AOC for President? Let’s hope not!

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), whom the people know as AOC, recently gave an interview to GQ (formerly Gentlemen’s Quarterly)Magazine. In it she said many strikingly absurd things. But those things open a window to her ideology, an ideology too many people share in the United States today. So examining those things critically can prove instructive. Furthermore, rebutting them should prove even more instructive.

AOC to GQ: Americans hate women

Mr. Mark Stevens at Patriot Newsfeed covered AOC’s GQ interview here and here. More by far than anything else, she pours utter contempt on anyone who disagrees with her. But she pours special contempt on men in general and conservative men in particular.

Why, for example, does AOC think she will never become President of the United States? Because:

So many people in this country hate women. And they hate women of color.

Not true. Last year the people of Virginia elected a black woman Lieutenant Governor. But AOC probably doesn’t appreciate that kind of woman of color. Winsome Earle-Sears served in the Marine Corps and brings the old Marine values to her life and job. (As your editor knows, having met her while she campaigned for the nomination in Hanover County.) And now she is spearheading a move to repeal a law, left over from the previous term of the General Assembly, that Virginians will drive the California Car or they will drive no cars at all. Bank on AOC opposing that – because getting out of our cars (or at least out of cars with internal combustion engines) is a centerpiece of her Green New Deal.

But that, as Stevens points out, is her trouble. AOC won’t admit that her ideology will lose her votes. Does she really believe this absurdity? Or does she pretend to believe that, to protect The Narrative? That’s impossible to say, and probably not relevant, either. She would say the same things, either way.

Tax the “rich” and “take care of it”

Also, Americans have more than the Green New Deal to give them pause. Never mind her having taxes past due for five years. Character flaws, including hypocrisy, are incidental. What’s important are the policy prescriptions from any given candidate. And she has proposed a top marginal tax rate of seventy percent. The country hasn’t seen such rates since the Sixties.

We also have her record, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, of calling for people to “get out in the streets” afterward.

She seems to believe – or wants to convince people – that the Court made illegal everywhere what an earlier Court made legal everywhere, forty-nine years ago. Not true – though if anyone wants to have that debate, CNAV would welcome it. But AOC has a problem if any State in the Union can now act as the Court once forbade. And here she said the most contemptuous – and contemptible – thing. Namely that “almost” any woman who, finding herself pregnant, “takes care of it,” liberates the man involved. What she says next might at first seem more polite. She does not say, “You’re a man, so don’t talk about it.” But she wants men to talk about how liberating such “caretaking” can be – for them.

Men or boys?

A man who asks a woman to “take care of the problem” isn’t a man. He’s a thoughtless, irresponsible boy. And that’s how AOC wants men to act. She decries all the manly virtues, which she list as “stoicism, competition, domination, dominance.” Actually she gets most of that wrong. Women can be and usually are just as competitive as men. And the chief manly virtue is not dominance but leadership. Why would any woman object to that? Only because she wants to lead, and sees every man as her rival.

One other interesting thing she posted, immediately after Dobbs, was how to defeat “digital surveillance.”

She did so in the context of the activity in which she wants to encourage women to engage. But might she change her tune once she became President? Or worse – Director General of a polity to replace the United States, say after a runaway Constitutional Convention? Perhaps. Communist movements everywhere, since the Bolsheviks, encouraged moral laxity until they took command. Thereafter…!

AOC for President – of what, exactly?

Which brings us to what kind of President AOC would become. She talks about how “the wrath of the political system” would impede her. “There are still plenty of limitations,” she says.

Except that she’s not talking about opposition from any rival to the World Economic Forum. She’s talking about the political institutions that have thwarted or rolled back the worst excesses of her movement. And what are those institutions? The Senate and the Supreme Court.

From that fact alone, you can tell that she wants to abolish the Congress and the Supreme Court as we now know them. Or perhaps she wants a series of Constitutional amendments – or a new governing Charter – to guarantee the “rights” she thinks people ought to have. From the Green New Deal, and other pronouncements she has made on other subjects, one may reasonably infer these include:

• “Taking care of problems,” as above,
• Walk-in residency (but not necessarily citizenship),
• Free hospitals and clinics,
• Free college – except that the government would nationalize all colleges and universities,
• Compulsory public schools,
• Same-gender and plural marriages (meaning three or more), and
• Adoption of children, provided that they send their children to the free public schools only and do not attempt homeschooling.

The rights you would not have

These rights would not include:

• The protection of the writ of habeas corpus,
• Freedom of speech, and especially not freedom to doubt evolution or climate change due chiefly or solely to human activity,
• Keeping and bearing of arms,
• Ownership of one’s own means of transportation other than a bicycle, rickshaw, or some such, or
• Ownership of one’s dwelling or refusal of quartering of military service members.

Furthermore, money would not exist, but rationing would. Everyone would have a guaranteed minimum ration (not income). Also, expect AOC to introduce a social credit system, and to permit bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. In case you’re wondering: straight white males who were born male and refused to change, would have a social credit score of zero.

One more thing: AOC would subject this polity to the jurisdiction and governance of the United Nations.

Why would any loyal American vote for such a person as President? For one of two reasons. Maybe they don’t know what she proposes, or what life in her ideal polity would be like. Or maybe they think they’ll have the social credits, standing, and network connections to be the nobility in her polity.

Either way, the rest of us know better than ever to make her President. That has nothing to do with her gender or heritage. It has to do with her ideas.