Words & Phrases We Could Do Without

"Better..." for whom?

Millionaire and billionaire New York financiers had a brainstorm: Raise $20M to block the election of Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani through an entity named, “New Yorkers for a Better Future Mayor 25.”

No, this is not a parody headline from The Onion, nor is it a sly trick by pro-Mamdani forces to underscore that he is on the side of the people, not on the side of the clueless oligarchy. Should these anti-Mamdani troops actually raise $20B, New Yorkers can get a twofer in electing Mamdani: ensure the moguls waste their money and get a mayor who has no allegiance to the super-rich.

In any event, the Orwellian-named “Better Future Mayor 25” combines all the creepiness of Project 2025 with the arrogant assumption that what is good for the wealthiest New Yorkers is good for New York. In other words, “Better” is doing a lot of work for the billionaire class.

‘Better,’ defined as either “of a more excellent or effective type or quality” or “partly or fully recovered from illness, injury, or mental stress; less unwell”—gets thrown around a lot in politics. But the operative question is, “Better for whom?”

Many in the anti-Mamdani crowd seem to think New York should re-elect Mayor Eric Adams. (If that is the case, a more honest name for the group would be “New Yorkers for the Same Thing Mayor 25.”) But it’s not clear that Adams is the man for those terrified of Mamdani. “[T]he anti-Mamdani bulwark lacks a positive message. And a candidate,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “And enough voters to win.” And some “worry the flood of outside money could backfire, and make voters suspicious of special interests.” No way!

In fairness, “better” might not necessarily equate to a preference for the continued tenure of a mayor indicted on five criminal counts of political corruption (charges later dismissed in the controversial “corrupt bargain” attempting to enlist Adams in Donald Trump’s dystopian, violent crackdown on migrants). After all, New York is not “better” under Adams when it comes to crime: “Total crime has increased every year under Adams,” Politico reports; while homelessness hit a 2-decade high last year. When it comes to affordability, New York is “facing a once-in-a-generation affordability crisis that has left roughly half of city households struggling to pay for basic necessities,” the New York Times reports. As for overall quality of life? “Only 34 percent of New Yorkers rate the city's quality of life excellent or good in 2025, a substantial decrease from 51 percent in 2017,” according to a recent survey.

The same billionaire class that complains about Mamdani’s lack of experience (Mamdani has been a New York state representative from Queens for four years) had no problem backing Michael Bloomberg, who had held no public office before his mayoral run in 2001, nor did said class object to Donald Trump in 2016. It’s almost as if they assume any White, male billionaire is “qualified,” or at the very least “better.”

The same crowd that collapses on the fainting couch upon hearing (albeit starry-eyed) campaign promises (e.g., free childcare, free buses, raising the minimum wage to $30) had no problem supporting a president who vowed to deport 11M people, balance the budget, end the Gaza and Ukraine wars on day one, end inflation, and take back the Panama Canal.

Perhaps it is Mamdani’s proposal for a flat 2% tax on millionaires or a crackdown on exploitative landlords and corporations that provoked their hysteria. In any event, they should know that whatever promises Mamdani made will inevitably run headlong into governing realities and the city council.

One can certainly take issue with Mamdani’s campaign promises that entail significant downsides; it is perfectly appropriate to grill candidates who seem to assume taxes can be raised without losing residents or corporations. And voters need to hear him respond to legitimate concerns about anti-Semitism. (Last time I checked, the mayor of New York is not a foreign policy position.)

However, the degree of panic evidenced by the super-rich underscores their anxiety that ordinary voters have had enough of condescending oligarchs. Their failure to find a viable, alternative candidate or platform makes clear that, in their lexicon, “better” means “keep the status quo so the rich get richer.”

By now, we should understand that when moguls’ purported public spiritedness precisely matches their economic self-interest, voters should be wary. Wealthy people can advance public policies that improve the lives of ordinary Americans (e.g., FDR, Warren Buffett), which often earns them the distinction of being “traitors to their class.” But if we have learned anything in recent years, it is that what is good for Elon Musk, Bill Ackman, Donald Trump, and Jeff Bezos is not necessarily (in fact, hardly ever is) good for America.

It should come as no surprise that New York voters wanting something “better” than non-stop scandal and yawning inequality would pick Mamdani. If more centrist Democrats had gotten behind someone other than Adams or disgraced former Andrew Cuomo, they might not now be grasping for straws. (One wonders why anyone should trust the judgment of political backers who stood behind either of those two.) Frankly, in light of the freak-out from the uber-rich, the clueless members of the New York state Democratic Party, and the “New Yorkers for a Better Future Mayor 25,” Mamdani might start to grow on previously skeptical voters.