The Bernie + AOC Conundrum
What should We the People expect from the latest Bernie Sanders - AOC collabo?
“Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.”
~ Warren G. Bennis
First and foremost, I LOVE what Bernie Sanders and Alexander Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) are doing on their tour across the country. Still, I would like to offer a word of caution to like-minded Americans desperately seeking a ray of hope to shine through the dark, political-storm cloud hanging over the United States these days. While the energy and optics of the Fighting Oligarchy Tour are sorely needed, the enthusiastic crowds make me wonder where it will all land. Bernie still faces significant barriers to becoming the Democratic nominee for president which may become insurmountable the closer we get to the next election cycle. More than that, other hurdles exist for Bernie being able to build a coalition capable of successfully winning a presidential election. So, where would that leave AOC? Would she or should she launch her own presidential campaign? This all assumes that either of them is even interested in running for higher office. So, before Bernie and AOC get anointed as the Dream Team, I thought we might take a step back and analyze a few realities hanging over the movement they have either captured or ignited, one that is urgently needed but could end in crushing disappointment. Let’s take it to the head, straight no chase, Baby!
Establishment Dems do not want Bernie to be their presidential nominee – Full Stop
When my daughters’ mother, my ex-wife, finally moved out of our home in 2015, I worked my tailfeathers off to patch things up and salvage what may be left of our marriage. One day, a neighbor asked me a very direct question: “What does she have to do for you to finally understand that she does not want you?” I immediately understood the meaning of the phrase, “the truth hurts.” The Dems have rejected Bernie twice now. So, what will it take for Bernie to understand that the Dems do not want him to be their presidential nominee? Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was the best candidate in the 2016 presidential field, between both the democrats and republicans. He was the best option for President of the United States (POTUS) in 2020. Unfortunately, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) establishment snubbed Bernie both times. In fact, a 2020 report by Time Magazine revealed how “major donors and strategists” from the DNC conspired to “stop Sanders.” Why would the Dems sabotage their chance to retain or reclaim the White House? The answer is simple. Bernie Sanders seems to insist on seeking the nomination of party to which he does not belong.
Bernie did belong to a political party in the 1970s, the Liberty Union Party, for which he served as chair from 1973 – 1977. Bernie ran successfully as an independent candidate in 1981, defeating an incumbent Democrat, to become the mayor of Burlington, Vermont. Sanders ran successfully as an independent in 1990 to claim a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, then again in 2006 to win his senate seat. The point being, Sanders had not sought the Democratic nomination in a primary election until 2016.
For Sander’s part, third party bids for president do not work out well in the United States, historically. Either two parties cannibalize each other’s support easing the path to victory for the party that is less complimentary, or the third party galvanizes the other two parties to focus on eroding confidence in the third party candidate’s ability to govern, which requires building relationships across the aisle. It becomes almost impossible to advance a presidential agenda when neither chamber of Congress will work with the White House.
Economic populism alone will not unite enough of the electorate to win the White House
The current President of the United States (POTUS) leans into populism but that is not where he usually lands. He talks being a champion for the common American citizen as they “struggle against the ‘elitist’ government officials who ignore their duty to serve the ‘real Americans’ who pay the taxes that support the ‘bloated’ salaries of these disengaged bureaucrats,” or at least, his rhetoric goes something like that. But his policies openly focus on serving the interests of the wealthiest Americans. Regardless of the glaring contradictions between his campaign promises and the actions he undertakes as POTUS, Trump sells his supporters on an “us against them” dynamic so effectively that some of them will even risk legal liability and physical harm to protect products sold by the wealthiest person on the planet. Trump also successfully casts anyone who disagrees with him as an “enemy” to his supporters. MAGA-Landians, people cultishly devoted to Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, receive neither thanks nor compensation for their service to Trump and / or his allies. Although the way the MAGA-Landians are treated is the direct opposite of populism, they seemingly fail to recognize they are the ones who are a part of an elitist movement, i.e. one led by a billionaire and seeks to establish a select class of oligarchs (or perhaps even plutocrats) whose inclusion depends solely on their unwavering fealty to Donald Trump.
“No, they didn’t give me anything! And they don’t give away stars in my service. You gotta earn ‘em. Generals are made; they’re not born.”
~ General Daniel “Chappie” James Jr.
By contrast, Liberals and Progressives do not subscribe writ large to cults of personality. Were that the case, Bernie Sanders would have been elected POTUS in either the 2016 or 2020 presidential election or both. Bernie Sanders’ message uniting the working families of the United States faces one glaring and lingering vestige of the Jim Crow Era in America. I will let legendary airman, General Daniel “Chappie” James Jr. explain:
Economic populism alone does not address the economic, political or social disenfranchisement faced by all Americans. When Bernie ran in 2016, my dear mother-in-law and I participated in several activities for the Bernie campaign organization in Northern Virginia. I recall having a conversation with her then about how Bernie seemed to be missing an opportunity to discuss his civil rights bona fides having been an organizer for the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, something the other candidates seeking the Democratic nomination could not say. Bernie captured only fourteen percent (14%) of the black vote and ultimately did not secure the Democratic presidential nomination. In 2020, Sanders earned a slightly higher percentage of support from Black voters but still less than twenty percent.
Sanders’ underperformance with Black voters did not make sense to me until 2022, when I took part in a steering committee for Our Revolution. During our initial meeting, a prominent African American woman in my county who joined the committee shared some insight that pointed to the deficiencies of economic populism to address racial disparities in jobs and homeownership. And that is when another prominent woman, who happens to be white, serving in a leadership position at a public agency and who had been rockin’ with Bernie since 2016 admonished us – i.e. the Black folk – to not bring up race in any shape, form or fashion. In fact, she issued a veiled threat that she would leave the group if anyone broached any subject other than economics during any of our deliberations. That dynamic brought a weird energy to the group.
Sanders dealt with a similar situation arising from a segment of this supporters who specialized in amplifying the senator’s messaging through social media, the infamous “Bernie Bros”. The Bernie Bros were given to online bullying, doxing and harassment. Their extreme tactics were not, however, limited to the Internet. For example, when the Nevada Culinary Union disagreed with Sanders on health care policy, the Bernie Bros launched into a barrage of personal attacks and threatening phone calls against the union’s officials. The antics of the Bernie Bros became so extreme that other Sanders supporters finally asked the candidate to condemn them, which Sanders did at a town hall in Nevada.
Both Bernie and AOC are self-described democratic socialists
“I beat the socialist.”
~ Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Bernie Sanders began his political career as a self-described “democratic socialist”, and four decades later, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) began her political career in the same manner. If you are confused about what it means to be a democratic socialist, you are not alone. Let’s start by unpacking what it means to be a socialist. Socialism refers to an economic system in which the means of production; including but not limited to real estate, materials, natural resources and systems of distribution, are controlled or owned socially – i.e. by the workers – rather than by corporations or privately-owned (business) concerns. Britannica Money further elaborates by adding:
“[E]verything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.”
Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not antithetical to democracy. Economic systems generally operate efficiently or inefficiently in relation to the system of government at play in a given society. In the U.S., our economic system of free-market capitalism operates nearly autonomously from our democratic republic form of government. In other forms of government, an oligarchy, for example, the leaders or ruling class may control / own the means of production. Communism, by contrast, is a governmental structure based on the socialist economic model. The members of a communist society share in the distribution of goods produced or income generated based on need. In other words, a communist society should not ever produce billionaires, as no one will be allowed to earn more than they need to live comfortably. The theories and principles underlying communism are generally associated with Karl Marx. Hence the reason many conservatives label anyone who disagrees with them as a Marxist.
Since the second world war, Americans have been taught that socialism dissuades innovation and diminishes exceptionalism. The thinking was people would neither innovate nor train to become an expert at anything because they would not be rewarded for their additional effort or labor. This thinking makes two false assumptions: (a) communism is encompassing of all socialist ideology; and (b) all socialists are communists. As neither of those assumptions are true, Bernie adopted the moniker of democratic socialist to further illuminate the notion that a democracy can engage in socialism. To be clear, neither Bernie Sanders nor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are communists. Both are patriotic American citizens who happen to represent the interests of their families, friends and neighbors in the federal legislative body of the United States.
Still, the reality of Sanders’ and AOC’s patriotism does not deter other politicians from taking shots at their socialist beliefs to differentiate themselves or score political points with voters. Joe Biden, for example, proudly proclaimed, “I beat the socialist,” during an interview in Wisconsin after securing the 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination. Biden and Sanders had been the last candidates standing in a crowded DNC primary. Biden, born into one of the later cohorts of the Silent Generation (i.e. born between 1928 – 1945), grew up in an era in which America’s enemies were cast as communist or authoritarian or both and, therefore, socialist. Moreover, people were also indoctrinated into the belief that what made America exceptional on the world stage became the ability of American citizens to be rewarded for their individual achievements rather than being forced to accept the status quo, a state of being provided by the American system of civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The problem with this view of American exceptionalism is that ignores the glaring contradiction created by Jim Crow segregation. Under Jim Crow, Black Americans were not afforded the same access to professional opportunities, property ownership, health care or leisure activities as their fellow citizens who happened to be born white. In fact, interracial marriages were illegal in many states across the Southern United States. The promoters of Jim Crow further enforced segregation through the “one-drop rule” which classified anyone with any known African ancestry as black and, thus, rightfully relegated to second-class citizenship, regardless of how distant that ancestry may be embedded in the person’s heritage. So, the people still claiming that Kamala Devi Harris, born in 1964, is “not really black,” lack an understanding of American social and political history. Because whether Kamala Harris or sister, Maya, wanted to be black or not, the American social order in which they grew up forced that identity upon them.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) provided the legal framework for Jim Crow in its 1896 decision, Plessy v. Ferguson but later weakened it in 1954 under Brown vs. Board of Education. LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law all but ended Jim Crow. SCOTUS added the final stroke to dismantling the Jim Crow legal structure in 1967 with its decision in Loving v. Virginia. Unfortunately, the financially and socially crippling impacts of Jim Crow would be felt by African American families well into the 1980s. Even more unfortunately, none of the actions to dismantle Jim Crow occurred before Adolf Hitler drew inspiration from the American system of institutionalized racial discrimination for his Nazi regime’s Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor. Though Jim Crow provided Hitler with the blueprint, he and his lieutenants did not think that Jim Crow went far enough.
Suffice to say, for many Americans, socialism equates to evil, or at least something in opposition to what they believe to be the American way of life. In fact, a 2020 Gallup poll revealed that only 45% of Americans would vote for a socialist running for president. In the 2024 general election, Baby Boomers (born between 1946 – 1964) comprised 33% of the electorate. 77% of Baby Boomers eligible to vote in 2024 cast a vote for a presidential candidate. This point becomes vitally important as Baby Boomers will likely comprise a significant segment of the American electorate in both the 2026 Midterm Elections and the 2028 Presidential Election.
AOC is not good at her job
“Ocasio-Cortez is not treated like a legislator, but like an icon, a sacred cow who can’t be criticized … .”
~ Freddie deBoer
By all accounts, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14) may not be a very good legislator. The Center for Effective Lawmaking, a nonpartisan collaboration between the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University, assessed AOC as one of the least effective legislators in Congress. In all fairness to AOC, this grade was rendered in April 2021 following the completion of her freshman term. Still, as of this writing, she remains one of the least effective legislators according to statistics compiled by GOVTRACK.us. Maxwell Frost (D-FL10), a freshman legislator in the 118th Congress (3 January 2023 – 3 January 2025), proved to be more effective than the third-term congresswoman representing New York’s 14th Congressional District. AOC managed to introduce only eleven bills and resolutions in the 118th Congress. Of those pieces of legislation, only one survived committee review and reached the House floor for consideration. None of her bills were enacted into law. In fact, AOC, now in her fourth term, has not yet sponsored a bill that has been enacted into law, according to Congress.gov.
There is also the matter of certain questions posed by writer and academic, Freddie deBoer, in a New York Magazine article that have been thus far left unanswered by supporters of AOC and Bernie Sanders or the lawmakers themselves. To deBoer’s point, which seems relevant here, AOC operates more as a socially conscious celebrity than a lawmaker. Freddie deBoer, a self-described Marxist himself, followed up his New York article with a response piece published on Substack in which he writes:
“All of which speaks to the broader point that Ocasio-Cortez is not treated like a legislator, but like an icon, a sacred cow who can’t be criticized where any back-bench fifth-year representative would be for similar behavior. I don’t know what that is, but it’s not progressive.”
As AOC’s celebrity continues to rise, it is important to ask critical questions about her fitness to hold higher office, as she has been floated as a potential challenger to Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for his U.S. Senate seat. Schumer, 74, who serves as the Minority Leader of the U.S. Senate will be up for re-election in 2028. Schumer has served in Congress for more than forty years. And like Schumer, if AOC is elected to the U.S. Senate in 2028, she will be a lawmaker whose professional life has been spent, almost entirely, in public office. Schumer earned a law degree at Harvard in 1974 before entering public service in the New York State Assembly from 1975 – 1980, then onto Congress in 1981.
More than anything, it seems important that AOC demonstrates the ability to envision a solution to a problem and build a high-performing team to implement that solution. In other words, can she, in fact, translate a vision into reality? From what I have seen of the congresswoman, her communications skills are outstanding. But articulating a vision is only half the battle. Bringing a vision to fruition requires the ability to identify a problem, conceptualize a solution, communicate a strategy to various stakeholders, and manage the implementation. In an organizational context, this means being able to communicate to audiences at all levels of the organization, from executive leadership to the frontline employees. Moreover, the chief executive of the organization bears the additional responsibility for motivating either the people who will be directly responsible for the implementation process or those overseeing that work (and ideally both). The chief executive must possess the acumen to not only visualize but also manage all the various moving parts of an implementation strategy all at once. In the public service context, strategic communication and negotiation skills are critical, especially for a public servant serving in a legislative body. The question surrounding AOC becomes whether she possesses the critical leadership capacity that will prove effective for her to deliver the type of solutions that would be of most benefit to her constituents and supporters.
Liberals and Progressive should exercise caution in anointing Bernie or AOC as the savior of the DNC
“I don’t know who needs to hear this, but AOC and Sanders would lose in 2028[;] I’m sorry.”
~ Adam Kinzinger
Returning to the central theme of this exploration for a moment, the obvious issue with Bernie Sanders leading a renaissance of the Democratic Party and unifying their various coalitions that include legions of independent voters becomes the fact that Bernie is not a Democrat. The DNC establishment is not likely to ever cede the reins of the party to Bernie. Again, Bernie could have joined the Dems at any point throughout his political career and has declined to do so. Sanders does caucus with Senate Democrats and therefore counted among them in determining control of the chamber. I would only be speculating as to why Bernie prefers to remain an independent. Personally, I would love to see a President Bernard Sanders. Unfortunately, it seems to be “Mission: Impossible” for Sanders to secure the DNC nomination for president. It begs the question, however, what would happen if Sanders sought the endorsement of the Working Families Party.
As for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), in a world in which even some Liberals and Progressives questioned the qualifications of Kamala D. Harris to hold the office of POTUS, what the fork (shoutout to “The Good Place”) would happen if AOC appeared on a presidential ticket? Again, being a great communicator alone does not an effective leader make. And the Dems have certainly had their share of charismatic figures over the last several decades, from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama to Wes Moore to Jasmine Crockett. Charisma can inspire hope, ignite people to move and demand respect. Charisma does not negotiate sustainable solutions or deliver tangible results. Charismatic leaders with an acumen for organizational development can be highly effective. The question left unanswered concerning AOC becomes this: Where has AOC had the opportunity to hone the organizational skills required to be the type of leader the American People need at this moment and beyond the second Trump administration. New York voters dissatisfied with Chuck Schumer will likely get more of the same by replacing him with AOC (at least, at this moment in her career). Instead of seeking to remain in Congress, AOC might want to consider entering the 2025 New York City mayoral race. As the Mayor of New York City, AOC would be able to demonstrate and hone the executive leadership acumen needed to be POTUS. If she really wants to get jiggy wit it, AOC could challenge Gov. Kathy Hochul in her bid for re-election to lead the Empire State in 2026. As it stands, it simply does not seem likely that AOC possesses the qualifications to be Veep, much less POTUS.
In the final analysis, although it should not be as a dispositive as it probably would be in a general election, American voters may not be ready to elect a socialist to occupy the White House, even a self-described democratic socialist. Honestly, labeling your brand of socialism as democratic may not be the flex needed to squash people’s fears surrounding socialism, regardless of how unfounded those fears may be. Plus, given the attacks on the American education system via culture war touchpoints like CRT and DEI, it will be an uphill battle to educate enough people around the concept of socialism to build a broad enough coalition to put either Bernie or AOC in the White House. Again, for decades, Americans have been taught that socialism is bad and something altogether un-American. Despite our highly polarized society, that is, unfortunately, something upon which many Americans still agree.
In Conclusion
As Adam Kinzinger posted on Substack, “I don’t know who needs to hear this, but AOC and Sanders would lose in 2028[;] I’m sorry.” While I realize Kinzinger is a Republican, he is not wrong. We the People find ourselves facing an unprecedented attack on our democracy. Three things will get us out of this mess and restore some semblance of normalcy: (1) Determined and continued engagement by American voters; (2) Effective leadership from our chosen representatives; and (3) States continuing to push back against the overreach of the Trump administration. Unfortunately, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems unqualified to meet this moment. Her partner in crime, Bernie Sanders could lead their current movement to accomplish great things so long as they can overcome the objections many Americans harbor toward the concept of socialism. And it cannot be overstated that the DNC will not likely hand the keys to the kingdom to an operator not beholden to their establishment apparatus. Again, I have no idea if either Sanders or AOC intends the Fighting Oligarchy Tour to launch a presidential campaign. I do know that the enthusiasm and hope they have engendered is greatly needed and should be appreciated. Hopefully, the Fighting Oligarchy Tour will result in other leaders across the nation stepping up and working together to develop strategies that can be replicated state by state and stem the tide of authoritarianism on the rise in the United States.