Democrats, Know Your Enemy; It’s Not AOC
By Hoda Mallone
December 1, 2020
If you’re not endlessly doomscrolling on Twitter (most of the country is not), consuming news on an infinite loop, then you may have missed the social media pas de deux between Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) and Senator Joe Manchin (WV) recently. The Senator from West Virginia tweeted his disdain for the idea of “defunding the police” and dismissed the more liberal wing of the Democratic party as having “some crazy socialist agenda.” Representative Ocasio-Cortez responded with a single image – her glaring at Senator Manchin at last year’s State of the Union address – wearing her signature red lipstick and dressed in suffragette white, with zero F’s to give.
AOC is a social media phenomenon. She has over 10 million Twitter followers and 8.1 million Instagram followers. Her tweets regularly get tens of thousands of likes and many get hundreds of thousands of likes. She is visible and adeptly attuned to the winds of social media trends and terminology. What the Democratic leadership doesn’t see is that this is gold. That kind of reach and penetration in social media is priceless. Her use of a single photo, of herself, as a response to another legislator’s tweet, is a masterclass in clap-back – a tweet that currently has over half a million likes. She speaks to a large swath of the party, the future of the party, to minimize that would be foolish.
Many crowned the social media savvy with famous twitter titles, calling her the “GOAT” and “Iconic.” But further scrolling, past the posts and comments, and you begin to see serious Democrats showing more disturbing patterns of steady and heated criticism of AOC. Not just her policies or views but her. It was coming at her from many different kinds of Democrats. From men and women. The pitting of moderates against progressives within the Democratic party is hardly new, especially since the 2016 election. But it has taken on a kind of fervor in the last two years with the election of more progressives in the House of Representatives and throughout state legislatures. Democrats are joining Republicans and others on the right in criticizing progressive ideals as too radical for the whole country.
The highly entertaining exchange between the legislators did more than titillate the ravenous Twitter beast, it called for a deeper look under the hood of a now massive, but far from ideologically homogenous Democratic party.
No doubt, AOC is divisive. But why? The frenzied, almost breathless, rhetoric doesn’t add up to the ideologies she represents, let alone what’s actually in the policies she supports. It makes no sense. Well, almost no sense. When you factor in misogyny and racism, the picture changes dramatically.
When a woman is intelligent, attractive, and outspoken, it seems to illicit an adverse, visceral, reaction from a lot of men – and sadly a lot of women. It’s like the quality pyramid – only sexist. The three points of the triangle cannot all be true at once – only two, you choose. A woman can be intelligent and attractive, but not outspoken – morning talk show hosts. She can be attractive and outspoken but not intelligent – Ivanka Trump. And a woman can be intelligent and outspoken but not attractive – older female legislators. If a woman deigns to be all three, there are consequences. Google “AOC” and see the long list of consequences for bucking the norms of the current political landscape.
You generally can find misogyny hanging out with its other half, racism. “The Squad,” as Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley (MA-7), Ilhan Omar (MN-5), and Rashida Talib (MI-13), affectionately nicknamed themselves, are the group of progressive Democrats in the House who get heat for anything they do. Heat meaning: racist rants, hate messages, and death threats. Demonized and fetishized by the right, they have been made to represent everything that the right fears most – black and brown women who are not afraid to speak up, taking up the space they’ve been denied for hundreds of years. Not only representing for themselves but also their constituents. Naturally they are targets for Fox News and their ilk. But the irony – if any still exists – is that this group of women, who most certainly represent the majority of the Democratic party in demographics as well as in the ideals, also represent what most Americans actually want in policy.
A CNBC All-America Economic Survey conducted last year found that a majority of Americans actually support progressive proposals.
• 84% of the public approve of a federal requirement that employers provide paid maternity leave.
• 75% supported increased federal funding for childcare.
• 60% support increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour from $7.25.
• 57% of the public support tuition-free state and public colleges paid for with federal dollars.
• 54%, a majority, support “Medicare for All.”
• 61% support the proposal from (then Democratic presidential candidate) Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to tax wealth in excess of $50 million.
• 58% back the idea (loosely tied to comments from Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) to boost taxes on the wealthy to 70 percent on earnings above $10 million.
It goes further than national statistics. Republicans like them too. According FiveThirtyEight, polling among Republican voters is basically split pretty evenly on more progressive policies.
A public health insurance option: 45 percent of Republicans supported a government-operated health insurance plan that all Americans could enroll in, while 47 percent opposed this idea, according to the New York Times/Siena poll. This was also a popular idea overall — 67 percent of Americans, including 87 percent of Democrats, supported a public option.
A universal basic income: 52 percent of Republicans supported guaranteeing all Americans a minimum income, compared to 48 percent who opposed such an idea, per PRRI. Seventy percent of Americans overall, including 88 percent of Democrats, supported a UBI.
A mini-Green New Deal: 46 percent of Republicans opposed a “$2 trillion plan to increase the use of renewable energy and build energy-efficient infrastructure,” and 45 percent of Republicans supported it, according to the New York Times/Siena survey. The question referred neither to Biden nor to the “Green New Deal.” (The former vice president has a $2 trillion proposal that focuses on both improving America’s infrastructure and reducing the nation’s use of fossil fuels. It’s basically a shrunken-down version of the Green New Deal.) It’s quite possible that support for this proposal would be much lower among Republicans if the question cast it as, say, “Joe Biden’s version of the Green New Deal.” But it’s interesting that the concept of a more modest Green New Deal is not that unpopular with Republicans. Sixty-six percent of Americans, including 89 percent of Democrats, supported this idea.
So, where’s the disconnect? Putting aside misogyny and racism – just keep those on a shelf for now – why aren’t these, not only palatable, but popular ideas being lauded as the next life-changing contributions to the betterment of America by the Democratic Party? If you look at the entire political landscape in 2020, the holes become painfully apparent. It comes down to messaging.
In the animated movie, Megamind (a favorite among my kiddos), the new villain in town, Titan (Jonah Hill) is seemingly doing all the same things as the practiced and veteran villain, Megamind (Will Ferrell), but to his dismay, without the same success. In an exchange with Megamind, he questions why?
Titan: This town isn’t big enough for two supervillains!
Megamind: Oh, you’re a villain all right, just not a super one.
Titan is confused by this and asks, “Oh yeah? What’s the difference?”
Megamind responds with one word, “PRESENTATION!” This exclamation is followed by an elaborate display of villainy, featuring drones and high-tech weaponry that not only dazzle but win the day.
It is a fitting metaphor for what we see unfolding, politically. Although Joe Biden won the 2020 election by almost 7 million votes, with over 80 million votes, there were still 74 million people that voted for President Trump and the Republican party, which are now one and the same. This is a glaring, red-hot, flashing light, for Democrats. When you can’t sell your own ideas to people who like them, you’re already losing. Going up against juggernauts like Fox News and Facebook, the far-right war on facts, as well as foreign agitators, the messaging needs to be strong and clear. Democrats need to work on their “presentation!”
CNN reports that on a call with collogues less than 48 hours after House Democrats failed to gain the seats that their leaders and political prognosticators predicted they would – Virginia Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D) said:
"The number one concern in things that people brought to me in my [district] that I barely re-won, was defunding the police. And I've heard from colleagues who have said 'Oh, it's the language of the streets. We should respect that.' We're in Congress. We are professionals. We are supposed to talk about things in the way where we mean what we're talking about. If we don't mean we should defund the police, we shouldn't say that."
“We need to never use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. And while people think it doesn’t matter, it does matter. And we lost good members because of that.”
These statements made by Spanberger were seen by many as a direct shot at liberals like AOC, who never shied away from the term “defund the police” which was, and has never been, literal in its definition. Although Rep. Spanberger’s points make sense, they’re missing the forest for the trees. Her comments seem to reinforce the idea that messaging was the issue, but her answer to that was avoid the problem. Instead of working around the terminology and explaining to constituents what specific policies she was advocating, she said they just shouldn’t say it. It’s disassociating form responsibility and it’s lazy.
If it’s not the idea that is bad, and the packaging is the problem, then change the damn packaging. Don’t throw it all out and say, don’t look at this mess. In Spanberger’s own district (Va-7) 52% of her district is between 18 – 60 years old and 91% are high school graduates or higher – young and well educated. Why did she struggle to get her message across? Why did she feel she had no power to change the messaging? Even in her own district? These are the types of questions Democrats should be asking themselves as well as the leadership of the party. Who controls the Democrat’s narrative?
What Democrats rarely do is take control of the messaging. Even in the case of the most abhorrent things President Trump has said, Republicans got in line, doubled down, diluted the damage, and owned the narrative. From “good people on both sides” to “stand back and stand by,” their party adjusted where necessary but ultimately got on board with the talking points coming from the White House.
On CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez addressed Spanberger’s comments after the results of the election were announced.
“I think one of the things that is very important to realize is that very effective republican attacks are going to happen every cycle. And so the question is, how do we defend ourselves against that? If you look at some of these arguments that are being advanced about ‘defunding the police’ hurt or ‘socialism’ hurt, not a single member of congress, that I’m aware of, campaigned on ‘socialism’ or ‘defunding the police,’ in this general election. These were largely slogans or demands from activists’ groups that we saw in the largest uprising in American history around police brutality. And so, the question we have is, how do we build a more effective Democratic operation that is stronger and more resilient to Republican attack? And I believe there are many areas where centralized Democratic operation is weak.” Ocasio-Cortez goes on to give the example of digital campaigning and digital organizing as being a weakness for the Democrats – an area where she is very effective.
Even with a (somewhat) general consensus among Democratic leadership that “defund the police” as a slogan was problematic, they didn’t change the term to, “police reform,” or “restructure the police.” Or, for once, just own the term and educated their electorate on what it meant. And because they did not take a decisive stance, the very good ideas of community-based policing, more mental health workers, de-escalation training, demilitarization of local jurisdictions, etc. got watered down and lost in the ludicrous idea that liberals wanted to get rid of all police. Instead, there are statements like Spanberger’s. And the (seemingly unsolicited) tweet Senator Manchin posted – which only sow more division in a party that needs nothing less.
This same sentiment can be held when referring to “socialism.” About a quarter of registered voters don’t know the definition of socialism, according to a poll conducted by The Hill in 2019. In a May 29-30 (2019) Hill-HarrisX survey of registered voters, 20 percent said they were unsure what socialism was.
• The study also found that respondents gravitated toward both positive and negative definitions of the term much more than toward its academic meaning. Only 13 percent described socialism as government ownership of some parts of the economy.
• Twenty-eight percent said they believed socialism was fulfilling basic needs like healthcare, housing, and a job to everyone while another 5 percent believed it meant ending poverty.
• Twenty-two percent said they viewed socialism as a system lacking in civil liberties and political freedoms while seven percent associated it with abolishing all private property.
Democrats have surely lost control of the narrative here. To Republicans, this is kindling to their ever-ravenous, Democrat-bashing flame. They take these divisions and soar with them. Many of the programs that millions of people partake in are social(ist) programs. Social Security Income, Medicaid, federal grants for college, for example, are rarely seen as government funded but in fact are. Democrats would only benefit from owning that fact and creating more awareness about the good that these programs create in communities. Amplify the messaging for programs that are working.
As Parker Poling, the lead staffer at the House Republican campaign arm, told CNN about the messaging that worked for her side in the election:
"If you put all of the messages into a single broad category, it would be the extreme leftward lurch of the Democrat Party. That was messaged in different ways in different districts. In New York state, bail reform was extremely unpopular and meshed well with defund the police, so a public safety angle was the most effective. In some districts, it was 'Medicare for All' and the loss of private health insurance. In a number of suburban districts, we talked about pocketbook issues like higher taxes under Biden. And in other districts, we focused on the extremism of the 'Green New Deal.' And in south Florida especially, it was socialism more broadly. All of those messages fit within the rubric of extremism."
This is what Republicans do best and what Democrats do worst – band together and own the message. Republicans will go to the mat for each other and their terrible ideas. In fact, they double down on those ideas. Imagine what the Democrats could do if they used the same tactics, but applied them to those ideas, that statistics have shown, Americans actually like?
Where was the Democratic analysis of the Republican messaging? What was the “single broad messaging category” for Republicans? Why didn’t Democrats have a “rubric of extremism” for the party that is actually extreme? What was the national strategy? – a frustrated Democrat asks, loudly into the void.
Only hours after Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ election win was mercifully called on Saturday, November 7th, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave a candid interview to The New York Times. In it, she discussed the Democratic house seats that were lost, the blame she was receiving for those losses, and working with the upcoming Biden-Harris administration.
Although she was doubtlessly frustrated, and even a bit disillusioned, saying, “It’s the incoming. It’s the stress. It’s the violence. It’s the lack of support from your own party. It’s your own party thinking you’re the enemy,” about the state of affairs withing the party, she demonstrates an acute political mind and can take stock of the larger picture unfolding – focusing on the deeper and more nuanced challenges ahead in bringing everyone together within the Democratic party.
What Democratic leadership, or the party moderates, see as liability in AOC, they should see as assets, as missiles that can be aimed to dismantle the Republican echo chamber of misinformation. She is a champion for the everyman, whether she’s seen that way or not.
Instead, a “congressional source” went to the New York Post using Jamaal Bowman’s (NY-16) win as an opportunity to take a swipe at Ocasio-Cortez.
“People keep writing positive articles about her because it gets clicks. But what’s the reality? What has she delivered? So much has been written about the Green New Deal… did it ever become law?” he said. “She is good at tweeting, not legislating.”
The thing is, AOC is good at tweeting and she does get clicks. But she also gets a lot done. In 2019, Ocasio-Cortez co-sponsored 130 more bills than Senator Manchin did during the same legislative period. And what often gets pushed to the side is that AOC also understands the business of social media and its importance in winning elections. She also discusses this in the NYT interview…
“I don’t think anybody who is not on the internet in a real way in the Year of our Lord 2020 and loses an election can blame anyone else when you’re not even really on the internet.
And I’ve looked through a lot of these campaigns that lost, and the fact of the matter is if you’re not spending $200,000 on Facebook with fund-raising, persuasion, volunteer recruitment, get-out-the-vote the week before the election, you are not firing on all cylinders. And not a single one of these campaigns were firing on all cylinders.”
Recently former Republican Governor, John Kasich said,
"The Democrats have to make it clear to the far-left that they almost cost him this election. Now is the time for Democrats ... to begin to listen to what the other half of the country has to say."
A task that Republicans are always happy to cast Democrats with but never the other way around. Democrats need to focus on their base and look toward the wealth of talent and powerful progressive voices at their disposal. Instead of creating a “fringe” in the party, they should be elevating those voices – going to the mat. Ocasio-Cortez said,
“I’ve been begging the party to let me help them for two years. That’s also the damn thing of it. I’ve been trying to help. Before the election, I offered to help every single swing district Democrat with their operation. And every single one of them, but five, refused my help. And all five of the vulnerable or swing district people that I helped secured victory or are on a path to secure victory. And every single one that rejected my help is losing. And now they’re blaming us for their loss.”
Although using progressives in swing districts needs to be strategic – surgical as opposed to shot gun – it needs to be legitimized by the leadership. AOC shouldn’t be “begging” to help congressional candidates in swing districts, they should be begging her for help. Begging for her endorsement. Begging for her support. And with her support should come the full heft and weight of the DCCC and Democratic leadership behind her, to either side of her, and clearing the way for her to come through.
President Barak Obama spoke to SnapChat’s Good Luck America and said,
“One thing I will say about the Democratic Party is that promoting young people is really important. We stick so long with the same old folks and don't make room for new voices. The Democratic National Convention, I thought, was really successful considering the pandemic but, you know, the fact that an AOC only got, what? Three minutes or five minutes? When she speaks to a broad section of young people who are interested in what she has to say, even if they don't agree with everything she says. You give her a platform, just like there may be some other young Democrats who come from more conservative areas who have a different point of view. But new blood is always good.”
Democrats are a team, a tribe, a welcoming acceptance of all. This needs to start at home, within their own party. The messaging needs to be better, clearer, and delivered with unwavering solidarity, while considering the extremely diverse voters in their tent. Their enthusiasm needs to match the ferocity of the right’s and beat it back with facts. If not, that razor thin margin they won by will be crushed, again, in the mid-terms. The stakes have never been higher.