If there was any hope New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani would inch towards the middle or appeal to moderate Democrats as he launched his administration, it vanished in the bitter January air that ushered in the start of his term.
During his inaugural address Thursday, Mamdani sought to send a clear message: That the left had won the hard-fought race for mayor, and his administration is now intent on showing the rest of the country that progressive liberals can, in fact, govern.
At a time of deep political division across the US, Mamdani stuck to his political identity and ideology, reminding the crowd he had been “elected as a democratic socialist,” promising to “govern as a democratic socialist” and castigating the politics of complacency and the political establishment for failing its constituency.
It was an unapologetically progressive speech, in which Mamdani framed the mainstream Democratic party as one that lacked imagination and ambition. Then, he vowed to not “abandon my principles for fear of being deemed radical.”
“In writing this address, I have been told that this is the occasion to reset expectations, that I should use this opportunity to encourage the people of New York to ask for little and expect even less,” he said. “I will do no such thing. The only expectation I seek to reset is that of small expectations.”
Mamdani also tried to strike a unifying tone. He spoke directly to opponents and critics who remain skeptical the 34-year-old former state assemblyman will be able to run the largest city in the nation and enact an agenda many consider too liberal and unrealistic.
Mamdani has proposed taxing the city’s wealthiest residents and raising the corporate tax rate – moves that would require the support of the state legislature and the governor – to pay for his signature agenda items: universal childcare, “fast and free” city buses and enacting a rent freeze for rent stabilized tenants.
“If you are a New Yorker, I am your mayor,” Mamdani told the crowd. “Regardless of whether we agree, I will protect you, celebrate with you, mourn alongside you and never, not for a second, hide from you.”
Mamdani’s focus on working-class New Yorkers was peppered throughout his speech. He spoke of taxi drivers and restaurant servers, hospital workers and subway operators, describing people who work in the shadows and often go unnoticed while struggling to stay afloat.
Shortly before addressing the crowd, a duo performed the “Bread and Roses” anthem –– the title a nod to a political slogan that became a rallying cry for workers’ rights in 1912. The imagery is meant to symbolize people’s need for basic necessities, but also beauty. In choosing the performance, Mamdani’s administration appeared to try and tell New Yorkers it was possible to have both.
“What’s radical is a system which gives so much to so few and denies so many people the basic necessities of life,” Mamdani said, quoting Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who administered Mamdani’s public oath of office. Sanders praised New Yorkers and Mamdani for giving hope and inspiration to “people all over this country.”


The constant flipflopping between calling him a “progressive liberal” and a “democratic socialist” is annoying. Pick a lane, CNN. He’s one or the other, and from what I’ve heard from him he’s very clearly a democratic socialist.
They see no difference. Fox calls him a liberal and a communist. These are buzzwords with no meaning beyond emotional impact. They do not care about political theory.
lumping all those terms into a single monolithic thing that should be considered enemy is the strategy. in other words “if you’re not one of US, then you’re one of THEM”
you can see the behavior mirrored by pretty much any cult you please-- “in-group” is revered and trusted and supported no matter how terrible they are, and “out-group” is vilified, shunned, persecuted, fucking murdered, no matter how factually innocent they are
got to repeat as many scary words as possible until one sticks with their base, then hammer it endlessly
it has to be reinforced every news, election cycle, eitherwise the plebs will forget because they have 3 second memories.
“liberal/anything left of far right is a boogeyman” for right wingers.
They have picked a lane: “Left”, “progressive”, “liberal”, “socialist”… it’s all basically the same and interchangeable. And all they do is advertising “unrealistic agendas” while destroying all hope to “appeal to moderates”. Soon they will probably add “radical” and probably “communist” to the descriptors as their narrative progresses and the framing gets more aggressive.
He’s literally a DSA cadre candidate. It’s not exactly difficult
its because Right wing news, yes cnn is right wing/center right. cant really define what is left of the gop.
I mean to be fair self-proclaimed democratic socialists do tend to just be left-leaning liberals (also known as social democrats) with a coat of paint. Mamdani is saying and doing good things, but nothing I’ve heard from him makes me believe he wants to seize the means of production.
There is a real difference between the two. Others have made the point that CNN doesn’t care, it’s all just scary “THE LEFT” wording to them, but the difference in political theory is the following:
Progressive liberals care about social issues, but not economic ones. They will actually care and move the needle on LGBTQ+ rights, the gender gap, minority rights, etc, but as a liberal they’ll also care about the free market and the wellbeing of corporations.
A social democrat wants to regulate and control the economy for the benefit of people. They aren’t going to go full communist and sieze the means of production, but they will actively oppose economic interests in order to improve the standard of living.
Here’s the thing though: By that definition what you label as progressive liberals (socially liberal fiscally conservative people) basically don’t exist as a political force, partially because this philosophy wouldn’t be able to address the issues it claims to champion in any meaningful sense. The gender gap for example is as much an economic problem as it is a social one, and you can’t even think about systemic racism without also getting into poverty and the impact of slavery. You have classical/neoliberals and to the left of them social democrats/progressives; there’s no real niche for combining the social policies of one and the economic policies of the other.
As for social democrats, they’re better categorized as left wing of liberalism rather than their own thing. Sure they want the capitalist status quo to be nicer, but they’ll close ranks with their neoliberal cousins to defend it no matter how much they dislike it.
I 100% agree that progressive liberalism doesn’t work, but that doesn’t stop them trying. Center-left capitalists love them as well, because they get to look like the nice guys while keeping the focus away from any serious regulation or reform.
This picture perfectly encapsulates what I mean when I say progressive liberal: