The Window Seat: Politician’s Slogans are Harmful to Political Discourse

In the wake of presidential elections, a familiar pattern emerges: parties out of power try to regain traction, and their slogans often say more than their policies. Recent races in New York and Virginia show how campaign rhetoric can carry more weight than governing plans. New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and Virginia governor-elect Abigail Spanberger highlight two contrasting approaches that leave many wondering if their campaigns, and their rhetoric, will be the Democratic party’s future recipe for success.

Mamdani’s rise to fame was fueled largely by his media-friendly slogans—his “Freeze the Rent,” alongside promises of city-run grocery stores, and free public transit headlined his campaign and social media.

The simplicity of these slogans is part of their power as they translate complex issues into a phrase voters can immediately grasp and cheer for. Still, while such slogans appeal to a broad base, they allow for little commitments to specific policies.

Many economists despise rent control as a solution to housing shortages. Nobel laureate Gunnar Myrdal famously wrote, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”

Mamdani’s slogans appeal less through technical accuracy than through emotional resonance. Voters connect to the promise of relief, safety, and stability. It highlights how a simple line can outshine nuanced policy that is swaying public opinion; it can be problematic when politicians consistently shy away from speaking on more complex policy. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many New Yorkers remain unaware of Mamdani’s actual growth agenda.

Spanberger’s campaign, on the other hand, was grounded in realism. Her moderate tone appealed to her voters tired of dramatic slogans and performative politics. Perhaps one of her defining moments painting her as a moderate candidate was her stance on, “Defund the police.”

During a private meeting later leaked, she emphasized the importance of accuracy in political messaging. She argued if members of Congress weren’t actively trying to defund the police—they shouldn’t say it. While she also highlighted affordability throughout her campaign, she relied less on simplifying complex problems into catchphrases.

Where Mamdani shows harnessed emotional energy, Spanberger shows us the appeal of measured, realistic messaging that earns trust through clarity. Both approaches reflect strategies for connecting with voters, and both reveal how the battles of language matter as much as ideology. Paying attention to these rhetorical contrasts demonstrates how fractured the Democratic party currently is, but it also might offer Democrats insight into what their voters want—empathy or realism, simplicity or specificity.

Concise slogans may appeal to voters and ignite a campaign, but they rarely deliver on their implied promises. As a result, voters are left fatigued by politicians who fail to turn slogans into legislation. It’s inevitable, though, every campaign year to hear new phrases voiced with fresh stamina—often disregarding the problematic history of similar slogans used by campaigns run by opponents with utterly opposing views.

In fairness to the politicians using them, the quick and established mechanisms of these successful tools suggest that people would rather allow themselves to be emotionally pleased, or intensely disgusted, by a few words than to contemplate the intricate policy differences between candidates. The populist rhetoric of these candidates suggest they aim to paint themselves as the charismatic leader to finally be the voice of the people. It’s just another us vs them mentality. Mamdani faces the challenge of turning his phrases into policy, while Spanberger must prove her moderate approach to policy delivers on the promises she has made.

Slogans are catchy, and they gain traction quickly online. Maybe the solution is for us to disengage with our beloved algorithms and pages that reward us with our dopamine doses and emotional extremes. It is time to think more critically about our individual values and apply those to policy proposals, not to slogans we don’t truly understand.