Zohran Mamdani – socialist, Muslim, pro-Palestinian, critic of the police force and traditional institutions – as mayor of America’s most influential city represents a break with the past, but also a sharp mirror of the present. The crisis of Democratic leadership, moderate impotence in the face of the Trumpian challenge, the yielding to the binary logic of ‘all or nothing’: in this scenario, Mamdani is not an anomaly. He is a consistent product of a political era that has lost its centre.

About Mamdani

Zohran Mamdani is the most recognisable face of the new American left, the concrete embodiment of that political segment that moves between democratic socialism, identity activism and disintermediated communication. Born of a Ugandan father and an Indian mother, Mamdani represents a radical shift from the traditional Democratic Party candidates. His ethnic and religious identity (a practising Muslim) is never concealed; on the contrary, it is an integral part of his public positioning.

Visual and hyper-localised communication

Zohran Mamdani ‘s communication has been one of the key factors in his success. His language is visual, direct, hyper-local. In his videos, he does not spout abstract theories but tells stories: the halal food seller who pays $20,000 a year for a licence that only enriches urban rentiers; the immigrant under eviction; the precarious public transport worker. Mamdani does not promise: he denounces. He lays bare the distortions of the system by telling them from the point of view of those who suffer them. His style is theatrical, often emotional, but never casual: each message is constructed to produce empathy before consensus.

Native channels and generational clash

Its distribution channels are native: TikTok, Instagram, live events. No stage rallies, no invitations to institutional round tables. Political debates become the stage for the conflict between an old and a new world: when Cuomo accuses him of ‘lacking experience’, Mamdani responds with irony, accusation and sarcasm – ‘the problem is not inexperience, but indifference’.

Trump’s unintentional assist

Even Trump, in an attempt to thwart him, offered him a golden communication assist, calling him ‘a communist who will destroy New York‘. The retort is implicit: Mamdani capitalises on right-wing outrage as a certification of his impact. In a media context where the centre-left often appears timid and aphonic, Mamdani moves with rhythm, courage and visual radicalism.

Polarising, mobilising, radicalising

His political communication is structured to polarise, mobilise and radicalise. He uses social networks to bypass traditional media, employing a rhetoric that mixes elements of social justice, anti-colonial claims and systemic criticism of American institutions. In his speeches, Mamdani does not seek bipartisan interlocution: he constructs a militant ‘us’ as opposed to a corrupt, elitist, violent ‘them’. He speaks to marginalised communities, hyper-politicised youth, civil rights and anti-gentrification activists.

International activism and identity

Zohran Mamdani ‘s radicalism is not only expressed in domestic politics or urban economics, but above all in his view of international relations and collective identity. The socialist candidate has built much of his credibility on an openly pro-Palestinian activism, often accompanied by tones that go beyond political criticism to encroach into the realm of delegitimisation. Mamdani has described the Israeli military campaign in Gaza as ‘genocide’, refusing to recognise Israel as a Jewish state and openly supporting the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement and refusing to distance himself from the slogan‘Globalize the Intifada‘. In a context such as New York, with a large Jewish community, these positions represent a clear break with the moderate democratic tradition.

Moral selectivity and simplistic dichotomies

This position, in itself (now) legitimate in the international debate, nevertheless takes on an ideological and morally selective character: his indignation focuses on Israel, but is silent on the repressions of Arab or Islamic authoritarian regimes. His discourse, steeped in post-colonial and decolonial references, tends to construct a simplified moral dichotomy: on the one hand the ‘Western oppressor’, on the other the ‘oppressed people’, in a narrative that resonates more as an act of ideological faith than political analysis.

‘Global Muslim Diaspora’ and post-9/11 trauma

It is no coincidence that Mamdani presents himself as an exponent of the ‘global Muslim diaspora‘, intertwining his religious identity with his political militancy. 9/11, he has repeatedly recalled, represented a trauma for him and his family, not because of the attack itself, but because of the fear of being singled out as the culprit: an experience he has turned into permanent identity rhetoric, fuelling a worldview in which Islam is the victim and the West the executioner.

Language and the relationalisation of jihadism

This dual pattern is also reflected in his language: Mamdani never speaks of Islamic radicalism, but of ‘reaction to the violence of the West’. He does not distinguish between faith and ideology, between religion and power. The result is a public discourse that relativises jihadist terrorism, decontextualises it and reabsorbs it into a framework of Western guilt. It is a view that, while explicitly avoiding anti-Semitism, ends up normalising a form of cultural hostility towards Israel and political Judaism.

Narrative rather than programmatic force

The success of this approach lies in its emotional effectiveness: Mamdani communicates as if he were the moral spokesperson of a forgotten world, and not a candidate for one of the most complex administrative posts on the planet. His strength is narrative, not programmatic; it stems from his ability to converge global frustrations into a message of moral and identity redemption, which trades politics for testimony.

Symbols of moral purity

Thus, the Palestinian cause becomes a symbol of moral purity, a test case for judging the world. It is the projection of a left that has lost complexity and found faith – not in a political project, but in a redemptive narrative. Mamdani is not simply radical: he is the embodiment of a politics that replaces reality with morality, and complexity with guilt.

Breaking agenda

In the Mamdan lexicon there is no room for moderation. His positions on the abolition of the police, frozen rents, free public transport, and full solidarity with the Palestinian cause are not marginal programmatic elements, but the very heart of his political proposal. He has repeatedly called for a total cut in funding for the NYPD, arguing that security should be entrusted to ‘community networks’. He has rejected the label ‘radical’, preferring to call himself a ‘pragmatic revolutionary’.

Breaking paradigm

His narrative is built on a paradigm of rupture: Mamdani does not want to reform the system, he wants to overthrow its foundations. This vision translates into highly symbolic communication: his videos speak of ‘liberation’ rather than ‘reform’, his posts evoke images of struggle and resistance. In this sense, Mamdani is the ripest fruit of the season opened by Bernie Sanders, but he takes its language and aims to extremes, a perfect case-study to analyse the new face of the American radical left: inclusive in its themes, but exclusionary in its language; pluralist in its claims, but monolithic in its ideology.

When extremism responds to extremism: the new face of the Democratic Party

Zohran Mamdani ‘s victory in New York represents a quantum leap for the American left. It is no longer just about giving space to progressive sensibilities, but about ceding local leadership to figures who openly break with liberal compromise.

Radical municipalism as a national laboratory

His candidacy, formally rooted in municipal issues – rent freezes, free transport, universal public services – is actually an ideological laboratory on a national scale. The young socialist, Muslim and millennial has become the catalyst for a progressive bloc that seeks in radical municipalism a credible alternative to the strategic vacuity of centrist Democrats.

The circumvention of Trumpism

The campaign did not evade confrontation with Trumpism: it circumvented it. Mamdani never sought a direct duel with the former president, preferring to build an alternative vision of cities, communities, rights. Trump reacted in his own style: he called him a ‘communist’ and threatened to block federal funds to New York if he won. But the attack turned into a boomerang: it strengthened Mamdani in the metropolitan electorate, transforming him from outsider to anti-establishment champion.

The endorsement of Cuomo and the signal to the GOP

Paradoxically, Trump ended up legitimising him as a systemic and symbolic opposition. The subsequent endorsement given to former governor Andrew Cuomo – now an independent candidate – was read as an admission of the Republican front’s impotence in the metropolis. In a city where the GOP is not competitive, Trump preferred a conniving centrist to a legitimised socialist in order to contain the radical left.

A split Democratic Party

The result is a Democratic Party divided between nostalgics of the third way and advocates of an antagonistic turn: a deep fracture, not only generational but of values. With this triumph, his term in office will become a national test of whether the party wants to govern with the nuances of the past or the radicalism of the future.

Crisis of moderate pragmatism

The defeat of moderates like Cuomo signals the crisis of an idea of a pragmatic left, capable of speaking to the urban middle classes and the progressive bourgeoisie. In its place advances a polarising model, in which Trumpian extremism is met with a mirror-image counter-extremism, made up of strong words, drastic visions and an ‘end of the world’ ethos.

Radicalisation as refuge

In the absence of a charismatic and unifying leadership, the Democratic Party has taken refuge in the extremisation of its currents. Orphaned of centrist figures capable of holding their own against Trump, the party has chosen to radicalise its political offering, focusing on young people, minorities and urban activists. But this choice risks being short-sighted: alienating the moderates is a real danger, and Mamdani is the emblem of this.

Two irreconcilable Americas

Today, there is no longer a common grammar between the two Americas. While Trump uses the language of force, economic nationalism and conservative realism, Mamdani proposes a revolutionary, post-colonial and redistributive semantics. Both speak to strong emotions: anger, fear, revenge. Neither seeks to persuade; both seek to consolidate their electoral tribes.

Total value conflict

In this climate, American politics increasingly resembles a conflict between irreconcilable value camps. Economic issues are intertwined with identity issues, inequality with colonial history, belonging with race and religion. Mamdani embodies all this: child of immigration, Muslim, socialist, anti-Zionist. His rise is not an anomaly, but the logical consequence of a long crisis of representation.

Reactive moralism and poor strategy

The problem is not just Mamdani, but the inability of the Democratic Party to develop an effective containment strategy. For years, the American left has staked everything on anti-Trumpism, an ethical rather than political posture based on condemnation of the tycoon instead of an autonomous vision of the future. This reactive moralism has left the field open to figures like Mamdani, who present their radicalism as the only alternative to centrist opportunism.

Mobilisation vs. persuasion

The current polarisation does not produce confrontation, but mutual isolation. Elections are no longer won by convincing, but by mobilising. In this logic Mamdani is a formidable candidate: he knows his audience, he speaks their language, he rides the right issues. But governing New York will require compromise, mediation, administrative skills – all qualities that his rhetoric tends to devalue.

Space in the centre

Extremism responds to extremism. But in the middle remains a bewildered electorate, which recognises itself neither in Trump‘s angry white America nor in Mamdani‘s revolutionary and antagonistic one. Yet it is precisely from this space, now emptied, that a new political centre could be reborn – provided someone has the courage to inhabit it.

A signal for all American progressivism

Mamdani ‘s victory is not just a turning point in New York‘s political history: it is a signal across the entire arc of American progressivism. The democratic response to right-wing populist extremism has not been the construction of a broad and responsible centre, but a mirror-image yielding to an identity-driven and redistributive ideology that is often ambiguous in terms of values and democracy. Mamdani is not only the symbol of this drift: he is its most advanced point. He brings to the heart of American urban governance a language that is openly antagonistic, lacking fiscal realism and uncertain about security and terrorism.

The price of polarisation

If the Democratic Party continues on this path, polarisation will become structural and American politics a ring without neutral zones. It is not only institutional cohesion that will pay the price, but the very ability of American democracy to speak to all its souls, not just its fringes.