American system swings between two extremes, either internationalist or isolationists. Both have worked on their policies. Before the First World War, the isolationists were dominant in the system. America was inward-looking, concerned only with its own continent, protected by two oceans and confident that European conflicts were not its business. But when the country emerged as a world power after the war, its priorities changed. The Second World War established the reality that American economic and military power could no longer remain limited to its own borders. That is why America was actively involved in World War II, and later NATO, SEATO and CENTO were signed. These alliances were not emotional gestures but strategic arrangements to protect American interests across Europe, the Middle East and Asia. This marks the long-standing division in American foreign policy between the internationalists—who believe America must lead the world—and the isolationists, who insist that America should protect its own people before policing the globe.

Moreover, both parties still operate within this divide: Democrats are generally inclined toward internationalism, while Republicans more often lean toward isolationist or “America First” positions. Yet this division is not rigid. Within the Democratic Party, there are voices demanding withdrawal from endless wars, while within the Republican Party, some still argue for aggressive global leadership. However, the foreign policy debate has increasingly lost the attention of the common citizen. Today, the American voter is less interested in NATO or the South China Sea and more troubled by rent, medical bills and job insecurity. This is the real shift: from global supremacy to domestic survival.

It is in this environment that Zohran Mamdani’s political success must be understood. He did not win by raising the flags of foreign policy or identity politics, but by touching the nerves of ordinary life—housing, inflation, transport, healthcare. His campaign did not promise to change America’s role in the world; it promised to change the conditions of life on the streets of New York. In that sense, his method resembled Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, though their ideologies are completely different. Trump appealed to protectionism—bring jobs back from China, close the borders, stop immigration, end foreign wars. Mamdani appealed to socialism—tax the rich, cancel rent hikes, free public transport, healthcare for all. But the instrument used by both was the same: domestic grievance. In both cases, the vote was less about foreign policy and more about economic pain.

Why then does Mamdani call himself a socialist? Not because he wants to establish a Soviet-style state, but because he has read society. He sees that a large number of people are tired of capital dictating every aspect of their lives—whether they can afford a house, a hospital bed or a decent education. He comes from the branch of American politics influenced by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Democratic Socialists of America. They believe that capitalism has produced billionaires on one side and homelessness on the other, and that the state must intervene to rebalance society. His victory is therefore not religious—it is socio-economic.

And this brings us to another important truth. American society is fundamentally liberal in structure. There is no state religion. There is no constitutional barrier against a Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Sikh or even an atheist becoming a public official. Religion is a personal matter. That is why most Americans did not vote for or against Mamdani because he is a Muslim. They voted because he spoke to their rent, their bills, their broken transport system. The victory of a Muslim, therefore, is not a triumph of Islam in America. It is a reflection of a secular political culture where competence and relevance matter more than religion. This is why Barack Obama, the son of a Kenyan, became President. This is why Keith Ellison became the first Muslim member of Congress back in 2006. And this is why Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and now Zohran Mamdani could win their seats.

But we must also compare this moment with history. In 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt won in the middle of the Great Depression. Banks were collapsing, factories were shutting down, and millions were unemployed. Roosevelt did not win because he had a perfect foreign policy. He won because he promised a New Deal—jobs, social security, relief programmes to save the poor and working class. His election was America turning inward to heal itself. The same sentiment helped Trump in 2016, though with opposite ideology. Trump said: “America First,” withdraw from bad trade agreements, stop immigration, bring factories back. People listened, not because of foreign theory, but because of empty factories in Detroit and abandoned towns in Pennsylvania. Mamdani’s story is a continuation of this tradition—different language, different class, but the same wound.

This also tells us that America is not a stable, contented society. Beneath its skyscrapers and military bases lies a nation deeply anxious about rent, jobs and future. Wages are stagnant, but the cost of living rises daily. Young people are drowning in student debt. Healthcare is so expensive that illness becomes bankruptcy. In such a climate, any politician who speaks directly to domestic pain gains attention. Mamdani did exactly that. He visited tenants facing eviction, stood with taxi drivers drowning in debt and criticised billionaires owning empty apartments while families sleep on streets.

At the same time, his victory is not a revolution. America is still governed by big corporations, financial institutions and political lobbies. Socialist words are easy; socialist governance is a battlefield. He will face resistance from real estate companies, transport unions, wealthy donors and even moderate Democrats who believe capitalism should be adjusted, not replaced. The media will test him. Wall Street will watch him. And if he fails to deliver, the same people who supported him will abandon him.

One more point must be understood. The world is watching this election not because a Muslim has won, but because it signals deeper shifts in American democracy. This is a country tired of global wars, tired of policing the world, tired of paying taxes for foreign conflicts while bridges at home collapse. As foreign policy drifts into the background, domestic policy becomes the battlefield. Housing, health, wages—these are now the new frontlines of American politics. And just like Roosevelt in 1932 or Trump in 2016, Mamdani has entered this battlefield with promises of change.

Yet hope must be balanced with realism. America still operates under a capitalist constitution. Wall Street still funds campaigns. Defence industries still shape foreign policy. Internationalism and isolationism will continue to rotate in Washington like seasons. But what has changed is the mood of the people. They no longer care if America leads the world. They only ask if they can afford to live in the world they inhabit.

Zohran Mamdani’s victory is therefore symbolic. It proves that a candidate does not need to ride on religion or foreign policy to win. He only needs to understand the insecurities of ordinary life. He did not win because he is Muslim. He won because he spoke about rent before religion, fairness before foreign alliances and broken subway systems before broken borders.

Whether he succeeds or fails, his election is a reminder that America, like all great powers of history, ultimately returns to the same question: not how to govern the world, but how to govern itself.