By conservative media? Maybe…but mostly she’s useful as a representation of all they believe to be wrong with demographic change and progressive views. “Vote GOP or young minority women will take your jobs and force you to become gay, renounce Jesus and eat tofu! See - here’s one RIGHT NOW!”
Strawman, boogeyman and scapegoat all rolled into one.
She’s young, she’s pretty, she’s a socialist and therefore an idiot on economic issues, and she can be relied upon to play the race/gender card whenever she says something stupid, which she does a lot. She’s entertaining, unlike Bernie who is old and ugly and has been cranking around Congress for decades without ever saying or doing anything of interest.
The idea that the right wing is building her up is kind of ridiculous. The progressive wing of the Dems would dearly love her to build momentum, but she won’t. Socialism doesn’t play in Peoria, especially not victim socialism.
Regards,
Shodan
IOW,
Richard Nixon?
John Sununu supposedly had an IQ of 180 based on a test created to test high IQ individuals.
However I don’t think Nixon or Sununu were right wingers the way the modern GOP is (full of racist authoritarians). They were more moderate. Sununu did endorse Trump though.
Ocasio-Cortez became much more famous than your usual newbie representative before the right wing jumped on her. There are other young, leftist congresspeople, but she was the one who is famous enough to be invited onto on major talk shows. That’s why they picked her as the new Emmanuel Goldstein.
As to why they need an Emmanuel Goldstein, it’s because they’re fascists, and fascists need enemies. The creation of enemies is a central part of fascism. Note Shodan’s post - he’s already talking abbout her being an idiot, stupid, etc. etc. Of course, she is neither, certainly no more so than hundreds of other representatives on either side of the aisle. But the right wing needs enemies, she was famous, so they chose her.
The notion that the right win is “scared” of Ocasio-Cortez specifically, or Nancy Pelosi, is, if I may be really honest, just ridiculous. Nancy Pelosi has contested eight House elections as speaker and lost five of them, including, in 2010, the biggest ass kicking in the House in my lifetime. What’s to be scared of? I have trouble believing anyone is “scared” of Nancy Pelosi. However, they need boogeymen. Fascism is identity politics in its purest form; it’s all Us versus Them, and getting the base angry at Them is much more easily done if you can put a face or three on Them.
Whoa whoa whoa there, good buddy. That’s assuming facts not in evidence.
Whether or not a socialist understands economics or not is really a matter of postulates, not knowledge. A socialist - and AOC is a democratic socialist and not a regular one - disagrees with the goals of economic policy. But that doesn’t mean that he or she doesn’t understand it. So labeling anyone who self-identifies that was ‘an idiot on economic issues’ is overselling the product.
Fascists? C’mon now. That’s ridiculous.
On the Stanford-Binet scale what you think Obama’s IQ is?
Yeah, I’ve been torn but this seems to be it more than anything else. But add into it that the target of this Two Minutes Hate is fairly specific: the base and those who might lean to it, those who would still be impacted by trying to insult Obama by calling him a socialist. Holding up a socialist (democratic or otherwise) as a/the face of the opposition is trying to paint the Democratic party as somehow “extreme”.
Another thought could be that some of them realize that “socialist” is losing its oomph as invective. The idea there is as Shodan illustrates: to use an unseasoned newb who will stumble some as a way to try to paint all socialists as idiots on economic issues, and try to revive the value of the word as invective.
That said she painted the target on her own back, or at least gladly put on the jacket that had the target on it. Yeah, the media jumped on her as a darling and she embraced the attention. I really do think she has potential to be a real leader and force in the future if she gives herself a chance to learn a bit from House progressives who have been at it a while and doesn’t overly embrace the spokesperson for the movement that the media (of all sides) is eager to impose upon her. Accept that jacket being placed upon you and you unavoidably accept that you will be the target to attack.
I should point out that I don’t think she’s a “rising star” except to the extent that she ran a campaign that was moderately unconventional by current standards and won against a more “establishment” Democrat and then again in the general election. She’ll go to DC, get some junior committee position and start working towards her re-election in 2020, making a few television appearances along the way, but she’s not going to suddenly jump onto the shortlist of presidential candidates.
Yeah. She’s done a good job of positioning herself going forward. But that doesn’t make her a rising star. It just puts her in the spotlight. She’s got to accomplish things first.
If, in six years, she’s championed successful efforts to bring out student loan reform, universal healthcare and such she can start being spoken about in that way.
Or you can listen to what she has to say, and also notice that her go-to argument when she is challenged seems to be “you are afraid of me because I am a woman of color” etc., etc.
The schtick has gotten her this far, and the Democrats will certainly play along if it works - we’ve seen that in this thread. In general? I’m not sure - “how are we going to come up with ten trillion dollars after we’ve doubled taxes” is not answered adequately by “the GOP hates women and minorities”, IMO.
Regards,
Shodan
Not everyone has a peculiarly vested interest in choosing to “notice” such a thing. Confirmation bias is a harsh mistress.
Or, of course, one could ignore my point and thereby undermine their own argument through returning to non-addressed points.
But hey, people on the wrong side of history gotta wrong side of history, I guess.
Sure, she’s lacking a lot of life experiences that other Congresspeople have. But she also has a lot of life experiences that the rest of them lack. She represents an increase in the diversity of Congress, bringing it closer to being a cross-section of America as a whole, and that’s important.
And this is why they’re starting to tar and feather her before she’s even started work. Do the math on her career prospects. She can’t run in 2020, and almost certainly won’t in 2024. That means, having a fairly safe seat, she’ll move into 2028 or 2032 with 10-14 years of experience in the House, or maybe even a term as Senator, and lots of personal name recognition. If she doesn’t flame out in Congress, that makes her a contender for President.
And the GOP has spent the last few decades doing everything they can to demonize the people they thought were likely Democratic candidates, starting years before the person in question ever ran for the nomination. They were piling on Hillary Clinton when her husband was still President, and never let up, even through 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Obama, just to make sure she’d be one of the most hated people in America.
I suspect half the reason that they hated Obama so much as President is that he snuck up on them, snagging the nomination in 2008, thereby wasting so much effort spent on hating Hillary. They had to do a rush job with that ridiculous Birther nonsense.
Back during the 1930s, the communists and fascists drew from the same pool of potential supporters. Source: The True Believer by Eric Hoffer (1951).
The conservative media doesn’t fear left leaning wonks and it doesn’t fear fact checkers. Because their audience doesn’t care about such things. It fears political positions with emotive force, which moderate socialists like Ocasio-Cortez can provide. She could cut into their market share. So they are warming up their smear machine, starting with bogus discussions about her Washington housing issues and cheap shots about wardrobe.
Also, she’s telegenic.
It’s really not. The Republican party is rife with fascists. I don’t think Paul Ryan is a fascist, but Stephen Miller sure is. Steve King is a colossal fascist. (The hell is it with Steves? At least Bannon is out and forgottten.) Chuck Grassley isn’t a fascist, but Devin Nunes is exactly the kind of boot-licking authoritarian rat who makes an excellent low-level fascist. Distressingly, it’s increasingly the fascists that are pushing around the rest of the party. The Goldsteining of Hillary Clinton and chants of “Lock Her Up” at rallies is straight up fascist fantasizing. There is no other fair world for it.
Donald Trump is a fascist, at least in behaviour. I am unconvinced he has any political philosophy, though.
I’ll tell you this; fascists are a thousand times more numerous and powerful in the GOP than Communists are in the Democratic Party.
Cite?
Beatable in her Bronx district?