Democrat Cortez Quotes

When freshman Democrat congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib endorsed Bernie Sanders, they were chastised in both traditional and social media for throwing their support behind “an old white guy” rather than a woman. How is it that so many white feminists still cannot grasp the many factors that shape the politics of women from such diverse backgrounds?

In America, as Democrat leaders continue to brainwash people with their socialist rhetoric, they rely on distressed minorities—particularly blacks—to support this narrative. And there is no one guiltier of this manipulation than Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

I need my colleagues to understand that...their base is not the enemy (11/2020 in New York Times)

It was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – often described as the “new face” of the Democratic party – who smugly declared, “It is more important to be ‘morally right’” than to be factually correct while Joe Biden, one of the oldest faces in the Democratic party, moralized in his campaign stump speech that, “We [Democrats] prefer truth over facts.

It wasn’t a “white person” who ordered the internment of Japanese-Americans based on nothing other than the color of their skin and the blood in their veins. That was the longest-serving, most powerful and best-loved Democrat of all, Franklin Roosevelt and it should not go unnoticed that it is this same Roosevelt who remains so beloved a figure in today’s Democratic party that, when Ocasio-Cortez sought to sell her massive one-size-fits-all “environmental” programs to her fellow Democrats, she did so by naming her bill after the Socialist/collectivist/ racist Roosevelt’s signature policies, “The New Deal.” That’s not a “dog whistle,” that’s a bullhorn.

Then there are the future leaders of the Socialist, I mean, Democrat, Party. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley, or “the Squad,” as they’re commonly known, stand somewhere left of Chairman Mao. Their radical beliefs have real-world consequences.

Yet the country’s leading Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told a CNN town hall audience, “We’re capitalists, and that’s just the way it is.” On another occasion, Pelosi added, “I do reject socialism as an economic system. If people have that view, that’s their view. That is not the view of the Democratic Party.”6 Pelosi has taken steps to distance the House Democrats from the “squad”—the socialist wing identified with Omar, Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez. She calls it a small faction with a big media presence.

when President Harry Truman, then regarded as a moderate Democrat, could put forward an economic “Fair Deal” advocating a widened social safety net that resembles the platform of representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is today maligned as a dangerous radical.

It was an era when President Harry Truman, then regarded as a moderate Democrat, could put forward an economic “Fair Deal” advocating a widened social safety net that resembles the platform of representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is today maligned as a dangerous radical. It was an era when President Dwight Eisenhower could rail against the military-industrial complex and say things like “This world in arms is not spending money alone; it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children” and be thought of as a patriotic, sensible member of the Republican Party.

Ocasio-Cortez calls herself a democratic socialist. What she seems to mean by the name is that we have in common the things we choose to share together, and these common things—good schools, good transport, public parks, good housing, and medical care for everyone—make a shared world. We should make them everyone’s. The name is also a way of claiming a long tradition of politics that asks not whether the world is good enough or getting better, but instead what is the gap between the world we have now and the better world that is within our power to make. It is a tradition that recognizes that economies do not just produce wealth: they produce human lives and relationships, which can be dignified or humiliating, mutual or exploitative, solidaristic or fragmenting, more frightening or safer. And economies, in turn, do not arise naturally, whether from the self-interest of “rational man” or from the disruptive imagination of entrepreneurs and the benignity of philanthropists. Political decisions give economies their shape, from labor laws and tax rates and public investments to questions of almost metaphysical significance. The journalist Kate Aronoff has observed that climate politics addresses the question of who will survive the twenty-first century. Environmental politics, like the politics of work and health care, answers in very concrete terms the ultimate question: What is the value of life? And whose life, which lives, will be valued? As I write, a hopeful, even heroic response to these questions is gathering under the heading of the Green New Deal. Maybe it will find another banner soon, or maybe it will succeed in transforming the meaning of the New Deal from the industrial, racially exclusionary, male-centered program of solidarity that it was to a truly universal reworking of its potential into a commonwealth of shared dignity and mutual care.