NYC’s Mayoral Race From Hell

New York City risks taking a significant backwards step this Tuesday

This time next week we will effectively know who the next mayor of New York City will be. The general election isn’t until November, but the winner of the Democratic Primary — which takes place on June 22nd — is all but guaranteed to win in November, given the heavy Democratic tilt of the city. Once seen as the next great hope for progressives to expand their power within the Democratic Party, the race has repeatedly dashed the hopes of leftists; as their attempts to coalesce around one candidate have become almost comically dysfunctional.

The race began as Andrew Yang’s to lose. Despite having no traditional qualifications for the position, his almost ubiquitous name recognition gained from the Democratic Presidential primaries gave him a substantial in built advantage. But his entrance into the race was met with scepticism from day one as many wondered if the race was little more than a plan B for the failed Presidential contender.

Yang’s relationship with the progressive left has always been a contentious one. On the one hand, he’s a quintessential anti-establishment populist outsider; something that gained him plenty of good will from left-wing activists and alternative-media figures. At the same time, Yang never really fitted the quintessential left-wing mold and he consistently failed to quell concerns about how his UBI policy would impact existing social security measures (more on that later).

The New York City Mayoral race confirmed Yang as far more of a conventional moderate than many had taken him for; as he regurgitated stale pro-Israeli government talking points and distanced himself from the more radical elements of the Black Lives Matter movement. Perhaps this was who Andrew Yang was all along, or perhaps he’s simply contorting himself to play the ‘rules of the game’ in an attempt to appease the major power players of America’s most recognisable city.

A tough-on-crime mindset is still engrained in the minds of many, even as cities like Cincinnati manage to simultaneously divert funding away from policing and punishment, while simultaneously overseeing falling crime rates

Yang’s central policy of UBI, while overshadowed by recent gaffes and controversies, remains the cornerstone of his candidacy (even if it has been tweaked for the local level). Throughout his presidential run, Yang failed to reassure those who worried his UBI policy, if implemented, would come at the expense of existing disability benefits (which, for many, are far greater than the monthly $1,000 proposed by the entrepreneur-turned-politician). Yang, confirmed during this race that UBI would be, in part, funded by cuts from the social safety net.

UBI is a promising idea — one famously advocated for by none other than Martin Luther King Jr — but it’s also an infamously hard policy to implement without risking serious, potentially devastating, consequences. In her 2017 book ‘What Happened?’, Hillary Clinton revealed that she had nearly run on a platform of UBI, but was persuaded not to by the knowledge that the policy would require either drastic spending cuts or equally drastic tax increases. “We couldn’t make the numbers work”, she said bluntly. Of UBI, she concluded, “We decided it was exciting but not realistic”. The same thing could be said for Andrew Yang’s own campaign.

Except Yang’s campaign, and public image, has quickly turned sour. Where Yang once seemed like an exciting, new outside voice, he now seems like yet another politician trying to advance outdated positions and policies. After both-sidesing the atrocities of the Israeli government, he offered a sheepish and no-more-reassuring clarification after being condemned by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for his “shameful” words.

The negative coverage, and increased scrutiny, that followed Yang in the aftermath offered what may turn out to be a fatal blow to his campaign in a race that he once dominated. If it wasn’t a fatal blow in and of itself, it might be so in combination with his latest gaffe. At the final mayoral debate Andrew Yang uttered the words “Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else has rights? We do!”. It was a startling display of inhumanity from a man who once ran on the slogan “Humanity First”. It was a startling display of ignorance too:- conveniently forgetting that disabled people — who are victims of violent crime at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rest of the population — are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of crime.

Yang, over the course of the race, has slipped further and further from front-runner status, but just as progressives could begin to celebrate their hopes coming true, the first finger of the monkey’s paw begun to curl and ex-cop Eric Adams became the one to beat.

Of UBI, Hillary Clinton concluded, “We decided it was exciting but not realistic”. The same thing could be said for Andrew Yang’s own campaign

Adams has an obviously appealing backstory; having been brutally beaten by the police as a teenager, he later became a police officer and founded a group designed to improve relations between police and racial minorities. Thanks largely to his own personal experiences, Adams purports to have an understanding of both the need for law enforcement and the need for reform.

Adams actual platform though, reveals an all together different truth. His attitudes are based off inaccurate, and often offensive, stereotypes and ideas (Adams once paid for half-a-dozen billboards showing young offenders in baggy clothes with the slogan “STOP THE SAG” imprinted over it). Adams proposes police officers going into schools to encourage children to join law enforcement, in what would likely constitute little more than glorified propaganda spreading. He proposes bringing back stop-and-frisk (which was previously applied with glaring racial disparities) and wants to reinstate an anti-crime unit that became infamous for it’s use of fatal force. Adams attitudes on crime is based on an out-dated and dangerous tough-on-crime mindset that is still engrained in the minds of many, even as cities like Cincinnati manage to simultaneously divert funding away from policing and punishment, while simultaneously overseeing falling crime rates.

In the face of Adams’ and Yang’s regressivism, progressives have attempted, largely in vain, to coalesce around a left-wing alternative. First, it was Scott Stringer — the city’s incumbent comptroller — ,but his campaign was thrown into irrelevancy after sexual misconduct allegations against him emerged.

Then, it was Dianne Morales; an Afro-Latina non-profit executive, who far better fit the profile of recent progressive election winners like AOC and Jamaal Bowman. But just as soon as Morales’s campaign began picking up steam it collapsed. Despite adopting the rhetoric of the activist left, Morales’s true colors eventually shone through; revealing her to be a charter school proponent, who “probably” voted for the notorious Andrew Cuomo over Cynthia Nixon and, whose staff accused her of union busting.

The Mayoral race is now effectively a contest between four people; the aforementioned Andrew Yang and Eric Adams, moderate dark horse Kathryn Garcia and, Maya Wiley; a former de Blasio aide and MSNBC contributor. In a last minute dash to defeat the race’s more-centrist candidates, progressives have now lined up behind Maya Wiley — who recently secured Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement. But, it goes without saying that in an ideal world, most progressives would have rather not been in a situation where a de Blasio aide and MSNBC contributor was their best choice.

Wiley has clearly gained momentum in recent days — in a similar fashion to how de Blasio did when he first ran — but combined with the recent surge in support for Garcia as well as Adams significant existing lead in polls, it’s unclear if it’s all too little too late for Wiley. With Adams remaining as the clear bookies favorite right now, it’s not at all clear that this race from hell will end any better than we’ve come to expect.