Independence and the Illusion of Unity
Some thoughts about the double edged sword of Populism and Political Polarization in 2025 looking at both Zohran Mamdani and Donald Trump.
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”
George Washington “Washington’s Farewell Address” September 17, 1796
Happy July 4th everyone! Hope everyone enjoys their day and hopefully gets to catch some fireworks. Since it's Independence day, I thought it was fitting to write a post about a trend I am seeing in U.S Politics: increasing polarization. American politics today feels more divided than ever, raising concerns about the health of our democracy and echoing George Washington’s centuries-old warning about the dangers of political parties.
In particular, this post analyzes the radicalization of American politics through two distinct but illustrative figures: progressive Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and current Republican President Donald Trump. While they have stark, contrasting ideologies, they both exemplify a populism that focuses on emotion versus policy nuance. I am not equating the two, but rather analyzing the radicalization of their politics. Disclaimer: I tried to write this post without any bias, but I know bias is inevitable.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Mamdani’s personality and platform. As a broke college student in New York City, I would definitely like cheaper groceries, cheaper rent, and free subway fares. However, I think that itself is the problem — subscribing to these promises without questioning their economic feasibility. In Political Science, we usually think of the Median Voter Theorem as determining the winner — whoever aligns with the Median voter better will usually win. But if U.S. politics keeps dividing, what would this mean for the Median Voter Theorem and our understanding of electoral strategy?
To say American politics has become polarized is an understatement. Over the past 25 years, party lines have shifted to be more uniformly conservative and liberal rather than a combination of the two. Information has also been harder to consume — most news sources are biased and are difficult to truly understand the larger debate for each side. For example, look no further than Cheney’s push for the War on Terror, media rhetoric during the Gulf War, misinformation around COVID, or just spend 10 minutes on Twitter. I am no expert at this myself, but in most conversations I have about politics, I can’t help but feel one side doesn’t understand the other.
Starting with Zohran Mamdani, whose campaign for NYC mayor to snatch the Democratic nomination succeeded for two reasons — his ability to mobilize New Yorkers and Cuomo’s unpopularity. For this post, I want to focus on the former rather than the latter. Mamdani has done videos featuring him speaking directly with New Yorkers on city streets, understanding their experiences, and using his platform to emphasize New York. For example, when every other politician gave a very politically correct answer about Israel when asked which country they would visit, Mamdani used this as an opportunity to emphasize his interest in New York. The move was a gamble as voters can question how much he cares about what’s going on in the Middle East, or could appreciate his attention towards the New Yorker.
I bring up this specific example of Mamdani because it reminds me of something Trump said. When I was listening to the NYT Daily podcast (episode: Steve Bannon's Soul for the Battle of MAGA), I heard something eerily similar showing Trump’s radicalism. In a debate against Jeb Bush 10 years ago, Trump attacked Jeb saying his brother (George W. Bush) let false accusations justify a horrible invasion into Iraq. While Trump was booed initially, one of MAGA’s claims was to stop “stupid” wars and this moment really showed his outspokenness about this principle. This in turn helped Trump’s bond with the working class who elected him the same way Mamdani appeals to the New Yorker. It connects to the voter’s emotions, and takes them to justify radical policy positions.
These radical promises are great to get voters excited, but difficult to mobilize. Currently, Trump has reversed his stance on 'stupid' wars by authorizing attacks on Iran; meanwhile, the Big Beautiful Bill has been finalized. The bill makes Trump’s 2017 TCJA cuts permanent and places no tax on tips, but also cuts Medicaid by a trillion dollars, 17 million people from their insurance, 2 million from SNAP, defunds Planned Parenthood, and hundreds of rural hospitals. It also boosts ICE spending, military spending, and increases the deficit by trillions. The merits of the bill are beyond the scope of this post, but it’s interesting to me how such an extreme bill got through our policy making system. Do we have U.S Senators/House of Representatives to relax extreme policy or to fight for political carve outs such as Lisa Markowski?
One example of Trump’s radicalism shortcomings was his appeal to Musk. This alienated parts of MAGA who believed that Trump was standing up for the American worker. Aligning himself with the CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink etc. perhaps divided him from some of the core MAGA pact. Maybe not enough to change a vote being cast, but enough to sink approval ratings.
Something Mamdani has campaigned for is not appealing to the billionaires funding campaigns and instead focusing on the average New Yorker. I think, while this is good for me, it is left wing populism — appealing to the common people against the rich elite. The term, “Democrat Socialist” carries with it the embedded notion of populism.
Why did radicalization work for Mamdani and Trump? It’s not the views themselves or else Bernie’s presidential campaign would have landed smoother. I think it’s the presentation. Not only is it the attention towards the views, but it’s also the politician’s ability to persuade the voter. According to the New York Times, Chi Ossé, a 27 year old councilman, when asked about Mamdani’s campaign said
“Attention spans are a lot shorter than they used to be. You have to get straight to the point. Freeze the rent? Easy. Fast and free buses? Easy.”
I think that above quote speaks a little bit to the polarization of politics. If people only pay attention to well, what draws their attention, it makes sense why we would only remember the radical politicians. This also lets misinformation spread much easier and prevents citizens from looking beyond the first order when evaluating a candidate.
As well, this is interesting because of the shift among MAGA. The same “working class” Trump appeals to is the same class Mamdani is targeting. Of course, the scale is smaller — city wide versus nationwide but could this signal the future of the Democratic party?
Additionally as populism continues, what are the impacts of populism? Is it necessarily a good or bad thing? Well, of course populism boosts voter turnout, but it could decrease the level of information a voter takes before making a decision. As well, political office becomes less and less about policy, and more and more about power.
Now, I know Mamdani is not challenging Trump for the presidency, and his base of voters is based in one city versus an entire country. Nonetheless, I think the two politicians show the two ends of populism. Additionally, how would the median voter be affected when political parties are extremely polarized?
Attempting to answer this question, I am reminded of Washington’s Farewell Address in 1796. Washington’s warning anticipates a clear sequence: partisan rivalry leads to escalating conflict, then social chaos, which in turn creates a demand for strong leadership and paves the way for authoritarian rule, ultimately undermining liberty. I am not saying U.S Democracy will be threatened anytime soon, but I think we should be more aware of populism and polarization to avoid the “Ruins of Public Liberty”. As well, I understand Mamdani is probably the most far apart politician in relation to Trump ideologically, but does that mean he won’t have similar failures to live up to promises like Trump?