When Zohran Mamdani won New York City’s mayoral race in November, his victory speech included a remarkable acknowledgement: “The conventional wisdom would tell you that I am far from the perfect candidate,” he said. “I am young… I am Muslim. I am a Democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this.”
Mamdani’s rise has felt reinvigorating for much of the Left. He is an abnormality in American politics: young, hopeful, seemingly in-touch with working class concerns. Though I think the true source of Mamdani’s brilliance arises from his shamelessness — he armours himself with the very skeletons most politicians would keep stuffed in their closet.
But this boldness feels different from MAGA shamelessness, from Trump’s classless arrogance. The President brands political opponents as “traitors”, denies election results, and attacks the credibility of any institution that dares to constrain his power.
Both men refuse shame and reject the expectations placed upon them. Yet while one threatens democracy, the other may actually strengthen it.
What’s the Difference?
Shame is not mere embarrassment; it is fundamentally relational. It is the feeling that arises when we fail to meet the internalised expectations of people whose judgment ‘matters’ to us. Where guilt concerns wrongfulness of actions, shame questions ideals of the self. A fundamental point, established by Silvan Tomkins: shame only works when you have a psychological “interest” in others’ judgements.
In democratic politics, shame serves as an accountability mechanism, signalling the boundaries of acceptable conduct. Corrupt politicians who blatantly lie, who use their office to enrich themselves, who incite violence, should feel ashamed. And this ought to be felt not merely because such acts violate norms of ‘respectability’, but because the behaviour erodes the basic conditions that make democratic contestation possible: mutual recognition, shared epistemic standards, procedural legitimacy.
However, shame can also police normative boundaries in ways that harm democracy; it can enforce unjust hierarchies. Much of American history is a story of shame deployed to exclude certain identities, to mark them as ‘un-American’, as unworthy of full recognition in democratic life. Mamdani has faced relentless overtly racist scrutiny because he embodies several overlapping ‘shameful’ categories: the socialist, the immigrant, the Muslim.
MAGA and detachment
Democracy, obviously, doesn’t require a consensus on everything. Daily battles are fought over taxation, immigration, healthcare policy etc. What is required for democracy to endure is a “meta-consensus”: collective agreement on the rules of the political game itself.
Imagine a football match. Players don’t need the same outcome for the game to function (indeed, this antagonism is the point). What is needed is the acceptance that there is a referee, that points are scored by goals, and that certain actions are illegitimate. Without this baseline agreement, there is no match.
For democracy, adherence to the ‘rules of the game’ means accepting the legitimacy of opponents’ values, minimum epistemic standards, and respect for institutional procedure. This doesn’t mean we can’t argue the rules ought to change, but such arguments must themselves take place within the confines of the meta-consensus.
Using this, one can examine how Trump’s authoritarian shamelessness contrasts with Mamdani’s insurgent shamelessness.
Trump waves off being called a fascist. Mamdani too rebuffs being labelled a “communist lunatic”, a terrorist sympathiser, un-American – labels designed to induce shame. Both men shrug off such accusations (let’s ignore whether any such labels have credence or not). The mechanism and impact of their shamelessness could not be more different.
MAGA shamelessness operates by purposefully eroding relationships of mutual recognition. When Trump labels his opponents as “enemies of the people” or calls Democrats “seditious”, he signals that these are people who exist outside the boundaries of legitimate recognition. Claims that elections are “rigged” or “stolen” delegitimise the procedural processes serving as the foundation of a peaceful transfer of power (see January 6th). Trump threatening to revoke broadcast licenses of critical outlets, attacking judges who rule against him, and demanding primaries against state Republicans who won’t partake in his gerrymandering are all actions which damage the epistemic and procedural meta-consensus.
This is shamelessness-as-detachment. Trump aims to sever his supporters’ psychological “interest” in democratic opponents. Once you believe the other side are traitorous, that their elections are illegitimate, that judges are merely corrupt partisan actors — why would breaking norms induce shame? The relational framework that sustains shame as an accountability mechanism is destroyed. What was once shameless becomes righteous.
Consequently, “ordinary” democratic politics becomes impossible. How can one establish bipartisanship with traitors? How can one graciously accept electoral defeat if elections are fraudulent? Trump’s shamelessness doesn’t merely break norms, but rather it corrodes the meta-consensus that once made norm-breaking wrong.
Mamdani’s shamelessness-as-inclusion
Mamdani’s shamelessness operates differently. His boldness maintains a commitment to democratic meta-consensus.
Notice how Mamdani speaks about disagreement itself. In his post-primary victory speech, Mamdani stated in relation to the Gaza-Palestine conflict: “While I will not abandon my beliefs… you have my word to reach further, to understand the perspectives of those with whom I disagree, and to wrestle deeply with those disagreements.” Such language is not that of someone rejecting the meta-consensus. It is instead the language of someone demanding inclusion within it.
Mamdani stated at his inauguration that he “will govern without shame and insecurity, making no apology for what [he] believes. I was elected as a Democratic socialist and I will govern as a Democratic socialist. I will not abandon my principles for fear of being deemed radical.”
Mamdani’s bold socialism is shocking precisely because it is being proclaimed in a nation where such beliefs have long been coded as un-American. Mamdani refuses to distance himself from his Muslim faith regardless of the Islamophobic attacks that follow. But crucially, he’s not claiming his opponents are illegitimate or that the system is rigged against him.
Mamdani represents shamelessness-as-inclusion. To quote Mamdani, “The majority [of voters] will not use the language that we often expect from those who wield influence. I welcome the change. For too long, those fluent in the good grammar of civility have deployed decorum to mask agendas of cruelty.”
By challenging the boundaries of ‘respectability’, Mamdani expands the democratic space, welcoming the voices and ideologies previously marked as ‘beyond the pale’ by much of the political establishment.
Using this, one can examine how Trump’s authoritarian shamelessness contrasts with Mamdani’s insurgent shamelessness.
I think recognising this distinction is crucial. Much of the political mainstream has developed a knee-jerk reaction to norm-breaking of any kind. And while sometimes this is anti-democratic (à la Trump), it is often not.
In rejecting the shame ascribed to one’s identity, beliefs, or right to democratic participation, one can challenge hierarchies within the lines of the meta-consensus. This has the potential to deepen democracy rather than erode it.
The question we must ask of political shamelessness is this: What is being rejected?
Is it, like Trump, the fundamental rules of democratic recognition, knowledge and procedure? Or, is it, like Mamdani, exclusionary hierarchies that mark certain individuals as lesser participants?
Not all shamelessness is equivalent. Trump’s refusal to accept electoral defeat and Mamdani’s refusal to apologise for being Muslim are both acts of shamelessness, but one corrodes the conditions of democracy whilst the other contests the inequalities within it.
Leave a comment