Why Curtis Sliwa Might Be More Progressive Than People Think

When people hear the name Curtis Sliwa, they usually think of a Republican, a law-and-order figure, or the founder of the Guardian Angels — the street patrol group that has become a staple of New York City lore. What many fail to realize, though, is that Sliwa’s history shows a surprising streak of progressive and compassionate values. Looking closer at his work with the Guardian Angels, his support for LGBTQ+ individuals, and his dedication to animal welfare, you can see a pattern: Sliwa has consistently shown concern for the vulnerable in society, even in ways that many would not expect from a Republican figure.

Take the Guardian Angels, for instance. While the group is often associated with patrolling streets and preventing crime, there’s a deeper dimension that often gets overlooked: their focus on protecting vulnerable groups, particularly women. From the early days of the Guardian Angels, Sliwa emphasized protecting people who were most at risk, whether it was someone walking home late at night or someone being harassed in public spaces. Viewed through a feminist lens, this focus on women’s safety isn’t just a law-and-order stance — it’s an acknowledgment of systemic vulnerability and a commitment to shielding those who are often targeted or marginalized in society. Protecting women, in this sense, becomes a form of advocacy, a practical feminism rooted in everyday action.

Then there’s the story of the gay wedding. According to Sliwa, in the 1970s, he officiated a wedding for a gay man at a time when LGBTQ+ individuals were widely ostracized and openly marginalized. Whether or not this was officially recognized or widely publicized, the point is clear: Sliwa did not view LGBTQ+ identity as something to fear, shame, or attack. In fact, he stepped up in a period when doing so could have carried personal or professional risk. That willingness to support and affirm LGBTQ+ people at such a difficult time speaks volumes about his character. It shows that, on a human level, Sliwa respects people who are vulnerable or excluded by society, and is willing to act on that respect.

Sliwa’s advocacy doesn’t stop with humans. He has also consistently shown concern for animals. His personal life reflects this — he has cared for multiple cats and other pets — but his political platform in the 2025 mayoral race reinforces his commitment to animal welfare. He has called for reforms in the city’s animal shelters, proposed no-kill policies, and even suggested innovative approaches to urban challenges like using feral cat colonies to address New York City’s rat problem. While some might see this as a quirky or unconventional policy position, it demonstrates the same fundamental principle that underpins his work with humans: a concern for the well-being of those who cannot speak for themselves, or who are otherwise vulnerable.

When you look at the Guardian Angels through a feminist lens, consider the gay wedding story, and examine Sliwa’s animal advocacy, a pattern emerges. In each instance, he is focused on protecting or uplifting those who are vulnerable — women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and animals. These are not positions typically associated with mainstream Republicans, yet they reveal a more nuanced character. Sliwa is a figure who, despite party affiliation, has shown a commitment to the safety, dignity, and welfare of those often overlooked or marginalized.

This perspective does not mean Sliwa is a progressive in the conventional sense. He is still a Republican with law-and-order roots and political positions that may not align with all progressive values. But when you look at his actions and history, there is a thread of compassion and concern for the vulnerable that is undeniable. It is this thread — the consistent focus on protecting and caring for those at risk — that makes Sliwa more progressive than many may think, and adds another layer of complexity to the way we understand him as a candidate.

In a city and a political landscape where labels often dictate perception, it is important to look beyond party lines and focus on actions, history, and character. Curtis Sliwa, through the Guardian Angels, his support for LGBTQ+ people, and his advocacy for animals, demonstrates that compassion and progressivism can manifest in unexpected places. And for voters willing to look beyond ideology, that nuance matters — perhaps more than ever.

When I step back and look at the 2025 NYC mayoral race, it becomes clear to me that this election isn’t just about politics, ideology, or party affiliation. It’s about survival, functionality, and the capacity for a city to continue operating without descending into chaos. And when you view it through that lens, Curtis Sliwa emerges as the paradoxical best choice — the non-progressive option that offers the greatest chance for stability, continuity, and some breathing room.

I’ve written before about why I see Zohran Mamdani as a “chaos candidate.” He is, in many ways, the idealistic choice — someone whose policies I agree with and whose progressive vision I admire. But the reality is that external pressures on his administration would be immense from day one. Trump, other federal actors, hostile political factions — all of it would converge on him immediately, making his ability to govern effectively questionable. Even if Zohran’s intentions are good, the chaos surrounding him could engulf the city, his administration, and his movements before anything meaningful gets done.

Then there’s Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo is, for all intents and purposes, a Trump pick — the quintessential “Trump lite” candidate. His ties to Trump, real or perceived, would tether him to external influence and oversight. Any attempt to act independently would be met with scrutiny, interference, or coercion. Cuomo’s path is fraught with pressure, and his leadership would likely result in a city beholden to the whims of the national right-wing machinery.

Sliwa, paradoxically, occupies a different space. He is a Republican, yes, but his dynamic with Trump is tense and transactional. They tolerate each other, but he is not Trump’s favorite, nor is he beholden to Trump’s approval. That independence matters more than party labels. It means Sliwa is uniquely positioned to navigate the political landscape without being crushed by external interference.

Beyond that, Sliwa’s history demonstrates that he is not simply a standard Republican figure. His founding of the Guardian Angels shows a longstanding commitment to protecting vulnerable populations, especially women. His claim of officiating a gay wedding during a time when LGBTQ+ individuals were widely ostracized suggests he is willing to act on principles of fairness and inclusion, even when it was unpopular or risky. And his advocacy for animal welfare adds another layer of care for the vulnerable in society. These elements, when taken together, paint a picture of a leader who, while not progressive in the traditional sense, respects and protects those who are most at risk.

Then there are also the Guardian Angels themselves. When people hear “Guardian Angels,” the first word that often comes to mind is vigilantes. And yes, there’s truth in that label — the organization is known for patrolling streets, confronting crime, and taking matters into their own hands in ways that sometimes skirt traditional law enforcement channels. There are instances and tactics that are certainly questionable, and critics have every right to point them out.

But if you step back and look at the bigger picture, another perspective emerges. The Guardian Angels can also be seen as a vanguard of direct action — an embodiment of what progressive movements often talk about but sometimes struggle to implement. They are actively engaging in their communities, identifying problems that those in positions of power either ignore or fail to solve, and taking concrete steps to address them. This is action that comes from care, concern, and a willingness to step into spaces where others won’t.

At their core, the Angels demonstrate a principle that many progressives advocate: that waiting for bureaucracies or politicians to solve problems often isn’t enough. Change sometimes requires direct, hands-on intervention. And while the methods may be unconventional, the underlying philosophy aligns with the kind of community-based activism that is often celebrated on the left — the idea that people can organize, collaborate, and protect vulnerable populations without waiting for permission.

Of course, this is not a perfect analogy. The Guardian Angels have faced controversies, and there are moments when their approach has been criticized as aggressive or performative. But even with those caveats, the fact remains: they represent a willingness to act, to take responsibility, and to address urgent needs in society. In other words, they practice the kind of direct action that progressives and leftists often discuss in theory, but which is far rarer in practice.

This lens is crucial when considering Curtis Sliwa’s candidacy. The Guardian Angels aren’t just a footnote in his history; they reflect a philosophy of engagement, responsibility, and protection. These are qualities that, while not traditionally “progressive,” resonate deeply with the values of community care, advocacy for the vulnerable, and active problem-solving that progressives hold dear.

When I weigh all of this — the chaos potential of Zohran, the Trump-aligned Cuomo, and the nuances in Sliwa’s character and past actions — the choice becomes clear. Sliwa offers the best chance for NYC to maintain stability, to keep the city running, and to create distance from Trump’s influence. He may not embody my progressive ideals, but in a race where the options are either chaos or heavy-handed oversight, he represents the least worst path. He is, paradoxically, the stopgap candidate — someone who can keep things from completely falling apart while allowing for the city to function.

For me, as a progressive who has never considered voting Republican before, this is a difficult but rational conclusion. It’s not about ideological alignment; it’s about choosing the option that minimizes harm, maximizes stability, and preserves the city’s ability to breathe, even in turbulent times. In 2025, that candidate is Curtis Sliwa.