One of the defining features of our politics over the last decade has been the declining power of institutions, combined with the growing influence of individuals acting in their narrow self-interest, frequently at the expense of the public interest.

President Donald Trump’s ability in 2016 to bypass the Republican establishment benefitting from a crowded, self-interested opposition, was one of the seminal moments in our brave new world of individualism over institutionalism. Party institutions, outside-group spending and strident media criticism were no match for the grassroots army that rallied to Trump in that election.

Ten years later, the inability of moderate Democrats and other mainstream institutions to organize any coalition against the campaign of far-left New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani looks like the culmination of a dynamic where leaders feel powerless to lead, and are instead simply standing aside, ceding any influence to a cadre of ideological activists within the party. 

What’s remarkable about this moment is that the top Democratic leaders in New York, over a month after the primary, aren’t supporting Mamdani — but aren’t willing to speak out against him, either. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) have all stayed on the sidelines, reflecting the state of political purgatory that many mainstream leaders are in right now.

There are a handful of Democratic leaders who are speaking out more directly in response to Mamdani’s rise. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a potential 2028 presidential contender, offered moral clarity in his interview with JI’s Gabby Deutch last week. “When supporters of yours say things that are blatantly antisemitic, you can’t leave room for that to just sit there,” Shapiro said of Mamdani.  

Rep. Laura Gillen (D-NY), representing a suburban Long Island district with a sizable Jewish constituency, called Mamdani “a threat to my constituents.” Jeffries, to his credit, has all but conditioned his support for Mamdani to the candidate’s condemnation of “globalize the intifada” rhetoric.

What’s missing is any organized effort to rally behind one of the other Democratic options on the general election ballot in order to consolidate the Mamdani opposition. It’s not for lack of options — with the sitting New York City mayor and the former New York governor on the ballot — even if the alternatives are deeply flawed. Only about half of Democratic voters are lining up behind Mamdani, and he’s polling under 40% in the post-primary polls — an unusually weak position for a Democratic nominee in a deep-blue city.

With Mamdani celebrating his recent marriage in his birthplace of Uganda this past week amid creeping criticism from prominent elected officials, it would have been an opportune time for anti-Mamdani forces to go on offense. But instead, the race is stuck in neutral, with Mayor Eric Adams and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo spending as much time sniping against each other instead of the front-runner.

What’s holding the Mamdani opposition back is a generalized fear of leadership’s ability to make a difference. Would Schumer or Jeffries taking a tougher line against Mamdani significantly move the political needle, or drive the left-wing grassroots against them? Just look at the blowback Gillibrand received for noting in a radio interview that Jewish New Yorkers were alarmed by Mamdani’s public statements on Israel and antisemitic rhetoric.

For Jewish groups, is it worth further antagonizing Mamdani when he remains the favorite to become the city’s next mayor? The fact that a candidate excusing “globalize the intifada” rhetoric was able to comfortably win a Democratic primary — in the place with the largest Jewish population of any city in the world — was a shock to the system. 

Coloring all these deliberations is the sense that something has shifted in our body politic — that radicalism isn’t the political turnoff that it once was. But there’s something of a Catch-22 to these internal deliberations: The less willing leaders are to confront the extremes, the more the Overton window shifts to accommodate them.