Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

“…repeating lies until they are believed is your thing.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Fox News

The Internet is currently abuzz about Comrade Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s rent problems and Fox News’ failure to appreciate that the struggle is so real for her. Marxism has always been evil. But Comrade’s most recent ravings are evidence that its public image is seriously losing its edge.

This article from the Huffington Post gives a concise and entertaining synopsis of this debacle. It begins by pointing out that one of the Fox contributors “actually laughed” (the audacity!) when the host “recalled that Ocasio-Cortez…was working in the service industry before she launched her campaign…” I will admit that I do not know Comrade’s story behind how she ended up in the service industry, but I think that her most recent line of work was a legitimate target for the commentators.

First, it can be used as a humorous commentary on the destiny of many liberal arts majors. (Translation: If waitressing is the future for an economics and international relations major, what do you think is in store for a gender studies major? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is probably: “A lucrative professorship.”)

Secondly, I don’t think it degrades non-degreed people to ask why someone with a college degree is working in a low-level service industry position (presumably as her only income source). Just to be clear: there is no shame in a college-educated person working a legal and moral job that doesn’t require a college degree. I have a lot more respect for a college-educated person who is willing to work at a “menial” job than I do for one who would prefer to rely on public assistance and the charity of others.

But I suspect that Comrade might be working an angle here. Food service gives you lots of opportunities to talk to people, i.e., get paid to campaign. And by working in a low-status job, she is showing “solidarity” with her base and making them feel like they need her more than ever. As an ambitious, college-educated woman who is waiting tables, she may as well be saying, “Latina immigrant moms: you moved here so that your daughters could go to college and wouldn’t have to scrub toilets for a living. But did you know that a college education currently will only get you as far as ‘waitress’? Better vote for me!”)

One of Comrade’s response tweets to Fox’s ribbing was: “It is bizarre to see 1%-salaried anchors laugh at the US housing crisis.” Here’s what I think is bizarre: lumping people who are struggling to pay the rent in with people who are living on the street. Isn’t the “housing crisis” most serious for those who don’t even have housing?

But that’s American Marxism for you. If you want to start a revolution of the downtrodden in an affluent country that already has lots of social safety nets (public and private), you are going to have to broaden your definition of “downtrodden.”

(And seriously, how pathetic is it when a heartless capitalist has to diagnose a Marxist with “first world problems” and ignoring the homeless?)

“But Megan – people who are struggling to pay the rent are in danger of becoming homeless!” Patience, grasshoppers. In another tweet, Comrade says, “40% of ALL Americans currently struggle to pay for one basic need like food or rent…Most Americans are barely scraping by.” First of all, 40% is a lot, but it is not “most.” Secondly, simply dropping the word “struggle” doesn’t prove that the situation is as dire as she is painting.

Could it be that some of those 40% are “struggling” because of their own excessively high standards for food, housing, and clothing?

And once again, the heartless capitalist has to point out to the Marxist that having to put your rent on a credit card because you spent too much on frivolities is not a true struggle.

Comrade went on to say about her plight, “There is no reason to be ashamed or embarrassed.” This is currently one of the biggest myths floating around our nation about personal finances. And I am sad to say that it is actively promoted by the Church of which both Comrade and I are members. If she were referring exclusively to taking a “menial” job to make ends meet, her statement is true. As I mentioned above, I think it is commendable to be open-minded about jobs you are willing to take (within legal and moral boundaries).

But there should definitely be some level of stigma or embarrassment associated with being unable to provide for yourself and your family.

I am not suggesting that you give a lecture to the person in front of you in the grocery store line who is paying with food stamps. Everybody has a story. But I most definitely am suggesting that that person should be feeling a pang of something negative, even if she is on the dole for reasons completely out of her control. This pang shows that she realizes that financial dependence should be the exception rather than the rule. Some may be in this situation permanently for legitimate reasons, but if we get rid of the pang, those who are just mooching will be paying that way for the rest of their lives.

And there are too many in my Church (#ThanksUSCCB) who would respond: “Now what’s so bad about that? Once we have universal basic income, we’ll all be paying that way. Lord hasten the day!”

And if you thought Comrade was ready for a break, you have underestimated her resolve. (Some of you are probably also wondering if I am ready for a break considering how long and winding this post is. You have also underestimated me.) Check this out:

“I have three months without a salary before I’m a member of Congress. So, how do I get an apartment? Those things are very real.”

“Those things are very real” in the sense that they are happening in reality. But they are not “very real” in the sense of relatable, particularly if her base is as downtrodden as she portrays. The article (which, let me remind my readers, is appearing in the liberal Huffington Post) is very open about the fact that her salary in Congress will be a princessly sum of $174,000.

The struggle is real when you’re wondering how to pay the rent for three months before you start a six-figure job.

And then, she has the audacity to reassure her concerned fans with this:

“(don’t worry btw – we’re working it out!)”

I sincerely hope that many of her constituents, especially those who voted for her, saw that and thought, “Uhh…I wasn’t worried. I was more worried about my own rent.”

Note: “Don’t worry” in today’s America means “Don’t set up a GoFundMe.” Fun fact: Comrade gave a shout-out on Twitter Saturday to her “kind supporters offering to contribute to a GoFundMe” and asked that they send their money to a charity instead. Isn’t that sweet?

The final point of the subject article addresses Fox’s criticism of Comrade’s clothing, which, according to one of the commentators, “could pay a month’s rent in D.C.” The counter-argument offered by the article’s author and Comrade herself revolves around the fact that her designer clothing for a particular photo shoot was lent to her by the magazine in which the photos appeared.

Neither addresses the fact that this clothing looks pretty similar to the clothing she wears every other time she is out in public.

Comrade consistently looks very expensively-dressed. This is not meant as an insult. I think she dresses very tastefully, and I actually admire her sense of style. But I think it is fair to juxtapose her clothing choices with her ideology.

Maybe she just knows how to find really great bargains, but even if that’s true, there is still another issue with the photo shoot clothing:

Would a principled Marxist be so willing to become a human billboard for companies that benefit tremendously from capitalism?

(To which Comrade Colin Kaepernick chimes in with a, “It worked for me, didn’t it?”) This is further confirmation that Marxism is about tyranny by any means necessary rather than ideological purity. So when those means include making some compromises with capitalism, no harm no foul. And if there are some purists in your group who disagree with this approach or otherwise think that Marxism is a “big tent,” you can always remind them how challenging the party line worked out for Leon Trotsky and others like him. It’s all sunshine and rainbows until your own comrades take an axe to your head.

So take heed, democratic socialists. If your movement succeeds, there will come a day when your beloved Comrades Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders are going to have to get on the Tyranny Bus or get run over by it.

That last section probably indicated to you that as much as I enjoyed reading about Comrade’s latest hiccup, I realize that this isn’t all fun and games (hence the “for now” in the title of this post). I think that the softening of Marxism’s public image is very deliberate and intended to convince Americans that Marxism is not that different from what they are accustomed to.

Translation: You can totally get Marxist perks without giving up your capitalist toys!

The fact that we already have a huge welfare state (i.e., Marxism lite) helps in selling this idea.

Furthermore, the humorous elements contained in this softening serve the purpose of convincing critics of Marxism that the Marxism of today is harmless. I consider myself a fan of Breitbart, but they fell for this one hook, line, and sinker. When Comrade Ocasio-Cortez first hit the scene, editor-in-chief Alex Marlow was ROFL about how great this would be for the Republican Party because it would cause the Democratic Party to implode. I don’t dispute that there is still a stigma for Democrats around coming out openly as part of the Marxist spectrum. But I feel that Marlow’s initial take on this set up a false dichotomy between the Democratic platform and Marxism. Marxism has long been a logical progression of many Democrat-inspired programs.

And, more importantly, Marlow ignored the classic metaphor about the frog jumping out of the boiling water but remaining in the water that is slowly brought to a boil. In my opinion, a palatable “democratic socialist” can wreak more havoc than a stark raving mad self-professed Communist. Of course if the latter were elected, it would indicate that a sufficient number of Americans had voted for him, which is scary in and of itself. But at least Americans wouldn’t be under a mass delusion about what Marxism really looks like.

My prediction is that, if left unchecked, “democratic socialists” will slowly pull the Democratic Party further towards Marxism (and as mentioned before, they don’t exactly have light years to travel). The self-professed socialists are currently few in number, but they are wildly popular. Comrade Sanders is currently a loose cannon, and if the Democrats are faced with a choice between incorporating some of his ideas into their platform or losing thousands of votes to him (or someone backed by him) running as a third party, I think they’re going to go with Option 1. Will you take their red pill?

Verso l’alto,
Megan