My ‘Bret Stephens for Mayor’ Substack

America, I am putting my old arthritic shoulder to the wheel

I have come to the realization that I like writing these Substacks. I like the mental exercise involved. I think it’s a good workout for my cerebral hemispheres (particularly my frontal lobes).

I am still trying to find my way around Substack. I only have a small number of subscribers. That’s perfectly fine. I’m too old to do anything other than write to please myself, and post only what my critical judgement finds interesting. If you find it interesting also, then we are ‘in business’; we’re connecting. Other than that, I feel the new AI digital age gives us a ‘time capsule’ for our thoughts and whatever words (i.e., ‘content’) we care to create. After all — nothing, (good or bad!) — is ever lost once it gets into the space of the ‘Internet-digital-cloud-computers-memory-algorithms’, etc. As far as we can peer into the future, I believe whatever I write goes into a gleaming time capsule of informational technology. There it’s retained and copied securely and accurately, always available for future interested researchers and our progeny, even the progenies of our progenies. Anyway, that’s what I believe. If I’m wrong, and my forever time capsule turns out to be as ephemeral as Emily Dickinson’s desk drawer; well, it really doesn’t matter. Writing, now in my eighties, trying to make myself understood on the page, is a process I find pleasurable and life affirming. The benefits of managing a publication in a Substack account like this, are manifold and sufficient. The ‘process’ literally pays for itself.

So, you should know that while I ‘profile’ myself here in Substack (and X/Twitter) as a retired psychiatrist and software designer — focused on the interface between brain, memory and computer, and problems of getting older — it’s not the whole story. Yes, you will find me hocking the notion that as we age, we should teach ourselves to use our computers as ‘reading glasses’, to compensate for normal expected short-term memory impairment; we should use WAZE to help us get around, allowing us to be laser focused on safety, concentrating in the moment on cars and traffic trying to kill us, while letting the little lady in the integrated software look ahead and guide us to the proper exit lane on the interstate; we should use GROK as the world’s greatest reference library, not only giving us the facts but organizing same, helping us uniquely find the word we’ve forgotten, or the hazy allusion that we’re certain has meaning but just can’t bring to our mind’s surface. Yet, despite these preoccupations, I am not averse to sounding off on more personal topics here — like the Middle East, where we can (perhaps) understand Hamas better if we become sensible to something like ‘Suicide by Cop’; like the idea that ‘culture’ has meaning and impact; even simple things that move me for the moment, like the taste and sound of a crispy taco from college days.

With that introduction, let me prepare you for what’s ahead. Here is the article’s ABSTRACT.

The author responds to Zohran Mamdani’s win in the NYC Democratic primary for mayor; his response takes him on a trip through social media, where he learns how a little pisher like himself can try his hand at political influence; (for a price); and how he actually attempts to trigger a chain reaction that puts the New York Times’s columnist Bret Stephens in Gracie Mansion.

— — —

So let’s start at the beginning. When Sondra and I met and married, we were both so liberal that we enthusiastically supported George McGovern for President in 1968. He lost in a landslide. I admit that surprised me since I thought he had a good chance. I recognize now I was blinded by the simple bias of assuming everyone thinks the same way I do.

Sondra and I soon recognized, as we moved up the middle class professional ladder, that in having strong Democratic leanings, we were voting against our economic interests. It was costing us to keep voting Democratic. That was fine; certainly it made me feel noble and virtuous. I was paying higher taxes and helping poorer people; what could be bad?

As I got older, I maintained my younger noble aspirations, but the expressions of the Democratic party around these parts changed, in ways we all know and do not need another enumeration. Now I consider myself an ‘independent’, rather than an adherent to a particular party. I now define myself as ‘neoconservative’ — strongly pro-Israel, and recognizing that Islamic peoples in the Middle East, in general, have a different non-Western ‘culture’ than me. Being a neoconservative means that I am moved deeply by American history, and our country’s founding values of freedom, justice and the rule of law — never perfect, but aspirationally unique in the world. It also means I respect a logical argument, but am put off by the stridency of emotional appeals. It means I am patient; but mistrust rapid revolutionary changes. I can wait, always attuned to the words of Martin Luther King Jr.: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

However, Sondra never changed, politically. She has continued to hate Trump with a white-hot passion, refusing to recognize even a ‘goof’ of his that occasionally results in a ‘good’ action. To Sondra, Trump is a broken clock that is always a broken clock, dangerous, and despicable. He never shows the right time, even twice a day. And yet, despite our differences in political outlook, we have a strong marriage. We can even ‘talk’ politics, probably because we have decided by unspoken agreement never to argue about what we say politically. No Op-Eds, just the facts as we see them.

Sondra closely follows all politics, and her disdain for Republicans practically has a physical aspect. If she’s in the mood, it’s almost like a fog rising about her as she comes into the room. In contrast, I am not really interested in politics per se, unless the politics in question touches on Israel or the Jews.

Sondra and I are both committed Jews and ‘Zionists’ even as both words have become wobbly and odiferous since October 7th. We attend different orthodox services on Shabbot, and I assume we get different things out of our respective Shabbot experiences. She goes to ‘The Jewish Center’ on the upper west side; I go to S&P (Spanish and Portuguese) a half mile away. Her shul is Ashkenazi, familiar to her since childhood in Brooklyn, and as comforting. Mine is Sephardic, and over time I have learned to appreciate the service like an opera, at first strange and unfamiliar, only yielding its beauty with repetition and familiarity. (S&P is noted for its professional men’s choir, and for traditions that well predate the Declaration of Independence.)

So I first became aware of this person Mamdani really only recently, when Sondra returned from shul one Shabbos, and told me that everyone was rallying around Cuomo to cut back on Mamdani’s rising numbers. Even then, I paid little attention, as no longer a registered Democrat, I would not be voting on primary day. But then, to the largely unspoken disgust of almost everyone in both our shuls, Mamdani won. Sondra, (plus some of her like-minded very liberal Jewish friends), realized that they were not only voting against their economic interests; but now, if they wanted to continue voting Democratic, they would be voting against their own flesh and blood, their children and grandchildren living in Israel, or kids attending Jewish camps and day schools. We are still months away from November’s mayoral election, but already I have noticed some subtle changes. For years my shul has had two security guards at the entrance door. Yesterday, one was wearing a bullet proof vest. (I almost failed to register any significance — how bad is that!)

Earlier, last Tuesday, July 1st, I had read Bret Stephens’ OpEd piece in the Times. Reading that, I finally got a full sense of what Mamdani’s win in the mayoral Democratic primary might mean for New York City and for me.

Like all of Stephens’ pieces, it was logical and incisive — and at the same time, typical and expected. Stephens always represents my concerns and point of view perfectly. Despite (I assume) being a neoconservative like myself, I think he has always voted Democratic, even (reluctantly) voting for Kamala Harris in the last election. (There, we differed; I left the ‘for President’ column blank.) In case you missed it, here is his OpEd from June 1st.

So a few days ago, back home from our respective Shabbot services, Sondra told me that people were worried about Mamdani, and wanted to back an ‘independent’ in November, either Adams, (the present mayor, pardoned by Trump), or Cuomo, (should he decide to run). Frankly, neither of those candidates excited me; in fact, they depressed me. I thought, “Wouldn’t it be great if we could coalesce and run Bret Stephens for mayor.” I remember hearing him speak a few years ago, at some conference I attended. He’s a great speaker, smart, knowledgable, level headed and he ‘presents’ well. I thought, “Why couldn’t he be our mayoral candidate!”

And then I decided, why not indeed. Even Sondra had read Stephens’ OpEd, liked it, and agreed with it! With that realization, I proceeded to sit down and map out a strategy using my knowledge of computers and social media, assisted (as always) by Grok. The remainder of this Substack, explains the process and the results.

— — —

I have access or a ‘presence’ on two social media accounts, X/Twitter and Substack. I chose X/Twitter to post my tweet. It said, “I support Bret Stephens for the Mayor of New York. Join me and everyone [else] to help convince him. Give this post a heart. It can be done.“

Just in case, I included a link to Grok where I asked *if* Stephens could run and possibly get elected. In the link (underlined above and displayed below), Grok produced fives pages of analysis of Stephens’ purported mayoral campaign, answering my question, “How could Bret Stephens, NYT columnist, run for the mayor of New York City against Zohran Mamdani”.

Everyone seeing the X/Twitter tweet would read of my suggestion of running Stephens, and could click a heart if they liked the idea. (Like you, they could also check out Grok’s analysis of a potential campaign.) Based on Grok, I knew that Stephens could run and ‘possibly’ win, but in order to do so, he would need another 7,499 more signatures, in addition to my own. Knowing that he was a winning possibility was enough incentive for me to move forward.

I then decided to give the process some juice. Though I am a universe away from Qatar, (my rival in this), I added some money (my own campaign donation) and paid X/Twitter to ‘promote’ the post. X/Twitter has millions upon millions of users with the X/Twitter app on their mobile phone or computer. I gave X/Twitter about a hundred bucks to promote my ‘Bret Stephens for Mayor… give this post a heart if you agree’ tweet.

Here are the results:

The ‘Stephens for Mayor’ post went to 111 thousand feeds or ‘impressions’ (see [1] above in red). I could have (and should have) specified a limited geographical area, i.e., New York City. Since I failed to do that, the promoted tweet was sent by default to X/Twitter users across the entire country, which greatly diluted any effect in promoting Bret’s campaign in New York. (Who in Idaho or Peoria knows him.) Perhaps that explains why only 538 had become ‘engaged’ with the tweet, (see [2]) above. Errors for any first time activity are to be expected; live and learn; noted for the future.

In any event, 35 people gave hearts (likes), 2 people reposted the tweet to all their ‘followers’, while 7 added a comment — see [3], [4] and [5] above in red for symbols and numbers.

I keep getting notifications when anyone taps the heart symbol and ‘likes’ the idea. (The latest count is 37 hearts.) Here is how X/Twitter shows people who ‘like’ your post by click/tapping a heart.

Hearts are great, but I have learned that numbers under the ‘reposting’ symbol, (two arrows chasing each other in the form of a square), are what you really need if you want to start a chain reaction. It’s the reposting of a tweet to the feeds of the individual’s ‘followers’ (sometimes hundreds and more), that has the theoretical ability to start a ‘chain reaction’, and cause a tweet to go viral. They are the ‘slow neutrons’ in the pile, and my ‘Bret for Mayor’ post only generated two. (I plan to donate another $25 to Bret’s campaign, and promote the post again, limiting it only to New York City.)

Finally, I have included three of the seven comments, which are fairly representative.

— — —

So now what? I haven’t given up. You, my subscribers to this Substack publication must now take up the Bret Stephens’ Mayoral Challenge: click/tap a heart at the end of this Substack. Show Bret you care.

The editor of Commentary, John Podhoretz, hopefully will somehow see this Substack. (If you know him, please forward this Substack to him.) I hear him on his Commentary Magazine podcast almost every weekday. He occupies the chair for the doyen of neoconservatism. In fact, I think the word itself was coined in the pages of his or his father’s magazine. (My father was one of his father’s subscribers in Dallas. I’ve read Commentary since the late fifties.) Podhoretz knows Bret Stephens, who sometimes turns up as a guest on the podcast. Maybe he should be the person who finally asks Bret Stephens what *he* thinks about running…

You think?

— — —

** The Grok certificate of Originality **

At this point in the process, after I have been satisfied with all final editing and any changes, I like to submit the completed Substack to Grok with the following statement and question: Based on your standards, I want you Grok to certify that (a) you had nothing to do with the actual creation of this Substack post and (b) 'on its surface’, this Substack is 'logical and coherent’. Nothing more. Yes or no; 'logical and coherent’; the reader will take it from there.