The Democratic Establishment’s Shunning of Mamdani Is Disqualifying

The average Democratic voter isn’t a committed progressive or moderate. They want Democrats to win and stop Trump. They like charismatic, inspiring candidates of all stripes. They aren’t eager to hear Democrats bash one another. So Mamdani, by meeting with Jeffries, Schumer, and the like, is doing his part. Those politicians are making themselves look bad by refusing to endorse a Democratic candidate who seems eager to build alliances across the party. Even centrist voices such as the Bulwark’s Tim Miller are questioning why Jeffries and other senior Democrats won’t endorse Mamdani. 

But I don’t think progressive politicians should just let this behavior slide, either. They need to recognize that they are in a coalition with some allies who don’t respect them, and act accordingly. Progressives have leverage, and they should use it. For example, if Democrats win the House majority next year, progressive members should demand, in exchange for voting for Jeffries to be speaker, that he pledge to endorse the Democratic nominee for president, whoever that is. That way, if somehow a progressive wins the nomination, Jeffries won’t be able to repeat this dance of bashing the candidate that the party’s voters support. If he won’t make that commitment, progressive members should not give their votes to Jeffries for speaker, instead holding out for another Democrat who will make such a pledge. 

The Democratic Party is so ideologically diverse these days, from Rashida Tlaib to Jared Golden, that there are bound to be conflicts. But not every disagreement is legitimate. There is no good reason for Jeffries, Schumer, or Gillibrand to refuse to support Mamdani, an inspiring candidate who won the primary and is willing to work with people to his right, particularly when his opponents are the ethically challenged Adams and Cuomo. Party leaders are dead wrong here—and their terrible instincts in New York are a reflection of their broader shortcomings.