The rise of Zohran Mamdani has caused more than a stir for many on the left and in the press circles (redundancy noted.) When the upstart politician won the Democratic primary for the mayoral race in New York City it led to a lengthy pause from those sources, as they needed to contend with how to deal with his numerous challenging issues and positions. There was a sense of hesitation as many on the Left were looking at each other to measure how they should react – but then they had all the cause needed to make a stand on the candidate.
President Trump weighed in on Mamdani.
As soon as he commented on the candidate the Democrats and the media began their full-throated support, explanations, and excuse making for the newfound Democrat “star”. Just like that it became perfectly acceptable for an avowed socialist to rise to prominence, and new explanations for Mamdani’s past comments that were problematic poured forth. He was not really anti-semitic, the accusations of him being a communist were exaggerated, his racism was reclassified, and his extreme positions were explained away as what the people had voted for and therefore not so extreme.
This is the environment that exists today; no matter how bad a politician might appear and how damaging his positions show themselves might be, nothing is worse than what President Trump might say. So the Left has trapped themselves. Now they have to rationalize his comments that come straight from “Das Kapital” (as Politifact struggled to do), they seek out experts to praise his daffy grocery plan (leading to CNN being shamed when it was learned Mamdani misread the city charter on grocery subsidies), and outwardly deny he is a racist (by ignoring his plan to tax rich whites at a rate higher than other ethnic groups.)
This bifurcated approach to the facts has led to the viewing audiences and readership developing a sense of cognitive dissonance. So much so that when the most prominent newspaper in the country reported a detail about the candidate. On Thursday the New York Times reported that Mamdani was discovered to have filled out a college application over a decade ago and stipulated he was a black male. This causes a number of problems for those on the Port side of the center.
More than another issue involving Zohran in need of being spun, this is a case of what many on the left consider to be an unforgivable act. Appropriating another race is always a third-rail offense, leading automatically to charges of racism. Identity politics is one of the rock-ribbed standards for Leftists, but the fact that Mamdani is both in favored status and is himself a member of a cherished ethnic group leads to internal conflict. So when faced with this paradox the community did the only (ir)rational thing – they attacked the reporters.
The New York Times was accused of attacking a candidate and trafficking in poor journalism standards. It got so bad that there was also infighting erupting within the paper. The reliably reactionary Jamelle Bouie lashed out at reporter Benjamin Ryan, resorting to a number of personal attacks in posts he ultimately took down.
He was attacking a NYT reporter in pretty personal ways, I’m sure that’s why they told him to cut it out pic.twitter.com/hLECYBo37v
— Aleph (@woke8yearold) July 4, 2025
All of this led to the Times having to come out and defend itself…for committing journalism. It reached a level that Assistant Managing Editor Patrick Healy was moved to deliver a thread on Xitter explaining the paper’s positioning on the story. It was as ridiculous as it was unneeded. After receiving a tip Ben Ryan contacted Columbia University. He also conducted his own search of the applications over the course of years. And, most notably, he spoke to Zohran Mamdani directly. The candidate confirmed with them that what they found was indeed accurate.
For this the readers of the Times were outraged, and some inside the paper were incensed. Note that nothing in the report has been refuted or disproven. Also note that the activity reported to have taken place is something these same people have spent years decrying and telling the public is a social offense. However when a member of their own side is found to be guilty by admission of this same offense it is the reporting on it that is said to be the new infraction.
The coming years are going to be a supreme challenge for those of us afflicted with pragmatism.