One small complaint about this: "I don’t think Ralph Nader or Jill Stein cost the Democrats presidential elections; I think Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were terrible candidates who ran incompetent campaigns." You (Freddie) seems to have made a very common mistake in thinking about causation, which is to think of it as "zero sum". It's not. In the present case, BOTH of these claims can be true: "If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won. If Gore had run a less incompetent campaign, he would have won." It's just a logical blunder (albeit a common one) to argue: "A happened because B happened; so it couldn't also have happened because C happened." This complaint doesn't affect the main point of your piece, but you're smart enough about basic conceptual stuff that it seemed worth drawing your attention to.
From the opposite side of the Atlantic AOC doesn't seem too different from Marjorie Taylor-Greene or the other Republican lunatic lady to me – they're not politicians, they're internet performers and they do what delights their following. From that neat @aoc name alone she seemed to be the Representative for Twitter, it naturally following that since everything she did was for Twitter it would also be of Twitter, ie hollow and with no follow-up, instinct leading her to whatever statement would drive traffic and engagement at the time. I agree with her politics, she's not as deranged in opinion or expression as her right-wing counterparts, but there's nothing but surface. Why would there need to be? Surface gets you everything you want. Her future's not in politics, but in media and she knows it. This is time served.
While reading your official response, I too felt a sense of both dread and cosmic calm: When they speak of your writing in twenty years as part of the New New Journalist canon, I will feel vindicated, and I will be in my seventies having done next to nothing, save read other people to convince myself that I was right all along.
My interpretation of it (mostly from the last couple of paragraphs) is "y'all are either misinterpreting or deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of my article about AOC, but fuck you, I'm done re-re-explaining what I meant to people who aren't going to listen anyway."
Part of the history of pro wrestling as I've come to understand it is that once the followers were "marks" and their enjoyment depended on believing wrestling was a real competition. Then over time people caught on and became "smarks", smart marks, who knew that wrestling was a show, not a real competition, but enjoyed it anyway. The latter can't be upset by accusations that their interest is "fake."
Talking to some Trump supporters over the years during his candidacy and presidency, I got the sense they were actually more politically advanced in this way. Someone said something about the wall, and I said something like "Come on, you know there's not gonna be a real wall, he's gonna put up 2 miles of wall, or 10 miles of shitty fence, some bullshit, but he's not gonna build a real substantial wall." The response was an unfazed "Yeah, I know, whatever!" (Though I don't doubt the existence of a sad contingent that really believed.)
I’ve long believed that everything about Trump the politician makes more sense when you look through the lens of pro wrestling. He’s the ultimate heel with enough anti establishment skill for much of the crowd to embrace him. And the people who lustily boo him every time he cuts a promo should realize they’re not far above the folks who do that at a wrestling show. Just to be clear- none of this means I want him as president, but people should be aware of what role they are playing in the Trump show.
Believing in Trump but dismissing the lies means you're one of the faithful. You have faith that he is the Savior of America. If the lie bothers you then whoever says its a lie is an evil doer and lying.
AOC is a gifted communicator, but wastes her talents on the venal temptations of social media celebrity activism. Her need for attention, sympathy, and glamorous victimhood is obvious and nauseating. What other legislator cries (!) on the floor of their chamber, requiring their colleagues to pet and comfort her? Who else turned Jan 6 into a solipsistic story of much danger she was in personally and how much therapy she needs to heal? (Nancy Pelosi, for all her faults, would sooner stab herself in the eye, because she came up in an era when feminism required toughness.) I’ve personally been to that immigrant detention facility as part of a legal team; none of us had the luxury of falling into a weepy heap. We had actual jobs to do, not just advocacy by glamor shot.
The narcissism and immaturity (not exactly unknown qualities among politicians) might be tolerable if she accomplished anything. But she won’t, largely because she’s an unserious person.
yeah I also hate it when my elected leaders show empathy, or who get scared like scaredy babies when their workplace is being actively attacked by a mob of people that specifically hate them personally
I do think it's funny that you juxtapose those instances against the idea that she's a "talented communicator" as though being empathetic and honest aren't a big part of why she's an effective communicator in the first place
I'm not the biggest AOC fan, but I don't think the left had a good move after Bernie lost. The point of Bernie '16 and '20 was for Bernie to win the presidency. The point of supporting AOC and the Squad in '18 was to elect a bloc who would endorse Bernie in '20. We went all-in on Bernie and lost and now we have no chips.
Right now DSA's big IRL projects are winning elections at the state and local level and organizing new workplaces (obv. these IRL projects are not helped by DSA's public face being annoying people fighting on Twitter). AOC has been pretty good about supporting these projects - she's publicized DSA's union work and endorsed downballot DSA candidates, which is why DSA hasn't cut ties despite the fact many members would like to. This is slow, work. Hopefully it builds to something, and in many years we'll have another chance like Bernie '16 to go all-in, and hopefully we'll get a different outcome.
Again, I think AOC's public statements are pretty cringe, I didn't like the Met Gala dress, etc. But in a different world where she voted no on a bunch of stuff and took hard stances and criticized Biden, I don't have any illusions the left would be in any better of a place.
The left is absolutely deflated and has absolutely no momentum. You don't think if AOC was openly antagonistic to the Democratic party, and fighting for the left through her votes and rhetoric there would be more energy and optimism among the left? That alone would put us in a better place because we currently have no movement or leaders to look to for hope, it's inertia.
Thousands of volunteers in my city came out to knock doors for Bernie because they truly believed it would get them health care.
I think when you make critiques of the Dems, 99% of left-leaning people think "good point, there's no point in my getting involved in politics, I'm going to focus on my personal life." And for most people that may be the smart choice!
It's not enough for AOC to make an epic takedown of Biden. She needs to provide a realistic path that ends with everyone having healthcare. And right now I don't see that path and we're all just arguing with each other about messaging.
Was it a mistake to put our hopes in electoral politics? Maybe. But what is the counterfactual where we put our energy into something else?
Had Bernie won, the hope was the Squad would be leading the push to pass Medicare for All through Congress. After Bernie lost to a candidate who was hostile to Medicare for All, that was not an option.
Right, blocs are for using leverage to achieve ends not possible through the majority faction. Given the slim margins required to pass legislation in the House, had the Squad held firm on its demands, it could have secured much more than they otherwise could being accommodating to the leadership.
Instead, they never even tried. And now should be embarrassed by the outsize impact of the right’s equivalent doing what they didn’t have the nerve to.
Had the Squad played hardball, what do you think they could have realistically got added to the IRA? I am genuinely asking, as I am far from an expert on the inner workings of DC. But my limited understanding is that Manchin and Sinema were pretty willing to walk away and tank the whole bill, and therefore had most of the leverage.
I think the IRA is nothing amazing, but it's better than nothing, and has some good provisions.
I never took AOC seriously or understood her appeal. Her existence seemed like a culmination of BIPOC ideology (anyone who isn't white is inherently good/better), celebrity worship, NYC fixation (AOC is arguably the most famous "squad" member), and the lack of leftist institutions (and spaces) to critique politicians or literally do anything constructive.
I saw people kept bringing up that she used to be a bartender or something? Indicating that she used to be working class. I didn't care about this either. Nor did it seem to impact her actual politic. It was a slogan to garner interest in her election.
I read your piece and found it very mild mannered! Even as someone who wants AOC voted out so I can stop hearing about her. I actually think she may just be a very sophisticated conman. She uses identity/social media to get herself elected, and to remain so. She was probably never a leftist, and has always been a grifter. Maybe this might be a stretch, but Ross Barkan talks about how Eric Adams weaponizes identity politics when critiqued (such as when he unknowingly called a Jewish woman a former slave owner because she was white + asked about housing/tenant issues).
AOC fits the correct demographic to be able to believably wield identity politics + social media. But if people can't handle your mid critique of her, then no one can accept that she potentially lied/weaponized her way into office and was never a leftist to begin with.
Perhaps I'm a conspiracy theorist but this makes more sense than believing she was ever a leftist. That MET fiasco should've done her in and it didn't. Also I thought her dress said EAT THE RICH, not tax them.
(Conversely this may actually be the state of American leftism. Just ask individuals to unionize their workplaces/support strikes, dont critique The Squad and vote seems like the current leftist strategy).
`I actually think she may just be a very sophisticated conman.'
Alas, she's just a typical politician. Courted an upset populace to win her seat and then just sold out to the party when she realized it was in her best interests. Nearly every politician does this, including Bernie (adopting identity politics in 2020 primary and endorsing Biden).
Every once in awhile I am beset by how much politicians lie to get elected and it very much makes me not want to vote ever again.
I guess Bernie felt forced into accepting identity politics after Black people called supporting him racist and actively rejected his bid for presidency. This phenomena is the main thing I want to see addressed in Freddie's book because it came up in other podcasts I listen to.
There was a deep dive I read on Current Affairs, after seeing it mentioned in the comments here, that made me think she was never a leftist. She was all hot air from the beginning. She prefers performance, not substance.
He essentially tone polices her after she calls him out about policy and makes a remark about how she used to own a plantation and she cant treat him in such and such a way.
This tickled me. But it would be funny if she was a 300 year old former slave owner. 🤔
Thanks. I read up to the paywall, but the exchange was there. This is just normal Identity politics. Anyone farther up the oppression hierarchy gets to dismiss and piss on everyone below them. This is the privilege and the point of the oppression hierarchy.
You were really good on Rising.
One small complaint about this: "I don’t think Ralph Nader or Jill Stein cost the Democrats presidential elections; I think Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were terrible candidates who ran incompetent campaigns." You (Freddie) seems to have made a very common mistake in thinking about causation, which is to think of it as "zero sum". It's not. In the present case, BOTH of these claims can be true: "If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won. If Gore had run a less incompetent campaign, he would have won." It's just a logical blunder (albeit a common one) to argue: "A happened because B happened; so it couldn't also have happened because C happened." This complaint doesn't affect the main point of your piece, but you're smart enough about basic conceptual stuff that it seemed worth drawing your attention to.
Bad link.
Link sends to a different article: Why Does Las Vegas Exist?
From the opposite side of the Atlantic AOC doesn't seem too different from Marjorie Taylor-Greene or the other Republican lunatic lady to me – they're not politicians, they're internet performers and they do what delights their following. From that neat @aoc name alone she seemed to be the Representative for Twitter, it naturally following that since everything she did was for Twitter it would also be of Twitter, ie hollow and with no follow-up, instinct leading her to whatever statement would drive traffic and engagement at the time. I agree with her politics, she's not as deranged in opinion or expression as her right-wing counterparts, but there's nothing but surface. Why would there need to be? Surface gets you everything you want. Her future's not in politics, but in media and she knows it. This is time served.
While reading your official response, I too felt a sense of both dread and cosmic calm: When they speak of your writing in twenty years as part of the New New Journalist canon, I will feel vindicated, and I will be in my seventies having done next to nothing, save read other people to convince myself that I was right all along.
They did you a huge favor: they put your awesome piece right next to a super terrible one written by turbodumbfuck Jonathan Chait!
AOC needs to leave Congress and take her dream job as editor of Teen Vogue.
The 2022 Compact piece is your response to criticism of AOC article or did you mean to hyperlink to something else?
He explained below in comments -- it was an unapologetic stunt to get people to read the Compact piece.
My interpretation of it (mostly from the last couple of paragraphs) is "y'all are either misinterpreting or deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of my article about AOC, but fuck you, I'm done re-re-explaining what I meant to people who aren't going to listen anyway."
Yeah, I'm confused. No link to a written response, and nothing on YouTube either.
AOC is the Las Vegas of all of our lives.
She is our middle of the desert Sin Eater.
I understand, Freddie.
Unless it was the Endocet linking.
Does anyone have any podcast recommendations?
On the off chance you’re here and haven’t heard of it yet: ‘Blocked and Reported’ is heavy on nuance and still entertaining
My favorite pod is Jordan Jesse GO, because I prefer podcasts to just be some funny people hanging out and chatting.
My Brother My Brother and Me has declined somewhat in quality but still hits well enough for me.
I've also been listening to Mom Can't Cook, which is a podcast about disney channel original movies (I just like the hosts, I watch them on Youtube).
Pirate Wires (+ their substack) is the only one I can faithfully shill that no one knows about
If you like videogames, I just started a podcast about gaming and parenting!
https://dadpod.substack.com/
Part of the history of pro wrestling as I've come to understand it is that once the followers were "marks" and their enjoyment depended on believing wrestling was a real competition. Then over time people caught on and became "smarks", smart marks, who knew that wrestling was a show, not a real competition, but enjoyed it anyway. The latter can't be upset by accusations that their interest is "fake."
Talking to some Trump supporters over the years during his candidacy and presidency, I got the sense they were actually more politically advanced in this way. Someone said something about the wall, and I said something like "Come on, you know there's not gonna be a real wall, he's gonna put up 2 miles of wall, or 10 miles of shitty fence, some bullshit, but he's not gonna build a real substantial wall." The response was an unfazed "Yeah, I know, whatever!" (Though I don't doubt the existence of a sad contingent that really believed.)
I’ve long believed that everything about Trump the politician makes more sense when you look through the lens of pro wrestling. He’s the ultimate heel with enough anti establishment skill for much of the crowd to embrace him. And the people who lustily boo him every time he cuts a promo should realize they’re not far above the folks who do that at a wrestling show. Just to be clear- none of this means I want him as president, but people should be aware of what role they are playing in the Trump show.
Believing in Trump but dismissing the lies means you're one of the faithful. You have faith that he is the Savior of America. If the lie bothers you then whoever says its a lie is an evil doer and lying.
9.01M subscribers
AOC is a gifted communicator, but wastes her talents on the venal temptations of social media celebrity activism. Her need for attention, sympathy, and glamorous victimhood is obvious and nauseating. What other legislator cries (!) on the floor of their chamber, requiring their colleagues to pet and comfort her? Who else turned Jan 6 into a solipsistic story of much danger she was in personally and how much therapy she needs to heal? (Nancy Pelosi, for all her faults, would sooner stab herself in the eye, because she came up in an era when feminism required toughness.) I’ve personally been to that immigrant detention facility as part of a legal team; none of us had the luxury of falling into a weepy heap. We had actual jobs to do, not just advocacy by glamor shot.
The narcissism and immaturity (not exactly unknown qualities among politicians) might be tolerable if she accomplished anything. But she won’t, largely because she’s an unserious person.
yeah I also hate it when my elected leaders show empathy, or who get scared like scaredy babies when their workplace is being actively attacked by a mob of people that specifically hate them personally
I do think it's funny that you juxtapose those instances against the idea that she's a "talented communicator" as though being empathetic and honest aren't a big part of why she's an effective communicator in the first place
I read "she's a talented communicator" as meaning "she's a talented performance artist"
but maybe Leora means something different.
If the Establishment is good at nothing else, it is very good at determining whom to co-opt, whom to buy off, whom to neutralize, whom to ignore.
Bingo!!!!
I'm not the biggest AOC fan, but I don't think the left had a good move after Bernie lost. The point of Bernie '16 and '20 was for Bernie to win the presidency. The point of supporting AOC and the Squad in '18 was to elect a bloc who would endorse Bernie in '20. We went all-in on Bernie and lost and now we have no chips.
Right now DSA's big IRL projects are winning elections at the state and local level and organizing new workplaces (obv. these IRL projects are not helped by DSA's public face being annoying people fighting on Twitter). AOC has been pretty good about supporting these projects - she's publicized DSA's union work and endorsed downballot DSA candidates, which is why DSA hasn't cut ties despite the fact many members would like to. This is slow, work. Hopefully it builds to something, and in many years we'll have another chance like Bernie '16 to go all-in, and hopefully we'll get a different outcome.
Again, I think AOC's public statements are pretty cringe, I didn't like the Met Gala dress, etc. But in a different world where she voted no on a bunch of stuff and took hard stances and criticized Biden, I don't have any illusions the left would be in any better of a place.
The left is absolutely deflated and has absolutely no momentum. You don't think if AOC was openly antagonistic to the Democratic party, and fighting for the left through her votes and rhetoric there would be more energy and optimism among the left? That alone would put us in a better place because we currently have no movement or leaders to look to for hope, it's inertia.
Thousands of volunteers in my city came out to knock doors for Bernie because they truly believed it would get them health care.
I think when you make critiques of the Dems, 99% of left-leaning people think "good point, there's no point in my getting involved in politics, I'm going to focus on my personal life." And for most people that may be the smart choice!
It's not enough for AOC to make an epic takedown of Biden. She needs to provide a realistic path that ends with everyone having healthcare. And right now I don't see that path and we're all just arguing with each other about messaging.
Was it a mistake to put our hopes in electoral politics? Maybe. But what is the counterfactual where we put our energy into something else?
Exactly what energy and optimism is gained by casting losing votes in Congress?
Endorsing candidates in a different branch of government isn’t what blocs are, do, or are for.
Had Bernie won, the hope was the Squad would be leading the push to pass Medicare for All through Congress. After Bernie lost to a candidate who was hostile to Medicare for All, that was not an option.
Right, blocs are for using leverage to achieve ends not possible through the majority faction. Given the slim margins required to pass legislation in the House, had the Squad held firm on its demands, it could have secured much more than they otherwise could being accommodating to the leadership.
Instead, they never even tried. And now should be embarrassed by the outsize impact of the right’s equivalent doing what they didn’t have the nerve to.
Had the Squad played hardball, what do you think they could have realistically got added to the IRA? I am genuinely asking, as I am far from an expert on the inner workings of DC. But my limited understanding is that Manchin and Sinema were pretty willing to walk away and tank the whole bill, and therefore had most of the leverage.
I think the IRA is nothing amazing, but it's better than nothing, and has some good provisions.
That’s the whole point; Manchin and Sinema were willing to walk away, and so killed BBB, which was the ostensible goal of the progressives.
Securing a “better than nothing” bill should be the aim of the President and the majority faction, not the minority left faction.
But in the counterfactual world where the Squad voted down the IRA, how is the left better off?
sigh
I never took AOC seriously or understood her appeal. Her existence seemed like a culmination of BIPOC ideology (anyone who isn't white is inherently good/better), celebrity worship, NYC fixation (AOC is arguably the most famous "squad" member), and the lack of leftist institutions (and spaces) to critique politicians or literally do anything constructive.
I saw people kept bringing up that she used to be a bartender or something? Indicating that she used to be working class. I didn't care about this either. Nor did it seem to impact her actual politic. It was a slogan to garner interest in her election.
I read your piece and found it very mild mannered! Even as someone who wants AOC voted out so I can stop hearing about her. I actually think she may just be a very sophisticated conman. She uses identity/social media to get herself elected, and to remain so. She was probably never a leftist, and has always been a grifter. Maybe this might be a stretch, but Ross Barkan talks about how Eric Adams weaponizes identity politics when critiqued (such as when he unknowingly called a Jewish woman a former slave owner because she was white + asked about housing/tenant issues).
AOC fits the correct demographic to be able to believably wield identity politics + social media. But if people can't handle your mid critique of her, then no one can accept that she potentially lied/weaponized her way into office and was never a leftist to begin with.
Perhaps I'm a conspiracy theorist but this makes more sense than believing she was ever a leftist. That MET fiasco should've done her in and it didn't. Also I thought her dress said EAT THE RICH, not tax them.
(Conversely this may actually be the state of American leftism. Just ask individuals to unionize their workplaces/support strikes, dont critique The Squad and vote seems like the current leftist strategy).
`I actually think she may just be a very sophisticated conman.'
Alas, she's just a typical politician. Courted an upset populace to win her seat and then just sold out to the party when she realized it was in her best interests. Nearly every politician does this, including Bernie (adopting identity politics in 2020 primary and endorsing Biden).
Every once in awhile I am beset by how much politicians lie to get elected and it very much makes me not want to vote ever again.
I guess Bernie felt forced into accepting identity politics after Black people called supporting him racist and actively rejected his bid for presidency. This phenomena is the main thing I want to see addressed in Freddie's book because it came up in other podcasts I listen to.
There was a deep dive I read on Current Affairs, after seeing it mentioned in the comments here, that made me think she was never a leftist. She was all hot air from the beginning. She prefers performance, not substance.
"such as when he unknowingly called a Jewish woman a former slave owner because she was white + asked about housing/tenant issues"
How old is this woman? No one has been a slave owner in the US since 1865.
Here's the link: https://rosselliotbarkan.com/p/you-reap-what-you-sow
He essentially tone polices her after she calls him out about policy and makes a remark about how she used to own a plantation and she cant treat him in such and such a way.
This tickled me. But it would be funny if she was a 300 year old former slave owner. 🤔
Thanks. I read up to the paywall, but the exchange was there. This is just normal Identity politics. Anyone farther up the oppression hierarchy gets to dismiss and piss on everyone below them. This is the privilege and the point of the oppression hierarchy.
In what sense was she never a leftist to begin with? This is what the Left is!
OTOH, she's provided endless fodder for the Bee:
https://babylonbee.com/news/aoc-sits-in-invisible-police-car-awaiting-transport-to-invisible-jail/
Freddie, are you familiar at all with Alvin Gouldner’s work? I have wondered this before (and it seems incredibly relevant to AOC, the DSA, etc.)