On Tuesday, June 24, Zohan Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist, won the Democrat party’s nomination for mayor of New York City.  He received 432,000 first place votes, short of a majority, but sufficient to secure the nomination.  Hardly the first socialist electoral victory in American politics — Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont considers himself a socialist.  Nevertheless, the specifics of Mamdani’s program, and his avowed anti-Isarael stance (calling to “globalize the intifada”), brought shockwaves.  As a Wall Street Journal headline put it, “Wall Street Panics Over Prospect of a Socialist Running New York City.”  Countless Jews, including major Democrat donors, are similarly worried, along with moderate Democrats fearing their party being pushed too far leftward.   

This anti-Mamdani hysteria centers on his self-designation as a “socialist.”  This labeling mischaracterizes his agenda.  To be sure, Mayor Mamdani would be a disaster for the city, but though he may call himself a socialist, just verbally condemning capitalism does not make him one.  Those alarmed over the term “socialist” are focused on the wrong target.  A more accurate label would be a race-tinged “populist” or, more colloquially, closer to Santa Claus than Leon Trotsky.

Populism entails a redistribution of wealth to ordinary people — Robin Hood, not Karl Marx.  Theoretically, populism and socialism share virtually nothing, and populism has long infused American politics — including Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, and Huey Long of Louisiana, none of whom considered themselves “socialists.”

Mamdani’s call for reducing income inequality does not, in and of itself, signify socialism.  In fact, some conservatives favor reducing inequality.  Making everyone rich by sharing the wealth — a chicken in every pot........

© American Thinker