Put your phone down (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez takes up space: on magazine covers, on cable news, and on social media, where her followers number in the millions across multiple platforms. Her Twitter account alone, with 12 million followers, is not just an order of magnitude larger than most junior politicians’, but over twice as large as the followings of the other three members of her “Squad” combined. Her influence is inestimable. She is a giant in the eyes of her fans, and an enormous rent-free presence in the heads of people who hate her.
This is, of course, part of her cachet. “Take up space” has become a feminist war-cry, a clapback at the offensive old mores that say women should be small and slender and quiet. Feminist indictments of diet culture and beauty standards will frequently note this: that women are too often given the goal of shrinking themselves. In politics, the phrase has begun to be invoked alongside old-school notions of shattering the glass ceiling. To be unapologetically large, to let yourself sprawl, is a radical act.
It is to this war-cry, presumably, that Take Up Space: The Unprecedented AOC refers. But the title of the new biography of our youngest ever congresswoman works on multiple levels. For one thing, it’s a good description of the book itself, printed on luxuriously heavy stock so that it bears the heft of a pint-sized coffee table tome. It’s also a fitting description of its subject, who is so ubiquitous as to be inescapable.
And yet, for all the mental and media real estate occupied by Ocasio-Cortez, she’s far more famous for being who she is than for what she’s accomplished. Which brings us to the double entendre: before it became something that brave and iconic women do, taking up space was primarily the purview of useless objects.
This layer of meaning is almost certainly an accident. Perhaps it was the opinion of the New York magazine editors who commissioned Take Up Space that by the time of publication, AOC would surely have accomplished enough to avoid the book’s title being received as an awkward joke about her relative inefficacy as a politician. But as it turns out, Ocasio-Cortez is a lot better at getting attention than she is at passing laws. In a nonpartisan report issued last spring, she was rated one of the least effective members of Congress. (Among New York state legislators, she came in dead last.)
Given the limited scope of its subject’s accomplishments in her short career as a public servant, Take Up Space feels premature as a political biography — and in that category, it’s also a little weird. For instance, almost dead centre in the book is a two-page, full colour, high-definition spread depicting AOC’s open mouth, like a Playboy centrefold for oratory fetishists.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere’s a certain section of Democrats that seem endlessly keen to promote the idea of Ms Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the future of their party – but if they’re pinning their hopes on AOC they really need to aim a little higher.
I’d suggest to all those looking at AOC’s carefully crafted public persona, to try watching her being interviewed. It’s embarrassing. It’s cringeworthy to realise how little actual understanding is behind the rhetoric.
Much as you can only understand your own argument by hearing the case for the other side, you cannot accept that your candidate is credible if you’ve only seen them give scripted speeches and do chat shows. She has slogans and buzzwords aplenty, but when even the most softball questioning actually tries to get some depth about policy positions you quickly realise that there’s no “There” there. She is a smile and some eyebrows but no substance whatsoever and a frighteningly shallow appreciation of any of the issues facing the world.
For all that she might be well-meaning she is woefully out of her depth talking about ANY policy positions – on the economy, on security, on welfare, on foreign policy. She parrots talking-points and then, when she’s repeated all of them, she has nothing else. To read the fawning, uncritical press Ms Cortez seems to generate is to buy into the marketing of an idea that she cannot hope to live up to.
AOC represents everything that is wrong with the social-media generation’s approach to politics. Her tweeted photos of her weeping at the horrors of Trump’s border policies should have been enough to sink her career – when it transpired the pictures were taken miles from the border with AOC clinging on to the fencing surrounding a car park!
https://www.rt.com/usa/462837-aoc-parking-lot-detention-center/
(well worth a look, just for how brazen and idiotic the photo stunt was). Just one of any number of occasions when she proved herself a fraud. The border issue, which caused her meltdown, has worsened considerably under Mr Biden, and thus the mental gymnastics required of AOC and her cohort to somehow excuse it has been embarrassing to watch. Her supposed “authenticity” is entirely performative.As I say, watch her in an interview and see just how little she knows on any of the subject matters on which she opines. She sounds great with a script, gives wonderful, uplifting, hope-filled soundbites – but that is all she’s got – albeit delivered with the certainty of the zealot.
We all may want a credible Democratic candidate but, with the very best will in the world, AOC is absolutely not it.
“suggest to all those looking at AOC’s carefully crafted public persona, to try watching her being interviewed. It’s embarrassing”
Embarrassing didn’t stop them with Kamala Harris, won’t stop them with AOC
The jabs at Trump, I feel, are unwarranted to some extent as it’s not clear when looking at his record objectively that he was completely ineffective (think the pre COVID American economy, deregulation and Abraham accords for example). It is true, though, that a big part of his political life and ultimate legacy was just about pissing his opponents off by acting in the manner that he did, and driving up the level of collective derangement in that sense. But nonetheless, this is a eye-opening and intriguing angle to look at AOC’s legacy thus far, and I’m sure this article is so much more worthwhile readign through than the book it reviews.
I see very little similarity between Trump and AOC besides big Twitter profiles. I found it sloppy journalism.
She didn’t claim the similarity went much beyond that.
Their similarities are uncanny and their differences are superficial.
They are both populists is the main point I believe the author was making.
Wasn’t Trump blocked from carrying out his plans by others? This article’s jibes makes it sound like he never tried to implement any policies at all.
Unherd is getting to the point where it should be.
I agree completely. Cancelled my sub last week and just playing out the month. Not seeing anything to make me change my mind
The art of politics is getting things done. “I could have, but other people stopped me” is no excuse, it’s like a sailor complaining about the sea.
Having volunteered for decades in needy communities, I soon learned that anyone who was publicly celebrated as a “hero” was not to be trusted.
Celebrities are a self-selecting group, and those who aggressively seek attention for its own sake are trash (and probably stealing credit for the work done by other people).
AOC is the new “Social Media Influencer as Politician”.
I lost ALL respect for her when she came out against FOSTA, a position which borders on being sociopathic (who wants to prevent holding web sites accountable for profiting from the sale of raped kids on their site? AOC and “the squad” do).
Anyway, thank you for being honest about this fame hungry phony.
And I’m a Warren/Sanders Dem, NOT a Conservative.
I agree with this article, it’s well spotted and described. I think this tweet from AOC is the one that best captures the situation described in this article though:
https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1477000469318885385
You couldn’t make it up:
Wonderful piece! Really enjoyed it. I agree that AOC and Trump are two sides of the same coin.
I’m not sure the central thesis stands?
A good argument is made that AOC is popular for who she is rather than what’s done (as she hasn’t yet done very much, she’s still quite young on the ‘scene’).
Certainly Trump attracted and held attention for his outlandish personal style, but what propelled Trump wasn’t just style, it was that he was articulating policy ideas that a sufficiently large number of people supported …to allow him to perform a hostile takeover of the Republican party and crash his way through to the Presidency.
People weren’t voting for him for his style, in fact many people who voted for him don’t enjoy his petty tweeting etc and wish he’d tone things down, but they wanted the policies he was offering.
Is that not a crucial distinction? — yes, they both have huge personalities/profiles that the media go gaga for. But Trump was riding a massive wave of genuine anger at the political system, whereby even some people who didn’t like his persona would vote for him in order to get the change (policy) he was offering…
Is that true of AOC? …if it is I haven’t seen it. She seems to be feted for who she is, and by people who enjoy her persona. I don’t see her gaining support from people who dislike her persona, so I would posit that they’re quite different. Perhaps in fact the only thing that they share in common is a meme-worthy personal style?
DOC has a ring to it!