The opinions expressed in The Lawrentian are those of the students, faculty and community members who wrote them. The Lawrentian does not endorse any opinions piece except for the staff editorial, which represents a majority of the editorial board. The Lawrentian welcomes everyone to submit their own opinions. For the full editorial policy and parameters for submitting articles, please refer to the about section.
When U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) won her seat in New York’s 14th congressional district in 2019, she became one of the most polarizing figures in the United States. To many, the rise of a young, working-class woman of color from the Bronx signaled a new age of politics – an idea that some people enthusiastically embraced and others vehemently rejected. From the moment she set foot in Congress, she handled an unprecedented amount of racist and misogynistic attacks from the right wing with grace, all while advocating for progressive reforms in the face of the Trump administration’s far-right agenda.
But why has AOC received so much more media attention than the other 435 congresspeople in the U.S. House of Representatives? In just three years, she has become not only a congresswoman, but a cultural icon whose name has become synonymous with feminism, progressivism and Latina empowerment. However, the media has commodified her story so much that she has almost become a symbol rather than a person. Conservatives view her as a dangerous revolutionary who must be stopped, liberals have turned her into a poster child for progress and leftists have found themselves disappointed with her hesitance to embrace more radical ideals. All of these perceptions blind everyone to the reality of her politics.
Firstly, AOC is not a communist; she identifies as a democratic socialist. The right wing constantly portrays her as a radical leftist, and many leftist groups have supported her in hopes that she will help them tear down the system from the inside. However, AOC has never actually labeled herself as a communist or advocated for communist policies such as class revolution or the abolition of private enterprise. While socialism and communism are both leftist ideologies, AOC’s brand of “democratic socialism” does not involve constructing a new system from scratch or ending all forms of capitalism; it merely aims to reduce the influence of capitalism in the existing system.
AOC’s policies are not revolutionary – she only appears radical because the majority of American politicians are far more conservative than their counterparts in other countries. Compared to colleagues who support abortion bans with no exceptions, withholding healthcare from the poor, and exploiting workers for inhumanely low wages, AOC’s support for basic human rights like bodily autonomy, free healthcare and a livable minimum wage makes her one of the most progressive members of Congress.
At the same time, when AOC recently voted against a rail worker strike, many leftists viewed her decision as a betrayal. As a strong supporter of workers’ rights, I was deeply disappointed by her choice, but I’m not necessarily surprised. She has never been fully committed to leftist revolution because it is not her cause; she is only associated with leftism because her socialist policies sometimes align with leftist goals. It’s normal to be frustrated when progressives aren’t progressive enough, but since the U.S. government is so conservative, even our most progressive congresspeople are not true leftists.
I hesitate to criticize AOC because she often faces a disproportionate amount of scrutiny from conservatives, liberals and leftists alike compared to her peers – especially since many of the criticisms are rooted in misogyny and racism. Conservatives rely on offensive stereotypes to characterize her as an unhinged, sexual and opportunistic Latina woman. Leftists are quick to denounce her but speak much less about white men who practice the same brand of progressivism. And the liberal media reduces her to a “girlboss” – a young, attractive woman whose main appeal stems from her stylish aesthetic rather than her contributions to politics. In this article, I want to share valid critiques of AOC without feeding any of these narratives. In a culture that has simultaneously made her a savior, a villain and an icon, I want to focus on the real AOC: a politician.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we should ignore the remarkable parts of her story. As a young woman of color who is passionate about politics, I understand why AOC appeals to so many people. Seeing a Congress long dominated by the wealthy, the white, and the male can be so discouraging for marginalized people, and AOC’s success is an inspiring reminder that people like us can hold power despite society’s efforts to disenfranchise us. Furthermore, a congresswoman who supports many of our basic human rights provides hope in a system where many politicians build entire careers out of oppressing marginalized people.
However, the media frames AOC as a Powerful Progressive Woman of Color first and a politician second, and this narrative is actually damaging rather than empowering to marginalized people. Her shortcomings are attributed to all women of color, which makes it difficult to critique her without harming ourselves. If we point out when she fumbles the bag, it will discourage voters from choosing progressive women of color in the future because people will assume all candidates like her will make the same mistakes – which makes it far easier for right-wing extremists to maintain a misogynistic white supremacist state. But if we never challenge democratic socialists to embrace leftist policies, we will never push the status quo because democratic socialism will always be seen as a radical movement rather than a moderate approach, and true leftism will remain unthinkable.
Therefore, we need to calm the hysteria around AOC. While we shouldn’t ignore how her charisma, intelligence, and wit contribute to her popularity, she would not be such an outlier in a fair and reasonable country because progressives, women and people of color would all be common in the U.S. government. In recent years, Congress has seen the rise of several diverse young progressives, such as Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman. However, since these representatives are democratic socialists, they face the same narratives that AOC encounters: too extreme for the right, too cautious for the left, and perfect symbols for the liberal media.
So why can’t we just vote in some true leftists instead of democratic socialists? During the Cold War, anticommunist paranoia and reactionary capitalism became so integral to American identity that leftist candidates are unlikely to win elections even today. Due to society’s racism and misogyny, white male leftists have better chances of winning than female leftists or leftists of color, but flooding Congress with more white men leaves less seats for marginalized groups, and leftism isn’t liberating if it’s not inclusive. Even when both candidates are seasoned white men, most Americans still chose Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders because they feared Sanders’ moderate socialist policies would create oppressive Stalinist pseudo-communism; given these attitudes, the successes of AOC and the Squad are nothing short of a miracle.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the change we need can come strictly from within the government. While I don’t believe all politicians are soulless, most governments are rife with corruption, and even the best people sometimes prioritize self-interest over the common good. I’ll always support progressive candidates who block discriminatory bills and try to improve the current system over conservatives who want me dead, but AOC is not our fairy godmother. Progressives help us by keeping the right-wing extremists at bay, but the real revolution comes from the streets, not Capitol Hill. We the people are our own saviors.