Not too long ago, there was a general consensus across the political spectrum that Andrew Cuomo was unacceptable for public service. During his term as governor of New York, he implemented policies that contributed to the deaths of many elderly individuals by mandating that nursing homes take in patients infected with the coronavirus. He also backed bail “reform” efforts that many believed would result in dangerous individuals being released onto the streets. And then, after years of positioning himself as a champion against sexism, he stepped down in shame following allegations of inappropriate behavior towards a female staff member.
One might have thought that was the final chapter of his political journey. But, surprisingly, it turns out it wasn’t.
The support Cuomo is now receiving from elements of the conservative establishment suggests a troubling trend in protecting the interests of its failed elites.
Cuomo is now running for mayor of New York City, with unexpected endorsements from conservative figures. Prominent media platforms, influential donors, and personalities from Fox News are encouraging voters to back him in the upcoming election on November 4. Their reasoning? They argue that his opponent, Zoran Mamdani, poses an even greater threat.
The “lesser evil” endorsed by the elite
Mamdani, who identifies as a socialist and has expressed support for Hamas, is indeed viewed by many as an extremist. However, the panic surrounding him has provided a convenient rationale for the political elite to revive Cuomo’s image. Some experts have warned that electing Mamdani, described as a pro-Hamas and pro-LGBTQ Marxist from Uganda, could provoke violence against the Jewish community in the city.
This week, amid continued discussions, influential donors like Bill Acker and prominent figures, including Manhattan Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, urged voters to choose Cuomo as an alternative to Mamdani. Shortly thereafter, Catsimatidis, another major donor, told Republicans to get on board and support Cuomo.
It’s almost comically cynical. Long-time Democrats and media magnates are now positioning Cuomo as a necessary guardian of civilization, simply because they find Mamdani even more displeasing.
The moral decline of the New York Post
In what can only be described as a low point, the New York Post expressed support for Cuomo while belittling his competitor, Curtis Sliwa, who has been a longtime advocate against crime in New York’s subway system.
The editorial went so far as to label Sliwa as “eccentric” and lacking experience for a role as significant as running the city government. It also dismissed his animal rights activism as further evidence of his oddity.
The Post’s editorials are baffling. What exactly is meant by “shady past”? The piece doesn’t clarify, perhaps because Sliwa’s record pales in comparison to Cuomo’s history. The editorial board, which had scorned Cuomo as unworthy of power, is now scrambling to support him while claiming that only extreme policies are available.
Failing to consider real alternatives
The irony here is that New Yorkers had a solid choice from the outset. Sliwa, a Reagan Republican with populist inclinations, narrowly trailed Cuomo in the primaries and campaigned on a platform focused on restoring safety reminiscent of Fiorello LaGuardia in the 1930s. This theme could have united voters across different affiliations.
Yet, city elites opted to align themselves with a familiar insider. Cuomo had been among their social circle; Sliwa, on the other hand, was viewed as a “weirdo” for talking openly about crime. He didn’t play the mainstream political game, which seemed to alienate him from the establishment.
Now with Mamdani leading in the polls, the very elite who once condemned Cuomo are in a state of panic, proclaiming Cuomo as the last defense against disorder. The New York Post has gone to great lengths to rebrand him as essential, seemingly ignoring its own previous editorial denouncing his corruption.
What the election indicates
Mamdani’s comments about Israel and his alignment with Hamas are alarming, but that doesn’t grant him authority over foreign policy. His real threat lies in his domestic agenda, which aims to dismantle the remnants of police protection in New York—a mission that began under Cuomo when cash bail was abolished.
If Mamdani prevails, chaos could ensue. Conversely, a victory for Cuomo could mean even more severe consequences. It would signal to the ruling class that maintaining power is preferable to seeking accountability, as long as the right individuals remain in control.
The support for Cuomo from the conservative establishment reveals a concerning pattern of allowing failed elites to continue their influence. Under the banner of combating the left, we appear to be rewarding those who have, in many ways, caused significant turmoil.
New Yorkers don’t have to choose between extreme ideologies or corrupt figures. They could have opted for someone genuinely invested in the welfare of ordinary citizens, but they didn’t. As a result, the city may face the very chaos and decline it once vowed to prevent.
