Understanding Identity Politics

The term “identity politics” often carries ambiguous and, at times, negative connotations—akin to that of “wokeness.” It has become associated with superficial appeals based on race or identity markers that neglect broader socio-economic realities. Critics argue that modern interpretations focus too much on visibility rather than pursuing universal goals like alleviating poverty or mobilizing a diverse coalition of voters.

Yet, the roots of identity politics reach back to its definition by the Combahee River Collective in 1977, which framed it as a means for liberation. By recognizing that various systems of oppression affect people differently based on their identities, the collective argued for a collaborative dismantling of those systems. They noted, “the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity,” emphasizing the intertwining of race, class, and gender oppression.

Mamdani’s Campaign Strategy

Mamdani’s campaign exemplified the conceptual underpinning of identity politics. He rooted his messaging in the lived experiences of New Yorkers—highlighting issues like affordability, rent control, and universal childcare. His outreach included campaign materials in Urdu, Hindi, Spanish, and Arabic, each delivering a consistent economic message aimed at making New York a better place to raise families and start small businesses. This linguistic inclusivity served as a form of enfranchisement for often-overlooked communities.

In his victory speech, he poignantly quoted the Arabic phrase ana minkum wa alaikum—”I am of you and for you”—intentionally acknowledging those “forgotten by the politics of our city,” thereby reinforcing a sense of community and belonging among various ethnicities.

A Coalition of the Marginalized

Mamdani’s approach emphasized connecting with working-class individuals, many of whom belong to marginalized communities. By engaging directly with those who labor under difficult circumstances, he championed a political narrative grounded in solidarity and collective struggle. During a recent incident where he faced heckling regarding his position on Gaza, Mamdani’s response was telling. Instead of asserting his authority like many establishment politicians, he looked to build bridges: “I want you to be able to afford this city too, my brother.”

The Broader Implications for Democracy in America

Mamdani’s campaign illustrates a model of identity politics that is inherently generative. Rather than seeking personal elevation within the system, he and his coalition view their shared identities as a foundation for unifying various groups against systemic injustices. This collective empowerment is crucial for closing the gap between people and power.

His message resonates across demographic lines—from college-educated families grappling with rising childcare costs to immigrant workers struggling to pay rent. Ironically, Mamdani captures the ideals of the American “melting pot” by representing a diverse, immigrant-driven community that collectively recognizes systemic failures. The opposition he faced, both from conservative circles and his own party, highlights a long-standing detachment within American liberal politics from the needs of the people.