Today begins a new era,” declared Zohran Mamdani upon his swearing in yesterday as New York City’s 112th mayor. “Beginning today, we will govern expansively and audaciously. We may not always succeed. But never will we be accused of lacking the courage to try.”

Inaugural ceremonies aren’t usually a forum for deep deliberation and rational discourse. But a new leader’s words are rarely disconnected from his underlying philosophy. Mamdani’s inaugural comments therefore give us an idea of what to expect: claiming to represent “all” New Yorkers, the new mayor will work quickly to push through decisions unpopular at best, and harmful at worst.

The character of those decisions, too, is clear. In a line widely circulated on social media, Mamdani promised to “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.” Audacious collectivism: that’s the Mamdani agenda.

The inauguration ceremony reveals a mayor with no shortage of good intentions. But those intentions don’t align with economic realities, or with a sound grasp of human incentives and motivations. Like other collectivists before him, Mamdani’s vision is likely to run up against reality.

The commitment to the collective was on full display even in the lead up to Mamdani’s big moment. First came a speech from his fellow democratic socialist, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In electing Mamdani, New York had “chosen prosperity for the many over spoils for the few,” she said. “Most importantly, Zohran will be a mayor for all of us!”

Then came the religious leaders, helmed by Imam Khalid Latif: “Let New York . . . continue to show that dignity, respect and compassion are no longer for the few but for all!” Then Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, who declared that “systems entrenched at the top” are the reason why “so many New Yorkers have too little.”

Last came Senator Bernie Sanders, there to administer the oath of office to the new mayor. Sanders’s speech congratulated him for taking on “some enormously wealthy oligarchs, defeating them “in the biggest political upset in modern American history.”

The subtext is not very subtle. On January 1, 2026, New York became a city “for all”—not, as it had been, a city governed in the interests of a power elite of billionaires, real-estate “speculators,” financiers, and the like. Mamdani’s swearing in marks what he promises will be “a new era” of governance, in which the public will be enlightened by socialism and politicians will intervene to improve our lives. Indeed, Mamdani explicitly promised such intervention against the city’s landlords mere hours after his swearing in.

The anti-elite diagnosis, of course, is not completely off the mark. Many of the city’s current problems—high rents, crime, homelessness, and food prices—are the result of an elite’s abuse of power.

But it’s not the elite Mamdani campaigned against. Rather, it’s the elite of previous public officials, who also promised to “remake New York.” They, too, arrived touting good intentions and big expectations and saw their electoral majorities as mandates to pass laws to “improve New Yorkers’ lives.”

The results include: statutes outlawing denser housing construction in most of the city—compounded by rent-stabilization laws that push thousands of apartments into disrepair—and billions spent on homeless programs. All this has driven higher rent burdens across the city.

Good intentions also created childcare regulations stricter than in most other jurisdictions, absurd liability laws on construction that don’t exist elsewhere, and some of the nation’s highest taxes. The elite—old and new—offers the same solution: higher taxes on the “1 percent,” which many of the wealthy won’t pay: they’re already fleeing the city.

For those who believe that New York City should reward excellence and provide opportunities, not hand-outs, Mamdani’s inauguration was a bracing experience. But will his policies succeed—even by their own metrics?

“There are people who are rooting for New York to fail,” Williams said in his speech. “They want to be right in their cynicism more than they want us to succeed in our idealism.”

No one should root for New York to fail. Its residents, and even America, depend on its success. But it’s not cynicism to believe that Mamdani’s agenda—the same one the state’s leaders have been pursuing for over a decade—will only make things worse. That’s just realism.

Adam Lehodey, City Journal