Polarized: AOC, STFU
/
(This piece is about Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Instagram). It’s clearly opinionated, but as you’ll see, supported by facts. Her supporters won’t like it. But maybe read it anyway? She’s included in this issue of Cascade Review because she’s clearly a key actor in polarizing our nation.)
t the start, let me say that I agree with almost all of AOC’s basic positions: clean energy, reducing income inequality, cutting the military budget, providing affordable health care, etc. But as the Rolling Stones once sang, It’s the Singer, Not the Song. In other words, where I part company with her is her self-delusion that somehow she’s helping. She’s not. She’s making all those things harder to achieve. She carries the fatal flaw of mistaking self-regard for self-awareness. As long as this persists, she will continue to be a prime asset for Republicans in maligning all progressives and the positions we promote. The GOP will continue to portray her as the face and soul of the Democratic party. And she is perfectly happy with all that attention.
If she were sitting here in front of me, this is what I’d tell her:
You are not “the base”. Predictably, you and your acolytes tried to take credit for the election of Joe Biden. As if your votes mattered more than all the suburbanites who defected from Trump. Or the rock-solid African-Americans who stayed true to the cause. Or, for that matter, every single Democratic voter in Georgia and Arizona. And every one of the late-deciding independents.
Furthermore, if your crowd were the base, then Bernie Sanders or maybe Elizabeth Warren would have been the nominee. But they lost. The wiser, larger and true base chose Biden, because it recognized him as the one candidate who could defeat Trump.
And finally, AOC, before you sprain something patting yourself on the back, remember this: it is far more relevant to say the reason Trump won four years ago is because self-importants like you and Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon, could not stop saying Hillary was terrible. Too many people listened—and thus, didn’t vote at all. Congratulations. To date, that’s the true electoral legacy of your movement.
You are not the “progressives”. Granted, I’m playing semantics here, but words matter. So, you know who’s “progressive"? Barack Obama. And you know who’s progressive? Hillary Clinton. And you know who else? Virtually every single one of the 80+ million people who voted for Joe Biden—all of them. The fact that many of them are “old” to you…or more moderate than you… doesn’t make them “moderates.”
What you’re practicing here is propaganda-level language manipulation, making “moderate” a dirty word and trying to claim “progressive” for yoursef. Granted, it’s working for you. But’s let be honest. Since you’re a self-described “democratic socialist” in order to distance yourself from the tawdry “moderates” why not go all the way? Go ahead and call it like it is—call yourself “far left” or “radical wing.” Be honest. That’s what you aspire to, so why not wear it?
After the election, you publicly said this about your own party: “…it’s been extremely hostile to anything that even smells progressive.” That is demonstrably untrue, and you should know it.
Some 400 distinctly progressive bills were passed by the House in which you sit. They were shepherded by an American legend, progressive Nancy Pelosi, before going to die on the desk of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Hell). Those bills included gun control, equal pay, increasing the minimum wage, extending protections for civil rights, supporting Dreamers, and helping the victims of domestic violence. Apparently, to you, such ideas don’t “smell” right. They are “hostile.”
Or it could be that you don’t remember voting for them yourself? Or maybe you didn’t even bother showing up for the votes?
Which is it?
Your Green New Deal is hot air. To repeat, do I agree with the goals of the Green New Deal? Yes! But that’s all it is—a set of goals. It’s like a seven-year-old’s letter to Santa. If you walked up to any member of Congress and ask how they intend to vote on this “bill”, the only appropriate answer would be, “what bill?” No bill exists. GND is bait-and-switch. So, maybe step away from social media and go write some legislation? Give us something to consider.
But I’m not going to let you off that easy. Let’s look at three of your GND “goals.”
First, a proposed total conversion to green energy by 2030. Ridiculous. It is far more likely that no one alive right now will last long enough to see this full conversion happen.
Second, you say this process will result in a job and living wage for every American. Back to the preceding thought—exactly how? Spell it out.
And finally, you clearly imply this process will pay for itself. I suppose you could imagine a society where the absolute banning of fossil fuels would result in lower costs and greater individual health (i.e., via less pollution). I‘m all for that. But predictably, you put a fuzzy price tag on all this. Even so, by definition, those savings don’t fully apply until after the conversion is complete. Healthier Americans should mean savings on health care, but “pay for itself” doesn’t arrive until decades—maybe generations—following completion. In the meantime, where does the money come from?
“Defund”: you cost Democrats seats in Congress. I know you’re frantically trying to walk back this position. After the election you were put on the spot (by implication) by Virginia Congresswoman Abagail Spanberger during what was supposed to be a private conference call. She said that using words like “socialism” and “defund” were “killing” Democratic candidates in swing districts. Unquestionably, countless hours of GOP attack ads using exactly these words were leveraged against Democrats.
Your first defense was to claim the real cause for Democratic losses was an inability to properly use digital marketing. Really? Then you tried backtracking, claiming that people needed to better understand what the word “defund” really meant. Apparently they were too lazy to find out. (We warned about this in early June.) Finally, you predictably tried to make all this racial, claiming anyone objecting to the use of “defund” was initiating “racial resentment attacks.” So sad. You threw the hand grenade but claimed later you didn’t pull the pin. We’ve seen that trick far too often the last four years.
There’s a fellow member of your congressional delegation named Jim Clyburn. He’s the majority whip. I know you don’t like him because it was his endorsement that jump-started the Biden campaign. He’s nearly a half century your elder, so I know you’re convinced he’s out of touch. But without directly naming you, he laid you low: “We need to work on what makes headway rather than what makes headlines.” Amen.
You’re uninformed. Let me state two examples of why you should listen more and preach less.
You were an outspoken opponent of Amazon’s plan to establish a second headquarters in New York city (though not in your district). To be certain, Amazon has a lot to answer for. And you can justifiably balk at the city’s offer of $2.8 billion in tax breaks in order to secure that Amazon development (as you clearly did.)
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo disagreed, countering that between 25,000 and 40,000 new, good-paying jobs would be created for New Yorkers, and the total economic benefit would rise to $30 billion. So, again, you can have your own opinion on whether eventually paying $2.8 billion to secure $30 billion in new revenues is a good idea.
But here’s what you can’t argue. You can’t claim that the nearly $3 billion could be better spent hiring teachers or fixing the subway system, rather than “giving” it to Amazon. You were pathetically unaware that the $3 billion was not sitting somewhere in a city vault. It did not exist! It was a tax break, to be applied after the Amazon revenues were brought in. It was never a direct pre-payment. Nothing could have happened until Amazon arrived and started building and hiring. See how that works?
Example number two. When questioned about the drop in unemployment claims during the first phase of Trump’s presidency, you stated this was misleading because the statistic wasn’t counting many people forced to work two jobs. Huh? Do you not understand that unemployment figures are calculated on the number of people employed--not the number of jobs filled?
A Washington Post columnist accused you of “economic illiteracy.” That’s hard to argue.
Are you really a champion of “communities of color”? On the just-mentioned Amazon/New York City deal, a significant greater number of Black and Latino residents of New York City favored the deal than did white residents. That’s because for the economically depressed area of Long Island City, where the HQ2 was to be developed, those jobs would have been highly prized.
The same thing holds true on social justice and policing. Virtually every segment of America wants to ban police chokeholds. But a YouGov poll for HuffPost showed a different opinion than yours among black, Hispanic, poor and young Americans. They oppose defunding the police.
So, the question pertains in both instances: for whom, exactly, are you speaking? People of color—or white liberal elites who believe that’s what you’re doing?
You are not the future. Numbers indicate America is catching on to you. Joe Biden carried the Bronx (not fully synonymous with your district) with 82% of the vote. You carried your district (including a large section of the Bronx) with 66% support. In other words, Democrats were 26 points less likely to vote for you than Biden. Similarly, fellow “Squad”-member Rep. Ilhan Omar won Congressional reelection in Minnesota with 64% her district’s vote. Biden carried that identical district with 81%—a 27 point shortfall for Omar. In no other district in America was the divide between Joe Biden and a winning Democratic representative that large. As I said, America is catching on.
wo years ago, in her very first hours as a Congresswoman, AOC marched into the middle of a protest inside the office of House Speaker Nany Pelosi. She wanted to show support for the criticisms of Pelosi’s leadership. AOC’s deed carried a clear message—Pelosi was too old, too set in her ways, and AOC was there to help show her the door.
Granted, AOC is young and female and a person of color. I am none of those things, so apparently I can’t understand what someone like her represents. Obviously, I don’t get it—and never could relate to her demographic.
In response, I would point to Abby Phillip, a black female who is also age 31. She works at CNN, and her intelligence and insight lead me to believe that she will be a vital voice for progress in America long after I’m gone. So why is it that I feel I can relate to her.
Let me close with one more message for AOC:
We have finally eradicated from the White House a narcissistic, no-knowledge showboat who lives on Twitter, romances the media by feeding them endless drama, and knows little about the causes he pretends to embrace. Take a careful look at him.
Now, AOC…take a look in the mirror.
See the resemblance?
Have a comment or thought on this? Just hit the Your Turn tab here or email us at mailbox@cascadereview.net to have your say.
