by Muhammad Ali
Political campaigns each year remind us of something very important: the winning of the election is not necessarily based on the most realistic policies. It is, oftentimes, about the ability to talk to people and make them feel heard. A good example of this, though not the only one, is the recent electoral success of Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.
It cannot be denied that his campaign was a massive hit. However, the question that truly matters is whether the success was brought about by the policies that he brought to the table. Some of his flagship ideas, such as the rent freeze proposal, have been greatly criticized by economists. Assar Lindbeck, a well-known economist, famously said rent control is “the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city, except for bombing.” Why then did the people still support him when his policy was deemed unrealistic? That is because the campaign wasn’t based on policy, but it was built on connection.
His use of social media was one of the most prominent aspects of his campaign. Mamdani realized that the key to reaching Gen Z and young millennials is not to hand out flyers, but to make videos 20 seconds long that sneak into their algorithms at 2 a.m.
More than that, he understood how to relate to other people. It was no coincidence that he often spoke in Urdu or Hindi. He knew the right way to appeal to immigrants of the subcontinent, and it clearly worked. It worked to the point where Pakistanis and Indians who didn’t even live in New York were reposting his content and cheering him all over the internet. He was able to establish himself as “one of us,” and in a city where there were many immigrants, that mattered.
Another major element of his appeal was his association with what most of the younger voters consider to be morally correct positions. His public advocacy for Palestine was highly noticeable, and in an era when the rest of the world was shifting its stances, his opinion placed him on the right side of the political spectrum. He used to attend the Pride marches. He was endorsing movements and causes that were already trending on the internet, and through this, he gained the support of the masses.
All this makes us ask a larger question not just to Mamdani, but to contemporary politics in general: How emotive, rather than practical, is much of our political success? I am not implying that his policies were destructive and that what he represented was all misguided. That’s not the point. The point is that emotional appeal, cultural association, Internet exposure, and ideological placement may be several times more significant to voters than economic viability.
This is not a new occurrence either. There are numerous instances in history when emotional attachment overrode rational consideration. Take Nazi Germany, for example. Their ideology was catastrophic, yet people were won by nationalistic fervour, unity rhetoric and emotionalism.
And to all the luminites, setting global politics aside, we see the same pattern when it comes to the student council presidential elections. How many of us vote on the actual leadership potential of a candidate? And how many votes are due to the fact that the candidate is their friend, or because their Instagram campaign is more aesthetically pleasing? The answer to this is fairly obvious.
Emotions often prevail over policy, whether it is a school president or a national leader, and an edited campaign video usually beats a well-written manifesto. If anything, these trends are a reminder to us to be more attentive voters. Having an emotional attachment is not a bad thing, as politicians ought to know their people. However, when every action of practical ability is subdued by emotionality, it is then that democracy is turned into a performance, not improvement. And perhaps that is the unpleasant reality of modern politics that it is not always the ability to fix things, but the ability to make people feel that makes the difference.