What does she have to gain or lose from the ascension of the far left? Political power that she doesn’t need vs money that she’d like her and her family to keep.
Yup, sorry, I was clumsy in expressing the idea of a “POC vs. white” racial-identity division. Even identifying racial identities more precisely, however, I still think that divisions in today’s Democratic Party are not based on racial identity in any significant sense. There are white people and people of color, of a wide variety of ethnic identities, on all sides of the disputes.
Oh well, that settles that, then. Oh wait, no it doesn’t: your personal opinion on the matter is no more authoritative than mine.
That’s what happens when you think real life is Twitter and clapping back, getting adulation from followers and winning an argument is the only point to living.
Putin: “I don’t need to do anything but sit back and eat popcorn…I GUESS I could poke the nest a little with a stick. If anything to get you McCarthyites to call people like Stein and Sanders ‘Russian stooges’ just for visiting Russia.”
There are also potential fault lines among people of color, which is why AOC is dumb to go there unless there’s an obvious reason to do so.
I’m not saying it is; I’m saying that if you look at AOC’s tactics, they’re problematic irrespective of whether she’s a female or male. I called out Mark Pocan, and I called out AOC’s male chief of staff. People are interested in this “cat fight” not because it’s a cat fight but because it involves one of the two most powerful people in congress and a rising, outspoken star, and both happen to be women. It was news when Jeff Flake called out Donald Trump and vice versa. Sometimes, news is news, and gender has nothing to do with it.
I don’t disagree with that, nor do I think it’s necessarily sexist to criticize AOC’s tactics. What I’m not quite buying, as I said before, are the claims that this sort of party infighting is somehow super-exceptional or even unprecedented in its dysfunction or “public disarray”.
Sure, but sometimes when people say things like “this particular piece of news about some women is massively different from all the pieces of news about some men that it very closely resembles in other ways”, then gender does have something to do with it.
McCarthyism in an era where the Soviet Union had killed more people than Nazi Germany while bad in the sense that innocent folks shouldn’t be punished for things they did not do is at least somewhat understandable given the threats and the actions of the communists. What is not understandable is the support that politicians that actually showed support to the Soviet Union actually receive.
Not that I expect some black-hispanic public spat to evolve out of this, but they really are very different voting demographics. “A wide variety of ethnic identities” is a tad too blase.
Yeah, but my point is that there are people in all those demographics on all sides of these disputes.
I despise the whole “SQUAD!” mentality. AOC and co may have some interesting ideas but the way they conduct themselves is akin to trying to be the most popular girls in high school. The mean, bitchy type. It’s too much “if you’re not 100% with us you’re against us and we’re going to humiliate you”.
That’s right. There are many vocal progressives repeating the idea that since AOC won in November 2018, that means ‘the nation is ready and eager for a radical-left agenda’ and other similarly dubious claims.
As a centrist never-Trumper put it in a Politico article entitled “Dear Democrats, Here’s How to Guarantee Trump’s Reelection,”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/25/democrats-trump-election-2020-227215
A fascinating poll-graphic appears at about the 18-minute mark of this excerpt from today’s “Inside Politics” show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29cxUB7X8Do
It takes three pitches by current Democratic candidates, and shows the percentage of Independents, voters over 65, and white voters with no college, who oppose them:
[ul]
[li]“Healthcare for undocumented Immigrants”—opposed by 63% of independents, 66% of over-65 voters, and 75% of white no-college voters.[/li]
[li]“Free public-college tuition”—opposed by 53% of independents, 60% of over-65, and 57% of white no-college voters.[/li]
[li]“Support allowing prisoners to vote”—opposed by 68% of independents, 73% of over-65, and 76% of white no-college voters.[/li][/ul]
In a poll of Democratic voters as a whole, only 30% favored the elimination of private health insurance-----70% opposed it. (The same You-Tube clip shows this and related findings at about the 16-minute mark.)
The Democratic electorate is far more centrist than AOC and her allies believe. And, yes, of course the worker-bees at 55 Savushkina are laboring mightily to encourage AOC in her false beliefs, and to encourage the idea that Dems who fail to push for the most extreme-left policies are nasty old racists who should be purged.
Why wouldn’t they be pushing that idea?
Let’s remember that of the three viable presidential contenders in spring 2016 (Sanders, Trump, Clinton), only Hillary was not backed by the Kremlin. They later helped Jill Stein as well. But never Hillary.
True. But of course we don’t know how much of that was based on Hillary’s policy positions, and how much was based on Putin’s personal animus toward her (for actions she took as Secretary of State, or at least that he believed she’d taken).
I’m a strong supporter of two out of the three (the first and third you mentioned), and I’m definitely in favor of making community and trade schools very low cost. But I also know a smart candidate doesn’t campaign on that shit. The smart move, and what Obama did even better than Bill Clinton some 15-20 years earlier, was to take the issue that voters are concerned about most (i.e, ONE issue), campaign on it, offer some borderline Overton Window stuff but pivot a bit back to the mainstream. Healthcare is going to be the number one issue again. So that’s where you start. Immigration’s an issue but it’s not the most important issue in voters’ minds, and neither is social justice. That doesn’t mean they avoid those issues but when Dems stump they need to focus on pocketbook issues, plain and simple.
There are 36 Democrats in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Bob Menendez is a Senator, the other 35 are members of the House. How many of them have backed AOC?
Honest question: Has anything comparable happened on the other side of the gender line recently? AFAIK, a freshman lawmaker apparently calling the party leader racist in the most thinly veiled way is pretty awful, especially for the party that makes race and gender equality a banner issue. Even when I don’t 100% agree with AOC, I genuinely like and respect her. Lately that’s been… more difficult for me. (And it kind of bums me out to be honest.)
How in the world is this “awful”? If she believes that she acted in a racist manner, then she should in fact point that out. It would be racist for her to remain silent and allow it to continue.
Calling that awful seems more like the right’s usual reaction. But we’re the left. We’re supposed to take accusations of racism seriously. If someone (especially a person of color who ran on a social justice campaign) calls me racist, the response should be introspection and dialog. See if I can figure out what may have been or seemed racist, and then talk to them about what they perceived.
There are three outcomes: (1) I was being racist, and I should stop, apologize, make amends, etc. (2) It was all a misunderstanding, and we’ll clear it up. (3) We have different ideas of what is racist, and we probably should be working that out since we’re on the same side.
The one that I reject is considering the person awful for the accusation. Yes, there are a small minority of people who will lie about someone being racist to attack them. But it’s really, really small. And nothing about AOC suggests she is that type of person. Her campaign ran on social justice and she’s a person of color, so she’s likely just better acquainted with the issue. Young people are less set in their ways and find it easier to learn the new norms, too.
So, if AOC is saying that Pelosi was being racist, then, while I can’t say she definitely was being racist, I can say that a decent portion of the United States probably thinks she was, and so Pelosi might want to deal with that. Because she’s leader of the anti-racist party. It’s not the time to make enemies of a progressive portion of the big tent that is the Democratic Party.
And sorry the post is so long, but I’ve rewritten this post several times, and it always winds up being like this. It’s not a lecture, just me trying to explain what I think is the way we should be looking at these things. We clearly see this very differently, so it takes some doing to explain it.
Edit: And, as far as the OP goes, what I describe is not a purity test. It’s not saying “you can’t be a Democrat if you don’t agree with me.” And I don’t believe AOC is saying that, either.
The problem with these sorts of arguments is that you are participating in the very thing you are decrying. You’ve just made “AOC and co” (whoever that means) as not being part of your squad.
I also take issue with gendered stereotypes. The Democrats are the pro-women party. Yet “bitchy” is one of those terms that is used against women who aren’t demure and keep their head down.
I mean, it’s not like AOC was elected by those who wanted her to keep her head down. She made promises to shake things up, and she is. If she is being immature (which I can see), then I expect the more mature side of the party to be the more mature ones and listen to her. She represents a significant number of people.
Even if she’s rough around the edges, as you guys claim, she’s asset for one big reason: younger Democrats and left-leaning people tend to love her. She’s gotten them excited. She doesn’t feel like the same-old, same-old. These things you see as problems are part of what allows her to motivate people.
I mean, how recently did we have a thread about Democrats being “spineless”, and how this was a problem? Well, say what you want about her–she’s got a spine. And maybe that’s the spine injection we need.
I mean, the thing everyone is upset about is that she called someone racist. That is the type of thing that, if you aren’t racist, you shouldn’t get upset about, per what I said before. But that’s exactly what is going on. Why?
I get an initial reaction, but, otherwise, the correct response remains “Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, what do you mean by that?” Instead, I’m seeing people help the Republicans push their narrative about her.
We’re all Democrats here. If you want to argue that she should be standing with the other Democrats, then we need to model that and do it ourselves. We should stand with her against those who want to go after her. Not helping those who are using her to attack us.
I think you’re framing it wrong. Achieving a legislative outcome is a team sport; you have to build coalitions, and you have to understand when your coalition is capable of achieving a specific outcome and when it’s not. If anyone understands that, it’s Nancy Pelosi. It’s AOC and her ex-Bernie Bro “burn down the house” chief of staff Chakrabarti who don’t seem to get that part of their job.
I think the message that some might take away, whether it’s accurate or not, is that the Squad is trying to use accusations of racism as a way to intimidate the mostly white leadership of the party and white moderates into taking more aggressive positions that frankly lead to nowhere. Their tactics are only going to alienate voters in districts won by people such as Tim Ryan, Seth Moulton, and Connor Lamb.
It’s dangerous to continue to appease those who use weaponized language.
And what is a big tent political party? Is that shorthand for we welcome your votes and money but not your agenda?