When Family Members Also Show Rift — Resulting in Desperate Measures

When Family Members Also Show Rift — Resulting in Desperate Measures

In the life of a nation, as in the life of a ruling family, unity is never a luxury. It is a structural requirement for stable governance. A household divided—especially one that sits at the summit of state power—weakens institutions, invites opportunism, and endangers the collective well-being of the people. Today, the Philippines confronts a perilous spectacle: a ruling family ruptured from within. 

Speaking before a rally of Iglesia ni Cristo devotees assembled allegedly "against corruption in government" at the Quirino Grandstand Monday evening, the nation watched as Senator Imee Marcos publicly accused her own brother, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., of a supposed long-standing struggle with drug dependence. She went further, implicating the First Lady by asserting that his alleged condition had worsened because “they were both the same.” Her plea—“end your suffering and the suffering of the nation, come home and seek treatment”—was delivered in full public view. 

On its surface, such a statement may pass as maternal concern. Yet the timing, the political environment, and the public stage chosen reveal far more: a calculated blow presented as compassion, an internal strike shrouded in the language of moral intervention. 

Malacañang’s Firm Response 

The Presidential Communications Office, through Undersecretary Claire Castro, condemned the senator’s statements as a “desperate move” and demanded clarity regarding her motives. 

She noted that the rally in question was about alleged corruption—not personal attacks against the President. Her question cut directly into the controversy: “What reason does Senator Imee have to malign her own brother?” 

Castro reiterated the verified facts: President Marcos voluntarily underwent a drug test before the 2022 elections, with results confirmed negative by St. Luke’s Medical Center. She cited the official statement: “President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. did test negative for cocaine in 2021.” 

Her reminder of the senator’s selective outrage was pointed: “Why is she now concerned about alleged drug use when former President Duterte openly admitted to marijuana and fentanyl? She never called him out.” 

Thus, the claim of moral urgency collapses under the weight of political context. 

The Political Context of 2025 

This breakdown within the ruling family did not emerge from chance or emotion. Its roots lie in the political maneuvers surrounding the 2025 elections. Senator Marcos withdrew from the coalition supported by her brother—the Alyansa para sa Bagong Pilipinas (Alliance for the New Philippines)—shortly after the government surrendered former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court. Long known as a staunch Duterte ally, she repositioned herself almost immediately, securing the endorsement of Vice President Sara Duterte, with whom President Marcos had already experienced a profound political rupture.

The pattern reflects calculation rather than conscience. It is a familiar choreography in Philippine politics: ambition clothed in the language of concern, rivalry disguised as duty. Her decision did more than create a split within the ruling family—it fractured the loyalist bloc itself. The once-unified constituency that had supported both Marcos and Duterte in 2016 found itself divided, with many choosing to align with the former president out of sentiment, grievance, or ideological convenience. Some even rationalized this pivot as an act of “true loyalism,” arguing that Senator Imee’s siding with the Dutertes carried greater legitimacy precisely because she bore the Marcos name.

Such a realignment reveals the deeper truth: this was not a moral stand but a political wager, executed in full awareness of its consequences for both family and nation..

The Son’s Response: A Defiant Stand for Family and State 

If the senator intended to weaken her brother, she underestimated the resolve of the President’s immediate family. House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos responded with clarity and firmness. 

He expressed sorrow over the senator’s descent into fabrication: “It pains me to see how low she has gone, resorting to a web of lies aimed at destabilizing this government to advance her political ambitions.” 

He called the allegations dangerously irresponsible, noting that they now targeted not just the President and First Lady, but himself and even younger family members. The betrayal was personal as well as political: “We always agreed that whatever happened between our parents, we would not drag ourselves into it. For her to betray her own family brings me great sadness.” 

He delivered the final judgment with unequivocal severity: “This is not the behavior of a true sister.” 

The Lesson for the Nation 

History has repeatedly shown that divided leadership results in weakened governance. When a family entrusted with power fractures, the consequences extend far beyond private grievances—weakening state structures, emboldening opportunists, and attracting foreign exploitation. 

Senator Imee Marcos’s accusations were not an act of familial concern. They were a deliberate escalation of political conflict, concealed beneath the language of public duty. Her alignment with the Duterte bloc intensifies the implications. 

Yet nevertheless, this rift does not erase a deeper reality: the members of this ruling family swore to uphold an order that has long been corroded. As the late Senator José Avelino once remarked, there are “Good Crooks” and “Bad Crooks” within the bureaucracy—if not within society as a whole. This maxim, cynical yet accurate, illuminates the present moment: internal strife does not exempt the ruling class from complicity in a system already bent under the weight of its own decay. 

Even so, desperate measures—once unleashed—never remain confined to the family. They spill outward, eroding governance and fraying the unity of the state itself. 

Thus, the President, his family, and those loyal to the stability of the state must had to stand firm—undeterred by internal efforts at destabilization. 

Let the public record stand: Loyalty, integrity, and unity remain the pillars of legitimate authority. Betrayal, even from within the same bloodline, imperils not only a family but the nation it governs. 

For a people to endure, their leaders must endure together. And when internal fractures threaten national coherence, the guardians of the order must act decisively against those who divide for private gain.  

Accountability for Show, Corruption as Usual: Joyriding the Public Outrage in the Republic of Good Crooks and Bad Crooks

Accountability for Show, Corruption as Usual:

Joyriding the Public Outrage 

in the Republic of Good Crooks and Bad Crooks

In a political landscape where every faction claims moral high ground and every leader wraps themselves in the banner of public virtue, it becomes harder to distinguish principle from opportunism. The sudden surge of “anti-corruption” rhetoric has not clarified the nation’s crisis—it has only exposed how every camp weaponizes outrage when it suits them. What should have been a unified demand for cleansing the bureaucracy has instead become another battlefield for competing interests, each louder than the last, each pretending to speak for the people while guarding their own turf. 

If one would wonder—are they truly against corruption? Are they genuinely for transparency, accountability, justice? Or are they simply defending those implicated, those whose interests happen to align with theirs at the moment? The recent demonstrations made one thing unmistakably clear: they are joyriding on the public’s anger, hijacking legitimate outrage to shield their own networks of power. 

Suddenly everyone is “patriotic.” Suddenly every faction is shouting “transparency” and “accountability” as if the words alone could wash their records clean. Even the notoriously corrupt are pointing fingers at their fellow thieves in suit and in uniform, prompting ordinary people to ask: Who, exactly, is the real crook here— and why does every whistleblower seem to be carrying his own share of stolen goods? 

It is all painfully Avelinian: the nation is again confronted not with the choice between honest and corrupt officials, but between good crooks and bad crooks, each insisting they are the lesser evil. Look at the spectacle of Zaldy Co—long painted as corrupt—suddenly recast as a hero by the Duterte bloc the moment he turned his accusations toward Marcos and Romualdez. Have they forgotten that this same “hero” amassed wealth through bureaucrat capitalism while helming the congressional appropriations machinery for years, under both Duterte and Marcos? 

And what of the senators now implicated—men who speak the language of accountability only to avoid being called what they are? Villanueva who's supposed to be pious also has significant corruption allegations involving the misuse of public funds and alleged kickbacks from government projects. Escudero, the once-poster boy of politics also implicated in corruption charges with recent news accusing him of systematic corruption, misappropriation of public funds, procurement fraud, and gross neglect of duty. Not suprised that Bong Go, a Duterte stooge, also implicated in procurement deals during the pandemic to that of anomalies involving government contracts. These solons, like Co, would try to assume they're innocent- or to sound Avelinian, a "good crook" pointing against the "bad".  

But nevertheless, they're still crooks and those who supporting crooks trying to appeal to many whether it is appeal to morality, reason, heck even patriotism. But such joyriding makes their statements ring hollow. Their indignation is to protect themselves. Their crusade is performance. And so the public again hears echoes of Avelino’s cynical proclamation: some of them are “good crooks,” others “bad crooks”—but crooks all the same. 

From the congressman to the undersecretary, from the agency clerk to the private contractor in cahoots with them, they all siphon public resources while delivering half-baked “services” meant only to impress the world—or pretend to. Infrastructure is built to be photographed, not to last; programs are launched to be announced, not to be felt by the people. Everything is done for optics, never substance. 

These bullshitteries only confirm what the masses increasingly feel—that the system’s hypocrisy is absolute. To borrow Stirner’s words: the state calls its own violence “law,” but the individual’s resistance “crime.” When the powerful plunder, it is “budget utilization,” “public-private partnership,” “program expansion.” When the poor protest, it becomes “instigation,” “unrest,” “destabilization.” 

And so the people look around and see not a government fighting corruption, but factions fighting over corruption—each one desperate to control the narrative, the purse, the power. 

The crisis, then, is not just moral. It is structural. And everyone who feeds on the system—good crook or bad crook—knows it.   

Transparency? Accountability? Or Defending Interest in a time of Controversy?

Transparency? Accountability? 

Or Defending Interest in a time of Controversy?

For three straight days, Manila’s Luneta Park is scattered by white-clad mob. Thousands of devotees, moving in near-militant synchrony, marched under banners and chants orchestrated by their religious leaders. The message from the pulpit was clear: this was a “show of strength” in response to recent political turbulence. 

Officially, the leaders insist their intentions are spiritual, not political. “We do not seek to interfere with governance,” they proclaimed, “but to lend the voice of faith to the calls of many of our countrymen condemning the enormous evil involving many government officials.” 

But the optics tell a different story. Anyone observing the chanting crowds, flags and placards raised high, and coordinated movements would be hard-pressed to see anything but politics in action. The sentiment is inherently political; the spectacle is inherently political. The call for “transparency, accountability, and justice” in flood control projects—though phrased in civic terms—cannot be divorced from the political alliances of the group itself. These leaders, and the flock that follows them, have long been associated with administrations now under scrutiny for corruption and mismanagement. 

At first glance, the demands appear reasonable. Who would argue against accountability? But context complicates matters. By aligning with past administrations implicated in questionable deals, and now positioning themselves as moral arbiters, the group’s actions raise questions about the sincerity of their calls. Can faith alone justify selective outrage? Or is the rhetoric a veneer for political continuity—supporting the interests they have historically endorsed? 

The streets near Luneta are crowded with white shirts, but the meaning of the march is anything but uniform. To outsiders, it may appear as a moral crusade, a showcase of unity that's been attributed to them especially during elections with their block voting. But to  those who remember the political loyalties of past years, it reads more like a carefully choreographed expression of partisanship cloaked in the language of piety. 

The timing of the demonstration—coinciding with renewed scrutiny of corruption scandals—hardly seems coincidental. While the leaders insist their aim is spiritual guidance, the political impact is undeniable. The message is being sent: their flock is united, visible, and vocal. The line between prayer and political statement has blurred, and in a city long accustomed to both, the distinction may be lost on few. 

Faith may light the torch, but in Manila, politics carries it through the streets. And in the end, white shirts may proclaim neutrality, but the past events, corresponding actions—and timing—speak louder, if not loudest than their features slogans.  

Reclaiming Moral Courage and Rebuilding a Nation

Reclaiming Moral Courage and Rebuilding a Nation

In today’s public discourse, one phrase is invoked with ritual predictability: that “change begins with the self.” It appears in classrooms, pulpits, speeches, and civic forums, spoken with the solemnity of moral doctrine. Yet, to many observers, its repetition has begun to sound hollow. The phrase demands personal virtue, but personal virtue alone cannot flourish in a sociopolitical environment designed to frustrate it. As Karl Marx once observed, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please… but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” The individual does not stand outside the system; he is shaped—sometimes constrained—by it.

Across the archipelago, Filipinos from every demographic call for integrity and honest governance. Students march for accountability; professionals write earnest letters to newspapers; business groups hold conferences encouraging ethical leadership; religious institutions issue pastoral statements. But despite these varied appeals, corruption grows more resilient. It does not retreat—it adapts, mutates, and survives.

A troubling trend becomes evident in the profiles of many who fall to graft. Numerous figures embroiled in scandals hail from elite educational institutions—schools that proudly proclaim themselves as builders of leaders “for others” or guardians of character. Their alumni networks form the very circles that often condemn corruption in eloquent terms, yet these condemnations rarely produce systemic change. The contradiction between doctrine and deed remains stark. It mirrors Max Stirner’s insight that “the state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime,” revealing how entrenched power shields itself while moral language becomes a tool of selective judgment.

National rhetoric frequently extols integrity, responsibility, and accountability. Still, these values are routinely brushed aside by entrenched interests. Grand state formulations—whole-of-government, whole-of-society, whole-of-nation—are invoked in policy memos and public addresses. Yet analysts note a chronic lack of strategic depth within many leadership circles, rendering these frameworks more ceremonial than operational.

Ordinary citizens, meanwhile, find themselves relegated to passive spectators, expressing grievances from the sidelines as the corrupt continue on their way—untouched, unbothered, and often enriched. Public morality becomes a spectacle rather than a standard. Stirner warned how “fixed ideas” can become empty idols when detached from reality; “The sacred is only a fixed idea, and every fixed idea is a spook.” Much of our public discourse has devolved into such spook-talk: slogans repeated without power, ideals invoked without consequence.

Society repeatedly arrives at critical junctures but chooses the easier path: the path of silence, convenience, and moral fatigue. Public advocacy remains largely confined to speeches, opinion columns, and symbolic gestures—insufficient to confront a deeply rooted system of patronage and impunity.

Here and there, individuals and small groups attempt reform. Civic activists, whistleblowers, reformist officials, and community leaders take risks. Yet these efforts are scattered and isolated, unable to form the critical mass necessary to shift national momentum. Minor successes are hailed as breakthroughs, but they seldom alter the broader landscape.

The persistence of corruption stems from more than flawed individuals; it reflects structural, cultural, and institutional weaknesses. Analysts argue that reducing the crisis to a matter of private moral failings risks obscuring its systemic nature. Marx, too, insisted that ideals cannot transcend their institutional base: “Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.” Without transforming the foundations of power, appeals to virtue remain aspirational but impotent.

Commentators of the period increasingly identify two parallel fronts requiring simultaneous advancement:

1. Socio-personal transformation, understood not as rhetoric but as sustained moral discipline.
2. Systemic overhaul, grounded in reliable institutions, a functional justice system, and a rule of law applied uniformly.

The nation’s future hinges on both. Neither alone is sufficient. Stirner’s exhortation—“Whoever will be free must make himself free”—captures only half the equation; personal resolve matters, but it cannot substitute for the construction of institutions capable of restraining impunity and empowering the public.

The path forward, as articulated by reform thinkers of the era, requires:

— a reformed and fully functioning criminal justice system,

— fearless, impartial law enforcement, free from social or political exemptions, and

— the cultivation of moral courage as a public standard, not merely a private virtue.

These elements must move in unison. Delay only deepens the burden inherited by future generations.

As time progresses, the country stands at a moral and political threshold. The slogans have been uttered, the manifestos published, the speeches delivered. What remains uncertain is whether the nation can transform moral conviction into collective action—whether it can transcend hollow exhortations and forge a movement strong enough to challenge and change the structures that have long resisted reform.

In this crossroads moment, the promise of genuine national renewal depends not on the repetition of familiar phrases, but on the capacity to rebuild the institutions, habits, and moral foundations of public life. Only then can the word change regain its meaning—no longer a slogan, but a shared destiny.

Of Riding the Tiger and the Politics of Appearance: Reflections on Power, Principle, and Survival

Of Riding the Tiger and the Politics of Appearance:

Reflections on Power, Principle, and Survival

Before asking whether today’s loudest voices are truly against corruption—championing transparency, accountability, and justice—it is necessary to understand the political environment that has made such claims convenient. The sudden wave of indignation, erupting in synchronized chorus, signals less a principled stand and more a moment of political “joyriding”: a calculated attempt to ride public anger without sharing its ethical burden. 

The recent demonstrations illustrate this phenomenon clearly. What should have been a sober reckoning with bureaucratic rot was instead seized upon as a stage for reinvention. Individuals who had long ignored institutional decay suddenly rebranded themselves as defenders of probity and nationalism. Their “patriotism” arrived not from conviction but from opportunity​—the kind that flourishes when the public eye is elsewhere. 

One would have said—were it not for the accident of his being Asian, specifically Filipino—that he could easily have passed for a pan-European ideologue of the Neue Rechte: a man whose rhetoric, posture, and provocation bore the unmistakable stamp of right-wing apologetics. His defenders cast him as a cultural critic; his detractors saw an opportunist in borrowed political clothing. Yet the contradiction remained: his identity marked him outside the European New Right’s ethnocentric fold even as his arguments aligned him intimately with its contours. That tension—between origin and aspiration—revealed not a thinker of conviction, but a figure searching for ideological shelter wherever it offered the most visibility. 

It is in this context that this note return to Juan Ponce Enrile, who passed on November 13, 2025, aged 101 (or 103 according to some). At first glance, the statesman’s life may appear simply a series of political maneuvers, legal victories, and national controversies. But those who listened closely to his 2012 UP College of Law Alumni Homecoming keynote will recognize a deeper, almost prophetic pattern. In that speech, Enrile—then 88—spoke not merely to alumni but to the existential challenge of modernity itself. 

Amid tributes to faculty, references to historic firsts in the Supreme Court, and recollections of his own formative years, Enrile invoked the Italian traditionalist philosopher Julius Evola. He warned that the forces of change—technological, political, and cultural—cannot be halted or resisted in conventional ways. Instead, one must “ride the tiger”: grasp the destructive currents of the modern world and let them carry you forward, remaining inwardly sovereign and unbroken. 

Perhaps the speechwriter behind that work captured what Enrile truly thought: being in an advanced age, trying to ride the tiger, it would not be surprising if Enrile had never read Evola. Yet his experiences—of wars survived, regimes navigated, coups endured, and revolutions witnessed—embody an Evolan mindset. He stood in the ruins of a world increasingly unmoored, as if living in what traditionalists might call the Kali Yuga, a Dark Age where materialistic appetites and unbridled desires reign supreme. Without needing to know the texts, Enrile’s life enacted the very philosophy Evola describes: the disciplined, sovereign individual confronting the inexorable currents of a collapsing moral and political order. 

Few men of his generation embodied this principle more literally. He survived wars, insurrections, coups, impeachments, and revolutions—not by fleeing, not by submitting, but by standing upright, mastering circumstance while retaining an unbowed interior life. The metaphor of the tiger, once philosophical, became autobiographical. The 2012 speech, in hindsight, reads as a quietly prophetic testament: a message to the legal mind, to the student, and to the citizenry—that survival in chaotic times requires discipline, clarity, and mastery of oneself. 

Enrile’s life, like Evola’s tiger, reminds people that modernity is a force that consumes the unprepared. He did not merely cope with it; he transformed its turbulence into endurance. As Constantin von Hoffmeister might have observed, he enacted a form of “aristocratic lucidity”: a conscious alignment of the inner self with the demands of the outer world, even when that world had grown unrecognizably fast and complex. 

And yet, as the political critique illustrates, such mastery is rare. Many today mistake proximity for principle, performance for conviction. The loudest voices in contemporary public discourse—rhetoricians of moral indignation—often ride the tiger of public sentiment without the internal discipline to survive its course. Their patriotism is borrowed, contingent, and performative; their courage, theatrical. 

Enrile’s example stands in sharp contrast. He demonstrates that the tiger may be ridden without surrender, that chaotic forces may be transmuted into stability, and that enduring institutions—whether a law school or a republic—require individuals capable of confronting the tempest without being devoured. 

The lesson is twofold: for the citizen, it is a warning to discern performance from principle; for the statesman, it is a summons to cultivate inner sovereignty. In a world of manufactured outrage, fleeting heroics, and ideological mimicry, Juan Ponce Enrile’s life and words remain a testament to a different mode of being: to ride the tiger, to endure, and to stand upright when all around him flails. 

In reflecting on both his life and the modern political moment, we are reminded that the true battle is interior. And so, it is not surprising that there are those honor him not merely for what he did in politics or law, but for the formidable interior courage that allowed him to survive, thrive, and leave a legacy of philosophical and practical insight—one that challenges the rest to confront the tiger with the same steadiness and clarity. 

"Over New Wave and Coffeebreak"

"Over New Wave and Coffeebreak"

"Two Days in Taihoku"

I saw you first at Gate 29
Just a blur in the crowd, but your eyes met mine
A flight attendant with winds on her skin
And me with a journal, just taking it in
We said our hellos, like time never went
From chalkboard days to where all those letters went
And we laughed like we did in our old school hall
But this was a city that knew how to stall

Then you said you’d be walking through town
Just two days to burn, till you’re outbound
We met near the market where lanterns glow
By the tea shops and bikes in a steady flow
You wore the night like a soft perfume
I spoke of poems and hotel rooms
We traded the hours for glances and grace
Each moment a brushstroke, each word in its place

Two days in Taihoku, and the sky turned slow
Like a song from youth we used to know
One touch and the past fell into frame
No promises made, no one to blame
We were just two names the world forgot
Till time gave us this quiet shot
No maps, no covers—
Just love from a layover

You whispered, “Tomorrow, I fly at noon”
But the silence between us filled up the room
We danced through the shadows of Shilin streets
With hearts that were careful, yet skipped their beats
No baggage claimed, no future drawn
But something eternal was passing on
You left with a smile, no need for goodbyes
But I kept your name where the plum trees rise

Two days in Taihoku, and the sky turned slow
Like a song from youth we used to know
One touch and the past fell into frame
No promises made, no one to blame
We were just two names the world forgot
Till time gave us this quiet shot
No maps, no covers—
Just love from a layover

“Cream Without a Crown” 

Morning broke without a whisper

Coffee cooled, and time stood still

You left your coat on the back of a chair

Like you meant to come back—but never will

The steam forgot to rise today

Like hope that lost its way

I watched the cup turn solemn, calm

Where once love danced in foam and charm

And now it’s cream without a crown

A quiet fall, no trumpet sound

You smiled, but not for me

So I drank the emptiness

Dignified, but breaking down

It’s cream without a crown

I used to trace your name in spirals

In every swirl, I found a sign

But now the barista barely looks

And the milk forgets to shine

There’s no crescendo in this song

No saxophone to lead me on

Just porcelain truths and whispered lies

As your shadow slips outside

It’s cream without a crown

No curtain call, no gold renown

You spoke, and I heard fate

In a voice I was too late

And I drank the silence down

Like cream without a crown 

We don’t lose love all at once

It fades like sugar left unstirred

No goodbye, no final touch

Just the ache of what we heard 

Now it’s cream without a crown

Where hearts once flew, they now fall down

You were never mine to lose

But I dressed up just to bruise

And I sipped it like a vow…

This cream without a crown 

No froth to rise…

Just the hush where love once lied…

Cream without… a crown…

"The Day The Flat White Lost Its Froth" 

Walked into the café
Same seat, same song, same dream
Thought I’d see you smiling
But you were leaning in too deep
He touched your hand and laughed
You looked away, then back
And in that slow-motion silence
I felt the world go flat

Barista asked “The usual?”
Yeah, but nothing felt the same
No swirl, no rise, no shimmer—
Just coffee, cold and plain

The day the flat white lost its froth
You said you had a boyfriend, I felt off
No spark, no lift, no sugar lie
Just truth dripping like a cloudy sky
And I sat there, trying not to show
How everything turned monochrome
The day, the day
The flat white lost its froth

You didn’t see me falter
Didn’t notice I was there
You laughed like it was summer
While I froze inside my chair
I held the cup too tightly
Like it could explain the sting
But love don’t float forever
And some milk just doesn’t cling

She stirred his name into her lips
Like sweet and bitter cream
And I drank mine in silence
Swallowing the dream

The day the flat white lost its froth
You told me what I feared, and I got lost
No art, no bloom, no secret sign
Just a name I’ll hate for all of time
And I sipped it down, played it cool
Burnt my tongue pretending I’m no fool
The day, the day
The flat white lost its froth

I thought maybe, just maybe
You’d see me standing there
But maybe’s just a word we use
When we know they never cared

The day the flat white lost its froth
She had a boyfriend, I took the loss
No foam to float, no wish to keep
Just hot regret and bitter steep
And I walked out into the rain
Let the city spell your name again
The day, the day
The flat white lost its froth

I’ll still drink it tomorrow…
But it won’t taste the same.

Mamdani’s Win: Rethinking Populism and Progressivism in America

Mamdani’s Win: Rethinking Populism and Progressivism in America

Zohran Mamdani’s recent victory as New York City Mayor is more than a local political story. It is a fissure in the frozen landscape of American politics. For years, progressives have chipped at the hardened structures of establishment power, but Mamdani’s win signals that the ice is finally shifting. 

To be honest, Donald Trump’s rhetoric, while flashy and appealing to the notion of “greatness,” never truly disrupted the system. His promises to “drain the swamp” or “downsize” government left the machinery intact — in some ways, they made it worse. Scandals, dysfunction, and entrenched inequities persisted. Trump’s politics was spectacle; Mamdani’s politics is substance. 

Why did Mamdani succeed where Cuomo, other Democrats, and even Trump could not? The answer lies partly in the spirit of progressivism itself. But remember: over the decades, progressivism has often been torn between two conflicting impulses: the urgent need to craft real, implementable policies that address systemic problems, and the comfort of signaling correctness — the “current thing” of politics, where virtue is measured more by rhetoric than results. In some quarters, this has morphed into a preference for staying with the status quo, content to maintain appearances rather than challenge entrenched power. The consequence is that the progressive movement often appears frozen, paralyzed by optics, consensus, and the fear of making waves. In such a climate, it is no wonder that ordinary voters, frustrated by stagnation, might be tempted to jump on the Trump bandwagon, drawn by the promise of immediate, if short-term, satisfaction — the allure of disruption even if it lacks substance. By prioritizing signaling over substance, progressivism risks alienating those it seeks to serve, leaving a vacuum that spectacle-driven populism can easily exploit. 

Mamdani refused to settle. He engaged directly with the concerns of ordinary people, building solutions that were both principled and practical. He reminded voters that democratic socialism is not ideology for its own sake; it is a framework for making life better here and now. 

Some critics will say this is populism. The answer is yes — but of a very different stripe. Trump-style populism thrives on fear, anger, and symbolic disruption, often turning frustration into division. Mamdani’s populism, by contrast, emphasizes solidarity, empowerment, and community. It seeks reform through real engagement with the “common people,” rather than pitting them against one another. The difference is the vector: one divides, the other organizes; one agitates, the other builds. It is also not surprising that progressivism has its populist roots — after all, the movement has always sought to be with the people, to channel their concerns into tangible change. But it is also not surprising that progressivism, when trapped in the “current thing” of politics, creates a contented, almost complacent political setup. In such a setup, the pursuit of justice, development, and peace is often reduced to rhetoric or piecemeal measures — gestures far less ambitious than the New Deal or the Great Society. The risk is that progressivism, when it substitutes signaling and incrementalism for substantive action, leaves a vacuum that can be filled by spectacle-driven populism, while the deeper structural problems of society remain unaddressed. 

Why did it take a minority candidate like Mamdani to break through? The answer is as much about the limitations of the political system as it is about Mamdani himself. Some would argue that a Trump of 1999, in a different political moment, might have achieved something similar — promising to tax the rich, even himself, to cut taxes for the middle class, or to explore policies like universal healthcare — before he became ensnared by the “anti-establishment establishment” and seduced by nationalism and the grandiose promise of making America “great.” At that time, the currents of frustration and desire for change were present, but the trajectory of leaders and institutions often diverted potential reform into spectacle or symbolic gestures. 

Mamdani’s triumph, by contrast, reflects a convergence of principle, strategy, and attentiveness to ordinary people. He did not simply ride a wave of dissatisfaction; he built structures of engagement, listened to communities, and proposed tangible policies that directly addressed systemic inequities. This combination — vision paired with operational discipline and genuine connection to the electorate — has been missing in both the old Democratic establishment and the spectacle-driven right. The establishment too often prioritizes optics, consensus, or incrementalism, while the right emphasizes drama and symbolic disruption over substantive reform. Mamdani’s breakthrough demonstrates that meaningful change can come not from the loudest voice or the most theatrical promise, but from a disciplined, principled, and people-centered approach — even when the candidate comes from a minority background in a system historically dominated by majority elites. 

As an observer, one can’t help but notice a deeper tension. People longed for a Roosevelt, a Kennedy, or a Lyndon Johnson — leaders capable of translating popular aspirations into concrete policy. But in the age of Reagan’s “peace through strength,” where controversies were polished away and dissent often minimized, one might ask: has progressivism reached its limits? Has populism lost its rhetorical power, reduced to slogans and spectacle? 

Mamdani’s victory answers both questions. Progressivism is not exhausted; it thrives when it pairs ideals with strategy and substance. Populism remains potent, but only when rooted in opportunity rather than fear, engagement rather than resentment. Mamdani succeeded because he did not simply echo frustration; he listened, organized, and acted. 

This victory is not an endpoint. It is a crack in the ice of American political conformity. It reminds us that change is never smooth, but courage, principle, and attentiveness to the common good can shift the terrain. For progressives, the lesson is clear: engage the people, deliver results, and do not let optics or correctness dictate action. 

Mamdani’s win is both a symbol and a challenge. It asks whether American progressivism can reassert itself as a force for meaningful change — not through spectacle, but through persistent, principled engagement with the realities of everyday life. In an era dominated by media-driven politics and entrenched interests, his triumph is a reminder that real progress comes not from disruption alone, but from the courage to see, hear, and fight for the common