Listen To This Story

A year ago, no one outside of his district in Queens had heard of Zohran Mamdani, a member of the New York State Assembly. After a sweeping win in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, no one can stop talking about him — and the fear and trembling he incites.

“Why N.Y.C. Business Leaders Fear Mamdani,” a New York Times headline reads. “Why the Oligarchy Fears Zohran Mamdani,” Rolling Stone writes. “Who’s Afraid of Zohran Mamdani?” asks an Intelligencer headline. 

A Washington Post editorial, primarily focused on Mayor Eric Adams’s withdrawal from his campaign for reelection, takes a hard swipe at Mamdani’s platform:

Adams’s more moderate outlook seems diametrically opposed to Mamdani’s government-heavy promises of controls on housing prices, “free” buses and publicly run grocery stores. If enacted, any of these would be disastrous for the city.

Other headlines proclaim that Mamdani “must be stopped.” 

And it’s not just business and the One Percent that are opposed to a Mamdani mayoralty; top Democrats in Congress continue to shy away from endorsing the Democratic nominee. 

Fear, according to Psychology Today, doesn’t have a simple explanation. When it comes to fear of change, such as that embodied in a mayoral candidate who is promising to bring new ideas to the largest city in the US, that fear is often a fear of loss: loss of control, loss of certainty, loss of a suddenly alluring past. 

Control

Before pulling out of the race for mayor, Adams had openly curried favor with President Donald Trump. Indeed, he engaged in an egregious quid pro quo with the president last year and continues to bend to the requests of the Trump administration. 

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, running against Mamdani, is supported and influenced by New York’s ultra-wealthy. In fact, Adams’s withdrawal from the race was sought by Trump himself, to boost Cuomo’s candidacy by consolidating the anti-Mamdani vote, and observers are curious to see what, if anything, the payoff to the current mayor might be.

Mamdani, by contrast, is supported mostly by small donors and local groups. Right now, he isn’t reaching into anyone’s deep pockets, and his largest constituency seems to come from the city’s working and lower-middle classes. Politics and governance being what they are, and best intentions notwithstanding, this could change if he is elected mayor. But for now, he represents not just a fresh face but a fresh orientation in city politics.

Should Mamdani be elected, he is likely to find that new course to be less than smooth sailing, as the headwinds blow hard from Washington. This week the Trump administration announced it was putting $18 billion in infrastructure funding for NYC “on hold” — ostensibly over DEI concerns, but a muscle flex that does not bode well for the city’s standing with Trump under Mamdani’s leadership.

Certainty

As for loss of certainty: The mayor of New York, by virtue of leading the nation’s largest city, typically becomes a household name across the US, and this exposure typically feeds ambitions for higher office. After leaving City Hall, the previous three mayors — Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, and Bill de Blasio — all went on to run (albeit with little success) in a presidential election. 

So it is important to note that Mamdani, who was born in Uganda, is not a natural-born US citizen and therefore, under the Constitution, can never run for president. This circumstance lends credibility to Mamdani’s promise to focus his mayoralty on making the city affordable for ordinary working families and on other purely local issues. 

His city-centric focus has undoubted appeal to New York voters. At the same time, it makes sense that established political and business leaders fear a Mamdani victory — his promise, for example, to push for a millionaire’s tax might actually come to fruition because he isn’t pandering to their support for any future run on a national stage. 

In fact, there hasn’t been a New York City mayor in the last 30 years who did not aim for higher political power after their time in office. As alluded to above, Trump even discussed offering Adams a position in his administration, which might still come about. To the local powers-that-be, Mamdani, precisely because he lacks such aspirations, looks all too much like a dangerous wild card. 

A Party Stuck in the Past?

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul delivered a lukewarm endorsement of Mamdani. Former Vice President Kamala Harris also voiced support. But most Democratic politicians with New York ties — such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — have avoided supporting the candidate. 

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, both local and national, seems increasingly out of sync with its unhappy voters. In the last few elections, the pattern in urban areas of “voting blue no matter who” has weakened — in spite of a cresting hyperpolarization that would otherwise be expected to secure and solidify the party’s base. 

This 33-year-old self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist vows he will bring change to New York City, with nationwide implications. But it’s not fear that is driving this change; it’s anger — anger at not being heard, anger at not being represented.

Although Mamdani is running as a Democrat, he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, a term popularized by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), one of the most popular politicians in America right now. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is another Democratic Socialist and a highly popular politician. But the Democratic Socialist label is not the reason Mamdani is leading in polls. 

Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) put it this way: “Mr. Mamdani didn’t win [the primary] because of socialism — he won because too many voters think the rest of the Democratic Party no longer stands for them.” 

Mamdani is not an establishment Democrat and he is not falling in line. He is a clear example that the Democratic Party of the past may not be the Democratic Party of the future.  

Creating Change 

The charismatic, energetic 33-year-old Mamdani vows he will bring change to New York City, with nationwide implications. But it’s not fear that is driving this change; it’s anger — anger at not being heard, anger at not being represented.

A March 2025 Quinnipiac poll recorded a plunge in approval from 75 to 40 percent over the previous year, such that, for the first time since the poll began asking the question, Democratic voters no longer approved of the Democrats in Congress. This followed a few years of polling showing that Americans in general believe their lawmakers do not care about what the people think. 

Mamdani’s rise in popularity offers a kind of mirror image of the strategies of popular far-right politicians and influencers, who have found great opportunity in that sour vibe. Instead of parroting classic Democratic platform issues — such as beating Trump at all costs, pushing back against the MAGA agenda, and going all-in for the middle-class — Mamdani is capitalizing on New Yorkers’ widespread anger at how unaffordable their city has become. 

This is an important distinction for understanding political trends in the 2020s. Studies have shown that anger, not fear, is the emotion most likely to change people’s political inclinations. If Mamdani can channel that anger into a sustained political movement, he may indeed give the One Percenters something to worry about. 

The entry in Psychology Today about fear of change adds an important note: “But here’s the paradox: The things we fear losing may be the very things holding us back.”