By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Zohran Mamdani’s progressive campaign, featuring proposals like free public transit, universal childcare, and rent freezes, sparked debate, with critics deeming them unrealistic. However, these policies have precedents abroad, where similar initiatives are commonplace. For instance, the concept of city-run grocery stores and free childcare have been implemented in cities like Istanbul, Berlin, and throughout the Nordic countries. The article illustrates that the contrast in perception stems from the limited welfare state in the US.
Read the original article here
Europeans recognize Zohran Mamdani’s supposedly radical policies as ‘normal’, and this recognition stems from a fundamental difference in political landscapes. In the United States, the Overton Window – the range of ideas considered acceptable in public discourse – has shifted significantly to the right. Consequently, policies that are commonplace, even conservative, in many European countries are often portrayed as extreme left-wing or even “communist” in the US. This discrepancy leads to a disconnect where American audiences perceive someone like Zohran Mamdani, who advocates for policies that would be standard fare in many developed nations, as a radical.
The fear-mongering associated with the political left in the US has created a climate where even centre-left policies are demonized. Many Europeans, accustomed to robust welfare states, universal healthcare, and other social programs, view Mamdani’s platform as moderate, perhaps even centre-left. In countries like Norway, these policies, or variations of them, have been in place for decades. The American tendency to label anything perceived as a departure from the status quo as radical reveals the skewed political spectrum and the influence of media narratives.
The contrast becomes stark when American tourists encounter everyday realities in Europe. The concept of equal, quality treatment for everyone is more ingrained in European societies, leading to a stark difference in values. Americans, shaped by a culture that prioritizes wealth and hierarchy, can find this difficult to grasp. This cultural gap further contributes to the misunderstanding of policies that are considered normal in Europe but viewed with suspicion or hostility in the US.
The American right’s portrayal of Mamdani and his ideas often relies on a lack of understanding of what “real leftism” looks like. The American left itself also contributes to this problem by mislabeling its policies and goals, using the wrong terms for their politics, thus enabling the right to use fear-mongering tactics that Americans fall for. This misuse of terms fuels confusion, allowing critics to paint mainstream ideas as revolutionary threats. This is especially true of policies that help working-class and marginalized communities.
The very notion of helping those who pay taxes is sometimes presented as radical. It’s ironic that policies designed to benefit everyone are seen as out of line with society. The US system, with its concentration of wealth and power, contrasts sharply with the social safety nets and progressive policies common in European nations. The extreme right in America has successfully used the fear of socialism to discourage sensible solutions.
For many Europeans, the American political landscape appears bizarre, with a compressed spectrum where the center-left is often considered extreme. Even “conservatives” in Europe would likely find the US’s stance on healthcare, for example, to be an outlier. This divergence highlights the historical and cultural factors that have shaped the political discourse in the two regions. Europeans often see the American left as moderate and normal.
The debate about Mamdani’s policies is not just about specific proposals. It reflects a deeper clash of ideologies and societal values. The American public needs to understand the actual meaning of different political ideologies. It’s often a case of the US having a far right and a batshit insane far right neo-fascist party.
The comparison is particularly clear in the British context, where Mamdani’s platform would be viewed as centrist. The reaction in the UK and in many countries illustrates the distortion in the US political landscape, where even common-sense ideas are treated with suspicion. The perception that advocating for the needs of the population is, in some way, radical is a symptom of a deeply entrenched system.
The US is often seen as being dominated by three big corporations in a trench coat, where those corporations will spend a lot of money to defend their interests. Europeans see this as the main issue and a huge contrast. The difference in perspectives becomes even more pronounced when considering that even some of these policies are normal in countries that aren’t on the far left. The American left needs to start using appropriate terms for their ideas and be less afraid of criticism, especially from the media. The US desperately needs an actual left-leaning party, one that aligns with what is understood as “moderate” and “normal” in many other countries.