What are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Flaws?

sharp knees

american

If she's able to maintain her political stance (and especially if she winds up being an effective legislator) I would be very comfortable casting a prez vote for her once she's eligible to run.

i think she's wonderful. one thing i especially like about her is that she seems adept at forming a posse of like-minded legislators. she's good at sharing her political fame and recognition and using it to boost others.

in before someone suggests she's nominated for president
xp fuck just missed it.

name has 5-4-2 syllable pattern: last name should have three syllables

left-handed, so she's pretty much limited to 1B or the outfield

Alexandria / Ocasio-Cortez is / a living haiku.

the main reason for this thread is that she is an excellent twitterer, so maybe her daily handful of zings can go here instead of the other threads.

however, if i worry about anything with AOC, it's that one day she's going to slip up in some major way, probably on twitter. the right wing is foaming at the mouth to take her down because they recognize what a beacon she's already become.

buuuuut, the great thing about AOC is that i would have more confidence in her than just about anyone else to bounce back quickly from a hypothetic major twitter fuckup. as our wise president says "we'll see what happens"

Left-handed? Excellent.

yeah i was going to say how bad can she really fuck up on twitter that will make what these assholes say about here matter to anyone but them?

about her*

She cares too much

her ability to get the right to constantly self-own without even doing anything is incredible. at first I thought the "they're terrified of her" thing was overblown but they clearly are. not just because she's so far left but also because I don't think she's willing to "play ball" the way people like Schumer and Obama were. plus the fact that she's young and massively popular will only encourage more like her to come out of the woodwork which could shape US politics for decades to come. she's only been in office for a month but she already feels like an icon.

God, does this woman have a gazillions tons of hope resting on her shoulders or what?

I look forward to many years of right-wing sputtering about the outrageous policy positions of this lefty commie socialist who okay is very attractive but that's not the point because she's going to destroy this country perhaps even with her smoldering good looks.

I think the biggest thing she can achieve, especially in the near term, is to inspire more like minded young politicians to run.

however, if i worry about anything with AOC, it's that one day she's going to slip up in some major way, probably on twitter. the right wing is foaming at the mouth to take her down because they recognize what a beacon she's already become.

they already have. You should read "smart" conservatives like Charles Cooke and Noah Rothman patiently explaining like Paul Muni as Zola how her plans are untenable. They don't get how she's using conservative methods since the Reagan-Poppy era: float a trial balloon, then watch as people accommodate.

she came out too fully formed as an awesome politician and therefore must actually be either an alien or a veteran operative in disguise

fwiw I maintain muted expectations about what she can actually achieve in the system but so far she has exceeded them

https://libcom.org/news/abolishing-ice-funding-it-07012019

she's already exceeded expectations. no one was talking about a Green New Deal or a 70% top rate before she came along.

imo her strength so far has been to say exactly enough, or to respond with tongue-in-cheek fact checks about her stances without jumping into clusterfucks

having someone with actual policy stances without a political or even social past deep enough to sabotage dialogue in favor of ad hominem attacks is a net positive. media and public commentary almost demands a personality or face to link policy to, because policy is abstract and complicated and presenting an individual makes the job easier. if she's that person, have at it

it's a refreshing change from the right-wing version in the tea party goons, who had notional policy ideas and were 90% horrible personality and demagoguery

https://libcom.org/news/abolishing-ice-funding-it-07012019

― xyzzzz__, Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:51 PM (forty-eight seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is kind of bullshitty. She voted for the bill to reopen govt.

btw it does pain me to bring up the "Trump of the left" thing but it does occur to me that she's *actually* good at all the political stuff that people thought Trump was good at

xp

This was not a catch-all bill to reopen the federal government, which has been shut down for weeks while Trump refuses to sign a budget until he gets funding for a border wall. That was a different vote. No, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scheduled an entirely separate vote solely on funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Alfred's post reminds me of an article about perpetual ratfucker Gingrich, who was wildly successful at his goals until the day he wasn't

iirc she has changed her tack on how she votes for bills like that one. she recently was the sole dem holdout on another funding bill I believe?

yeah I was gonna say that libcom link falls more under "legit critique of a particular action" than a "flaw" and if she's already moved on from that stance then so much the better.

the way Congress operates you kind of have to either vote for some bad things or not vote for some good things because it all comes in the same bill. I don't think she'd actually vote against abolishing ICE if such a thing were to come up.

Cool thanks I wasn't really buying it too much (basically if you fuck with electoralism lib com goes after you)

But that's the only thing I've seen (and I almost always only entertain critiques of left-politicians from the left)

I was reading this piece on her call with Corbyn and she was swayed a bit on the allegations he is an anti-semite. That's more a product of doing too much twitter where everyone tweets to you with their agendas.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/02/how-to-think-clearly-about-anti-semitism-controversies-in-the-labour-party

But if the worst thing is that she might tweet something that isn't so good at times then she's doing amazing.

they already have. You should read "smart" conservatives like Charles Cooke and Noah Rothman patiently explaining like Paul Muni as Zola how her plans are untenable. They don't get how she's using conservative methods since the Reagan-Poppy era: float a trial balloon, then watch as people accommodate.

― Your sweetie-pie-coo-coo I love ya (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:50 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Trump methods too. You float something outrageous (end birthright citizenship), everyone goes "THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS" and then the "smart" and "reasonable" people say "well actually lots of countries don't have birthright citizenship at all." Now you've shifted the debate into your territory, and maybe you can't change the constitution in that particular case, but you've weakened resistance to tighter immigration laws.

I realize a lot of people *say* that Trump does this, but I don't think that's true - were there not a bunch of so-called smart conservatives who insisted that the "wall" was just a metaphor for "strong border security", which he's rejected over and over again because he actually wants a big dumb physical wall?

I'm still laughing at this tweet chain where her chief of staff was clued in not to take a meeting with known grifters (original post deleted but you get the jist)

This guy is a dingbat grifter, take the time to do 3 seconds of googling bro

— Dan (@dankmtl) February 4, 2019

man alive otm way upthread. It’s almost spooky how skilled and self assured she is this early in her career. Like a Mozart or Tiger Woods of politics.

frogbs otm, that would be the real overton window shifting strategy, but Trump literally doesn't understand it and is obsessed with numbers

If he were to get six billion he's still not building a wall, he's saying "we built it" and just tossing the money at the border patrol/DHS and never calling them to check to see where it went

he's stuck on six billion = wall

I realize a lot of people *say* that Trump does this, but I don't think that's true - were there not a bunch of so-called smart conservatives who insisted that the "wall" was just a metaphor for "strong border security", which he's rejected over and over again because he actually wants a big dumb physical wall?

― frogbs, Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:03 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Trump personally is a mental and emotional child. I mean Stephen Miller and the like.

man alive otm way upthread. It’s almost spooky how skilled and self assured she is this early in her career. Like a Mozart or Tiger Woods of politics.

― Trϵϵship, Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:05 PM (fifteen seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I literally told a friend I thought she could be president back when we weren't even sure if she could win her primary. I don't attribute that to any special insight, it's plain to see.

She’s actually impressive in an age of mass disillusionment.

I mean decisively taking down a well-liked establishment dude like Crowley with like 5% of the funding and no corporate endorsements whatsoever is legit one of the most impressive political accomplishments I've ever witnessed

for sure

although "well-liked" might be a stretch -- I think he was a bit complacent and absent from his district, leaving more of an opening than realized. But def well-connected in queens overall. I mean, chair of the queens democratic party, mr. machine.

I like her a lot and think she has a bright future, including a possible path to the presidency if she chooses to pursue it (which is a bit difficult to do from the House, historically). There is, of course, still plenty of time for her to flame out or not deliver on big legislative priorities, but so far she's been very sure-footed and she has excellent priorities and communications skills.

her main flaw appears to be her mortality and lack of imperviousness to bullets fired by white nationalists

xp - he was like 3rd in line for Speaker, right?

xp

Uhhhh.....

main reason for this thread is that she is an excellent twitterer, so maybe her daily handful of zings can go here instead of the other threads.


this is an argument against a fourth thread

xps iirc the last recent notable political assassination was in the UK, let's not throw stones shall we?

Steve Scalise and Gabby Giffords, tho

It really isn't funny to joke about at all

otm

steve scalise jokes are funny cause he survived and he's fucking asshole. Speculating about political assassinations that haven't happened is not particularly funny imho

I thought table was talking about abolishing armies in general, not just the US Army, in which case Aimless' comment might have made a bit more sense than it did.

is there anyone in the world who *isn't* in favour of 'abolishing armies in general' in theory though? The majors and generals of the world's armies would also say that they dream of a world without war and conflict, without something more specific about how you would get there it's just a Paul McCartney lyric platitude

budo jeru, I am also in favor of US football being abolished, an argument that has put me in similar trouble before, as it is one of the ways in which a number of Black kids get out of dire situations. (Yes, that has been put forward as a response to me IRL).

My answer there and my answer here are similar: supporting kids so as not to have such limited options is a start, and imho, cutting out the options that are harmful might illuminate and break the cycle in a real way.

Arguments about giving non-white populations access to wealth and prestige through officer school seems to me to be the essence of the hollowness of many arguments of this type, buoying the MIC without dealing with any of the systemic problems that cause this state of affairs in the first place.

The questions I ask are: why is it important for people to gain wealth and prestige via military officer training? Why do people seek it out in the first place? Might there be serious systemic problems making an undeniably onerous option seem like the best one? If more resources flowed to education and community sectors in poorer and less white areas, would that draw down young peoples’ desires to join an inarguably negative force in the world?

Dear non-white teens, why do you seek wealth and prestige?

The military is not known for conferring wealth. Prestige, maybe, although most patients of the VA would beg to differ.

Dear non-white teens, why do you seek wealth and prestige?

takes one to know one

The military is the best example of socialism in America!

takes one to know one

re Jeff's post:

I haven't properly read the book, but my understanding is that Fredric Jameson argues here, at length, that everyone should join the US Army as a socialist strategy:

https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fredric-Jameson-An-American-Utopia-Dual-Power-and-the-Universal-Army-2016.pdf

I suspect that Jameson has hardly committed a violent act in his life, and he was about 83 when he published this, so being conscripted into battle wasn't much of a concern for him at this point.

Jameson also kept jars of his own piss in his home office for years, according to a person I know who grew up with his son, so not so sure I trust piss jar guy to give the best advice on praxis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DcA0p8Tvnk

You sure that's what was in the jars?

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ybYAAOSw0pBjlSI6/s-l500.png

I think Jameson's book is an overelaboration of the Eisenhowerian gag "if the American people want socialised healthcare they should join the marines like I did", tho Kim Stanley Robinson labours the point in one of his novels that the navy has far lower pay differentials between recruits and top rank than any other organisation in the US.

Another Aaron Bastani talking point.

KSR is also in the FJ book.

Controp: conscript armies produce better war poets than voluntary ones

I like Mike Davis's summary of Jameson / New Left Review types: "Ultimately you couldn’t really understand these guys unless you’d taken showers with them when you were ten"

I don't, and think it's a cheap, vulgar insult for cheap laughs at the expense of intellectual engagement; but even if I did, I would doubt that he was talking about FJ, who did not come from the same milieu as Perry Anderson and friends. He grew up in New Jersey, has never seen the inside of Eton.

a nerve! sorry pinefox, i'm no expert, but i'm definitely on team davis in the context of this piece which is where i ran across the quote. it may be an inaccurate picture in some ways, i'm not really sure.

Although Prisoners received overwhelmingly favorable reviews in historical journals and the left press, it drew sharp criticism for presenting a closed and bleak universe that seemed almost wholly resistant to reform. In an otherwise laudatory review in The Nation, Yale labor historian David Montgomery asked, "What role are the prisoners to play in their own liberation?" At the offices of NLR, some had a similar reaction. "Mike is an exceptionally astute analyst of the enemy, but if I were an American trade union leader I wouldn't go to him to ask which way forward," editorial board member Tariq Ali told me.

By and large, however, the NLR board was elated to have a precocious American—better yet, a precocious working-class American—wash up on its shores. "Marxists have long had this feeling that America shows us our future," explains Blackburn. "Mike's very robust, American working-class style further contributed to his charm." Yet, as even this circumspect editor concedes, "tact wasn't his strong suit." Some staffers thought Davis exploited his background. "Mike could be psychotic. He was very in-your-face about his identity," says a former NLR editor. As Davis himself admits, "I've always had a sort of truck-stop attitude toward effete intellectuals."

Among the first to feel its blows was Marxist literary critic par excellence Fredric Jameson. In his classic 1984 article, "The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism," Jameson had breathlessly described L.A.'s Hotel Bonaventure as the archetypal postmodern structure. Its multiple entryways, elevated gardens, and glass mirrored surfaces formed a delirious "hyperspace," inciting those who entered it to "expand our sensorium." While noting in passing that the hotel's glass skin "repels the city outside," Jameson breezily praised the hotel as "a popular building, visited with enthusiasm by locals and tourists alike." Davis's response was unsparing: "To speak of its 'popular' character is to miss the point of its systematic segregation from the great Hispanic-Asian city outside," he thundered in NLR (where Jameson's essay had also appeared). Cutting through Jameson's theoretical haze, Davis emphasized the "smog-poisoned reality" outside and described the hotel as part of an ominous trend of "large vivariums for the upper middle classes, protected by astonishingly complex security systems." (In the endnotes to his 1991 book, Postmodernism, Jameson curtly dismissed Davis as "characteristic of the more 'militant' sounds from the Left.")

Davis's confrontational pose made for an unusually anxious workplace. At one NLR meeting, he stunned his audience into silence with the letter he had sent to Eugene Genovese, who had complained of being spurned by the journal: "Dear Professor Genovese, Fuck you." Then there was Davis's terrifying collection of pets. The centerpiece of the office was his atrarium, filled with a garter snake, an axolotl, and a carnivorous African toad. At an explosive moment toward the end of his tenure, recalled by everyone who witnessed it, Davis spilled his reptiles onto the office's lush carpet.

When I ask Davis about this, he strikes a remorseful note. "If anyone was guilty of wild or outrageous behavior, it was me," he concedes. In the end, though, he says he never felt a part of the Etonian clique around the journal: "Ultimately you couldn't really understand these guys unless you'd taken showers with them when you were ten." He longed to go home.

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4850-the-american-earthquake-mike-davis-and-the-politics-of-disaster

Map, with thanks for your reply - not wishing to derail the Critique of AOC Reason, I have redirected a reply here:

Perry Anderson

https://www.thecut.com/2021/10/partying-with-gabriel-ocasio-cortez-aocs-little-brother.html

seems cool! just to save the haters some time he used to be a real estate agent though

She's streaming on Twitch again right now:

https://www.twitch.tv/aoc

So I saw there was AOC discourse going on but when I clicked through it was a dang Freddie deBoer article and I just peaced right out.

I was going way back in some stuff I saved off twitter and I apparently still have FdB’s insane allegations screenshotted from when he tried to falsely metoo someone

I can’t think of a more spectacular pundit flameout. I guess he’s lucky it was mostly confined to the internet, so he can still get gigs in New York Magazine.

we’ve got taibbi conversation on the other thread the worse case is right there

Ha ha not really

Certainly not cash-wise

DeBore has a Substack newsletter that I assume pays his rent, or some portion thereof. Pieces of shit like him can always find suckers.

It will not shock anyone that he's a very active poster in the redscarepod subreddit

If you've received an angry email from Freddie deBoer complaining about me, drop me a line. Curious to know how many he's writing.

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) August 7, 2023

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/30/us/politics/aoc-third-term-congress.html

it turns out she doesn't have a single flaw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yec4JDxo5eY

feels like her public profile has dipped but maybe that's just me not being on twitter/house republicans sucking up all the oxygen in the world

lmao “the book was given to us on day 1”

idk seems she actually is interested in doing the work and passing bills and stuff not just trying to be on TV all day

she'll be president some day, i think, if there is a "president" of the united states in the 2030s and beyond

feels like her public profile has dipped

Same thought occurred to me when I saw the thread, but I think the follow-up post about concentrating on governance answers that well. You can also wear out your welcome pretty quickly through over-exposure.

It also seems like the GOP stopped attacking her quite as much. A lot of her exposure came from Republicans shouting at her or stalking her.

We may also have reached a point where GOP congressmen may even silently agree with her.

good interview: https://www.offmessage.net/p/aoc-oversight-senate-democrats