Scholar compares Mamdani to Trump, warns against demonization of opponents as inherent to populist movements
An analysis published in the Times of Israel examines Zohran Mamdani’s electoral success through the lens of populist political theory, arguing that Mamdani’s democratic socialist movement shares structural similarities with Donald Trump’s populism even as they offer dramatically different policy content. The comparison illuminates concerns about how populism functions in liberal democracies regardless of whether the populist champion claims to represent workers or the business community. Populism as a political phenomenon involves claiming to represent the authentic people against an illegitimate establishment viewed as betraying ordinary citizens’ interests. From this perspective, both Trump and Mamdani position themselves as insurgents against corrupt power structures. Trump claims the establishment betrays American workers to immigrant workers and globalist corporations. Mamdani claims the establishment betrays working New Yorkers to landlords, real estate developers, and capitalist oligarchs. Both campaigns mobilized constituencies feeling alienated from establishment parties. Trump appealed to working-class whites feeling economically precarious. Mamdani appealed to working-class people of all backgrounds feeling alienated by centrist Democratic consensus. Both won surprising electoral victories by energizing previously marginalized constituencies. Yet the comparison also reveals crucial differences between types of populism. Scholarship on populism distinguishes between inclusive populism that broadens coalitions and exclusive populism that demonizes scapegoats. Trump’s populism incorporated explicit scapegoating of immigrants, Muslims, and globalist elites. The analysis noted that populism becomes dangerous to liberal democracy when it demonizes and delegitimizes political opponents rather than simply offering competing policy visions. From this perspective, the genuine concern about Mamdani’s populism focuses on his rhetoric toward Israel and Israel’s supporters. Mamdani has employed language suggesting that support for Israel reflects ignorance or malice rather than legitimate political disagreement. His rhetorical framing treats Zionists as inherently opposed to Palestinian rights and human rights generally. This demonization of opponents, the analysis argues, reflects the dangerous face of populism even when the underlying policies are progressive. The Times of Israel analysis suggested that Mamdani benefits from being compared to Democratic populists rather than Republican populists. Bernie Sanders, Mamdani’s theoretical inspiration, built populist campaigns without requiring enemies beyond abstract capitalism and oligarchy. Sanders criticized billionaires and multinational corporations without targeting specific groups. By contrast, Mamdani’s populism increasingly requires scapegoating Israel and Zionism as enemies of the people. This carries antisemitic resonances historically associated with populist movements that blamed Jews for economic problems. The analysis drew parallels to earlier American populist movements including the Populist Party of the 1890s, which combined genuine economic grievance with antisemitic conspiracy theories blaming Jewish bankers for rural agricultural collapse. This history suggests that populist movements, while often emerging from legitimate grievances, create rhetorical space for scapegoating when they rely on enemy construction to mobilize support. Mamdani’s populism emphasizes class enemy construction against capitalists and developers more than ethnic or religious scapegoating. His rhetoric focuses on billionaires and oligarchs as enemies rather than explicitly targeting groups. Yet his connections to anti-Israel activists and his own anti-Zionist statements create risk that his populism could migrate toward explicitly communal scapegoating. The Times of Israel analysis cautioned that democratic leadership must take responsibility for moderating populist rhetoric even when defending populist candidates’ right to run. This suggests that politicians critical of Israel have responsibility to condemn antisemitism unambiguously and to distinguish between criticizing Israeli policies and demonizing Israeli supporters or Jewish communities. Whether Mamdani can maintain this distinction while also maintaining his coalition’s commitment to Palestinian solidarity remains an open question that will define much of his first term.
