On March 19, the Democratic Socialists of America’s magazine Democratic Left published an interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez combining lavish praise for the Democratic Party with vicious denunciations of socialism.
I feel its necessary to not just highlight an article of AOC selling herself as a candidate to the US interest-party for metropolitan labor, but what she actually does, and votes for.
I agree. I feel it’s also necessary to not pick and choose small snippets of what she’s talking about and re-contextualize them to fit a narrative you’re trying to push, which is what I feel the original article was doing.
I have no delusions about AOC’s future ability to actively engage in socialist policy-making, but I do believe she believes she has our best interests at heart for pushing for socialist change via the Democratic institution, and whether or not you agree with that belief is up to you to judge via viewing her actual words versus the tripe this article was pushing.
Of course it’s impossible to dissect her perceptions of herself, but we can at least observe her actions, and see that if she held any cognitive dissonance beforehand, she certainly isn’t anymore.
Her railing about “child concentration camps” has now become a defense of those same “influx facilities”, and her support of M4A, now becoming “it’s not the right time”, IMO are more than enough to expose her as a careerist / opportunist, and a dishonest person.
To an extent I agree. I feel she’s attempting to insert herself into the electoral system and feels the need to “play ball” in order to advance her agenda. Perhaps it is her belief an outsider will forever remain an outsider. Her support of Biden and Pelosi is very telling, and it makes clear to me she is not one to be trusted in actively advancing whatever leftist goals I may want to see advanced.
That being said I also see myself as a realist, and short of some major war I don’t know if Americans can be radicalized into true socialist reform. And if they could have been, the opposition has been well and truly snuffed out. One thing’s for sure: AOC is not the figurehead of a new movement–or at least a movement I see as being truly radical.
I feel its necessary to not just highlight an article of AOC selling herself as a candidate to the US interest-party for metropolitan labor, but what she actually does, and votes for.
I agree. I feel it’s also necessary to not pick and choose small snippets of what she’s talking about and re-contextualize them to fit a narrative you’re trying to push, which is what I feel the original article was doing.
I have no delusions about AOC’s future ability to actively engage in socialist policy-making, but I do believe she believes she has our best interests at heart for pushing for socialist change via the Democratic institution, and whether or not you agree with that belief is up to you to judge via viewing her actual words versus the tripe this article was pushing.
Of course it’s impossible to dissect her perceptions of herself, but we can at least observe her actions, and see that if she held any cognitive dissonance beforehand, she certainly isn’t anymore.
Her railing about “child concentration camps” has now become a defense of those same “influx facilities”, and her support of M4A, now becoming “it’s not the right time”, IMO are more than enough to expose her as a careerist / opportunist, and a dishonest person.
To an extent I agree. I feel she’s attempting to insert herself into the electoral system and feels the need to “play ball” in order to advance her agenda. Perhaps it is her belief an outsider will forever remain an outsider. Her support of Biden and Pelosi is very telling, and it makes clear to me she is not one to be trusted in actively advancing whatever leftist goals I may want to see advanced.
That being said I also see myself as a realist, and short of some major war I don’t know if Americans can be radicalized into true socialist reform. And if they could have been, the opposition has been well and truly snuffed out. One thing’s for sure: AOC is not the figurehead of a new movement–or at least a movement I see as being truly radical.