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?
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.