admin
America’s right should be alarmed but not surprised that a loud, populist podcaster like Andrew Schulz would throw a soft glove around Zohran Mamdani. Schulz’s recent praise and defense of Mamdani—going so far as to cast him in an “America First” light—reveals how celebrity platforms can sanitize radical candidates for mass audiences. That kind of media lipstick doesn’t change the substance of what Mamdani represents.
Zohran Mamdani has surged from relative obscurity to a front-runner in New York City politics by leaning hard into youthful enthusiasm and bold policy promises. The 33-year-old progressive has parlayed viral moments and endorsements into momentum, while his background as a naturalized citizen has been weaponized by opponents seeking political advantage. Voters deserve to know whether those viral moments mask governance risks that would affect every taxpayer and business owner in the city.
The substance behind the spectacle is what truly matters: Mamdani has refused to clearly condemn inflammatory slogans on the far left, backed anti-Israel movements like BDS, and labeled Israeli policy as apartheid—positions that have alarmed Jewish lawmakers and many mainstream Americans. These are not abstract academic stances; they intersect with national security, community safety, and the well-being of Jewish New Yorkers. Conservatives must not be gaslit into treating such red flags as mere “controversy” when they speak directly to a candidate’s judgment.
Predictably, the reaction from the right has been uneven and sometimes unhelpful, with some Republicans calling for extreme remedies like denaturalization and others amplifying wild claims about immigration status. Those responses feed headlines but do little to build a principled, durable case against policies that would hollow out a city’s economy and threaten public order. If conservatives want to win the argument, they have to be both fierce and factual, not theatrical.
That brings us to the uncomfortable point: when conservative commentators applaud a left-leaning podcaster for “saving” a debate by defending a radical candidate, it shows our movement is losing the plot. We should be skeptical of converts and performances; Schulz’s friendliness toward Mamdani is not a seal of moderation, it’s a ratings play that happens to line up with a gripe against establishment politics. The proper conservative response is scrutiny, not gratitude.
The policy stakes here are real—rent freezes, heavy tax hikes, and city-managed services are not harmless experiments when tried in America’s largest city. Mamdani’s platform promises sweeping interventions that would raise costs, drive out investment, and empower bureaucrats over entrepreneurs, and those consequences deserve sober debate rather than late-night laughs and viral clips. Conservatives must marshal concrete alternatives that speak to working families and small business owners who pay the bill.
If we believe in limited government, personal responsibility, and the rule of law, now is the time to show it. Don’t be distracted by podcasters playing politeness for clicks; demand answers, expose the trade-offs, and make the case to everyday New Yorkers who will suffer under the politics Mamdani represents. America’s future depends on conservatives who will fight smart, not just loud.
