I get and agree that more progressive candidates are a good thing, but how much unilateral power does the mayor of one city really have, even if it’s NYC? Why is everyone, up to the top of the US government, chiming in on it?
I get and agree that more progressive candidates are a good thing, but how much unilateral power does the mayor of one city really have, even if it’s NYC? Why is everyone, up to the top of the US government, chiming in on it?
He can’t enact those all policies on his own though, right? There must be city and state legislatures that he must work with on at least some of the big things he promised. If those assemblies are set against him, how much can he do?
Probably not much. But elected executives tend to hold a sort of “people’s mandate”. So he might be able to push his agenda, at least in part, via soft power. And if he can’t, he can rail against the council members publicly and possibly get people elected in those positions who do agree with him.
I will note that, imo, this is one of the flaws of allowing people to directly elect executives - they tend to take on a king-like position in the public imagination. Really people should be focused more on their individual representitive, as this is far more democratic.
That remains to be seen, but the hype is around having someone who will at least try.