Dems’ New Brand Taking Hold

 

As many of you know, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is my favorite Democrat. She is revolutionizing the Democratic Party in preparation for humanity’s evolution from capitalism to socialism. Her 15,000 voters in the Bronx/Queens have launched her to the top of the media world because she is young, she is a woman, she is of color, and she defeated an old establishment white guy in line to replace that old billionaire white woman who currently leads the calcified, capitalist House Dems.

The Democratic National Committee has embraced this charismatic young torchbearer of the Democratic Socialists of America as the new face of the Democratic Party (Bernie can now be stuffed into a closet where he belongs). Social democracy is now fully outed as the dominant political philosophy of the Democratic Party. Clinton cronyism is out. The Democrats have found their feet and Ocasio-Cortez’s new message is ascendant. Too bad she’s too young to run for president in 2020.

There is, however, a Democrat presidential aspirant who has accurately sensed the direction of her party and is positioning herself out in front of it. What she lacks in authenticity she compensates for with imitation.

For instance, just listen to the way she talks. I mean, c’mon. If sounding youthful is your goal, why aspire to sound like a 28-year old? Why not sound like a ditzy teenager: slurring, dropping consonants, dropping syllables, and generally sounding like an idiot? And that’s before one even considers the silliness of what she actually says. In the first 30 seconds, she eliminates ICE, delegating the terrorist/security stuff to … well, she doesn’t specify, but she is very clear that we should be “looking at immigration as a humanitarian issue” blah blah blah “these are families” blah blah blah “diversity is what makes our country and our economy so strong” blah blah.

She’s even better on guns. “We should pass the gun reform issues in the first month—all of them.” Among other things, she wants to make sure people can’t buy “bum stocks” and “large magazine clips.”

After earning dem-sosh cred by flaunting her expertise on icky gun stuff, she pivots to healthcare, where she demonstrates her skill at bald-faced historical revisionism and then declares that the right answer is Medicare-for-All.*

She follows with a catch-all laundry list that indeed catches all, including postal banking(?). “Like, that’s where the solutions lie, and we need to do that stuff cuz that’s what the American people are so angry about…”

I’m sure that with a little coaching, this woman could become a formidable presidential nominee in 2020.

In which case she would become my new favorite Democrat.

* Incidentally, 122 of the 194 House Dem co-sponsors have signed their names to a $3,200,000,000,000 per year Medicare-for-All plan. So yes, socialist policy is now a core objective of Congressional Democrats.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 45 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. CliffTOP Inactive
    CliffTOP
    @CliffTOP

    A very funny parody…  cleverly written.

    But I fear the underlining assumption that an overwhelming majority of Americans will run for the hills (and the polls) when they hear her message is dangerously overconfident.  Clean up the style issues, and the messages might find surprising resonance.

    I, as an American, live in a Scandinavian country, populated by very intelligent people who for generations have willingly handed over 50% of their income to the State, so that someone else deals with health care, elderly care, college education or “whatever”.  When a civic problem arises here, the first question asked is not what can I do, but rather isn’t someone from the State supposed to be doing something?

    Are we sure this is not the direction the culture of the US is now heading towards?  I for one am not…

    • #31
  2. Penfold Member
    Penfold
    @Penfold

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    rico (View Comment):
    The question is: Which states that voted Red in 2016 would vote Blue because of a Democratic Socialist candidate?

    Depends on the dead voter turnout. Or are we not allowed to make jokes about the dead, including dead voters?

    The Dead have rights too.  They identify as dead.  Any law that says that the dead can’t vote was created by old white guys (who are usually also dead) to keep the dead masses down.  If they can’t actually make it to the polls we should count their votes as they would have voted or as they have previously voted when alive.  And the Dead consider “alive” to be a pejorative statement of condition that biases the public against them.

    • #32
  3. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Penfold (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    rico (View Comment):
    The question is: Which states that voted Red in 2016 would vote Blue because of a Democratic Socialist candidate?

    Depends on the dead voter turnout. Or are we not allowed to make jokes about the dead, including dead voters?

    The Dead have rights too. They identify as dead. Any law that says that the dead can’t vote was created by old white guys (who are usually also dead) to keep the dead masses down. If they can’t actually make it to the polls we should count their votes as they would have voted or as they have previously voted when alive. And the Dead consider “alive” to be a pejorative statement of condition that biases the public against them.

    “Life is wasted on the living”.

    • #33
  4. Misthiocracy, Joke Pending Member
    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending
    @Misthiocracy

    rico (View Comment):
    The question is: Which states that voted Red in 2016 would vote Blue because of a Democratic Socialist candidate?

    a) It would depend on the candidate’s working-class credentials.

    b) It would depend on the candidate’s ability to rally the voters who stayed home in 2016.

    Obama won because he was able to get people out who’d never voted before.  Hillary lost because those people stayed home and because some of the people who usually voted Democrat switched to Republican thanks to Trump.

    In 2020, it’s unlikely that those swing voters are going to switch back (barring a massive economic crash between now and then), so the Democratic candidate will have to be able to rally those missing Obama voters if they hope to stand a chance.

    A slightly younger version of Hillary Clinton is not going to accomplish that goal.

    • #34
  5. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Why not?  If we all identify as rich and contented in addition to our sexual identity of choice and then invite about 200 million strangers to move here to obtain expended benefits what could possibly go wrong?

    • #35
  6. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    IrwinChusid (View Comment):

    Postal Banking is indeed on the Socialist wishlist:

    Campaign for Postal Banking

    Why stop there? How about Postal Wi-Fi? Postal Grocery? Postal Housing? Postal Video-on-Demand? Put the Post Office in charge of every service for the “disadvantaged.” There’s a winning campaign strategy.

    Thanks for this info at the link:

    Under Gillibrand’s postal banking bill, USPS would charge $1.12 for the same [e.g. $39 at a credit union] three-month $400 loan product…

    That’s a recipe for a free money store with a blue-and-white eagle logo on the front. And that would be a very good thing for low-income families — and for the broader economy that relies on lower- and middle-income family spending to grow.

    This is nothing more than a government handout, of cash no less.

    Incidentally, government Postal Savings has existed in Japan since way back (although it was privatized in recent years). In cities, it’s virtually indistinguishable from a bank. In outlying villages, it’s pretty much all they’ve got. Needless to say, it was instituted to facilitate personal savings, not handouts.

    • #36
  7. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    CliffTOP (View Comment):

    A very funny parody… cleverly written.

    But I fear the underlining assumption that an overwhelming majority of Americans will run for the hills (and the polls) when they hear her message is dangerously overconfident. Clean up the style issues, and the messages might find surprising resonance.

    I, as an American, live in a Scandinavian country, populated by very intelligent people who for generations have willingly handed over 50% of their income to the State, so that someone else deals with health care, elderly care, college education or “whatever”. When a civic problem arises here, the first question asked is not what can I do, but rather isn’t someone from the State supposed to be doing something?

    Are we sure this is not the direction the culture of the US is now heading towards? I for one am not…

    Honestly, neither am I. But I’m half-confident that the Left will overplay their hand and mobilize the “silent center” against them. Thanks for sharing your experience/insight.

    • #37
  8. Misthiocracy, Joke Pending Member
    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending
    @Misthiocracy

    IrwinChusid (View Comment):

    Postal Banking is indeed on the Socialist wishlist:

    Campaign for Postal Banking

    Why stop there? How about Postal Wi-Fi? Postal Grocery? Postal Housing? Postal Video-on-Demand? Put the Post Office in charge of every service for the “disadvantaged.” There’s a winning campaign strategy.

    From the link: “Every other developed country in the world has postal banking. “

    Not true.  Canada doesn’t.

    However, the postal workers union is lobbying hard for it.

    • #38
  9. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):

    IrwinChusid (View Comment):

    Postal Banking is indeed on the Socialist wishlist:

    Campaign for Postal Banking

    Why stop there? How about Postal Wi-Fi? Postal Grocery? Postal Housing? Postal Video-on-Demand? Put the Post Office in charge of every service for the “disadvantaged.” There’s a winning campaign strategy.

    From the link: “Every other developed country in the world has postal banking. “

    Not true. Canada doesn’t.

    However, the postal workers union is lobbying hard for it.

    Wait – Canada is developed?

     

    • #39
  10. Michael Brehm Lincoln
    Michael Brehm
    @MichaelBrehm

    Being a bloodthirsty sadist, I just came up with the wonderful idea that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez really needs to debate Ted Cruz. I don’t care if that they’re not even in the same race, it needs to happen and it needs to be broadcast on every network and streamed live on Youtube.

    • #40
  11. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Penfold (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    rico (View Comment):
    The question is: Which states that voted Red in 2016 would vote Blue because of a Democratic Socialist candidate?

    Depends on the dead voter turnout. Or are we not allowed to make jokes about the dead, including dead voters?

    The Dead have rights too. They identify as dead. Any law that says that the dead can’t vote was created by old white guys (who are usually also dead) to keep the dead masses down. If they can’t actually make it to the polls we should count their votes as they would have voted or as they have previously voted when alive. And the Dead consider “alive” to be a pejorative statement of condition that biases the public against them.

    “Life is wasted on the living”.

    Zaphod Beeblebrox IV.

    • #41
  12. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Penfold (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    rico (View Comment):
    The question is: Which states that voted Red in 2016 would vote Blue because of a Democratic Socialist candidate?

    Depends on the dead voter turnout. Or are we not allowed to make jokes about the dead, including dead voters?

    The Dead have rights too. They identify as dead. Any law that says that the dead can’t vote was created by old white guys (who are usually also dead) to keep the dead masses down. If they can’t actually make it to the polls we should count their votes as they would have voted or as they have previously voted when alive. And the Dead consider “alive” to be a pejorative statement of condition that biases the public against them.

    “Life is wasted on the living”.

    Zaphod Beeblebrox IV.

    “What have you done with your life?”

    “I’m President of the Galaxy, man!”

    “And what kind of job  is that for a Beeblebrox?”

    • #42
  13. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    CliffTOP (View Comment):

    But I fear the underlining assumption that an overwhelming majority of Americans will run for the hills (and the polls) when they hear her message is dangerously overconfident. Clean up the style issues, and the messages might find surprising resonance.

    […]

    Are we sure this is not the direction the culture of the US is now heading towards? I for one am not…

    Considering the last 40 years plus in public education in the US, you’re right to be worried. While education as a powerful agent of anti-American indoctrination is in many ways the fruit of Communist infiltration and subversion, it’s taken on a life of its own.

    Ben Judah at The American Interest expands on the nature of millennial socialism:

    Yet again this comes from Occupy. “There are a lot of would-be Leninists and Stalinists trying to organize the DSA,” says David Graeber, who identifies as an anarchist himself. “But the general spirit is not with them. It makes sense to talk about what’s happening in the way that Immanuel Wallerstein talked about 1789, 1848 and 1917 being world revolutions, which happened on a certain level all over the world, because they were revolutions that changed political common sense. This is what happened in 2011, with Occupy, the idea of how to organize.”

    This is often the trickiest thing for liberals to grasp: for millennial socialists, America does not need a GOSPLAN, a super powerful state, or central planning. What they believe it needs is as much democracy as possible.

    Workers’ control, autonomism, corporate democracy, locally supervised nationalized industries—not high-up, mandarin-allocated indicative planning. This is millennial socialism: dreams of socially-owned Ubers and AirBnBs.

    […]

    “What’s happening with people is the basic idea of democracy has changed,” says Graeber. “It no longer has just to do with the state. This is the legacy of Occupy and also seeing how social movements have played out across the world. And there has come to be the idea that you need to have institutions outside of the political structures to maintain democracy that you can integrate with those working inside the political system.”

    This is because millennial socialists think in terms of a matrix of oppression.

    Intersectionality has convinced this generation—feminism is socialism, anti-racism is socialism, LGBTQI is socialism. Their understanding of it is as a democratic process that reverts marginalization, through above all, voice. “I would compare what has happened since Occupy,” says Graeber, “to feminism and abolitionism—about changing people’s basic moral perceptions.”  

    Those listening to Jordan Peterson and seeing, like he does, little Soviet troopers in the advance of Corbynism and the Jacobin Generation are missing the point. Leave the psychologist to fight his imaginary Left.

     

    • #43
  14. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    This is because millennial socialists think in terms of a matrix of oppression.

    Intersectionality has convinced this generation—feminism is socialism, anti-racism is socialism, LGBTQI is socialism. Their understanding of it is as a democratic process that reverts marginalization, through above all, voice.

    Does it not matter that they’re wrong?

    • #44
  15. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    This is because millennial socialists think in terms of a matrix of oppression.

    Intersectionality has convinced this generation—feminism is socialism, anti-racism is socialism, LGBTQI is socialism. Their understanding of it is as a democratic process that reverts marginalization, through above all, voice.

    Does it not matter that they’re wrong?

    No. The fact that you ask the question demonstrates that you are an Enemy of the People.

    • #45
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.