The interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, broken down:

(Full disclosure: I am a member of DSA.)

I guess there's a sort of to-do on Facebook, now, about Don McIntosh's interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Talking Socialism: Catching Up With AOC. I will go through a part of the interview point by point.

The beginning introduces Ocasio-Cortez as a member of DSA, which is fine. But then we proceed to a discussion of issues. McIntosh says:

DSA’s priorities really are your priorities as well, Green New Deal and Medicare For All in particular.

Today there is a thriving debate about WHICH Green New Deal we support. Is it the one where the government buys a bunch of solar panels and the oil companies are allowed to do as they please? Is it the one where the government nationalizes the energy industries and guides the transition so as to exclude further development of fossil fuels? There should also be a discussion of degrowth, the idea that a certain amount of economic shrinkage will be necessary to save civilization. Unfortunately, the way McIntosh frames this issue does not entice Ocasio-Cortez to address it in the ways I've suggested.

And while MfA would be an improvement -- we have separate agencies for such a proposal, no DSA strictly necessary, and Joe Biden or Kamala Harris is going to approve this? -- we might suggest that neoliberal health care rationing in America has been so intense that what America really needs is a whole new health care infrastructure, and not just universal access to what little is there. McIntosh also asks:

We’ve heard again and again from conservative Democrats, that an AOC style agenda might fly in Queens or the Bronx, but it can’t win in more competitive districts out in Middle America. What’s your answer to that?

One alternate theory is that conservative America thinks what it does (including the "deplorables") because it thinks it's never going to get the good parts of an "AOC style agenda," at least not from an administration or a Congress full of neoliberal social climbers, and so it therefore suspects that such an agenda is code for something else. What would disrupt this ideological formation?

Okay, here's the controversial part. McIntosh asks:

Some on the Left have looked at Biden’s record and his differences with the Bernie wing of the party, and they conclude that no progress is going to come out of the Biden administration. What’s your view?

And Ocasio-Cortez responds:

Well, I think it’s a really privileged critique.

America is in really bad shape, and people are wondering if they're not also screwed under Biden. Can we just say that they are privileged to do so? Shouldn't this be examined? Here I'll just throw it out to the audience: can you think of an alternate theory?

Then Ocasio-Cortez launches into a diatribe against "bad faith critique":

We’re gonna have to focus on solidarity with one another, developing our senses for good faith critique and bad faith critique. Because bad faith critique can destroy everything that we have built so swiftly. And we know this because it has in the past, and it’s taken us so many decades to get to this point. We do not have the time or the luxury to entertain bad faith actors in our movement. But also we have to value our solidarity with one another. For anyone who brings that up, we really have to ask ourselves, what is the message that you are sending to your Black and brown and undocumented members of your community, to your friends, when you say nothing has changed? Perhaps not enough has changed. And this is not a semantic argument. Just the other night, we in collective struggle were able to stop the deportations of critical members of our community. And that would not have happened in a Trump administration.

A question bares its ugly head here. Who on the Left is offering a "bad faith critique"? Why is Ocasio-Cortez asking: "what is the message that you are sending to your Black and brown and undocumented members of your community, to your friends, when you say nothing has changed?" Are the Black and brown and undocumented members of my community, or hers, not capable of deciding FOR THEMSELVES whether or not anything has changed?

Here's the theory I'm operating on. Much of America is in bad shape -- high unemployment, COVID-19 on the increase in 22 states, priorities skewed toward the super-rich and away from the rest of us, rents too high, wages too low, and so on. Do people not have the right to question whether or not it will ever get any better?

Ocasio-Cortez continues:

We can make the argument that not enough is changing fast enough.

For a fair number of people things are still getting worse, Pretending that they're getting better won't help. (Should they be getting worse faster?) Which is why Ocasio-Cortez says, further:

We’re so susceptible to cynicism.

Here it might be helpful to ask if there is possibly something in Washington DC that we could be cynical about. The answer is likely to be "yes."

I'm going to skip the rest of this interview. As I've suggested before, American political discourse is best seen through Aristotle's Rhetoric. Americans are fixated on ethos (the appeal to character) and pathos (the appeal to emotions), and generally in the dark about logos (the appeal to reasoning). This is true to the extent that for many of them any reasoning will do. It is likely that this bias in favor of ethos and pathos appeals is fomented daily by the American mass media.

Here I'd like to suggest a reverse approach. What should matter to you is not whether or not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a good person. You're welcome to think she's just fine. It also shouldn't matter to you whether or not we should be angry at her or defend her righteousness against "bad faith critique." Have any mood you want when reading this interview. Rather, what should truly matter to you is whether or not her argument about the Left holds up to logical scrutiny. A proactive argument would avoid the disparagement of cynicism while looking to dispel what cynicism can be found. That isn't the argument pursued here -- not by McIntosh, nor by Ocasio-Cortez.

Share
up
24 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

She ran on MFA and said that some times you have to get in their faces and make them do it. When she had the chance to do just that, she did not. End of story. No more chances from me because that was the best chance to force the vote on it. Then she thought that this would win her brownie points?

Well, I think it’s a really privileged critique.

From someone making $174,000 a year with incredible health benefits that she is denying the rest of the country to people living well below a sane poverty level? F your privilege, AOC.

up
29 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Cassiodorus's picture

@snoopydawg about whether AOC and her Democratic Party are going to deliver on any idea any of them might have about reviving the economy and preparing America for climate change. AOC doesn't handle that skepticism particularly well here.

up
18 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Socialprogressive's picture

How sad she sold out faster than a comic con convention.
Until she starts fighting to pass the legislation she campaigned on, her snappy tweets are just empty words.

up
23 users have voted.

When I offer to wash your back in the shower, all you have to say is yes or no.
Not all this "who are you, and how did you get in here?" nonsense.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Socialprogressive

I could use a good sci fi/fantasy or gaming convention about now.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

You can't change a corrupt system while playing by its rules. I think AOC's lack of experience and maturity made her an easy target for old hands like Pelosi and the Dem Party as a whole to "bring her around." She and the rest of the Squad have been talked into settling for crumbs and become apologists for the system they were elected to change. Same as it ever was. Sad and sobering that it only took one term in the House for this to happen.

up
23 users have voted.

@AverageJoe42 Rumors flew she was a "plant" even during her run for office.
She is the most articulate party line advocate bartender ever.

up
0 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Yeah, I know who on the left looks like they’re making bad faith critiques. (Hint: they’re using IdPol as a shield to deflect criticism of old, white Joe Biden and the Democrat Party and gaslighting people who look at Biden’s long history of hurting BIPOC and predict, as Joe had promised, we’re in for more of the same.)

To address your question, let me paraphrase an old bumper sticker: if you’re not cynical, you’re not paying attention. This isn’t a position of privilege or my white privilege or whatever. This is just paying attention. There are plenty of BIPOC people who share my cynicism and I’d argue they have even more entitlement to it.

I could be missing the point, but it really feels to me like what they’re talking about is believing the Dems have the ability or even the desire to “do the right thing”, if you will. If someone can’t look at their actions, not their words, and get why someone on the left might be cynical about the Dems intentions, they’re straight up lying to themselves.

The Democrats have consistently done the wrong thing, when give the chance. Not only, but they’ve shown open contempt for people who care about the things I do, cynically (there’s that word!) using them to try to coral votes when they need them, otherwise explicitly stating they’re not going to happen and giving them dismissive contempt (ala Pelosi).

Frankly, I owe the Democrats nothing. But if they expect my votes and support, they’ve got a lot to prove. That’s not cynical. That’s getting something for your vote, which is the point. Just because the Dems occasionally wrap themselves in kente cloth and kneel doesn’t mean they’re doing anything to make anyone’s life better. Merely paying lip service to the problems while not fundamentally changing anything (which has been literally true so far, AOC) solves nothing and only wokewashes the decline.

And my $64,000 Question: If the Dems are planning on doing all this progressive stuff, why did they rig the primary for Joe Biden? No one ever has an answer for that one.

Thanks for the analysis. I don’t know a ton about the DSA but in passing it seems like there’s a growing struggle between emphasizing the D and emphasizing the S. I think you kind of spoke to that here. You’ve got the same concerns I have about M4A and Green New Deal.

(Edit: I made a couple of additions. I’ve read this interview already, but this gave me the feels all over again. Hah)

up
25 users have voted.

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

@Dr. John Carpenter

into plain english sounds more like
"puts me in a bad light"
which is good
get up on the stage
and show your stuff
either deliver or you
get booed

It is not about substance so much
anymore as appearance...
massaging the message for the masses

up
11 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Dr. John Carpenter

The privilege remark is over the line because she knows that people are hurting not privileged. That was a deliberate slap in the face of people who supported her. Let’s see how easily she wins next time.

up
16 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg There’s been one thing I have felt a little hope about. That’s the fact that more and more people are seeing through this crap and taking her, and the Dems, to task. Im glad to see people demanding accountability from these folks, and It’s getting to AOC in a way it’s not going to reach Biden, Pelosi, etc., otherwise interviews like this wouldn’t be happening. She’s in the gaslighting and deflecting phase. Before too long, I’d imagine she’ll start dismissing criticism entirely. Then the ignoring starts and her transformation is complete. Hey, maybe someone needs to start a movement to push AOC left.

Also, being the cynic I am, I figured she'd flip eventually, but I expected it to be a little more subtle and graceful than what we're seeing. I figured they'd want to keep as many of her supporters in the fold as long as they could, but I guess they are banking on TINA or they really don't give a damn about the votes of the left. Of course online chatter historically hasn't mattered for much, but it seems so much of AOC is her online presence. It'll be interesting to see how this ends (spoiler alert: heads they win, tails we lose.)

up
16 users have voted.

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

@snoopydawg
in a heavily Puerto Rican district. It astounds me that people think there was any other reason. IdPol is the DP's whole raison d'etre.

up
7 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

@snoopydawg forget where they came from once they flip into the 1%. Now I think it's looking back over their shoulder and marvelling how small the 99% look, tiny, like ants. It must be heady to have people telling you constantly how great you are.

up
9 users have voted.

I don't take AOC seriously after she fundamentally supported imperialist policies and threw Rania Khalek under the bus. Same way with Bernie now.

Greenwald has a point.

up
15 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

I would like to respond to the closing part of your essay.

Rather, what should truly matter to you is whether or not her argument about the Left holds up to logical scrutiny. A proactive argument would avoid the disparagement of cynicism while looking to dispel what cynicism can be found. That isn't the argument pursued here -- not by McIntosh, nor by Ocasio-Cortez.

I agree with your observation here, she's not making a logical argument. But as to why that should be the thing that matters, I am not sure you've made that case. Because the thing is, she is not trying to make a logical argument. She is not citing anything factual to make these statements, she is telling a story.

She's telling the story that essentially, there are people at the bottom rungs who are marginally better off with Joe Biden as president, and so if you criticize Joe Biden, somehow you are hurting those people.

It's such a stupid argument that to even call it an "argument" from a logical standpoint is laughable. It is pure storytelling. And it is a story specifically designed to shut down criticism of the Biden administration.

This kind of thing is the basic bread and butter of politicians and the entire career of being in politics. Telling the best stories is how they win, or try to. I think you are suggesting that facts and logic should be emphasized because such an analysis would potentially overcome such storytelling as a power for getting people to change their behavior in supporting such politicians. That logic would help voters to stop acting based on the stories and start using logical analysis instead to make decisions? But what about if stories, pathos, is actually more effective and powerful? Then it seems what we need would be better stories, not better use of facts and logic.

up
13 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@CS in AZ who are going to have a lousy day regardless of which neoliberal social climber is President. Their critique of the Democrats, well, they must be privileged.

At some point we ought to be asking the pivotal question: Are our politicians adequate?

up
8 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@CS in AZ

That's what all that Don't Think of an Elephant and Moral Politics stuff by George Lakoff was about, back in the day. Also Jeffrey Feldman, in his Framing the Debate.

The problem is transmission. We can try to invoke the frames we know people have, tell stories that activate those assumptions and stir the accompanying emotions with language and image. We can get smart about marketing and stop trying to convince people to be logical. But then we're essentially like John Henry racing against the steam drill. Goebbels was right in that repetition is one of the essential keys to manipulating people. We can't repeat our stories as often as the elites can. It was bad enough that they owned the mainstream legacy media, and plenty bad enough that the intelligence community, the military, and even the private sector pay people to come online and influence conversations in one direction or another--or destroy them. But now they have non-human "people," the number of which they can expand more or less at will, who can do everything from rate a video up or down to make a #MeToo allegation. For those who like #MeToo, I'm not saying that every story is false or every person who makes an accusation lying. I am saying that it would be easy as pie to program one or more of the many non-human personalities online to make one or multiple accusations against someone. It would also be easy as pie to have different personalities run by the same person argue on both sides of an issue to create a flame war that burns a site or a YouTube channel down. Even if most of such attempts failed, the sheer number of attempts that can be made by software per day is far more than most people, especially unpaid amateurs (in the old sense of "doing it for love) can match.

The only way to counter the flood of lies is to be where it's not. So the first order of business would be finding those who already know it's a flood of lies, and making a place where the lies are, for the most part, not allowed to take hold. Preserving the culture of reason and finding its advocates are the first goal--gotta be. The next step would be creating some alternative media infrastructure. We were on the verge of doing that--or at least doing an alpha version of it, and setting up some beta tests--during Occupy. But most of that ground to a halt when Occupy was removed from the public square.

The only chance we'd have to use our better stories in a strategically sound way involves spending a significant amount of time talking to each other, preferably face-to-face in person, but certainly, at least, voice-to-voice. That's one reason Occupy had to be taken down. Too many Americans talking to each other about their lives. And across party and ideological and class and gender and nationality and age lines, too. Not so much across racial lines, unfortunately, for reasons I totally understand (I remember one black guy in NYC said "I'm not giving the cops any reason to come after me.")

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@CS in AZ

not necessarily. You have a good point. It's just that we have to attend to who controls the means of dissemination, and how we can invent or acquire some means of dissemination ourselves, before stories *or* logic will do any good. It's data, after all. Who controls where the data goes?

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

I'm not sure whether the sea level will rise 210 feet or 270 feet. I live at 300 feet. Does that make me privileged? How many of the black or brown or undocumented people in New York City can say their homes are high enough? But caring about them is bad faith? I am on Medicare. Hundreds of millions, many of them black and brown and undocumented, are not. Is caring about them bad faith? Or is running for congress promising M4A, then endorsing someone who promised to veto M4A and has a record of imprisoning black and brown and undocumented people and brags about it, then taking an effing victory lap bad faith? Is being retired on disability or trading empowering Nancy Pelosi for a committee seat privileged?

up
13 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

snoopydawg's picture

@doh1304

I bet there are more of AOC's ‘privileged' people than there are privileged people and that’s who she just dismissed and said they are being selfish asking for too much while they are dying and losing everything.

up
9 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

smiley7's picture

move good policy forward without the quagmires of politics.

up
1 user has voted.

@smiley7 hi, I long for the days when I could remember how Congress passed laws like Schoolhouse Rock. "How a bill becomes a law" and all those cartoon explainers were fun. It's almost like Congress used to like regular people more than their dollar donors, but was it ever so? Nope. Pelosi is a front line blocker, since forever.

The Dear Leaders have become fossils I think. Career politicians never make a more perfect union, they degrade the future instead. "Experience" becomes the anchor after the first terms. I vote mandatory retirement age 65 for all civil servants everywhere. Also, mandatory term limits all around. And cut their pay and benefits! At least until poverty and homelessness have been eliminated. Sheesh.

Preamble to the United States Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Peace and Love

up
4 users have voted.

critical of her corruption and lying about the email stuff. I had no end to the number of Dems who told me I must think I am privileged because with Trump, who could afford to question Hillary? So AOC's use of that term makes my stomach tighten up.

Defining critique as being either good or bad apparently means that she must be the one who gets to decide which is which because none of us are able to do it.

She is lost now.... just like Bernie.

There really isn't much to discuss when it comes to AOC anymore. She took whatever color pill it takes to fade into the DNC woodwork.

up
12 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin