“We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.”
—Zohran Mamdani‘s marathon victory speech on Election Night, after the Democratic Socialist (that is, Communist) was elected as New York City’s mayor.
A commenter asked my opinion regarding Mamdani’s speech and I demurred, because it was standard commie tripe that I’ve read and heard from everyone from Lenin to Castro, and now this guy. He speaks well, and I’m always in favor of that as a key leadership skill. So did David Koresh. However, as I kept seeing that quote being published by the disgracefully uncritical mainstream media, my inner Popeye scratched to get out (“It’s all I can stands, ’cause I can’t stands no more!”) Who does he think he’s kidding?
Perhaps more importantly, what is the proper reaction to any American who wasn’t raised in a cave who doesn’t hear that insane claim and conclude, “Oh, brother! So much for that guy. He’s either lying, ignorant or a moron”? At very least it’s “RUN AWAY!”
Saying you will prove that “there is no problem too large for government to solve” is exactly like saying you will prove that the Moon landing was faked, that the Earth is flat, or the Helen Keller moonlighted as an auctioneer. There are a few things that the government must do, and the record shows that it is stunningly wasteful, inefficient and frequently corrupt at doing those things. That record spans hundreds of years, multiple government al theories and every spot on the globe. This is fact. People who talk like Mamdani also have an impressive record of killing people, because one of the factors that helps government be even more inefficient than it is normally is dissent.
Democrats and progressives are amazing in their current mutated form, soaked in denial and hypocrisy. The same people who engaged in the useless and infantile “No Kings” demonstrations turned around and voted for a guy who claims that a powerful, all-knowing, all-fixing benevolent government is the ticket to paradise, Utopia, and Oz. But basic history and government theory teaches us that such a government only exists, and then only a short while, under the thumb of a brilliant, benevolent, skilled monarch or the equivalent. Inevitably that monarch/ Wise Man/ dictator snaps, dies or is over-thrown whereupon he is succeeded by less trustworthy despots, and then it’s chaos and ruin. Has Mamdani really never read, heard or learned that power corrupts? Have all the fools who voted for this silver-tonged con artist never encountered that eternal wisdom either?
Well, never mind: they are about to learn it, good and hard. These are some other immutable principles confirmed both in theory and practice:
- Big government is expensive, untrustworthy and inefficient.
- It wastes money and presumed to spend citizens’ hard earned cash better than they will.
- Such governments rely on ever-expanding bureaucracies.
- Bureaucracies attract mediocre minds with middling skills whose primary goal is to protect their jobs.
- Power corrupts.
- Any leader who says he or she can solve all problems is lying or delusional.
What did I think of Mamdani’s speech? It reminded me of this:
Ethics Alarms 
“Standard commie tripe” sounds a lot like something FDR would say.
Interesting.
the quotation is incredibly scary.
basically, he is saying that there is no problem that government should stay out of.
it does not acknowledge any limit on government
it can intrude on anything
-Jut
Here the following clip is most appropriate:
It’s worse than that.
Mandami cloaks himself in the mantle of “Democratic Socialist,” a/k/a communist, but his prior statements make clear that his true allegiance is towards radical Islam.
One of the precepts of Islam is taquiyya. Click that link to learn more. In modern usage, particularly the Wahiibist/Muslim Brotherhood interpretation, it means that Muslims can lie with impunity in order to further their goal.
Their goal is world domination. And if you track this stuff – I do – they make no bones about it.
Am I concerned about Putin and Russia? Somewhat. Am I concerned about China and its designs on Taiwan? Yes, more so.
But these threats pale in comparison to radical Islam, from my perspective. Right now, thank God, the Muslim world isn’t competent and producing much more than babies.
But they’re producing a LOT of babies – in Germany, in France, in the UK, in Michigan, and elsewhere. The Doors noted in the song Five to One that “They got the guns. We got the numbers.”
Who knew that the Muslim Brotherhood took inspiration from Jim Morrison?
“No one here gets out alive“
Had those same words come out of Trump’s mouth, this would be front page of the Times as “proof” that he is a capital-T Tyrant. A common progressive trope is “it’s good when we do it, but bad when you do.” My only hope is people recognize this dishonesty and punish it at the voting booth (but this past week doesn’t engender much hope).
PWS
The guy is just a mish mash of lefty thoughts of all flavors. His acceptance speech reads as if it’s a final exam essay or undergraduate thesis for a political science degree. It’s as if the electorate has elected a theoretician as the chief city executive. It’s as if he’s saying, “Hey! Listen to this cool stuff I just read in a book!” Or perhaps more accurately, “on Wikipedia!”
“We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.”
OK Mamdani, solve the problems of the general public’s dependency on government subsidies and state government’s reliance on the federal government for things that are its own responsibilities.
The morning after this glib, charismatic, handsome, rabid anti-Semitic zealot (oops, he’s not anti-Semitic, but “anti-Zionist” … sorry( was elected—1 in 3 Jews voted for him, though not my NYC family) I thought of Mencken: “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Good luck Gotham.
“We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.”
This statement is stupid enough that I consider it signature significance.
Arguably, it almost makes sense that there’s no problem too large for government to solve, but it would be more precise to assert that there’s no problem too large for people to solve (which I happen to agree with, but even I think it’s beyond the purview of a politician to officially assert something so absolutely optimistic). Government just the process of establishing and enforcing rules if the solutions people come up with need those in order to work, or to protect them from interference.
I kept trying to imagine a proof that no concern is too small for the government to care about, but my examples stopped being “too small.” E.g., a specific person’s hangnail is too small for the government to care about–that’s the individual’s responsibility. However, if enough people care about preventing hangnails, maybe the government could create an agency that somehow stops all hangnails without causing other problems. A that point, though, the problem is clearly big enough for many people, and therefore the government, to care about. It still requires a sufficient number of people being seriously concerned for the government to step in. Unless we think it’s feasible for the government to assign a social worker to each person to help them with all their little discomforts, it seems pretty clear that small problems should be handled by individuals, friends, family, and community engagement.
That’s how much work I had to do to make that statement not sound completely ridiculous. Politicians should not say things that many steps away from making sense. Pity, I was hoping from what I’d heard about Mamdani earlier that he was standing up for legitimate concerns of the people regarding the government and the economy, but it sounds like he’s yet another politician pandering to people’s biases to seize power.
Comment of the Day.
Thanks, Jack!
When you repost it, would you mind fixing a typo? The last sentence of the first large paragraph should start with “Government is just the process…” but the “is” got lost in the shuffle. Thanks!
Of course.
Excellent points, EC.
I would only add that the free markets, possessing (comparatively) unregulated smart people eager to make a buck, are in a better position to solve many problems if it can figure out how to do so profitably.
Exhibit A: Big Pharma.
Pfizer made a mint by marketing the first dick stiffener. They owned the space for several years before Cialis came on the market. There are generics nowadays, but Pfizer fattened many a 401K – and institutional stockeholder.
Viagra was originally marketed as a drug to treat several circulatory issues. It was primarily used in hospitals, where nurses noted that patients receiving it often had woodies during their rounds. Word got back.
I learned this from my PCP 20 years ago in Maine, when he was doing his workup. He was going through the routine and asked a question about sexual health, and I said “I don’t need Viagra.”
This guy and I weren’t close friends, but we knew and liked each other out side of work and were on a first-name basis (I now insist on first-name basis with my PCPs. Makes things more human).
He chuckled, and told me the story of its discovery. When I mentioned I was a bit aghast at how an already-approved drug was being re-marketed for a different purpose, and an extremely high price, he offered this thought:
“You’re a marketer. Every marketer wants to sell more product at the best margin possible. Right?”
“Right.”
“Okay, so there are maybe half a dozen reasons why guys 40+ can’t get it up. High blood pressure is a biggie. So is depression. Alcohol abuse is another.” And he mentioned the remainder. “So,” he said, “one could easily argue that the availability of Viagra is sending a lotta guys who would NEVER go to the doctor otherwise to do so, where the underlying causes are discovered, and they get the Viagra but they also get the meds that will bring their blood pressure down before they stroke out. You could argue that selling Viagra is actually saving lives.”
“Do YOU argue that?”
“No. Pfizer also sells the leading meds for blood pressure, depression, alcohol abuse, and the rest. Guys come in because they can’t get laid. They get the Viagra, and about seven hundred bucks a month of other drugs.”