Last Tuesday, New York City elected as mayor, by a sizable margin, Zohran Mamdani, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. His policies are extreme.
How did it happen that someone with those beliefs could be elected as mayor of our nation’s largest city?
New York City has the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel, yet Mamdani is a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel Muslim. New York City is the symbol of capitalism, home of Wall Street and headquarters to many big corporations, yet they elected this man who is an enemy of capitalism.
It seems like self-harm. How could it happen?
He ran a slick campaign that was savvy about using social media. He has a winning smile. He showed up at lots of events. He won the youth vote. Maybe they felt like he was one of them. Maybe they felt like he represented ‘hope and change’.
And there was another reason: he promised them stuff.
Free bus rides, free childcare, rent freezes, $30 an hour minimum wage. Must be nice. How will the city afford it? He gives the usual answer: tax the rich. But are the rich just going to sit back and let it happen? Many of those big taxpayers have already moved out. And when the taxes go even higher will not more move out? Where will the money come from then?
People seem to like getting free things from the government. They’ve become used to it. People have been told that that have rights, not just rights like free speech and the right to vote, but to big-ticket material things that cost money: health care, housing, food… And when something is called a ‘right’ there is a hidden understanding that you should get it for free if you don’t pay for it. And so the national debt grows and grows. Now that debt is up to about $35 trillion with no end in sight; with no plan for paying it down. On the contrary, all we do is add to it and pass the burden on to future generations.
From what I know of American history, there did not use to be the assumption that government was supposed to be your provider. You provided for yourself. If you hit hard times, you tightened your belt, prayed to God for help, relied on family, or moved to where the jobs were. It didn’t enter people’s minds to seek government aid because that was not what government was for.
Now it is almost like government has taken the place of God.
I do not think of these comments as primarily political. I think of them as dealing with moral and spiritual issues. But there are times where the moral and spiritual cross over into politics. I think this is one of those times. To trust in government more than God is bad spiritually; it is also bad economically because there is not nearly enough money to pay for all these demands.
Now, there is a strain of Christianity today that promotes the idea that the expansion of government programs is a way of showing the compassion of Jesus. But how can that be when there is no hint of that in the gospels? Not once did Jesus lobby the leaders of the Jewish or Roman government for more ‘free stuff’. Government was to provide justice and security–that was its job–not to encourage dependence. When people talk about expanding government programs as a moral imperative, or as something Jesus would do, they should think about the immorality of dumping a massive debt on future generations. Would Jesus do that? No!
But let us look at the kind of compassion Jesus did call us to do. It was personal. It was seeing a need and meeting it out of your own pocket. It cost you something, like it cost the Good Samaritan when he helped the beaten-up man on the road to Jericho. He showed compassion not by calling on government to do more, to expand programs that it must go into debt to pay for, but in helping those in genuine need who were in his sphere to help.
The Apostle Paul noted that a Christian was a changed person. This change made him not only willing to support himself but also willing to help others: “He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need,” (Ephesians 4:28). There was no calling for expansion of government programs, but helping people out of one’s own pocket.
Here in the Portland area, there is a lot of liberalism, a lot of ‘government is the answer to society’s problems’. Expensive government programs are emphasized; personal responsibility is not. Portland has high taxes; the mayor and governor seem to think that spending is the answer. But the problems are getting worse, not better.
The Roman Empire ended was not primarily because of foreign invasion, but internal implosion. And the internal implosion made it easier for the foreign invasion to happen. The old Roman virtues of strength and toughness and heroism were gradually eroded and replaced by entitlement. It could only be endured for so long until there was a collapse.
I believe, like Ronald Reagan did, that government should provide a safety net “for the truly needy.” But that is a far cry from what we have today. These days government is increasingly seen as an all-in-all, with the limitless expense that that brings. But we can’t afford it, it doesn’t work, and it delays the realization that we should provide for ourselves if possible. Yet this dependence mentality has become entrenched.
I think the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City signals an alarming development. I hope it’s not a sign of more to come.