From North to South: The Rise of a New Strain of Socialist Ignorance
Actor James Woods has noted that "socialism, although it is a poison, is a deeply seductive political drug."
A 29-year-old Latina, the youngest in history elected to Congress, made headlines with her triumph in the 2018 midterm elections. But, now, what propelled her to victory has turned her into a target of criticism: her lack of preparation.
She is the intellectual heir of the presidential candidate, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who shook the Democratic party with a call for “democratic socialism.” Like him, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to offer everything for free to voters, financed by the taxes of others.
The triumph of Ocasio-Cortez exposes not only her academic deficiencies, but those of a whole generation, thanks to the standardization of the equation that brought with it strong features of state indoctrination.
Hillary Clinton herself said she lost to Donald Trump because “Bernie offered free ponies for everyone.” And that is the new trend within the Democratic Party, particularly when appealing to young people, to pretend that the state will finance health, education and even housing, whatever the cost, even despite destroying the entire republican structure.
In a recent video broadcast on social networks, elected lawmaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explained that Democrats need to regain control of “the three chambers of Congress.”
Then she corrected herself, and claimed they needed to control the three chambers of the government, but misidentified those three.
That is to say, the congresswoman-to-be did not know the basic structure of the republic that demands that none of the three powers have more power than another, so that there is separation of powers.
These are: executive (presidential branch), legislative (parliament), and judicial.
Her video exploits belie her ignorance. In the case of a bicameral system, as its name suggests, two chambers, not three, are required to approve legislation: The House of Representatives as the voice of the people, and (originally) the Senate as the voice of the states (senators were originally appointed by state legislatures until the 20th century, when they were popularly elected).
In another event during her post-election tour, she said before cameras that in January she will be “inaugurated” the 3rd of January, and will start signing laws on the 4th, when, in fact, the legislators are not inaugurated and do not sign laws: that function corresponds to the president.
But the ignorance of the legislator is not limited to political knowledge: it also extends to the economic sphere, since she speaks of “free stuff” when it comes to state services, despite its enormous tax cost; this, despite having a graduate degree in economics.
So the question arises: is her lack of economic knowledge for real…or is it feigned for electoral reasons?
Then, a few weeks ago when they consulted the elected legislator about what should be done in case that the Supreme Court reverses the ruling (Roe vs Wade) that allowed the legalization of abortion at the federal level, she responded: “we should abolish the Supreme Court.”
Actor James Woods, who has faced threats of constant expulsions from social media for his conservative political criticism, argues that “the power of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should not be underestimated.”
In addition, he insists that “socialism, although it is a poison, is a deeply seductive political drug.”
She is three months away from assuming her office, and has no way to pay the rent for her DC apartment. This event should be used as propaganda to reflect the shortcomings of her generation.
She gave up her job in a bar to undertake a political crusade consisting of taking power, and demanding that the state, with its citizens’ taxes, finance the health, education, and housing of citizens.
That is, instead of setting an example, being the voice of a generation that strives to get ahead and contributes to the economy and therefore to society, she comes to the government demanding everything for nothing.
Ocasio-Cortez defended herself against the ridicule by claiming that the Republicans, instead of “drooling” over her statements, should have the courage to take her on on the point they want to highlight: “they do not believe that the state health service is a right.”
That is to say, for her, the problem is not that she does not know what her job consists of or how the government works: the real problem is the lack of socialized medicine.
But both ignorance and contempt for republican institutions are not limited to Ocasio-Cortez. Also this week, another Latina woman, senator Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, former president of Argentina, called the division of powers obsolete and proposed to “update” it. And her appeal focused mainly, like Ocasio-Cortez, on underestimating the judicial branch (very convenient for those who have outstanding criminal charges against them.”
Both are the reflection of the contemporary left: more focused on the appearance, the ethnicity, the sex, of their candidates than their proposals. Because this fits with their rhetoric of victimhood, and the state as the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-giving father of all.