Worth a read: the Dems (and Ocasio!) just more of the same
While this Counterpunch article, The Wisdom of Serpents, starts out asking questions about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (AOC) biography, it winds up going through a lengthy laundry list of rotten things the Democratic Party has done since Obama was elected. The author quotes at length from the WSWS piece about CIA Dems, and generally points out how the Dems are nothing more than the party of the professional class - a party that agrees completely with, and funds without question, our militarized foreign policy.
A lot of the article wasn't news to me, since I have recently written about the professional class, and about CIA Dems. Nevertheless, the article might be a good thing to show friends who might be pried lose from the false belief that the Dems are anything but more of the same by throwing a bucket of cold facts in their face.
Before I also wind up ignoring AOC, here's what the author has to say about her:
this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not.
Can anyone support or refute the charges of foreign policy orthodoxy?
The article spoke about a lot more than AOC. She was just "the hook". The author cuts the chase: we don't debate our militarized, imperial foreign policy or the impact that militarization has at home (militarized police, massive surveillance). We are only allowed to debate Identity Politics bullshit.
people are given to partisan fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American consciousness...
the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, they all vote mostly the same...
The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits right in.
He then points out something that I also noticed about AOC. She was instantly embraced by the corporate media. Never villified for her surprising success, like Sanders was (Bernie Bros and the whole racist smearjob), like Cynthia McKinney was.
More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly fighting.”
Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?).
We already know the corporate media is proactively hostile to the left. What is sad is that we also have to be on guard when the corporate media promotes a fake leftist. This is nothing new. They sold Hillary Clinton to a lot of idiots as a "progressive". But, that illusion has fallen apart; so they had to go to someone who talks a little bit further to the left, who is younger (i.e., healthier), who ticks multiple Identity Politics boxes (Latina). If what the author says about her foreign policy stance is true, AOC is just another product manufactured by the media-industrial complex to continue the illusion of democracy in the USA.