The Self-Indulgent, Dead-End Politics of AOC's Partisan Liberalism
Ridglan Farms was forced to release thousands of beagles from hideous experiments because activists formed a trans-ideological coalition. AOC-style liberals would never dirty themselves in that way.
One of the year’s best feel-good news stories materialized late last month when Ridglan Farms in Wisconsin was forced to release more than 1,500 beagles who had been bred by the corporation to be sold into gruesome, sadistic government-funded experiments, only to be unceremoniously killed thereafter. I first reported on these industrialized dog abuses at Ridglan and by other corporations like it back in 2018. The horrific conditions into which the dogs are bred, and the monstrosity of the government-funded experiments to which they were subjected, remain vivid to this day.
That 2018 article was enabled by activists long opposed to the industrialized abuses of dogs and other animals. They worked against Ridglan Farms for over eight years to make last week’s inspiring victories possible, often risking their liberty to do so. And one major factor in their success — arguably the most indispensable one — was that they took an issue long associated with left-wing activism (animal rights) and found a way to form coalitions and partnerships with all sorts of politicians and media figures who reside far from left-wing politics, including many in the conservative movement and on the broader American right.
Much of this transformative progress was due to the deliberate portrayal of this cause as appealing to values found both on the right and the left. The campaign from White Coat Waste Project, for instance, emphasized not only the horrors of industrialized dog abuse and experimentation but also the wasteful government funds that sustain it, including horrifying dog experiments funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Activists with the animal rescue group DxE deliberately courted right-wing dog lovers and, in doing so, catapulted their cause from a once-perceived ideological or partisan fringe issue into one that commands mainstream support from a remarkably wide range of individuals.
All of this devotion to assembling a trans-ideological, nonpartisan coalition against hideous dog experimentation paid off. In the weeks leading up to the liberation of those 1,500 Ridglan Farms beagles, the cause had been taken up and promoted by not only numerous left-wing animal rights activists and local liberal politicians, but also prominent MAGA influencers and institutions, such as Lara Trump, Tomi Lahren, Laura Loomer, Megyn Kelly, Fox News, and by all sorts of right-wing members of Congress, including Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY).
The reason so many left-wing animal activists sought ways to form partnerships and coalitions with people on the right is extremely obvious: because that’s what people do when they actually care about a cause and care about realizing the goals to which they claim to be devoted.
If one begins with the premise that an unholy combination of U.S. government health bureaucracies and large corporations is funding morally grotesque, sociopathic, and gratuitous dog experiments, as well as subjecting billions of animals to systemized industrial torture in factory farms, then one will do whatever is possible to stop it or at least curb and reform it. That certainly includes forming majoritarian coalitions across partisan, ideological, and demographic lines, which is exactly what these activists did to achieve these ongoing and inspiring successes.
Then there are people like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and her liberal followers. They love to posture and parade as so deeply concerned and morally righteous, devoted to the most noble, compassionate causes for the most benevolent and selfless of reasons.
But in stark contrast to the aforementioned animal activists, who maintain a genuine devotion to achieving their stated goals and thus creating a positive impact, AOC Liberals are extremely picky, selective, and deeply judgmental of those with whom they would be willing to work to create majoritarian, issue-by-issue coalitions that would succeed. Their own political branding and sense of moral superiority are infinitely more important than stopping policies that they insist so deeply offend their elevated sense of right and wrong.
AOC, now a favorite of the Democratic establishment, and for good reason, appeared at the University of Chicago on Friday night. It was for a regular event entitled “In Conversation With David Axelrod,” hosted by Obama’s long-time chief political strategist. During the Q-and-A portion of the event, a student asked AOC whether she was now more open to partnering with Republicans to pursue bipartisan policy goals than her previous comments suggested. He specifically recalled that she at one point said bipartisanship was close to impossible, given that the GOP is filled with “white nationalists,” yet he noted that one of her allies in the fight to eliminate congressional stock trading is Rep. Tim Burchett (R-KY), whom liberals have accused of anti-black racism.
In response to the question, the progressive star claimed that she will occasionally work with Republicans, if the goal is important enough, but that for many key issues — including the opportunity to work with former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) against the Iran War, against the American financing and arming of Israel, and for the rights of Palestinians to self-determination — she would never deign to work with someone like Greene because, under AOC’s verdict, she’s “a bigot and an antisemite.”
Think about what AOC is saying here. She has said — albeit under sustained pressure from activists — that Israel’s U.S.-funded attacks in Gaza constitute “genocide.” She has called the Israeli-American war on Iran a “catastrophic” war of “aggression.” One would think that anyone who actually believes those claims — that the U.S. is financing Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians and that the Iran War is “catastrophic” for the world — would do anything to stop these dangerous evils.
But AOC is here to say that she will absolutely not do anything to stop what she believes is a “genocide” and a “catastrophic war of choice.” She would apparently prefer to fall short of her supposed goals to stop these crimes than win if it means having to work with conservatives whose views she regards as “bigoted” and “antisemitic.”
AOC’s comments about refusing to work with people like MTG on Israel and Iran provoked an intense debate among anti-war advocates, opponents of the U.S. financing of Israel, and DNC-loyal liberals. And that debate reveals a great deal about not just modern-day AOC-style liberalism, but also a great deal about each of those separate political factions.
So much of AOC-led liberal politics is geared toward one’s efforts to proclaim one’s own moral superiority, and preserving one’s own self-righteous branding as uniquely virtuous, compassionate, and caring. Posturing as a vehement, morally outraged opponent of Israeli-led genocide and war with Iran is vital to sustaining that public image and self-perception.
But actually stopping said genocide and war is largely irrelevant to that image. That is why AOC and her followers devote themselves with such fervor to the performative and theatrical parts of their politics but will not deign to do the things necessary to actually achieve something.
Behold the noble principles that define AOC and her supporters: they would rather let Americans be forced to pay for Israel’s military and wars, and let Palestinians be bombed, and have Iran destroyed, if the alternative is to talk to or build majorities with gauche and morally inferior “bigots.” What matters — truly matters — is getting to prance around at events filled solely with like-minded, already converted people and be cheered for your elevated tastes and feel good about how untarnished you are, all while calling everyone a racist and a misogynist and a bigot and an antisemite so you signal to the world that you are not any of those things. That, for them, is the real goal of politics.
It is particularly ironic that AOC’s example of someone too evil and villainous to work with was MTG. Last year, MTG introduced an amendment that would have stripped all U.S. funding for Israel from the American budget. Democrats who have genuine convictions about their opposition to Israeli aggression, such as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), voted for MTG’s amendment. AOC, however, did not. With ambitions of New York politics dancing in her head, AOC voted “no,” then justifying it by insisting that Americans must continue to pay for Israel’s “defensive weapons” and accusing MTG of being motivated solely by antisemitism.
As MTG herself put it in response to AOC’s refusal to work with her: “AOC refused to vote for my amendment to strip funding for Israel. She can run her mouth all she wants, but votes are the only thing that matters, not a bunch of words and nasty name-calling.” MTG believes that “votes are the only thing that matters, not a bunch of words and nasty name-calling,” because she’s not a member in good standing with decent, liberal politics.
The left-wing flank of the Democratic Party has spent almost three years now insisting that the worst moral crime is the U.S.-funded Israeli genocide in Gaza. Yet, when a Republican who wants to cut off all funding to Israel is seated next to a Democrat who wants to force Americans to pay for Israeli weapons (like AOC), these liberal frauds somehow side with the one who wants to fund Israel. (That AOC finally changed her mind just last month and now fully embraces MTG’s position only serves to further highlight the absurdity of all this.)
Beyond all that, MTG has repeatedly shown that she will risk her own political career in order to condemn destructive war policies, whether they’re carried out by the other party or by her own. She did so by not only opposing and denouncing Trump’s financing and arming of Israel, but also the panoply of D.C. bipartisan war policies. MTG thus denounced Trump’s bombing of Yemen (after he spent 2024 criticizing Biden for bombing Yemen), his bombing of Iran last year with Israel, and Trump’s new war with Iran.
AOC, by rather stark contrast, is a partisan hack, nothing more than a glorified Nancy Pelosi Jr. She will criticize the policies of a Democratic president only in the most muted and deferential tones. As she told me when she was first running for Congress against Democratic House leadership official Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), she was elected on a vow to overturn and wage war against the Democratic establishment. Instead, she has become one of its most valued partisan tools.
In fact, AOC is such an unprincipled, craven, partisan apparatchik that she was not just willing but very eager to be used at the 2024 DNC Convention to blatantly lie about who Kamala Harris is and what she was doing. While Israeli officials boasted that the Biden administration never once pressured them into a ceasefire in Gaza, AOC looked into the camera and told millions of Americans that Kamala was “working tirelessly for a ceasefire” there:
But, ultimately, this comparison of MTG and AOC, and the strange attempt to determine who is better — which somehow became the centerpiece of this weekend’s debate — is completely irrelevant to everything. In response to AOC’s pronouncement, nobody was arguing that liberals should vote for MTG to be the Democratic nominee for president or even agitate to have her hired as host of The View or some new MS NOW show. MTG is not asking to be “let into” the DNC’s left-liberal treehouse — why would anyone want that? — and nobody is arguing that she should be, because nothing could be more irrelevant.
The only germane point is that anyone who is actually serious and genuine in their purported anti-war convictions and in their determination to end U.S. financing of Israel — as opposed to someone who likes to parade as such for self-esteem, branding benefits, and admiration — would immediately and eagerly work with anyone to build a majority against these destructive war-promoting and militaristic policies. But AOC made a point of announcing that she would never work with MTG on issues relating to Israel and war, despite the fact (or, more so, because of it) that MTG has displayed more courage and principle on that issue than AOC ever would. AOC lied to protect her party’s leaders as they financed Israel’s war, whereas MTG loudly denounced her party’s leaders as they continue to do so, being forced out of Congress as a result (the same risk taken by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)).
None of this should be remotely surprising to anyone who has paid attention to mainstream, DNC-loyal liberal politics. Caring about outcomes is very low on their list of priorities, if it appears on it at all.
There are all sorts of self-involved priorities that one finds far higher up than changing policy or stopping destructive wars. One key goal among AOC-style liberalism is to ensure rigid adherence to a binary left-right or Dem-GOP framework, so that the world can only be understood through that dreary, distortive, reductive prism. That prism is so vital to them because it is the guarantor of their moral superiority (impotent and inconsequential though it may be).
It is by clinging to this binary prism that they can declare that the only good, sincere, and compassionate people are those in their party (the Democratic Party) or ideological camp (left-liberalism). Anyone without credentialed membership in their politics club is inherently a bad person, someone with evil or, at the very least, opportunistic motives. If, therefore, someone like Kamala Harris or AOC utters a few clichés about Palestinians or Iran, it is proof that they are compassionate and good. If someone like Joe Biden finances, arms, and diplomatically protects various Israeli wars, he is doing so only because he is politically forced to or has been misled, not because he’s a bad person who has lost the right to have their vote and their support.
But if some dirty conservative or other strain of non-liberal like MTG (or Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Thomas Massie) speaks out against these wars, there cannot possibly be anything sincere or constructive about it, even when it comes at great cost to them. It must be an accident or, more so, the byproduct of something malevolent. Perhaps, this partisan reasoning holds, they only oppose American support for Israel because they are racists and antisemitic, or they oppose the Trump-Netanyahu attack on Iran because they believe they will attract larger and younger audiences. Whatever else is true, no non-liberal or non-Democrat can ever have a genuine or commendable thought or impulse.
The priority with all of this is the preservation of their identity as good and morally superior people while remaining on a pedestal to show that they are non-racist and deeply egalitarian by calling everyone else with divergent views racist, misogynistic, antisemitic, etc. That is the only real framework of pro-DNC, left-liberal politics: the politics of self-indulgent branding. Everything else is just costumes and dressing.
When it comes to stopping endless wars and stopping U.S. financing of Israel, the most important positive change over the last decade — the change that gives hope for success one day — has been the rapid decline of support among people across the political spectrum, most notably among younger conservatives. That happened in large part due to the willingness of people actually devoted to those causes to reject imprisonment in the left-right binary, to seek dialogue, and to find allies in all political factions.
That is how all meaningful political persuasion occurs: by seeking dialogue, cooperation, and interaction with those who do not share your ideological beliefs across every issue. As these activists against dog experimentation and animal abuse just demonstrated, along with countless other successful movements, actual success comes from finding common ground with other people as humans, not by remaining captive to and insular in your own little group of like-minded ideologues that make you feel good and noble.
This is exactly why this latest incident involving AOC and her fan base illustrates so vividly what has long been clear about them. Of course, AOC and her followers would not work with or want anything to do with Marjorie Taylor Greene — or Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie, Megyn Kelly, or whoever else can effectuate positive influence but does not share their ideological outlook. Where would the fun be if they did?
Sure, working with them might increase both the number and type of people willing to work for the causes to which they claim to be so devoted. But it would also dilute their specialness, their brand of virtuousness and personal superiority, their addiction to denouncing everyone as racist and bigoted, so that they can feel that they are not those things. In AOC’s world of DNC-loyal, left-liberal politics, those are the real goals. And no cause is worth losing that.
I saw through AOC’s performance years ago. She loves power, money, the wealthy, their parties, their events. She’d prefer a room full of multimillionaires than full of blue collar workers from her district. If you think a few children being blown up in the Middle East would reorient her soul then you’re mistaken. Her political career and aspirations to be wealthy (and hang out with the wealthiest liberals) override any good her office grants her the power to do. She’s Nancy Pelosi Jr.
Personally, I think it is easier to ethically earn a billion dollars than to ethically hold on to congressional power.