Trump, Mamdani, and the Power of Populism

The Kumbaya moment between the president and NYC Mayor-elect revealed a common thread.

If the sight of President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani conducting a virtual lovefest in the Oval Office on Friday made you feel like you had entered an alternate reality, you are hardly alone. With most people expecting a blow-up like the one between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky months earlier, or an ugly public spectacle pitting two men of radically opposed beliefs against one another, you would be excused for walking away shaking your head in disbelief or wonderment at the surreal turn of events.

There was no nasty name-calling from either Trump, who had repeatedly called Mamdani a communist, nor from the mayor-elect, who had labeled the president a fascist and a despot. Trump almost unbelievably said Mamdani could be a “great mayor” who is “very rational” and could do “really great” things for the hometown they share. But now that the shock of it all gradually subsides, the question of why both men were so accommodating to each other remains. This is where populism enters the equation. More on that in a moment.

There was undoubtedly a method to the madness of both men. Mamdani knows the president controls and threatened to withhold the federal funding he desperately needs in order to run the nation’s largest city. Trump wants his hometown, the city that launched his rise to global stardom, to succeed regardless of its mayor’s political beliefs. Where their bright lines crossed was on affordability. That issue was largely responsible for Mamdani’s victory, and it will be central to the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, when Trump needs the GOP to maintain its majority in Congress to advance his legislative agenda.

The Infectious Charm of Donald Trump

Looking from another angle, perhaps we should not be so surprised that Trump’s charm was apparently able to lure Mamdani into his good graces, and vice versa. The president has over five years in the White House proven willing, or even anxious, to meet face-to-face with those who strenuously oppose him, even sworn enemies of the US, often defying long-established diplomatic protocols. You will recall how the 45th president shook hands in a monumental photo-op with Kim Jong Un across the previously unbreached Korean DMZ (Demilitarized Zone). He has met face-to-face with Vladimir Putin, though without success to date, and expressed a desire to sit down with the leaders of Iran and Venezuela, among others. He has negotiated multiple peace deals and ceasefires between bitter enemies. He believes that, like in business, he can achieve far more with honey than vinegar, at least in public. This willingness to engage directly with his adversaries is what his supporters call 4D chess, even as many conservatives express wariness about it.

The president, who proved afresh how he thrives by keeping both allies and adversaries off balance, also exploited the opportunity to further confound severely divided Democrats who have never managed or even tried to understand Trump’s beating heart. Their blind contempt has come at the cost of losing to him twice. The Oval Office confab allowed Trump to drive a wedge between Mamdani and his pronounced core principles. And, as if on cue, The World Socialist Website (WSWS.org) was apoplectic, calling the meeting “ a grotesque love-fest, during which Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), declared a ‘partnership’ and a pledge to ‘work together’ with the fascist Trump.”

On the other hand, the front page of the inimitable New York Post was adorned with an oversized heart and the words, “I Love You, Mam.” And The Atlantic hit on something in an article entitled, “Why Donald Trump Seems Taken With Zohran Mamdani,” speculating that “The president likes winners.” The left-wing site continued, seemingly as dazed at the shocking reversal of tone and expectations as those on the right: “… there was Uncle Donnie seated behind his desk in the Oval Office, beaming as his favorite nephew, Zohran, stood by his right shoulder looking dutiful.”

The Common Roots of Populism

But there was an underlying reality to their meeting that goes deeper. Trump is not a doctrinaire conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, or a neoconservative like John McCain or Mitt Romney. He is a populist who has changed the course of the Republican Party on issues ranging from so-called free trade, which he has thrown overboard, to entitlements, most of which he is intent on protecting at all costs.

Populism is unlike any other political philosophy – because it is not really a philosophy at all, especially when you consider that politicians on both sides of the aisle embrace the populist label. It is an expedient bow to whatever concerns happen to be most urgent for Americans at any particular time. Thus, the cost of living can be equally prominent for a Trump or a Mamdani, even if they come to the problem from opposite perspectives. An amusing anecdote from the time of Trump’s first run for the White House is illustrative.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, my wife and I would have great fun sitting at a public gathering or airport and watching closely when guys who looked like rebels, complete with long hair and unconventional dress, walked by. We would then speculate about the person’s likely political preference. It was always one question: Is he for Trump or Bernie? As it turned out, a significant number of rebellious voters who supported Sanders in that year’s Democratic primary pulled the lever for Trump in the general election, attracted by their common populism. Similarly, despite the dramatically different worldviews of the president and mayor-elect, some 10% of New Yorkers who voted for Trump in 2024 pivoted to Mamdani this November.

Maybe these two men simply found common ground in their love for the nation’s greatest city. Perhaps both realized they have more to gain than lose with their newfound “partnership.” Or it could be that they discovered something else in common that, for better or worse, defies comfortable ideological labels: populism.