Contrary to the common advice given for how to maintain a polite conversation, it seems talking about money, in concrete, specific terms, is in fact key to building relationships of trust. 

That should be the takeaway for anybody who paid any attention to a certain mayoral race that came to its head south of the border last week. 

Zohran Mamdani was voted in as the next mayor of New York City, defeating opponents Andrew Cuomo (who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary in June) and Republican Curtis Sliwa with 50.4 per cent of the city’s vote on Nov. 4.  

Mamdani, a 34-year-old Muslim man who just a year earlier was an unknown New York state assemblymen, brought out the city’s largest voter turnout in some 50 years, thanks in large part to a campaign that saw over 100,000 volunteers hit the streets and the phones to tell low and middle class New Yorkers about three important ways Mamdani would help make their city more affordable to live in. 

A rent freeze, important in a city where the majority of its residents are tenants. Fast and free public transportation. And free childcare for families before their kids enter the public school system. 

How does he propose to pay for it? Tax the super-rich – the wealthiest one per cent of New Yorkers who earn over $1 million a year – and raise the corporate tax rate. 

It’s a strategy that many on the political left have heralded, but has rarely won an election. At least not in North America. Surprising given the simplicity of the concept. There are people in this world who make a lot of money, almost always thanks to cheap labour performed by the working class. So some of this money should be used to make the lives of the working class more manageable, more dignified. But on Nov. 4, this strategy landed for at least half of New Yorkers. 

The specific policies Mamdani pitched to help make life affordable for New York residents have limited relevance to life in the Pontiac. New York City is about as different from Pontiac as can be. 

But the lesson remains the same. Talk about money. Mamdani spoke about affordability in concrete terms. He found a way to understand and articulate three core costs that if eliminated or reduced, would drastically improve quality of life for the majority of New Yorkers. 

It is common for politicians to speak about the affordability crisis, and to promise various measures they claim will alleviate it, at least in part. What is less common is the razor sharp focus with which Mamdani spoke of how exactly he would make life more affordable. His vision was clear, and grounded in what he knew of the reality of the people whose votes he wanted to win. 

It’s something so-called “progressives” have struggled to do in recent years. Trump has done well on this front. He has an undeniable ability to identify pain, diagnose (often misplaced) causes of said pain, and prescribe a solution that suits his own agenda. 

“Progressives”, in turn, have not offered much other than defining themselves as not conservative. That was essentially the Democrats campaign in 2024. In Canada, the Liberal Party won the last election not because it found a way to present a positive vision for what it could offer Canadians, but instead by pitching itself as this country’s saviour and protector from the threats from the U.S.. And where was the New Democratic Party in all of this? Hard to say. Certainly not winning seats in the House of Commons. 

“I think for far too long we’ve tried not to lose, as opposed to figuring out how to win,” Mamdani told a reporter.

What a focused economic vision will look like for working- and middle-class people will differ from community to community. But what is important is that it is focused, prioritizes some changes over others, and speaks of how it’s going to fund these changes. 

Any political hopeful who campaigns on ideals, on a clear and courageous vision, if successful, will then be challenged with following through on this vision. That’s a lot of pressure, and will surely require compromise. Mamdani is already encountering this. But that is the reality of governing. To govern, though, one first has to get elected. Hopefully the next time voters are asked to support one party, one candidate, over another, they will be offered a positive, world-building vision to get behind.