This Country Deserves a Better Class of Cynical, Pandering Centrist Politician
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
The New York Times has sort of endorsed Andrew Cuomo in the race for New York City mayor, and you should consider this bad news—even if you don't live in New York City, and even if, like the New York Times editorial board, you think that “Democratic socialism” is risky, radical, or just kind of annoying.
First, there is some background you need to know to appreciate this story if you are a salt-of-the-earth heartland American who lives in Ann Arbor or West Hollywood rather than an elitist enclave like “the Big Apple”:
The New York Times editorial board announced last year that it will no longer be making endorsements in local races.
New York City's primary elections are done by “ ranked choice ” voting. This means voters rank their five favorite candidates, with the order of preference coming into play if no candidate receives a majority of first-place votes. It is a system that essentially rewards the most widely agreeable candidate, not the candidate who the most voters would rank first (unless that candidate, again, gets a majority of first-place rankings).
The two leading candidates for mayor, according to polls, are former state Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a 33-year-old New York state legislator and Democratic socialist named Zohran Mamdani . In racing terms, Cuomo and Mamdani are well ahead of the pack .
In their piece on Monday, the Times editorial board urged voters to leave Mamdani off their ballots completely—he's too young and too radical, they wrote—and stated that “Cuomo would be better for New York's future than Mr. Mamdani.” Ergo, the paper's advice is to rank Cuomo and not Mamdani, which, given the state of the polls and the way voting works, amounts to an endorsement.
This is admittedly inside baseball—rank who with the what now? But it speaks to some larger trends that are a problem for a lot of people who live under blue-state governments, not to mention the national Democratic Party and country as a whole.
Why? Well, part of the reason the US is so dysfunctional right now is that people all over the political spectrum have been losing trust in the establishment institutions (courts, Congress, press, universities, big business, etc.) that hold a society together. A few months ago, one perceptive observer suggested that one reason trust in such institutions is declining is because the country's siloed media environment lacks the capacity to build consensus about what might be wrong with them. This encourages establishment types to live inside their own bubble, in which any criticism is instantly dismissed as the ranting of extremist zealots on both sides.
Relatedly, there is the tendency of well-to-do Democrats who work in law, finance, management, and the media to become captivated by a certain kind of pugnacious, business-friendly centrist—examples include Michael Bloomberg, Howard Schultz, and Rahm Emanuel. The Bloombergs and Emanuels win this audience—which includes numerous high-level donors and pundits—by taking shots at the left and extolling their own contrasting commitment to pragmatism and realism. Crucially, their hold on their elite base persists even if , in practice, they turn out to be inept candidates or incompetent managers with few practicable ideas . (There is no better way to get a pass from the political press than by saying you have a more “realistic” plan to get something done than a leftist or progressive does, even if you do not actually have a plan at all . The idea of being realistic, in US politics, is ironically often more important than the reality of being realistic.)
And no one coasts on reputation for pugnacious realism, in US politics, like Mario Cuomo's son. Yes, he was forced into resigning in 2021 because a large number of women (including several who worked for him) said he had harassed or groped them; one of those big interactions even happened on camera . (He has denied many of the allegations and characterized them as politically motivated.) But let's not forget that at that time, he was also being exposed for having linked repeatedly about COVID deaths in New York nursing homes and other aspects of his pandemic response—as well as for having consulted with his CNN-anchor brother, Chris, to whom he had given preferential testing priority during the early days of the pandemic, about how to deny the sexual harassment allegations . Extensive reporting by New York magazine's Rebecca Traister depicted a Cuomo administration that had almost no interest at all in what the actual consequences of its own policies would be, operating entirely as a vehicle for Cuomo's spotlight craving and feuds with other political figures.
But don't just take my word for it—consider, for instance, what the New York Times editorial board said about Cuomo's record in 2018 :
He has done little to combat the corruption in the Legislature and his own administration, and he has allowed the subway system, the foundation of the New York City economy, to rot. The case for change, at a time when so many New Yorkers yearn for change, is not hard to make.
Corrupt, responsible for destroying the foundation of the economy, basically the personification of the reasons voters are disgusted with their government—besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? Incredibly, the piece ended by endorsing Cuomo because he is “very capable” when he “confronts a real problem and gets down to work,” arguing that he could well make New York state into a national exemplar of “humane and honest public service.” Since that claim was made, New York has experienced both Cuomo's resignation and the indictment of New York City Mayor Eric Adams—who also ran as a “ pragmatic moderate ” and enemy of the left, by the way. (The charges against Adams were dropped in what itself was an act of tremendous corruption .) The Empire State's utopian era of humane and honest public service, it seems, has yet to really get underway.
Still, Cuomo has returned, running for mayor with the backing of Michael Bloomberg and the New York business community . And he has now earned another Times endorsement—the paper technically calls it “ voting advice ” this time—by virtue of being the only plausible alternative to a socialist and putting on his campaign website that he, yes, “ knows how to make government work .”
It is, essentially, identity politics , in the derogatory sense in which critics of identity politics often use the term. The most important thing about Cuomo is who he is against—the left—and what he signals, not what he has done or would do. (On the very day the Times wrote that a vote for him would be a vote against public “disorder,” one journalist found Cuomo parked illegally in a Manhattan turn lane and another noted that he has been repeatedly ticketed in recent months for speeding in school zones. )
The Times piece accidentally captures the degree to which this is all mostly a branding exercise via the accidental repetition of a buzzword:
The answer instead is a more effective and thoughtful liberal governance, in which city leaders use empirical evidence and effective management to achieve results.
What's effective government? Well, it's the result of effective management. (Cuomo's campaign has gone in a completely different direction, promising “ effective leadership .”)
Is this to say that Zohran Mamdani would do a good job as mayor of New York? I wouldn't presume to know. I live a humble life in God's country (the northern New Jersey suburbs), not trendy Manhattan. (Also, humorously, some of Mamdani's state legislative colleagues say he, too, is better at talking than getting things done .)
But I am arguing that mainstream, establishment institutions could stand to do some soul-searching about why they are losing the public's trust—including institutions that, let's say, recently announced a no-mayoral-endorsement policy only to immediately rescind that policy, without admitting they were doing so, when it started to look like someone from outside the establishment might become mayor. Clearly, there is an appetite for effective, competent, pragmatic government in the United States. Perhaps, someday, the pragmatists will actually deliver it.
Sign up for Slate's evening newsletter.
