There once was another son of immigrants from Queens who spoke eloquently about economic justice—the father of the man to whom we say today good riddance.
A pox on both their houses. The article seems oddly enamored with the idea that Zohran Mamdani is a kind of reincarnation of Mario Cuomo, but it conveniently skips over a crucial difference: Mamdani is a Democratic Socialist, not merely a progressive Democrat. What part of “socialist” in “Democratic Socialists of America” does the author not understand? This is not a movement open to moderation or individual conscience. If Mamdani deviates from the DSA party line—and they do have one—he knows the leadership and base will fall on him like the Furies. Just ask anyone who’s strayed.
If anything, we should expect him to govern, if given the chance, in the mold of Chesa Boudin: ideologically rigid, allergic to compromise, and dismissive of public concerns that don't fit the theory. That is not the temperament of a democratic leader—it’s the formula for political isolation and public backlash.
As for the Cuomos, the contrast between Mario’s lofty rhetoric and Andrew’s bare-knuckle ambition is real, but neither emerges as a model. Mario was more philosopher-king than executive—long on speeches, short on delivery. His celebrated compassion too often floated above the political ground, never quite anchored in durable reform. Andrew, on the other hand, mastered power for its own sake, weaponizing government against rivals and allies alike. Neither represents the kind of principled, results-driven leadership that centrists or classical liberals should champion.
We need public servants who blend moral seriousness with institutional competence, not tribunes of grievance or machines of ambition. Romanticizing the DSA’s most disciplined ideologue as the heir to Mario Cuomo’s unrealized idealism only underscores how far removed this narrative is from the hard, necessary work of liberal democratic governance.
A pox on both their houses. The article seems oddly enamored with the idea that Zohran Mamdani is a kind of reincarnation of Mario Cuomo, but it conveniently skips over a crucial difference: Mamdani is a Democratic Socialist, not merely a progressive Democrat. What part of “socialist” in “Democratic Socialists of America” does the author not understand? This is not a movement open to moderation or individual conscience. If Mamdani deviates from the DSA party line—and they do have one—he knows the leadership and base will fall on him like the Furies. Just ask anyone who’s strayed.
If anything, we should expect him to govern, if given the chance, in the mold of Chesa Boudin: ideologically rigid, allergic to compromise, and dismissive of public concerns that don't fit the theory. That is not the temperament of a democratic leader—it’s the formula for political isolation and public backlash.
As for the Cuomos, the contrast between Mario’s lofty rhetoric and Andrew’s bare-knuckle ambition is real, but neither emerges as a model. Mario was more philosopher-king than executive—long on speeches, short on delivery. His celebrated compassion too often floated above the political ground, never quite anchored in durable reform. Andrew, on the other hand, mastered power for its own sake, weaponizing government against rivals and allies alike. Neither represents the kind of principled, results-driven leadership that centrists or classical liberals should champion.
We need public servants who blend moral seriousness with institutional competence, not tribunes of grievance or machines of ambition. Romanticizing the DSA’s most disciplined ideologue as the heir to Mario Cuomo’s unrealized idealism only underscores how far removed this narrative is from the hard, necessary work of liberal democratic governance.