By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Bernie Sanders recently discussed the New York City mayoral race with NBC News, specifically focusing on candidate Zohran Mamdani. Sanders expressed that many of Mamdani’s proposals are not extreme, contrasting them with the extreme income and wealth disparities currently present in the United States. His comments highlight the Senator’s perspective on the economic challenges facing the nation. The interview occurred on November 5, 2025.
Read the original article here
Zohran Mamdani’s ideas are “not radical,” as Senator Sanders stated, is the core of a recurring and important point in the current political landscape. The sentiment, echoed across various discussions, is a commentary on how far the Overton window has shifted, specifically in the United States. Many policies considered “radical” here are commonplace in other developed nations, revealing a distortion in the American political narrative.
These discussions often bring forth the point that Mamdani’s proposals, and those of progressives in general, are rooted in common sense solutions for improving the lives of ordinary people. Initiatives like universal healthcare, subsidized childcare, and affordable education, as demonstrated by the Canadian province of Quebec, are not revolutionary concepts. The implementation of similar programs in other countries suggests that these policies are feasible and beneficial. It’s a fundamental question of prioritizing the well-being of citizens, creating a society where essential needs are met without the crushing burden of excessive costs.
The contrast drawn between the American political landscape and the approaches taken by other countries highlights a significant disparity. The argument isn’t about ideological purity or the embrace of fringe ideologies. Instead, it centers on the idea that the political discourse in the U.S. has veered dramatically to the right, making even moderate, pragmatic solutions seem extreme. The underlying problem is that the focus has shifted, prioritizing culture wars and fear-mongering over actual policy solutions that benefit the majority.
The fear surrounding these policies often emanates from those who would be most affected by them. Those with vested interests in the status quo, the wealthy and powerful, are threatened by policies that could potentially lessen their control and diminish their profits. Therefore, labeling these proposals as “radical” is a tactic designed to protect their interests, obscuring the fact that these are policies that prioritize people over profit.
When we examine the substance of Mamdani’s policy positions, we see proposals geared towards improving the material conditions of life. Initiatives such as rent control and investments in affordable housing are not intrinsically radical; they are attempts to address the pressing issues of affordability and accessibility in a market-driven economy. They are aimed at creating a more equitable society where basic necessities aren’t constantly out of reach for a vast segment of the population.
Critics who accuse these policies of being “radical” or “socialist” misunderstand the fundamental concepts at play. These policies are not advocating for the abolishment of capitalism. They are advocating for a more regulated and equitable form of capitalism, where the excesses of the market are tempered by social safety nets and a focus on the common good.
Furthermore, the discussion illuminates the role of the media and political discourse in shaping public opinion. The framing of progressive policies as radical serves to stigmatize them, making them less palatable to the public. It’s a tactic designed to dissuade people from supporting policies that might benefit them, and instead, to reinforce the interests of those who profit from the status quo. The fact that the rhetoric employed by some in the Republican party is perceived as radical further demonstrates the ideological chasm that exists in American politics.
Ultimately, the debate is not about extremism; it’s about shifting the focus from the interests of a select few to the well-being of the many. It’s about recognizing that the “radical” label is often a smokescreen for the preservation of power and privilege. Senator Sanders is not simply making a statement of opinion; he is calling out a systemic issue. It is a commentary on the erosion of common sense in American politics, where policies that should be considered normal and expected are instead framed as extreme. It’s a reminder that political discourse is not simply a matter of ideas; it’s a battle for the very definition of what is possible and what is just.