Even if Mamdami didn’t believe that, it would still be the smart thing to say. Elections are a popularity competition, there’s no prize for saying the truth; just ask a climate scientist. The point is to change things.
It’s important to get out of the liberalist mindset of thinking electoralism (here and now) should be about honestly stating every policy and correct position. We don’t live in a marketplace of ideas where simply being correct is worth anything. If the bulk of the population isn’t on board with socialism, then an election seat is either useful for milquetoast mild reform or for propaganda platforming (e.g. Sanders making “socialism” a more approachable idea despite Sanders clearly contradicting socialism in many other statements).
No, it wouldn’t be the smart thing. He could have dodged the question, but by affirming the imperialist narrative he supports the Empire’s current aggression on Venezuela, and blocks discussion from mainstream leftist discourse.
You’re right, dodging the question would have been much smarter. I haven’t seen the context but I doubt there’s any need for the mayor of New York to declare a position on these two leaders, and Mamdami has already famously dodged the Zionist Regime visit question in the primaries debate.
A right-wing candidate would never condemn Bolsonaro or Melei or Orban. They’d either praise them or attack their enemies.
That’s the smart thing to say. Whenever they’re cornered by reporters and asked about far right leaders in other countries they never condemn them, because it’s a signal to the base that they’re True Believers and it helps build coalitions across the right.
When are Democrats going to learn from Republicans? This is a winning strategy that the right has mastered. We can do it too.
I agree that the rhetorical technique is smart and one we should learn about.
Although I think there’s a false equivalence there within the mainstream US context, because red scare propaganda wholeheartedly declares Venezuela and Cuba to be undemocratic dictatorships, while Bolsonaro and Melei bare resemblance to Trump themselves by being (seen as) the rightward tip of mainstream electoralism, a little extreme but still still capitalist #democracies.
Sanders has infamously praised Castro and Cuba a few times, I wasn’t really paying attention so I don’t know how well this was received by the Democrat audience. I remember it was a headline controversy back in 2020, but it certainly didn’t ruin Sanders.
As for attacking their enemies… one would have to be very careful attacking America to an audience of mainstream Americans. It’s possible to (in bad faith) frame it as criticizing specific governments (Bush, Trump) instead of imperialism, or even possibly framing it as a problem with capitalism, but given their target audience that’s a tough leap to make in one go - remember that these leaders are seen by most as “authoritarian dictators” and it’s not easy to unravel that much propaganda in a couple of speeches. I don’t know how effective it would be to attack those leaders’ domestic enemies or historical predecessors (see yellow Parenti snippet on Cuba).
I am a communist. The liberal electoral system is systemically rigged towards the bourgeoisie and it would be ridiculous to approach it in good faith.
If your middle of the road beliefs were correct, he wouldn’t have won the primary.
What do you mean? Mamdami’s primary platform didn’t depart from capitalism as far as I saw. Furthermore, the primary has a different voting audience and calls for different tactics (even if using the same strategy) to improve chances of winning that popularity contest.
Even if Mamdami didn’t believe that, it would still be the smart thing to say. Elections are a popularity competition, there’s no prize for saying the truth; just ask a climate scientist. The point is to change things.
It’s important to get out of the liberalist mindset of thinking electoralism (here and now) should be about honestly stating every policy and correct position. We don’t live in a marketplace of ideas where simply being correct is worth anything. If the bulk of the population isn’t on board with socialism, then an election seat is either useful for milquetoast mild reform or for propaganda platforming (e.g. Sanders making “socialism” a more approachable idea despite Sanders clearly contradicting socialism in many other statements).
No, it wouldn’t be the smart thing. He could have dodged the question, but by affirming the imperialist narrative he supports the Empire’s current aggression on Venezuela, and blocks discussion from mainstream leftist discourse.
You’re right, dodging the question would have been much smarter. I haven’t seen the context but I doubt there’s any need for the mayor of New York to declare a position on these two leaders, and Mamdami has already famously dodged the Zionist Regime visit question in the primaries debate.
Yep, agreed!
A right-wing candidate would never condemn Bolsonaro or Melei or Orban. They’d either praise them or attack their enemies.
That’s the smart thing to say. Whenever they’re cornered by reporters and asked about far right leaders in other countries they never condemn them, because it’s a signal to the base that they’re True Believers and it helps build coalitions across the right.
When are Democrats going to learn from Republicans? This is a winning strategy that the right has mastered. We can do it too.
I agree that the rhetorical technique is smart and one we should learn about.
Although I think there’s a false equivalence there within the mainstream US context, because red scare propaganda wholeheartedly declares Venezuela and Cuba to be undemocratic dictatorships, while Bolsonaro and Melei bare resemblance to Trump themselves by being (seen as) the rightward tip of mainstream electoralism, a little extreme but still still capitalist #democracies.
Sanders has infamously praised Castro and Cuba a few times, I wasn’t really paying attention so I don’t know how well this was received by the Democrat audience. I remember it was a headline controversy back in 2020, but it certainly didn’t ruin Sanders.
As for attacking their enemies… one would have to be very careful attacking America to an audience of mainstream Americans. It’s possible to (in bad faith) frame it as criticizing specific governments (Bush, Trump) instead of imperialism, or even possibly framing it as a problem with capitalism, but given their target audience that’s a tough leap to make in one go - remember that these leaders are seen by most as “authoritarian dictators” and it’s not easy to unravel that much propaganda in a couple of speeches. I don’t know how effective it would be to attack those leaders’ domestic enemies or historical predecessors (see yellow Parenti snippet on Cuba).
If your middle of the road beliefs were correct, he wouldn’t have won the primary.
You centrists are a danger to this country. You create the space for fascism to thrive.
I am a communist. The liberal electoral system is systemically rigged towards the bourgeoisie and it would be ridiculous to approach it in good faith.
What do you mean? Mamdami’s primary platform didn’t depart from capitalism as far as I saw. Furthermore, the primary has a different voting audience and calls for different tactics (even if using the same strategy) to improve chances of winning that popularity contest.
Removed by mod