A.O.C. for Senate!

Not President

Nobody asked me, but I don’t think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should run for president. I think she is too young, has not yet won a statewide office, has shaky media hits, and is still learning how to give a speech. She is star within the Democratic party and shows promise in primary polling, but I think the Republican attack machine has tarnished her image with the country at large. And, sadly, I think it’s just very hard for a woman to be elected President.

I still think A.O.C. is one of the most important politicians on the left and has a role to play beyond her district: she should aim to replace Chuck Schumer in the Senate. The first reason for this is that perhaps her strongest talent as a politician is as inquisitor: she shines in committee, putting the feet of the corrupt and cupidinous to the fire. So, I think as a matter of service to the nation, she would do the most good there. But I also think she would serve her party and faction best by winning a Senate seat—let me explain.

We on the left of course disdain the Senate’s undemocratic nature, but we should assume that it’s not going anywhere anytime soon and therefore we must use it. The structure of the chamber allows for something I’ve started calling the “Senatorial redoubt.” A Senate seat combines a long six-year term, enormous individual prerogatives, statewide legitimacy, relatively weak party discipline, and—especially historically—the possibility of building an independent political organization around an individual senator. Traditionally, this has been used to defend a sectional interest that is combined with the ideological tendency and political economy native to that region. The classic example of this is John C. Calhoun, the champion of the slaveholding South. Yes, not, a good or pleasant man, but, for a time, an extremely effective wielder of power for his state and region. You can find other examples throughout the chamber’s history: William Borah for Western Republican isolationist insurgency, Robert La Follette for Upper Midwestern progressivism, and Richard Russell for the segregationist South.

The Senatorial redoubt also allows for an intraparty faction to have its own stronghold. For example, look how Senator Robert Taft kept the Old Right alive in the Senate during a period of progressive Democratic hegemony and then was instrumental in rolling back part of the New Deal. For an example of rising rather than fading tendency, Jesse Helms turned his North Carolina seat into a springboard for the New Right that came to power in the 1980s. Today, Rand Paul serves this function for libertarianism and Bernie Sanders for social democracy or democratic socialism. But Bernie is old and the Senate will need a new representative of his tradition. A.O.C. is the most obvious choice.

It may sound like a little bit of a defensive strategy considering the great strides D.S.A. is making, but you have to plan for adversity. Democratic socialism is still and, may yet be for a while, a minority political tendency in this country: it is one faction of one party. To use Gramsci, a Senate seat is an important part of a “war of position:” a faction that has lost the presidency, the national party apparatus, or even much of its mass constituency may nevertheless retain an institutional strongpoint from which it can defend its gains and hone counteroffensives. And perhaps more importantly to do the actual work of legislating, investigating, and “advising and consenting” to the executive. I really do not like the left-wing cant phrase “building power,” but A.O.C. in the Senate, which seems a safer bet, is a better way to build power than going for broke with a presidential run. I think as an organization D.S.A. should consider if it is developed enough nationally to support and sustain a presidential run. What it has clearly done is built a lot of infrastructure in New York that could propel a Senate candidate into office. QED: AOC.