First, you know what fits on a bumper sticker? “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too,” that’s what fits on a bumper sticker. This ain’t a new thang at all.
Second, you know what doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker? A five-minute back-and-forth about various aspects of campaign and legislative law and ethics, that’s what doesn’t.
Third, Trump won with “Build The Wall!” and “Lock Her Up!” and McCain tried to win with “Drill Baby Drill!” and Obama won with “Yes We Can!” There’s no goddamned way that AOC is making bumper-sticker mindset worse in our politics.
Finally, folks are objecting to her argument based on the idea that money doesn’t win elections. As Rebecca Bunch would say, the situation is a lot more nuanced than that. Money DOES sometimes matter. Spending in the week before an election can cause a bump, according to the article, and spending in primaries can make a big difference, and spending by challengers in races without clear partisan lines can make a difference.
And there’s the issue of perception. If politicians believe that the money makes a difference, then it will change their behavior in deleterious ways. Madame Bad Guy who believes she needs fossil fuel money in order to win her next election may be wrong, but that won’t stop her from voting in favor of legislation that allows offshore drilling.
And I say that because that’s as far back as I can remember personally. But really, since the beginning of the two-party system.
It occurred to me that someone else in our popular mythology did that. Jewish guy, had magic powers or something? I meant Kal-L from the earliest Superman comic strips, whom did you think I meant?
It is too easy for politicians in D.C. to enrich themselves at the expense of the American public. Obviously what we need to do is dramatically cut taxes and shrink the size and power of the federal government, in order to reduce the chances that politicians have for enriching themselves.
I watched the video and didn’t see Cortez making that last point, but based on the argument she made, it obviously follows logically that that’s what she’s getting at.
What a cool way to win an argument: imagine your opponent agrees with you and declare victory!
Like, right now I’m imagining you realize that I’m being sarcastic and that it’s an absolutely absurd way to argue, and that even though you haven’t apologized yet for it, you’re going to do so, given that it’s the logical next move for you.
Federal authorities charged with protecting consumers, protecting the environment, and regulating drugs are liable to be co-opted by moneyed interests. The solution is to stop protecting consumers, stop protecting the environment, and to stop regulating drugs. Got it.
Federal authorities charged with regulating financial institutions to prevent panics and frauds and the loss of taxpayer dollars when financial crises strike may be corrupted by the same private companies they are charged with regulating. The solution is to ignore the possibility of frauds, encourage panics and … and what? Let the dollar dig itself out of the gutter next time? Revert to the gold standard? Got it, I guess?
I’ve already cautioned you against this here, but perhaps I wasn’t being clear enough. You also brought it up here and here, but they were slightly more germane so that did not warrant a comment. So let me be clear - If you do this again, you will receive a warning for harassment.
They WANT her and her ideas getting as much attention as possible.
Trust me - if Republicans could make AOC the face of the Democratic party, they’d be happy to. In fact, that’s what rhey are hoping for. And if they could get every Democrat to sign on to her ‘green new deal’, they’d do that too, Because they would crush the Democrats in the next election.
You grossly overestimate the popularity of AOC’s ideas among the general public. And the ‘green new deal’ would piss off so many Democratic constituents that Republicans would sweep the Midwest. People as far to the left as Ocasio-Cortez get the support of maybe 10-15% of the electorate, and then only when her grand plans to re-engineer spciety don’t specifically target their jobs.
I believe I heard her conclude that our system is “fundamentally broken”. I wouldn’t agree with this characterization. But say, quite damaged, and in need of repair? Certainly.
I don’t know what AOC’s motivations are, but I’d say that simplifying complex/economic issues in order to get people to think about them, as a way to learning better that complexity, and then what can be done about problems with them, is a good thing.
That is the same thing the Republicans thought about Donald Trump.
They still think he is hilarious, although not scary now. They are wrong, the scary part is coming. That is what they do miss, their blind support of the embodiment (Trump) of a lot of what they claimed to be against, is one big reason why then people like Cortez are given a look now.