What Swalwell Should Have Said: "I Am Sure Mamdani Will Govern for the Benefit of All New Yorkers"
- john raymond
- Jun 29
- 3 min read
In moments of contrived outrage, political courage is not found in piling on—it’s found in choosing clarity over cowardice. That’s why I believe Rep. Eric Swalwell, instead of echoing the establishment’s tepid disavowals of Zohran Mamdani, should have said something far simpler, far stronger, and far more principled:
“I am sure Mamdani will govern for the benefit of all New Yorkers.”
That’s the line. That’s the real Democratic position. And anything short of that is political malpractice.
This Isn’t About the Slogan. It’s About the Power Shift
Let’s be clear: this entire controversy surrounding Mamdani and the phrase “globalize the intifada” is manufactured. It’s not about policy. It’s not about values. It’s about disciplining an independent voice who refuses to defer to the donor class or to the party’s pro-establishment orthodoxy. The attacks aren’t about antisemitism—they’re about control.
And when someone like Eric Swalwell chooses to distance himself from Mamdani under the guise of “responsibility,” he isn’t protecting the party. He’s undermining it.
Mamdani is not a liability. He is a product of grassroots organizing, tenant mobilization, interfaith justice work, and anti-austerity principles. If the Democratic Party were serious about winning the future, it would be lifting him up—not feeding him to the outrage machine.
Swalwell’s Real Mistake: Playing Defense Against Justice
Swalwell has built a reputation as a defender of democracy and a prosecutor of insurrectionists. He’s spoken passionately against Trumpism, against authoritarianism, and against foreign interference in U.S. elections. So why is he suddenly nervous when Mamdani stands in moral opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu, a man wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes? For literal crimes against humanity!
Since when is refusing to flatter a war criminal “divisive”?
Since when is calling for justice—no matter how one phrases it—a disqualifier for leadership?
Mamdani has made clear that he does not endorse violence. What he does endorse is justice—justice for Palestinians, justice for Israelis, justice for New Yorkers who live under the thumb of corruption and inequality. That’s not radical. That’s principled leadership.
Swalwell should know better. And if he doesn’t, it’s time he remember what this country claims to stand for: resistance to tyranny, not PR clean-up for the powerful.
The Real Threat Isn’t Mamdani—It’s the Corrupt Power Structure
If Swalwell wants to spend his time warning about threats, he might look at the actual ones:
Eric Adams, who’s governed NYC like a patronage racket and pushed the city closer to right-wing authoritarian policing.
Andrew Cuomo, still lurking in the wings, hoping to be rehabilitated despite a career built on bullying, cover-ups, and abuse of power.
The GOP, whose national platform includes voter suppression, forced birth, book bans, and climate denial.
Those are the threats.
Not Mamdani. Not the DSA. Not the people demanding justice for the dispossessed.
If Democrats keep shooting left every time the right gets uncomfortable, they’re not just betraying their base—they’re clearing the path for their enemies.
What Swalwell Should Have Said
So let’s bring it back.
Swalwell could have stood tall. He could have honored his party’s progressive flank. He could have looked past a slogan and seen the movement. He could have said:
“I trust that Zohran Mamdani will govern for the benefit of all New Yorkers—Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist, everyone. I may not share every phrase or chant he chooses, but I share his commitment to justice, accountability, and democratic leadership. And I support the future he represents for our party and our country.”
That’s what leadership sounds like.
Anything else? That’s just fear. And carrying water for the powerful at the expense of the weak.
Comments