Never mind the political significance of last night’s pretty much nationwide Democratic Party sweep of the major state and local elections: The password is “ethics,” as they used to whisper on Allen Ludden’s classic TV game show. So let’s look at the ethics…
Observations:
1. The fact that New York City’s Democrats proved themselves both ignorant and cursed with a short- and long-term memory problem raises the issue of civic competence. Do they not recall that two mayors ago that were saddled with an arrogant, socialist mayor with an openly communist wife whose regime was disastrous? Mayor De Blasio was moderation personified compared to new mayor Zohran Mamdani. I don’t see how the city can avoid being thrown back into the Bad Ol’ Days of David Dinkins and Abe Beame, but regarding that danger most of Mamdani’s fuzzy-cheeked voters would probably respond “Who”?
His election is the culmination of several failures. First, the city’s public schools, which do not teach the logical fallacies behind socialism and communism, preferring to dwell on the sins of our own nation. Nor do they teach sufficient critical thinking skills so that rising generations can recognize a demagogue huckster when one appears. (Another “Who?”: Huey Long).
Second, both political parties. Neither was able to find a competent, trustworthy, credentialed candidate to oppose the Muslim communist, and in a city as large and culturally vibrant as New York City, that is amazing to me. Cuomo had to resign his last elected office because he broke the law and killed people during the pandemic. Mayor Eric Adams had revealed himself as a weak, corrupt, failure. Curtis Sliwa ran as a has-been bordering on a never-was. The Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man might have been able to be elected mayor with those losers opposing them.
Third, the two-party system. When a state (like California) or a city (like New York) has just one viable party, disaster is likely: that party becomes arrogant and irresponsible. Toxic mutations result as it concludes, “Hell, we can win with anybody!”
2. One theme that emerged from the progressives and Democrats last night was “Ethics? We don’t need no stinkin’ ethics!” In Virginia, an attorney general was elected despite endorsing violence and murder as legitimate political strategy. Sure, he said he was sorry and that somehow the Demon Pazuzu made him do it, but his comments were emphatic and not even made to a close friend who might know when he was just joshing. It’s signature significance, and his was the embrace of violence increasingly normal in a party where so many members cheered the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Democratic voters just didn’t care.
3.They also didn’t care that their new governor revealed herself as a coward with some disturbing ethics blind spots. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems troubling that a vocal advocate for killing the unborn also refused to distance herself from the man running with her who advocated murdering the young children of Republicans.
4. Virginia Democrats also demonstrated epic hypocrisy. The DEI party rejected the bid of a qualified—being Lt. Governor is justly considered good training for the top job— black woman (who would have been the state’s first female governor and only its second black governor) in favor of a candidate with no executive experience at all.
5. As I wrote earlier, the ad Spanberger dropped in the waning days of the campaign painting Sears as raging witch (the ad was titled “Wicked”) would have been condemned as racist had a Republican offered it. I felt that it appealed, intentionally, to racist tropes when I first saw the thing. Here it is again…
It is fair to blame Sears and her advisors for the candidate occassionally appearing so frightening in public appearances, perhaps, but that is hard to avoid for any candidate.
4. New Jersey voters also did not care about their new governor’s lies. Last month an Ethics Alarms post asked, “Question: Will Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill’s Dual Military Scandals Cost Her Any Democratic Votes in the NJ Governor’s Race?” The answer apparently was “no.” It was more fun to vote on pure hate for Donald Trump, which was the core of Sherrill’s platform.
I had written in part,
]L]ike Tim “Knucklehead” Walz, she has claimed to have held a higher rank than she actually had. In more than 20 fundraising appeals during her time in Congress, her campaign referred to her as a retired lieutenant commander. Sherrill’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty form states otherwise: she retired from the service as a lieutenant. Sherrill attended the United States Naval Academy and served in the Navy until 2003. She was nominated for the rank of lieutenant commander, but was never confirmed. Never mind: she’s been advertising herself at the higher rank ever since. In 2021, Sort-of President Joe Biden referred to Sherrill as “lieutenant commander” during public remarks in her state, and Sherrill quietly accepted the promotion. Democrats apparently don’t care about their elected officials lying about their military records….
[A]nother scandal involving Sherrill’s military background emerged. Rep. Sherrill was not allowed to walk with her graduating class at the US Naval Academy and her name was struck from the commencement program as punishment for her involvement in a massive cheating scandal involving 130 midshipmen in her class. She had violated the school’s honor code by knowing about her classmates cheating and not reporting them. Naturally, Sherrill is spinning this as a good thing: you know, nobody likes a “rat.” But the reality is that she had pledged to follow an ethics code and deliberately defied it.
The voters’ response: ‘Whatever! Everybody does it. No harm, no foul. As long as she hates the President of the United States, she’s good to go.’
5. The Democrats will doubtless take last night’s results as validating their absolutely indefensible government shutdown. You know, because the ends justify the means.
6. None of this would have unfolded in quite the same way, I am certain, without a corrupt journalism sector that has totally abdicated the duty of its profession in favor of partisan propaganda. I am more convinced than ever that the Republic will not function efficiently or engender responsible citizenship until there is news media commitment to fair, objective, responsible, unbiased and honest communication to the public of what it needs to know to make intelligent decisions about their governance. There has been some progress toward that end this year, but not nearly enough.
Ethics Alarms 
Does not the Julie Principle apply?
It is New Joisey.
Whew! What to make of cheating at the military academies? And the people involved are not dismissed? What’s the theory on that? Too much sunk cost to let them walk out the door? Instead, they’re put in charge of troops and sailors and airmen and weapon systems where they will be relied upon to give accurate reports on all kinds of things, including their and their peers’ performance?
Is there a Delta House at Annapolis?
Any thoughts on Mamdani’s victory speech, Jack?
It’s LONG: Transcript: Zohran Mamdani’s Historic Victory Speech – November 4, 2025 – The Singju Post
Two observations: He says he’s going to fix up public housing and hire more teachers. Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian has been all over the massive financial boondoggle that is NYC public housing. The buildings are unrepairable and in need of billions of federal dollars. And he wants to confront Trump. Menton has also harped continuously on the fact the NYC schools are already the most expensive to run and among the least effective in the country.
Menton is a beacon of light in a very blacked out New York City.
Heh. When Mamdani is inaugurated, he’s going to be shocked to find that he can’t mandate all these promises.
But hey, I hope he runs the city into the ground. You should get exactly what you voted for, and everybody knows they just voted for and inexperienced communist jihadist with a smile as big as his trust fund.
I’ll offer a prediction for you, New Yorkers — Pain.
Super interesting analysis of Mamdani that explains his speech: What the Right Gets Wrong About Zohran Mamdani He’s a Third Worlder, much like Obama is. I’m surprised this author doesn’t mention Obama. Why are all these foreigners being elevated in American politics. The Algerian rebellion against France is determining elections in New York City seventy years later?
Interesting article OB
Perhaps the US should focus its humanitarian efforts on western culture so as not to be thought of as an oppressor. If we do for others we do not allow them to do for themselves and they become slaves of dependency.
For those in the US who believe that the landlord is cast as the oppressor and the tenant the oppressed all that is needed is to eliminate the housing subsidies that keep rents high. The same is true for health care subsidies and all sorts of other government benefits
Much of my comments are designed to be satirical but if one is being cast as an imperialist or colonizer the rules must apply to all and therefore our borders should be immediately closed to all third world and those here now should be repatriated back to their homelands where they are no longer oppressed because we will leave them to their own devices.
If colonization is an evil why do so many seek to colonize the cities and towns of America? I wonder how Jean Paul Sartre would answer that question.
Someone once opined that the problem with the Third World wasn’t too much colonization but too little.
When Jamaica was recently obliterated by a hurricane, did they ask Hamas or Tehran or the Saudis or even the UK for aid? Nope. They dialed up the good old U S of A.
Does not Jamaica have a king?
What is the ethical position to take regarding out of state fundraising for candidates when we bar foreign donors from influencing elections?
A governor’s race/mayor/legislative or even a federal office holder is to represent the will of the people in a given state. Funding from non-residents to help another state’s candidate win through overwhelming the opponents fundraising capacity is no different than having Russian nationals come to the US to buy Internet ads that promote one candidate over another.
The free speech argument seems to be one sided insofar as we prosecuted Americans for taking Russian money for ad buys so whose speech is being protected here.
If you want to clean up elections and let them be the true will of the people of that state we should bar out of state donations to specific candidates. I see no problem if individuals want to donate to the party of choice but they cannot stipulate to which candidate that money is earmarked.
I am open to having my mind changed but I won’t buy the free speech argument when a foreign national residing in the US will be prosecuted for making campaign donations and that individuals are limited to a given amount for their own state candidates.
As for the outcomes of the elections I hope that the costs of the choices fall massively upon those voting for a given candidate.
It’s a great question for discussion. I believe that every citizen (and company) has a stake in having a successful, competent government at all levels and in all states. You must agree that having rogue states (like California) affects everyone.I also am convinced that the right to publish opinions about the governance of all parts of the U.S. includes the right to express one’s beliefs through contributions.
Jack You said, “I believe that every citizen (and company) has a stake in having a successful, competent government at all levels and in all states.”
If that is the case why are those citizens not allowed to vote in those elections? That argument could be extended to people outside this country given the interconnectedness of global activity. Don’t German, Russian, Chinese or any other nation’s citizens have an interest in what our policies we have that can impact them such as nuclear proliferation, climate issues, or tariffs and want good leadership here too? Shouldn’t they have the right to voice their opinions through political contributions here just like US citizens? If not, what is the difference between citizens of a sovereign nation and those of sovereign states. I thought the entire concept of sovereignty was based on the idea that the citizen of a sovereign entity had exclusive rights of self determination devoid of external influences in their internal electoral processes. Which is what I am arguing for.
It seems to me that if we all have the “right to publish opinions about the governance of all parts of the U.S. includes the right to express one’s beliefs through contributions” then there should be no limit on how much any one person can contribute directly to a specific candidate. How can you say that a 100 wealthy people in California can contribute $2500 each to a candidate in Virginia because they have an interest in “good governance” (while not being subject to the taxation or rules imposed within that state) when a Virginia resident cannot donate $250,000 that will be needed to rebut the outsider’s opinions to another more favored candidate who will impose direct governance on that person?
Many times the issue of advocacy journalism has been discussed here and is regularly deemed irresponsible and detrimental to good governance. How can we say that if those private entities are not entitled to publish their opinions based on what they deem is “good competent governance if any other state’s citizens or corporation can give cash to buy media time to express their opinions? The news media is not regulated to give balanced coverage. We have just given them the right to say whatever they want based on the opinions of the editorial staff and those opinions are not designed to enlighten readers they are to sell their product.
My argument is that if states are to be the laboratories of policy then the experiments done there must not be contaminated with outside funding that pushes one ideology or interpretation of outcomes.
If that is the case why are those citizens not allowed to vote in those elections? That argument could be extended to people outside this country given the interconnectedness of global activity.
Reductio ad absudum. Contributing to a campaign shows interest and support, but is far short of the influence conveyed by actual voting. Your premise begins with a flawed assumption: campaign contributions are far from decisive, as Harris’s campaign proved spectacularly. While elections in places other than where we live can indeed have an important effect on our well-being, those whose lives are most affected should obviously be the direct determiners of who makes and executes the laws. They are the primary stakeholders. Similarly, there is clearly a strong line between domestic donors (Ok) and foreign stakeholders (too ripe for abuse and a bridge too far).
I hope you understand that I went on the extreme to make a comparison. While campaign contributions are far from decisive they do allow one message to drown out a less well financed one. I agree that no amount of money can save a weak candidate ( or campaigner such as Sears) but when the differences are based on policy and not campaign ability it can influence the outcome. Whether Sears would have been better for Virginia than Spanberger will not be known but as you know that election was not decided on policy it was decided on a hate Trump vote in the heavily populated counties of Northern Virginia where many derive their relatively higher incomes from big government who finance anything that keeps them feeding at the trough. The monied interests in keeping the leviathan of the federal government growing from around the country will swamp most candidates. I certainly hope that the ladies of Arlington, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties enjoy showering with men and their dangly parts at the gym because they just voted for that.
Jack blames (in part) “the city’s public schools, which do not teach the logical fallacies behind socialism and communism, preferring to dwell on the sins of our own nation. Nor do they teach sufficient critical thinking skills so that rising generations can recognize a demagogue huckster when one appears.”
But actually, Cuomo and Sliwa won 58% of voters without a college degree but were overwhelmed by the 57% of voters with college degrees who voted for Mamdani. Cuomo and Sliwa also won 60% of voters who were actually born in NYC but Mamdani swamped them by winning 58% of voters born elsewhere.
So it would be more accurate to say that voters whose education was solely in the city’s public schools saw through Mamdani and were his staunchest opponents, while voters educated elsewhere were the suckers who couldn’t recognize the demogogue huckster.
Greg,
I believe you are making Jack’s argument about what is being taught. It is in post secondary institutions where logic and economic systems are explored. To some degree, children in K-12 are indoctrinated on some specific issues like climate change and human rights but it isn’t until college that the idealism of youth is exploited to secure political power. You cannot teach logic to children in K-12 or they will be likely to push back on some of arguments made by professors in post-secondary institutions. Can’t have that.
Those with fewer academic credentials (not to be confused with the uneducated) have experienced life that comes from having to interact in the real world and by having real obligations for their own well being. These are the ones not borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars so that they can avoid being an adult for a few more years and still be able to eat, socialize, and have a roof over their head without having to get up in the wee hours of the morning to go to work 5-6 days per week. The academically uncredentialled are the ones who have learned lessons through direct experience and have paid for that learning themselves when they make mistakes. When you learn the hard way you rarely make the same mistake twice.
Last week the Republicans were not on their best political game, due to the distraction (if that is the correct word) caused by Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes. Megan Kelly mentioned on her podcast that the GOP needs to get their act together if they want to win elections, referring to this Tucker Carlson debacle.
My impression is that there is a big issue lurking in the cohort of Gen Z males that voted for Trump in the election of 2024. Many of these males have a very bleak outlook on their future, are not yet successful in live (employment, finances, dating), are opposed to both the negative messaging presented by feminism but also by blue-pilled messaging in evangelical churches, are not historically literate due to poor public education, tend to dwell in unsound internet rabbit-holes (incel websites, gurus like Andrew Tate, groypers like Nick Fuentes), and are willing to vote for anyone who upsets the status quo. Donald Trump in 2024 was the one who upset the status quo, and Donald Trump was willing to go on podcasts not known for traditional conservatism like Theo Von and Joe Rogan (who voted for Bernie Sanders in a previous election). Today, Mamdani is the candidate who upsets the status quo. In other words, the Gen Z vote is very fickle. The Gen Z Trump voters also tends to be more anti-Israel than the average GOP voter, and it would not surprise me that there some of the Mamdani voters were Trump voters in 2024. It also highlights that the GOP has been caught by surprise by Tucker Carlson at a vulnerable moment, and they still have to find out how to deal with the fact that the younger generation of the Trump voters have ideas that are very politically incorrect, and taboo with the older MAGA voters.
Ben Shapiro mentioned Marjorie Taylor Greene as a guest on the view being wildly off message. With the slim GOP margins in the house this is a problem. The GOP has an issue with a) message discipline b) quality of representatives in Congress.
The Republicans / MAGA conservatives were caught off guard by the election results, and the margins by which they were swept by the Democrats. They expected a Charlie Kirk bonus after AG Elect Jay Jones horrendous statements. However many who voted for Trump did not turn out to vote for Sears as Trump did not warmly endorse her by name, and Sears might not be considered reliably MAGA.
Trump did not have coattails in 2024, and combined with the election results two days ago, this does not augur well for the GOP in the midterms.
The news isn’t all bad. Nancy Bug Eyes is finally retiring.
I saw that this morning. Yahoo! News ran a story with a photo of Nancy swinging a cocktail all about. Very subtle, Yahoo! Subtle, indeed.
jvb
If you call Pelosi “Bug Eyes,” what is AOC???
Sandy Bumblebee lips?