Originally posted on October 6, 2021. Reposted here without edits. Parenthetically, since that time, AOC has grown increasingly more “institutionalist”, which, perhaps, is to be expected of someone transforming from an iconoclastic rabble rouser into a professional politician enmeshed within a large political machine. There is likely more to be said on this topic in the future, but in the meanwhile…
On September 24, 2021, representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, colloquially known as AOC and probably the most recognisable and popular member of the so-called progressives in the US House of Representatives, not to mention a favoured windmill for right-wing propagandist to tilt against, published a statement on her congressional website regarding a recent non-vote of hers1. Specifically, the press release discusses a recent congressional vote on $1 billion in supplementary funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system, during which AOC changed her vote from “against” to “present” after some consultation with Democratic Party leadership. The objective of this post is not to discuss the particular proposal, which in any case appears to have stalled for the time being, or AOC’s vote itself, but rather how she structures the press release which is explicitly intended to explain said vote to her constituents.
The document consists of only six paragraphs, not counting the header and the signature, which means a paragraph-by-paragraph precis can be readily produced. Let us begin:
- Paragraph 1. We have just had to vote on a funding bill for the Iron Dome. I am against this bill, but voted “present”. A perfectly serviceable introduction.
- Paragraph 2. I oppose this bill for this and that reasons, and have strong beliefs regarding unconditional aid to the Israeli government. Now, the issue is fully introduced and outlined, and we can get to the matter of AOC’s specific vote.
- Paragraph 3. I do not like the fact that someone tried to slip this provision into other legislation under the radar. That is well and good, but does not yet begin to address AOC’s actual vote.
- Paragraph 4. The vote was rushed, and the House Majority Leader told me to get lost when I requested a 24-hour stay. We are still talking about everything that took place prior to the vote, with only two paragraphs left to explain the contradiction set up at the very start – I am against this bill, but voted “present”.
- Paragraph 5. Our community was horrified and I wept at the recklessness of our party. There is much talk here about AOC’s own and her constituents’ reaction to the vote, but not about the vote itself. Again. Still.
- Paragraph 6. Everyone is disappointed, and I hope we can use this as a growth opportunity. Still no discussion of the actual vote. There is a veiled reference – “to those I have disappointed…I am deeply sorry”, but no specific indication of how AOC might have disappointed some unspecified constituents, nor an explanation of her actions.
In other words, what we have here is a classic 6-paragraph example of first rate, grade A, bona fide, genuine, one hundred per cent dissemblement and bluff. Going by paragraphs, one third of the text is devoting to affirming the extant beliefs of the readers, that this was a bad bill; one third is spent on detailing the perfidy of the Powers That Be, also feeding into the readers’ presumed emotional state; and the remainder is dedicated to expressing disappointment with the world and hoping that tomorrow is another day. Nowhere is the substance of the issue set forth in the introductory paragraph addressed; nowhere is one’s personal agency referenced – AOC is portrayed as merely being swept along as an innocent bystander, especially once her proposal for a stay of the vote is shot down. All the focus is on the unjustness of the funding proposal itself, and the recklessness of the Democratic Party leadership, and the wall-of-text nature of the press release itself further aids in the obfuscation. Magicians and pickpockets call this “misdirection”; one presumes that politicians call this “a day at the office”.
From the standpoint of political communication, I am compelled to give this a relatively high mark. Of course just about any political press release can, upon reflection, stand to be improved at least to some extent, but in this instance I am hard-pressed to come up with a better way in which to avoid any serious discussion of her vote. And it surely is better than simply admitting to the probable truth of the matter, that the House Leadership strong-armed her into changing her vote so as to not excessively rock the boat, and that she caved to said strong-arming, even if in the name of some hypothetical greater good.
On the other hand, given her billing as a “progressive” politician, I suspect AOC can ill afford to put out too many of these dissembling texts lest she start to lose her credibility with at least her less avid supporters. Simply put, AOC demonstrated proper political and media tactics, but in the service of a potentially flawed long-term strategy. Then again, she would hardly be the first, or even the hundredth, reformist who, upon arriving in the halls of government, gradually or even rapidly lost their ardour…
- See https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/note-our-ny-14-community-rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez, retrieved October 6, 2021.[↩]