Assume the Best: A Christian Response to the Panic Over Zohran Mamdani
When our rhetoric outruns reality, our witness shrinks
Christians should stop straw-manning our political opponents. Here’s a case study from yesterday’s NYC election.
On Tuesday, New York City elected Zohran Mamdani as its 111th mayor—a democratic socialist, not a communist—defeating Andrew Cuomo, who left office under multiple sexual-harassment findings from New York’s Attorney General. I’m not here to endorse Mamdani; if I were a New Yorker, I wouldn’t have voted for him in a crowded primary. In a general against Cuomo, I would have. Candidate quality matters, and character still counts.
What troubles me is not disagreement with Mamdani’s ideas—it’s the way some Christian leaders are talking about them. In a Instagram post yesterday, Gabe Lyons framed Mamdani’s win as a slide into authoritarianism by treating “socialism” as synonymous with communism and state oppression. That’s not intellectually serious, and it isn’t Christianly charitable. It’s a textbook straw man: attacking a caricature rather than the opponent’s best case.
Gabe’s post:
Socialism ≠ Communism ≠ Authoritarianism
Words matter. “Democratic socialism” and “social democracy” are not synonyms for “communist dictatorship.” You don’t have to like European policy mixes to recognize that countries like the UK, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy are liberal democracies with competitive elections, independent courts, and robust civil liberties. Economically, those nations rise and dip like other market democracies; none is a one-party police state, and several are posting perfectly ordinary growth trajectories for developed economies—i.e., “socialist = authoritarian collapse” is a lazy trope.
If Europe truly “hated freedom,” it’s odd that millions of Americans visit these countries every year without fearing secret police at the airport.
Steelmanning Is a Christian Discipline
Christians should model intellectual integrity—especially in public. Five quick practices:
State your opponent’s view so fairly they’d sign it.
Name where you agree before you disagree.
Critique the strongest version of their policy with evidence, not vibes.
Admit trade-offs on both sides.
Distinguish between rhetoric and what the officeholder can actually do.
Grounding texts to anchor the posture: James 1:19 (“quick to hear”), 1 Corinthians 13:7 (“believes all things”), Proverbs 18:17 (hear the other side), Exodus 20:16 (truth-telling), 1 Peter 3:15 (gentleness and respect).
What Mamdani Can—and Can’t—Do
Mamdani campaigned on affordability: rent freezes for rent-stabilized units, fare-free buses, expanded childcare, higher wages, and more housing. Some of that is symbol-heavy and structurally hard. For example, the mayor does not control state income-tax rates (Albany does), but he does appoint all nine members of the Rent Guidelines Board—how a rent freeze for rent-stabilized apartments could happen, subject to legal/economic constraints. Two honest takes can coexist:
Prudence skepticism: Parts of the agenda may falter or carry side effects.
Moral sympathy: The platform at least aims at real pain for families on rent, childcare, and transit.
It’s also fair to note that in long-form conversations Mamdani has moderated several positions and engaged opposing arguments in good faith. See Derek Thompson’s interview and podcast:
• Article:
The Cuomo Factor
If you’re going to scold New Yorkers for their choice, you have to mention the alternative. Cuomo’s pattern of misconduct isn’t a partisan rumor; it’s documented by the Attorney General and Assembly records. You may still prefer other candidates (so would I), but framing the decision as “freedom vs. tyranny” ignores the facts on the ground.
A Pastoral Ask to Christian Readers
Before we amplify panic, let’s check our witness. Are we speaking with truth and charity? Are we critiquing policies—or inventing monsters? If we want our neighbors to take Christian public engagement seriously, we must refuse straw men—even when they’re viral.
Try this discipline this week: when you share a political post, add two sentences: (1) the strongest version of the view you oppose, and (2) one concrete, cited reason you still disagree. That habit will change the temperature of our discourse more than a dozen spicy reels.