So Zohran Mamdani was sworn in on January 1st as New York City’s first democratic socialist Muslim mayor, and the outrage machine on both sides has been in full swing. Actor Michael Rapaport has already announced he’s running for mayor in 2029 to “save NYC” from what he’s calling “Zohran the moron.” And I’m sitting here wondering: what is everyone so scared of?
Here’s the thing—Mamdani sounds like a reasonable person with reasonable ideas. Has Bernie Sanders ruined the Senate? No. If anything, he’s been one of the few voices consistently standing up for regular people against corporate interests and wealth concentration. Sanders maintains a 71% approval rating in Vermont and has consistently had net positive favorability ratings nationally—he’s literally one of the most popular senators in America. I have no idea if Mamdani’s tenure will be good or bad, but what we’ve been trying clearly hasn’t been working. So what’s wrong with trying something new?
If he fails, the voters will tell him. That’s how democracy works. But rather than actively working to make him fail—which would mean New Yorkers suffer—why not see if he actually has good ideas? Why not give those ideas a chance to work? Universal child care support makes sense. The cost of living is out of control. The “same old, same old” clearly isn’t cutting it, and that’s exactly what the other candidates would have offered.
The Real Pattern Here
Look, there has been some genuinely ugly stuff directed at Mamdani—racist and Islamophobic attacks that have no place in political discourse. That’s wrong, full stop. But there’s also something else going on here that feels very familiar: the system generating maximum outrage because someone wants to change the system. And that scares the people in charge.
Here’s what’s interesting: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shares Sanders’ democratic socialist ideology and many of his policy positions, yet the outrage machine treats them completely differently. The data tells the story. Sanders has maintained positive favorability ratings throughout his career—even among Republicans, 26% view him favorably while 69% view him unfavorably (a -43 net rating). But look at AOC’s numbers: only 5% of Republicans view her favorably while 73% view her unfavorably (a -68 net rating). Among independents, Sanders sits at +5 favorability while AOC is at -5.
Why the massive difference when they advocate for nearly identical policies? Part of it is age and experience—Sanders has decades of consistency that have built trust. Part of it is undoubtedly gender—the outrage machine has always treated women in politics, especially progressive women, with particular viciousness. And part of it is that AOC represents a new generation challenging not just conservative power structures but also the Democratic establishment itself, which makes her a target from multiple directions.
The same pattern is playing out with Mamdani. Young, Muslim, progressive, advocating for systemic change—he checks all the boxes that trigger the fear-fight machine into overdrive.
Change is also scary for many people. It threatens what they know, what they’re comfortable with. But this constant cycle of manufactured outrage and the effort to make people fight with each other? That’s actually the biggest issue with our system. It’s not any one person. It’s the industrial fear-fight machine that keeps us all at each other’s throats instead of fixing the things we all agree are broken.
We all know what sucks—it doesn’t matter what your political ideology is. Being pissed off and screaming about it doesn’t fix things. Working together to solve problems does.
Time for a Collective Breath
I’m actually curious to see what happens. Maybe Mamdani will have fresh approaches to problems that have plagued the city for years. Maybe his proposals for rent freezes, fare-free buses, and city-owned grocery stores will work. Maybe they won’t. But freaking out before he’s had a chance to do anything accomplishes exactly nothing except feeding the outrage machine that benefits from keeping us divided.
Yes, there are legitimate questions about how he’ll pay for his proposals—they require tax increases and state approval, which won’t be easy. Yes, a $30 minimum wage by 2030 is ambitious and controversial. These are real policy debates worth having. But we can have those debates without the hysteria, the name-calling, and the fear-mongering.
Mamdani grew up in a pretty open-minded environment—his mother is filmmaker Mira Nair, his father is academic Mahmood Mamdani. He went from being a housing counselor to a state assemblyman to mayor. That kind of diverse background could actually be beneficial for a city as complex as New York.
Here’s my suggestion: Take a collective breath. Acknowledge that yes, some criticism of Mamdani is rooted in ugly prejudice that we should call out. But also recognize that not all concerns are manufactured—there are real questions about feasibility and implementation. Judge the mayor on his actions and results, not on manufactured fear about what he might do, and not on blind faith either.
The system loves it when we fight each other. That’s how they maintain control while nothing actually changes for regular people. Whether you’re excited about Mamdani or skeptical, let’s at least give the guy a chance to actually dosomething before we decide if the sky is falling or if we’ve entered a golden age.
Don’t fall for the outrage machine. It’s designed to keep you angry and distracted, not to actually solve problems.
What do you think? Are we falling for manufactured outrage again, or are people’s concerns legitimate? Let me know in the comments.
Even that's Odd 
Leave a comment