What's Up With AOC?
Often, those on the right view her as a punching bag, as some socialist pirate. On the conventional left, she's regarded as a progressive champion, almost an extreme. But the reality isn't so simple.
Editor’s Note (2022): Spoiler— AOC’s a good for nothing hack. She contributes to the delusion the system can be reformed on Instagram and Tik Tok.
A lot of people think they know AOC, they all think they have her pinned down and figured out. Often, those on the right use her as a punching bag, viewed as some socialist pirate. On the conventional left, she's regarded as a progressive champion, almost an extreme. However, pulling away from a hyperpartisan lens, one can probably see a more underwhelming reality.
In 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's primary victory over longtime incumbent Joseph Crowley and her district election victory that November to become the representative for New York's 14th District was a source of immense hope for a future of American politics that is no longer bogged down by corporate influence and is working to move this country forward.
But those feelings and that apparent momentum feels diminished, or at least somewhat different.
While the hope for a better functioning government is nowhere near being entirely dead, 2021 finds that it has taken a roller coaster ride with unpredictably sharp twists and turns in recent months. As is the case for many of the people who seek progressive, material change in this country, the whip-lash and the nausea from the erratic track is getting irritating for an attraction that, on the outside, has a never-ending line of enthusiasm and support.
This mainly started unfolding in December 2020 when progressives were forming a movement about forcing a floor vote for Medicare For All in order to get elected officials on the record regarding an immensely popular, progressive goal. With the House majority being smaller going into the next legislative session, progressive members of Congress could have said to Nancy Pelosi that they are withholding their vote for speaker unless a Medicare For All is brought to the floor.
As concisely worded as possible: Ocasio-Cortez and company folded. Though, that wasn't without some embers of hope on the matter sticking around until the very end before being decisively put out. Newly-elected members Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush declined to say whether or not they'd give Pelosi their vote for speakership in the lead up to the vote, but in the end they gave the "Mama Bear" her votes. And AOC herself, along with Bush, appeared to abstain from voting, but when the second round of votes came along, they coughed it up without shame.
This obviously caused outrage among progressives and the anti-establishment left. AOC was the one who valiantly came onto the scene as a threat to establishment politics, citing the corporate overlap of both political parties as a sign the two aren't entirely different and urging the need to "bring the ruckus" to Pelosi and the Democratic establishment. And yet, when the opportunity came to move the ball forward on a progressive initiative, she did nothing. Not only that, she completely ignored any opportunity to wield power.
Last month, when the American Rescue Plan was set to include an increase of the minimum wage to $15 an hour, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the provision could not be included due to the rules of budget reconciliation— the process that requires a simple majority to pass. The decision was decried by many critics who pointed out that the parliamentarian could be replaced or the Senate could have overruled the parliamentarian— which by the way is an unelected member of the Senate staff.
In light of this, Bernie Sanders went ahead and forced a vote in the Senate on the $15 minimum wage. Of course, it did not pass, but it did shine a spotlight on all of the 58 senators that voted against it, most notably Sen. Sinema (D - AZ).
When the Senate's changes to the relief bill needed to be approved by the House, AOC and The Squad surely could have done something. They could have taken a chance— a chance that would have been in line with why AOC and company became popular in the first place and one that would have likely been graciously received— and threatened to withhold their votes for the American Rescue Plan as protest of the parliamentarian's ruling and the Senate's submission to that ruling.
Many people said if they did it, it'd ruin their careers— and yes, stalling a COVID relief bill would be vastly unpopular with a significant chunk of Americans— but again, these members of Congress got elected because they vowed to be a force of change, and claiming that these same elected officials would suffer a major blow to their "career" for being that force is absurd.
And many said no elected Democrat would have the guts to vote no on the stimulus bill. That is, aside from Rep. Jared Golden of Maine and Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon. They maybe didn't do it for the reasons The Squad would have, but they proved that even a single member of Congress could make a visible protest of something that is a detriment to their constituents.
Schrader cited his concern with the boost in stimulus checks one year after the pandemic started.
Jared Golden, on the other hand, was a little more in line with what progressives in the House could have done in spite of the parliamentarian and the stubborn Senate. Here is Golden's defense, in his own words:
"Although I support the Senate’s effort to reduce the number of wealthier households that will receive stimulus checks, they did not go far enough, and other changes — like removing the minimum wage increase or providing a lower unemployment benefit — undermined policies that I support. I voted for a $15 minimum wage in the last Congress, and given the opportunity, I intend to do so again."
What's easily the most perplexing aspect of AOC and The Squad's unwillingness to wield and utilize any power is that what a group of Congress members fails to implement to their advantage, one senator from West Virginia uses with borderline impunity.
Yup, this is Sen. Joe Manchin (D - WV) we're talking about, yet again in this young Biden administration. He has cracked the whip on so many things from lowering unemployment benefits, the overall cost of the relief bill, the minimum wage, and the corporate tax rate.
So why can't these so-called progressives do what they vowed to do and utilize leverage to shake up the system that desperately needs it? There's no doubt that, from the outside, The Squad has shaken up the political arena to various degrees, whether it's social media engagement, the popularization of progressive policies, and a palpable energy that is undeniably popular with many voters, particularly young ones. That's mere posturing if nothing is going to change or pressured to change.
AOC has over 12 million Twitter followers, and at the same time, she has 12 million reasons why she can't do a particular thing she advocates for. To some degree— and many progressives obviously don't agree with this— there could be some understanding that AOC can't just get elected into government and blow the whole thing up, so to speak. But what's the other strategy? If there isn't an alternate strategy, then why are you there? And it is particularly concerning that as her popularity and support grows and solidifies, she seems to puff out her chest a little less and get a little more comfortable alongside her fellow career lawmakers.
With that comfort on the inside, she has shown immense discomfort with some on the outside. Not that she can't connect with her base, she most certainly can— she's right up there with Sanders and Trump in relation to their own base, if not better— but rather that she seems uncomfortable with criticism that comes from her left.
AOC is extremely effective at responding to criticism from her right— whether it's Ted Cruz, Dan Crenshaw, or Fox News, she always comes back highlighting the typical hypocrisy, the dullness, and all the inaccuracies of their attacks.
However, when the left tries to push her, it's a problem.
Jimmy Dore was the one who started the Force the Vote movement in December to get a Medicare For All vote on the floor— a plan that received a lot of positive reception from many prominent non-establishment, progressive voices, including Cornel West, Krystal Ball of Rising, former Bernie Sanders press secretary Briahna Joy Gray, progressive activist Ryan Knight, progressive commentator Kyle Kulinski, and Jordan Chariton of Status Coup, among others.
There were some disagreements— more "pragmatic" approaches, if you will. And a different opinion is fine, but at the same time name the alternative. Unspecific calls for incrementalism when the iron was hot is hardly a viable opinion, let alone one with any greater conviction.
Soon enough though, as the Force The Vote movement picked up maximum speed and Jimmy Dore was animatedly arguing on the behalf of millions of Americans who were demanding healthcare amid a global pandemic, AOC showcased her discomfort.
Instead of answering the questions many progressives were asking— Why not force a Medicare For All vote? What other plan do you have in mind?— she deflected. Granted, hate speech and online reproaches are detestable, but an elected leader— the leader of a movement— has to showcase some thick skin and ignore the pushback if they expect to be an effective leader.
In response, AOC likened the backlash she received because of her unwillingness to use leverage against the Democratic establishment to violence.
More recently, in another disappointment to anti-establishment progressives, AOC gave a rather underwhelming response to a question regarding Israel and Palestine.
Here's the clip that caught many people's attention— you can skip the short introduction by going straight to the 58 second mark:
People were concerned about both Ocasio-Cortez's lack of visible support for the oppressed Palestinians in her answer and, to a greater degree, about her lack of any real answer at all.
Palestinian journalist Ali Abunimah put it this way on a quote retweet of the clip:
"I'm incredibly impressed with AOC's Obama-like ability to fill large amounts of time with words while saying absolutely nothing. I challenge anyone to tell me what she just said."
But the general criticism was the underwhelming substance from an elected official that was arguably the most overwhelming force in the eyes of the establishment not too long ago.
Then this happened, and was fully confirmed:
California Highway Patrol officers in plain clothes showed up to the guy's home on behalf of the Capitol Police regarding a social media post. (CHP will often coordinate with other law enforcement agencies.) The guy who sent the tweet, Ryan Wentz, noted how he mistook the officers, as they were calling his name from over a hedge, for a Postmates delivery driver. However, Wentz soon found they were officers, there to ask him a few questions.
The allegation, amid the questioning, was that Wentz made a threat against a member of Congress, but as it turned out, the officers were there about another tweet that had a threatening remark, one that Wentz just happened to be tagged/mentioned in.
A spokesperson for AOC said they were not responsible for alerting Capitol Police. Some seem satisfied with that— there's no proof AOC or her staff notified Capitol Police of the tweet. Some have their suspicions, though, considering her staff's tendency to report threats to the Capitol Police.
As it stands, this has far less to do with AOC herself and more to do with the intelligence community, big tech oligarchs, and free speech. There's growing suspicions surrounding Twitter's role in all of this.
But either way you cut it, this is a growing concern for civil liberties if substance-backed critics are being intimidated or mistakenly intimidated over expressing displeasure with an elected leader's stance or— in the case of the Israel-Palestine answer— lack thereof.
Like a lot of things with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, not much is definitively known and many things will become clear with time. As of now, it's just notably sticky, especially when it involves outside, and often substantive, criticism from her left.
There's no way to tell for sure whether or not AOC is a progressive savior sent from some higher power, and there's no way to tell for sure whether she's a total fraud or not. Maybe those things will bear themselves out in time, but right now, neither of those seem to paint the whole picture.
These things we do know: AOC is not the boogeyman Fox News and the right likes to portray, which ties right in with the second thing because, at the same time, she is also not as vibrant a force that's rattling the cage of the Democratic Party as some like to think.
Above all, AOC is a political celebrity, and though that's not entirely worthless for engagement purposes, it is counterintuitive to the effort for actual change if she keeps sitting on the throne as progressive royalty while merely posturing and casually doing nothing to hold the establishment Democrats accountable. Fitting-in with D.C. political decorum is, in a sense, forfeiting.
She became popular as a political iconoclast before she became the preeminent icon.
Now, this is not to say she is an operative of the establishment, or a sell-out. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell for sure at this point in time. Plus, that would likely be a hasty oversimplification. However, those who distrust her are gaining more and more reasons to believe their gut feeling, and AOC's inaction and rationalization for it are supplying those reasons.
While The Huxleyan intends to remain free to the public, there are paid subscription offers (which would be more of a donation than receiving access to anything in particular) at $5/month, or $45/year. As always, donations are welcome and appreciated via Venmo (@john-pongratz). Again, as those are just options, everything remains free. Thank you for reading and be sure to subscribe, comment, and share!