Yesterday’s victory of “democratic socialist” Zohran Mamdani in the race for the New York mayoralty is fuelling debate among progressives around the world about the way forward.

And this has significant implications and lessons for the political left in New Zealand, casting the Labour and Green parties as too tired and bland for the Zeitgeist of public discontent with the status quo.

Mamdani’s startling victory in the financial capital of the world symbolises a broader shift in global politics.

His triumph, alongside the rise of similar left populists abroad, sends an unmistakable message: voters are hungry for politicians who take the side of ordinary people over corporations, and who offer bold solutions to the cost-of-living crises squeezing families worldwide.

The Mamdani phenomenon follows on from some other interesting radical left politicians doing well at the moment, including the new leader of the Green Party in the UK, Zach Polanski. These politicians seem to be doing better by appealing to the Zeitgeist of anger with inequality and oversized corporate power that characterises Western democracies everywhere.

Such politicians and activists are channelling the tone of other recent radicals like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, who both embraced a leftwing populism concerned with working class citizens.

Here in New Zealand, however, the contrast is stark, where the political forces of the left are very timid by comparison. The Labour and Green parties remain stuck in the past and unwilling to catch up with the anti-Establishment radicalism, that focuses on broken economic systems.

However, locally some commentators are pushing for the political left to learn lessons from the likes of Mamdani and Polanski.

Simon Wilson: Focus on class, not identity politics
Leftwing columnist Simon Wilson wrote yesterday in The New Zealand Herald that “Labour and the Greens can learn from Mamdani”, pointing out that although the New Zealand left has become overly associated with identity politics, the successful way forward is “class politics”.

Wilson says: “Instead of allowing his opponents to define him as an “identitarian lefty” — and they really have tried — Mamdani is all about the working class.”

In policy and campaign terms, Wilson says Mamdani has been successful by getting away from liberal/moderate issues:

“His main platform is simple. He wants to reduce the cost of living for ordinary working people. And instead of wringing his hands about it, he has a plan to make it happen. It includes childcare reform, a significant rise in the minimum wage, a rent freeze, more affordable housing, free public transport and price-controlled city-owned supermarkets. Oh, and comprehensive public-safety reform and higher taxes on the wealthy.”

Wilson also suggests that the political left in NZ should be focused on the enemy of crony capitalism (also the theme of my ongoing series about oversized corporate power): “It might be corporates, determined to prevent meaningful reform of oligopolistic sectors of the economy, such as banking, supermarkets and energy.”

Such an approach, Wilson suggests dovetails with a type of “democratic socialism” that should be embraced here. As another example of this, Wilson says, is the new leader of the Green Party in the UK, Zach Polanski.

Donna Miles: Kiwi politicians need to push back against corporate capture

On Monday, columnist Donna Miles also wrote in The Press that Zack Polanski and Zohran Mamdani are showing the way for the global left to push back against corporate power. She explains the problem of how corporate power now swamps New Zealand politics, in a similar way to what Mamdani and Polanski are fighting:

“New Zealand faces a parallel plague of vested interests eroding faith in democracy. The revolving door between politics and lobbying creates unfair access, allowing former officials to trade insider knowledge for influence.”

Miles explains the recent success of the new environmental populist leader in the UK:

“The second politician you should know about is Zack Polanski, the gay Jewish leader of the UK Green Party who is of Eastern European descent. Elected last month with a landslide 85 percent of the vote from party members, Polanski’s bold policies on wealth taxes, free childcare, green jobs, and social justice have triggered an immediate ‘Polanski surge’, with membership reaching 126,000, making it the third-largest political party in the UK.”

New Zealand’s timid political left
Leftwing thinkers in New Zealand are viewing the rise of these bold leftwing populists with envy. Why can’t New Zealand’s left tap into the Zeitgeist that Mamdani and Polanski are successfully surfing? Why can’t they concentrate on the “broken economic system” that Mamdani put at the centre of his widely successful campaign?

For example, Steven Cowan has blogged to say “Mamdani’s election victory will be a rebuke for NZ’s timid politics”. He argues that Mamdani’s victory shows “that voters are not allergic to bold politics”, and he laments that the parties of the left here are worried about coming across as too radical.

Chris Trotter suggests that there is a new shift towards class politics occurring around the world, which the New Zealand left are missing out on, saying “Poor old Labour doubles-down on identity politics, just as democratic-socialism comes back into fashion.”

Trotter points out that Labour managed to alienate all their democratic socialists many years ago, and their absence meant that a “new left” took over the party:

“To rise in the Labour Party of the 21st century, what one needed was a proven track record in the new milieu of ‘identity politics’. Race, gender and sexuality now counted for much, much, more than class. One’s stance on te Tiriti, abortion, pay equity and LGBTQI+ rights, mattered a great deal more than who should own the railways. Roger Douglas had slammed the door to ‘socialism’ – and nailed it shut.”

Trotter holds out some hope that the Greens might still avoid being pigeonholed in identity politics:

“The crowning irony may well turn out to be the Greens’ sudden lurch into the democratic socialist ‘space’. Chloë Swarbrick makes an unlikely Rosa Luxemburg, but, who knows, in the current political climate-change, ditching the keffiyeh for the red flag may turn out to be the winning move.”

Taking on corporate capture: Could Chlöe Swarbrick ditch the keffiyeh for the red flag?
The rise of figures like Mamdani and Polanski is not occurring in a vacuum. It reflects growing public recognition of a problem I’ve been documenting in this column for weeks: the systematic capture of democratic politics by corporate interests.

As I’ve detailed in my ongoing series on New Zealand’s broken political economy, our democracy has been hollowed out by lobbying firms, political donations, and the revolving door between government and industry. From agricultural emissions policy to energy market reforms, we see the same pattern: vested interests using their wealth and access to shape policy in their favour, while the public interest is systematically ignored.

Throughout the campaign, Mamdani made it clear who the enemies of progress were. He railed against corporate landlords, Wall Street banks, and monopolistic companies profiteering off essential goods. New York’s economy, he argued, was full of broken markets that enriched a wealthy few at the expense of everyone else – and it was time to take them on.

By naming and shaming the elites (and proudly embracing the “socialist” label), Mamdani gave voice to a public anger that had long been simmering.

Mamdani’s win is part of a broader pattern. Across the world, leftwing populists are gaining ground by focusing relentlessly on material issues and openly targeting the corporate elites blocking progress. Rather than moderating their economic demands, these leaders channel public anger toward the billionaire class and monopolistic corporations.

And they back it up with concrete proposals to improve ordinary people’s lives. This approach is proving far more popular than the cautious centrism that dominated recent decades.

It turns out that a “bread-and-butter” socialist agenda of making essentials affordable, and forcing the ultra-rich to pay their fair share, resonates deeply in an age of rampant inequality. Policies once dismissed as too radical are now vote-winners.

Freeze rents? Tax windfall profits? Use the state to break up corporate monopolies and provide free basic services? These ideas excite voters weary of struggling to make ends meet while CEOs and shareholders prosper.

We’ve seen this new left populism surge in many places. In the United States, for example, Bernie Sanders’ campaigns and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s outspoken advocacy popularised these themes, and recently Chicago elected a progressive mayor on a pledge to tax the rich for the public good.

In Latin America, a string of socialist leaders, from Chile’s Gabriel Boric to Colombia’s Gustavo Petro, have swept to power promising to rein in corporate excess and uplift the masses. The common denominator is clear: voters respond to politicians who offer a clear break from the pro-corporate consensus and speak to their real economic grievances.

Here in New Zealand, the Labour Party and its ally the Greens should have been the vehicle for bold change. But instead they’ve both largely stayed the course. When Labour took office in 2017, there were high hopes for a transformational government. Yet Jacinda Ardern and her successors ultimately shied away from any fundamental challenge to the economic status quo.

They tinkered around the edges of problems, unwilling to upset the powerful or depart from orthodoxy.

Even when Labour admitted certain markets were broken, for instance acknowledging the supermarket duopoly that was overcharging Kiwis for food, it refused to take decisive action. A Commerce Commission inquiry into supermarkets resulted in gentle recommendations and a voluntary code of conduct, but no real crackdown on the grocery giants’ excess profits.

The government balked at imposing windfall taxes on the booming banks or power companies. Its much-vaunted KiwiBuild housing scheme collapsed far short of targets, and it never embarked on a serious state house building program. Time and again, opportunities for bold intervention were passed up. It often seemed Labour was more afraid of annoying corporate interests than of disappointing its own voters.

In the end, the Labour-led government managed a broken economic system rather than transforming it. And during a mounting cost-of-living crisis, “managing” wasn’t enough. By 2023, many traditional Labour supporters felt little had changed for them — and they were right. The party had kept the seat warm, but it hadn’t delivered the economic justice it once promised.

Time to catch up with the Zeitgeist
The contrast between New Zealand’s left and the new wave of international left triumphs could not be more stark. Overseas, the left is rediscovering its purpose as the champion of the many against the few, of public good over private greed.

At home, our left has spent recent years timidly managing a broken status quo. If there is one lesson from Zohran Mamdani’s New York victory — and from the broader resurgence of socialist politics abroad — it’s that boldness can be a virtue for parties that claim to represent ordinary people.

To catch up with the Zeitgeist, New Zealand’s Labour and Green parties will need to break out of their cautious mindset and actually fight for transformative change. That means making our next political battles about the “big guys” – the profiteering banks, the supermarket duopoly, the housing speculators – and about delivering tangible gains to the public.

It means having the courage to propose taxing wealth, curbing corporate excess, and rebuilding a fairer economy, even if it upsets a few CEOs or lobbyists. In short, it means offering a clear alternative to “broken markets” and business-as-usual.

The winds of political change are blowing in a populist-left direction globally. It’s high time New Zealand’s left caught that wind. If Labour and the Greens cannot find the nerve to ride the new wave of public enthusiasm for economic justice, they risk being left behind by history.

In an age of crises and inequality, timidity is a recipe for oblivion. Boldness, on the other hand, just might revive the left’s fortunes.

Dr Bruce Edwards is a political commentator and analyst. He is director of the Integrity Institute, a campaigning and research organisation dedicated to strengthening New Zealand democratic institutions through transparency, accountability, and robust policy reform.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Background Image courtesy of Nick Minto, Copyright 2024 Nick Minto; photographed November 6, 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn discuss:

• Why Democrats Lost: Incumbency, Elitism, Class & Alienation, Identity Politics…
• Why Trump Won: Anti-Establishment, Populism, Avatar for the Alienated…
• What to Expect Next: Trump Appointments, Isolationism, Geopolitical Impact & Response…

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE: Paul and Selwyn encourage interaction while live, and encourage their audience to lodge comments and questions. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and click on notification-bell for an alert for future programmes.

Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Background image: courtesy of and Copyright Nick Minto 2024. Image taken November 6 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this the seventh episode of A View from Afar podcast for 2023 political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning examine the strengths and weaknesses of democracy around the world.

In particular Paul and Selwyn consider how and why democracy in many countries around the world is on the slide.

They examine the causes of democratic backsliding and also test why the erosion of high democratic ideas have, in many cases, popular support.

First, Paul offers a context, and defines democratic backsliding. He identifies the countries that are decisively eroding their own democracies of principles that were once embraced by both power elites and citizenry.

The Questions include:

• Why are we seeing more democratic backsliding in recent times?
• Is it just a political phenomenon or does it extend beyond the political sphere?
• Where has democratic backsliding been most evident?
• What do Chile, Guatemala, Israel and Thailand have in common when it comes to backsliding?
• What is occurring in the United States?
• If a democracy “backslides,” what does it slide into?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recordings of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this, the 21st episode of A View from Afar for 2022 political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and host Selwyn Manning analyse the notion, and perhaps the reality, of Trumpism beyond Trump.

In earlier episodes, Paul and Selwyn have examined how Trumpism, and even Bannonism, has been exported as a cult, a cultural political movement, around the world. And, we gave detailed examples of how it manifests itself in countries as untypical comparatively as New Zealand and Brazil.

And in this episode, Paul and Selwyn deep dive into this notion – that while Brazil’s out-going right-populist president Bolsonaro was narrowly defeated by his left-positioned rival Lula, there’s a risk that Brazil’s version of Trumpism will live on well after Bolsonaro’s electoral defeats at the ballot-box and enforce a formidable impediment to their successor’s policies.

And in addition, they examine what to expect from the United States’ mid-term elections. Will the GOP’s Trump endorsed candidates assist in removing a Democratic Party majority in the US Senate?

And finally, they explore the Israel elections and whether Benjamin Netanyahu will return to dominating Israel’s political sphere.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE: Paul and Selwyn invite and encourage you to interact while they are live with questions and comments. They recommend you do so via EveningReport’s YouTube channel, as Facebook is undergoing significant changes. Here’s the link: Youtube (remember to subscribe to the channel).

You can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

RECOGNITION:

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Increasingly, political problems of housing, inequality, climate change and so forth, are viewed through a “generational lens”. This has some validity – there really are some major changes to New Zealand society that relate to demographics and generational changes.

But there’s a limit to the usefulness of an analysis that concentrates on problems being caused by one demographic, with the solution lying in a preference for different demographic. Society is much more complicated than this, and all demographic groups – especially age groups – are less socially and politically homogenous than many generational warriors would have us believe.

The strongest critiques of the “OK boomer” philosophy complain that generation-focused activists are jettisoning any sort of socio-economic analysis in favour of an identity politics approach. For example, writing in the Guardian, US socialist Bhaskar Sunkara argues that the popularity of the phrase used by Swarbrick “tells us something about the cultural dominance of upper-middle-class youth” who prefer to see their enemies, not as businesspeople, property developers, or politicians, but just as a particular age demographic – see: Why it’s time to ditch the ‘OK Boomer’ meme.

Sunkara points out that young generation-focused activists “haven’t had to witness – or deal with the ramifications of – old age and precarity for millions of working people in that generational cohort. Instead they get to revel without self-reflection in oedipal angst about their elders – many of whom were kind enough to pass them their ill-gotten privileges. Workers of all ages, after all, barely earn enough to survive, much less save for retirement.”

He concludes that the identity politics of age is a distraction from the economic realities in countries like ours: “If ‘we’ have to divide ourselves, it makes sense to look for these class divisions rather than inventing common cultural characteristics across generations… That means knowing who your friends are and who your enemies are. Here’s a hint: it’s not ‘boomers’ – it’s that investment banker you went to high school with.”

If there was any doubt that Swarbrick’s “OK boomer” approach was anything more than a throwaway remark, she penned a column for the Guardian doubling down on it, arguing her use of the phrase was in reaction to the fact that “our politics has been run by older dudes in suits” – see: My ‘OK boomer’ comment in parliament symbolised exhaustion of multiple generations.

This kind of identity politics is condemned by veteran leftwing commentator Chris Trotter in a column suggesting that such middle class distractions are perfect for those who really benefit from the status quo: the rich – see: Not so much ‘Ok Boomer’ as ‘Ok Ruling Class’.

Trotter argues that a generational especially suits those who have done so well since the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s, because the discontented focus their rage on other sections of society: “whites, males, straights and, most recently and ridiculously, Baby Boomers.” He argues for a return to some good, old-fashioned class struggle – viewing the rich and powerful as the problem, regardless of their age demographic (or their ethnicity, gender, etc).

Similarly, see Steven Cowan’s Chloe Swarbrick: OK Boomer or OK Capitalist? He says Swarbrick’s “casual parliamentary insult not only reeks of smug, middle class conceit but stereotypes the older generation as greedy narcissists, sitting atop a big pile of assets and cash. But, like all stereotypes, it’s not true. In 2015 research by Colmar Brunton revealed that more than forty percent of 50- to 70- year-olds were found to have little or no retirement savings and almost half face spending cuts to make ends meet in their retirement.”

As if to reinforce this point, last week the Herald published Dara McNaught’s arguments about those in aged poverty, using the example of one case study: “With a 40-year work history and a lifetime being mindful about money, Remy didn’t expect to be nearing 70 and struggling to survive. Work hard, save hard, and you’ll be fine – isn’t that how it goes? And if you haven’t got enough by the time you retire, well you’ve obviously been irresponsible, careless, or improvident” – see: Superannuitants caught in the trap of poverty.

McNaught reports: “She can’t work now and is malnourished because she doesn’t have enough money for food. Five years ago, she could manage, just. But superannuation and WINZ supplements haven’t kept pace with steeply rising costs in rents, petrol, heating and especially food. No, budgeting doesn’t cut it.”

One superannuant writes with humour about blaming boomers for using too many resources. Rosemary McLeod explains: “we’re needing the costly, underfunded health system as we disintegrate. We’re a burden on the system we funded through taxes” – see: It’s the Boomers’ fault: we created these Millennial monsters.

Furthermore, “We paid mortgage rates in double digits to hang on to them while successive governments, in the grip of mad market theories of economics, stopped building homes for people in need. We shouldn’t have. Or something. Compulsory acquisition of our houses can’t be far off, to force us into the army camps for the aged springing up everywhere.”

And she points out that woke identitarians therefore have her demographic in their sights: “We’re the one group that woke people feel free to mock. They’re woke on gender issues, race issues, human rights, their own rights, cannabis use (which we made mainstream, by the way) and kindness every which way, except toward us.”

According to Massey University’s Steve Elers, the “OK boomer” approach is akin to pointing the finger at the “pale, male and stale” as if they are the homogenous problem – see: Punching up with ‘OK, Boomer’ and ‘pale, male, stale’ may get a laugh but they’re just air swings.

He argues, “classifying and ordering people into a single collective group based on race and ethnicity, gender, and age doesn’t actually do any good for advancing social causes or arguments”, but can actually “mean losing allies who were supportive of particular social causes and arguments.”

This week’s Listener editorial makes a similar case: “Intergenerational warfare is as old as civilisation itself, but it’s in danger of becoming downright uncivilised as we fall into the habit of blaming each other’s demographic tribes for environmental degradation, inequality and much else” – see: The OK, boomer uproar blotted out an important intergenerational moment.

The editorial points out that baby boomers have played a nation-building role in paying higher taxes, building the welfare state, and fostering progressive social change, before concluding: “Looking back in bitterness improves nothing and, worse, risks alienating people into nihilistic inaction. So, OK, boomers and hey, snowflakes: we’re all in this together.”

Similarly, business journalist Rob Stock argues that “the language of intergenerational fairness obscures just as much as it illuminates”, and “It tars a whole group with the same brush, and so doing unifies those using the language: Millennials are the lazy generation, greens are socialists in disguise, all beneficiaries are potential cheats, farmers are animal abusers, men are to women what bicycles are to fish, all baby boomers only care about keeping their tax rates low and the prices of their houses up” – see: Give Baby Boomers their dues.

Stock also suggests that it’s a mistake to talk “about Baby Boomers as if it is a homogenous generation, and the root of all social wrong today, and forgetting all its successes, and the fact that many Baby Boomers are actually poor as dirt”.

Some writers have identified the core economic issue at the heart of the growing generational discontent – housing unaffordability. In his evaluation of the generational war, millennial Richard Meadows says: “Time to address the trillion-dollar elephant in the room. Back in 1980, you could buy a decent house for $28,000. That was only two to three times the median income – a level of affordability which was normal for decades. Today, a median home costs six times the median income (and in Auckland, nine times). Houses are fully two to three times less affordable today than they were for the boomers” – see: The Boomers are OK.

So, are boomers to blame for the housing crisis? Peter Calder says this view would be a divisive mistake, distracting “us from the conversations we should be having”. He says the fault lies with former and contemporary politicians who have not only refused to deal with the problem, but continue to benefit from it – see: Baby Boomers weren’t sitting idly by, it was the politicians.

Here’s Calder’s main point: “The only Boomers who could have stopped the national average house price rising from $110,000 to $600,000 (and in Auckland from $130,000 to $800,000) in the past 25 years were the ones sitting in Parliament… The sitting-by took place, all right, but it was calculated, for electoral advantage, and not idle at all. To say that my generation ‘failed to see’ what was happening is insulting.”

Finally, although his analysis might also escalate the generational wars, Damien Grant’s latest column is worth checking out, simply because it ends with his own clever generational poem riffing on Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire” – see: Quit whinging Millennials, Boomers built your houses and endured actual nuclear war.