The Battle for the Soul of "Law and Order" in New York City
How two opposing views on public safety, embodied by Mayor Adams and the city's progressive wing, reveal the fundamental challenge facing New York's next leader.
every industry needs a leader
•
empower the leader in you
•
every industry needs a leader • empower the leader in you •
Context
In the five boroughs of New York City, few phrases are as politically charged as “law and order.” It is a political Rorschach test, its meaning shifting dramatically depending on who speaks it, who hears it, and the anxieties of the moment. The term carries the heavy historical baggage of the 20th century, evoking Richard Nixon’s “war on crime” and Rudy Giuliani’s “broken windows” policing—eras that saw crime rates fall but also led to mass incarceration and the disproportionate targeting of Black and Latino communities. Trust in institutions, particularly for those who lived through the era of stop-and-frisk, remains deeply frayed by this legacy.
Today, in a post-2020 landscape shaped by a pandemic, a racial justice reckoning, and fluctuating crime statistics, the battle for the soul of “law and order” is once again at the center of New York City’s political discourse. Two figures stand as powerful avatars for the city’s profound ideological divide: Mayor Eric Adams and Queens Councilmember Zohran Mamdani.
Mayor Adams, a 22-year veteran of the NYPD, has made his vision of law and order the cornerstone of his administration. His rhetoric is direct, aimed at New Yorkers unnerved by high-profile crimes on subways and viral videos of retail theft. To Adams, “law and order” means visible enforcement, robust police budgets, and a clear message that disorder will not be tolerated. He champions the reinstatement of controversial plainclothes police units and the deployment of new surveillance technologies. His core argument, often repeated, is that public safety is the “prerequisite to prosperity.” He speaks to a coalition of moderate Democrats, business owners, and older homeowners in the outer boroughs who fear the city is regressing to a more dangerous time and see a strong police presence as the primary solution.
On the other side stands Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist representing parts of Queens. For Mamdani and the city’s ascendant progressive wing, the traditional notion of “law and order” is the problem, not the solution. He argues for a complete reimagining of public safety, one that starves the punitive state to feed the social one. His vision of order would not be achieved through handcuffs and patrol cars, but through stable housing, fully-funded mental health outreach (like the B-HEARD program, which dispatches social workers to mental health crises), and restorative justice practices. When Mamdani speaks of safety, he is speaking to tenants facing eviction, immigrant communities fearful of police interaction, and a younger generation that views the NYPD’s nearly $11 billion operating budget as a misallocation of resources that could be used to address the root causes of crime: poverty, desperation, and lack of care.
Commentary
The chasm between Adams’s and Mamdani’s philosophies is not merely a debate at City Hall; it is a reflection of the lived realities of millions of New Yorkers. The phrase “law and order” lands differently depending on the block, the borough, and the balance of personal security versus systemic injustice a person experiences.
Consider a Black homeowner in Southeast Queens. This resident may have family members who were unjustly targeted by stop-and-frisk, fostering a deep-seated distrust of the NYPD. Yet, they are also acutely concerned about rising property crime and the safety of their children. For them, Mayor Adams’s promise of more police patrols can be simultaneously reassuring and threatening. They desire protection but are wary of the potential for over-policing in their own community. His message may win their vote, but it does so without resolving the underlying tension.
Now travel to Jackson Heights, one of the world's most diverse neighborhoods, represented by Mamdani. For a recently arrived immigrant family, an encounter with law enforcement could carry the risk of deportation. Their primary concerns might be wage theft, housing scams, or hate crimes—issues where they may feel both unprotected by and fearful of the police. Mamdani’s call to invest in community-based support systems and social services instead of policing resonates deeply. For them, safety isn't a cop on the corner; it's a translator at a city agency, a lawyer at a tenants' rights clinic, or a funded community center.
The policy consequences of these divergent visions are stark. The Adams administration has consistently advocated for budget increases for the NYPD and invested in technological tools like robotic police dogs and drones, framing them as force multipliers. In contrast, progressives like Mamdani fight during every budget cycle to redirect funds from the NYPD to the Department of Education, public hospitals, and the city’s library systems, arguing that a well-resourced community polices itself.
Ultimately, neither figure has successfully redefined “law and order” for a new generation. Mayor Adams has arguably succeeded in reclaiming its traditional meaning, betting that for most voters, fear of crime outweighs demands for systemic reform. His approach treats the symptoms of societal breakdown with the powerful anesthetic of enforcement. Councilmember Mamdani, meanwhile, isn't trying to redefine the phrase at all; he is working to make it obsolete, replacing it with a new vocabulary centered on “community care” and “public health.”
This fundamental divide is the central challenge for the future of New York City leadership. The next mayor will inherit a city that is demanding the impossible: to feel safe from crime without succumbing to the injustices of the past. Reclaiming “law and order” in a way that promotes both safety and equity may not be possible. The more urgent task may be to forge a new consensus altogether, one that forces New Yorkers to confront the critical question: Who gets to define safety, and what price are we willing to pay for it?
Stay tuned for more coverage of the 2025 NYC mayoral race. Follow KIRU (@highaski) and The Industry Leader (@theindustrylead) on X for updates.
Information published to or by The Industry Leader will never constitute legal, financial or business advice of any kind, nor should it ever be misconstrued or relied on as such. For individualized support for yourself or your business, we strongly encourage you to seek appropriate counsel.
