THE BOTTOM LINE - Los Angeles has enough serious problems without turning the race for mayor into a social-media circus.
Councilmember Nithya Raman wants voters to entrust her with one of the most consequential jobs in municipal government. She wants responsibility for a city of nearly four million people, a multibillion-dollar government, a homelessness crisis, public safety, emergency preparedness, and the enormous challenge of preparing Los Angeles for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Then she participated in a political video built around the phrase, “Only you can stop fascist liars.”
That was not courageous leadership. It was reckless, juvenile and beneath the office she is seeking.
Mayor Karen Bass was right to condemn it. Bass called Raman’s conduct “incredibly irresponsible,” questioned whether she understands what fascism means and said the episode demonstrated that Raman was “not ready for prime time.”
But the most troubling part may have been Raman’s explanation. Her defense was essentially that she repeated language given to her by a social-media creator, while her campaign maintained that controversial imagery involving LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell was added afterward.
That does not make this better. It makes it worse.
Someone asking voters to make her mayor of Los Angeles should know what she is saying before the camera starts recording. She should understand the message to which she is attaching her name and reputation. And when something bearing her face and voice crosses a line, she should take responsibility for it.
“I was told what to say” is not a defense worthy of a candidate for mayor. The mayor of Los Angeles cannot outsource judgment.
When wildfires threaten neighborhoods, demonstrations turn violent, an earthquake strikes or another crisis erupts without warning, the mayor cannot blame a consultant, influencer, staff member, or video editor. There is no retake button in the mayor’s office.
Leadership requires judgment before the damage is done.
That is why this episode matters far beyond one Instagram video.
Raman has made criticism of McDonnell and the LAPD’s response to federal immigration enforcement an important part of her campaign. She has every right to do that. Police chiefs are not above criticism. LAPD policies should be scrutinized. Elected officials should demand accountability. A candidate for mayor is entirely within her rights to argue that a police chief should be replaced.
But there is an enormous difference between serious oversight and political theater. There is a difference between saying, “I believe this police chief has failed,” and participating in inflammatory political content involving accusations of fascism and imagery showing the chief’s face crossed out.
One is criticism. The other is provocation.
Raman’s campaign says the “fascist liars” language referred to ICE and the Trump administration rather than Bass or McDonnell, and that the controversial imagery was added by the video’s creator.
Even accepting that explanation, a fundamental question remains: Where was Raman’s judgment?
Candidates cannot embrace the benefits of viral political content and then distance themselves from the consequences when that content explodes in controversy. If you put your face and voice into political messaging, you have a responsibility to know what message you are helping deliver.
That is not an unreasonable standard. For someone seeking the mayoralty, it is a minimum standard.
The controversy is even more striking because Raman voted to confirm McDonnell as LAPD chief in November 2024. Less than two years later, she has pledged to remove him if elected mayor.
Politicians are allowed to change their minds. Circumstances change. New information emerges. Records develop. But reversing yourself on the leadership of one of America’s largest police departments deserves a serious explanation.
Los Angeles deserves more than slogans and viral videos.
City Hall is not TikTok. And the mayoralty is not an influencer internship.
The next mayor will confront homelessness, housing affordability, public safety, infrastructure failures, financial pressures, emergency preparedness, immigration tensions and preparations for a global sporting event that will put Los Angeles under an international microscope.
Those challenges require maturity, discipline, and judgment. They require a mayor capable of disagreeing fiercely without becoming reckless. They require someone who understands that words spoken by elected officials carry consequences.
The Los Angeles Police Protective League condemned the imagery involving McDonnell and warned that it could create a dangerous message. McDonnell has separately described violence officers faced during immigration related protests, including officers being injured and fireworks being fired at police.
Against that backdrop, inflammatory political rhetoric becomes even more irresponsible.
Los Angeles has enough division already. Its next mayor should know how to lower the temperature, when necessary, not raise it for social-media engagement.
Raman wants voters to see her as the alternative to Karen Bass. Then make the case.
Challenge Bass on homelessness, housing, public safety, the budget, and City Hall accountability. Challenge every decision Bass has made if the evidence justifies it.
That is democracy.
But accusations of fascism or participating in content that reasonably creates that impression are not a substitute for a governing agenda. They are political performance.
And Los Angeles cannot afford leadership by performance.
There is another reason the language matters. “Fascist” is not simply a harsher synonym for a politician, police chief or government policy someone dislikes.
Fascism carries enormous historical weight. It is associated with authoritarianism, political repression, state violence, and some of the darkest chapters of modern history. Reducing that word to social-media ammunition does not strengthen political debate. It cheapens it.
A candidate seeking to lead one of America’s largest cities should understand the difference.
Bass was therefore right to question Raman’s judgment. Voters should question it too.
The mayoralty is not about who can produce the most provocative Instagram clip. It is about who can govern.
Who can make difficult decisions when every available option carries consequences? Who can command public confidence during an emergency? Who can demand accountability from the LAPD while still working effectively with the department? Who can bring together communities that profoundly disagree? Who can stand before millions of Angelenos during a crisis and project competence, stability, and authority?
Those are mayoral questions.
And this episode raises serious doubts about Raman’s answers.
Perhaps the most revealing part of the controversy is not even the word “fascist.” It is what happened afterward.
If Raman truly did not understand how the finished video would be presented, that raises questions about her control over her own political messaging. If she did understand it, then she should own the message instead of distancing herself from its most controversial elements.
Neither explanation is reassuring.
Los Angeles does not need a mayor who discovers the consequences of political messaging after it goes viral. It needs a mayor who anticipates consequences before acting.
Karen Bass has a record that deserves rigorous scrutiny. Her performance on homelessness, public safety, housing, city finances, and the basic functioning of Los Angeles should be debated aggressively. An incumbent mayor should never be protected from criticism simply because her challenger made a serious mistake.
But Raman’s conduct cannot be excused because Bass has vulnerabilities of her own.
The larger question is what standard Los Angeles should demand from anyone seeking its highest municipal office.
That standard should include judgment, maturity, and accountability. It should include knowing the difference between forceful political criticism and reckless spectacle.
Nithya Raman entered this campaign asking Angelenos to believe she is ready to lead Los Angeles.
This episode gave them reason to ask the opposite.
When a candidate cannot exercise sound judgment over political content carrying her own face and voice, voters have every right to wonder what happens when the stakes are no longer clicks, headlines and campaign damage control.
What happens when the stakes are lives, neighborhoods, and the safety of an entire city?
That is the question Raman now owns.
If this is how she handles a social-media video, how will she handle a real crisis?
Los Angeles cannot afford to discover the answer the hard way.
The office of mayor is too important. The stakes are too high. And leadership is too serious.
Nithya Raman’s “fascist” stunt was not leadership.
For someone asking Los Angeles to entrust her with the city, it was disqualifying.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)
