The New Yorker Radio Hour - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the Path Forward for the Left

Episode Date: February 14, 2022

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most prominent progressives in Washington. Her political ascent began with her shocking 2018 defeat of a longtime incumbent in a New York district that includes parts of Queens and the Bronx. She is a strong advocate of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. With her party’s razor-thin majorities now in peril, many of her priorities seem out of reach. Can the agenda she was elected to advance survive?   Ocasio-Cortez reflects on her time in Washington with David Remnick, painting a dysfunctional portrait of Congress. “Honestly, it is a shit show,” she says. “It’s scandalizing, every single day. What is surprising to me is how it never stops being scandalizing.” This conversation is part of The New Yorker’s first digital-only issue, a special collection of New Yorker Interviews. New Yorker Radio Hour listeners, we want to hear from you.  We have a few questions about the show and how you listen to it. The survey takes about twenty minutes, and your feedback will help us make our podcast better.  Take the survey here.

This is The New Yorker Radio Hour, a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Welcome to The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most prominent progressives in Washington. It all started with her shocking defeat of a longtime incumbent in a New York district that includes parts of Queens and the Bronx. That was all back in the 2018 Democratic primary, when Acacio Cortez was a strong advocate of the Green New Deal. deal and Medicare for all. Now, Acosio-Cortez is not alone among Democrats in those priorities, but as a member of the House, she's stood out. Her questions during committee hearings often go viral, and she is a real master of social media. And she's also a lightning rod for criticism

from Fox News and other conservative outlets to an almost frenzied and strange degree. But with her parties, razor-thin majorities in Congress, now endangered. many of her priorities seem out of reach. I spoke with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez earlier this month. Much of the Biden administration's agenda in Congress has pretty much stalled, and there are razor-thin majorities in the House and the Senate, and a term that began with at least lofty FDR-like ambitions is now at a standstill. How would you rate the president's performance after a year?

Well, you know, I think there are some things that are outside of the president. president's control. And you simply can't, there's very little one can say about that, you know, with Joe Manchin and Senator Cinema. But, you know, I think there are some things within the president's control and his hesitancy around them have also contributed to a situation that, you know, isn't as optimal as it could be politically in terms of policy as well. My concern is that we're getting a bit into analysis paralysis. And we don't have much time. And I think that we should really not take this present political moment for granted

and do everything that we can. I think that at the beginning of last year, many of us in the progressive wing, but not just the progressive wing. I mean, I think overall there were folks saying we don't want to repeat a lot of the hand-wringing that happened in 2010, where there was this very precious opportunity in the Senate and, you know, things happen. But they'd argue that Biden at White House would obviously argue. Look, the margins are the margins.

And Manson's politics are what they are, and he is in a state that is dominated by a much more conservative vote. Cinema is unpredictable. They would argue that they tried, and they made concession after concession, and still got nowhere. And you have to have their votes. Well, you know, but the presidency is so much larger than just the votes in the legislature. And I think that this is something that we saw a little bit with President Obama. I think we're seeing this dynamic perhaps extend a little bit into the Biden administration with a reluctance to use executive power. And the president has not been using his executive power to the extent that some would say is necessary.

Where would you move first? Where would you move most forcefully and effectively do you think in terms of executive power? I mean, I think that one of the single most impactful things President Biden can do is pursue student loan cancellation. It's entirely within his power. This really isn't a conversation about providing relief to a small kind of niche group of people. I think that it's very much a keystone action politically, and I think it's a keystone action economically as well. And I can't underscore how much the hesitancy of the Biden administration to pursue student loan cancellation has demoralized a very critical voting block that both the president, the House, and the Senate need in order to have any chance at preserving any of our majorities. And what is the realm of the achievable, the realm of the possible between.

now in the election? Well, you know, that's why I kind of started off by talking about the executive branch and the executive powers that the president has, because I don't think that there's any guarantee. I don't know if there's any avenue in terms of getting something through that Joe Mansion and Kirsten Cinema will approve of that will significantly and materially improve the lives of working people. And, I mean, it's a bit of a dismal assessment, but I think that given an analysis of their past behavior is a fair one. And, you know, I think that the president has a responsibility to really look at the tools that he has.

I've got all kinds of policy questions to ask you, to be sure, but I can help rushing to the fore and asking this question. You came into office, again, with a great deal. of attention. You had some political experience before, but it's always from a distance. You weren't a member of Congress. You weren't inside. You weren't in the room. And I have to think that in a first term, that there's a lot of shock involved. What do you see in the room? What is it like day to day being a member of this institution from which I have to say from outside looks like a shit show? It is a shit show. I mean, I think that's the thing. Like, it's scandalizing every single day. And I think that what is surprising to me is how

it never stops being scandalizing. You know, I think some folks, they perhaps get used to or desensitized to the many different things that may be broken. But there is so much reliance on this idea that the adults, you know, that there are adults in the room. And in some respect, there are. But sometimes to be in a room with some of the most powerful people in the country and see the ways that they make decisions. And sometimes, like, I mean, it's just as susceptible to groupthink. It's just as susceptible to self-delusion. It's just a Just get it. Sketch it out for us.

What does it look like? And if you can be specific, I think that that would be a great service. So, for example, the infrastructure plan is what, by and large, when it does what it's intended to do, politicians will take credit for, you know, if we even have a democracy 10 years from now. And the thing that's important is that the Build Back Better Act is the vast majority of Biden. agenda. The infrastructure plan, again, as important as it is, the scope and the scale of these investments is much smaller. So we're talking about pairing these two things together. The Progressive Caucus puts up a fight and then I'd say somewhere around October, there comes a critical juncture. The president is then under enormous pressure from the media.

And so there's this idea that the president, quote unquote, can't get things done. and that his presidency is at risk and it's just all of this, you know, what I thought to be just a lot of sensationalism. However, the ramifications of that were being very deeply felt and you have people running tough races and it's just he needs a win. He needs a win. And so I'm sitting here in a group with some of the most powerful people in the country, in the country, talking about how if we pass the infrastructure bill right now, then this will be what the president can campaign on. The American people will give him credit for it.

He can win his presidency on it. If we don't pass it now, then we risk democracy itself. Not about the broader agenda. Who's just as, who's in the room? But you say the most powerful people in the country. You're talking about everybody from in leadership to folks who are in tough seats, but all elected officials in the Democratic Party on the federal level. And, you know, people really just talk themselves into thinking that passing the infrastructure plan on that day in that week is the most singular important decision of the presidency more than voting.

voting rights more than the actual Bill Back Better Act itself, which contains the vast majority of the actual president's plan, more than anything. And, you know, you're kind of sitting there in the room and you're just like, you know, watching people work themselves up into a decision is a fascinating psychological moment that you're watching unfold. And it's not to say that all these things that they're saying are 100% false, but to come from a community that is often discounted in many different ways because, oh, you know, these are reliable Democrats, like what she has to say, does it matter,

et cetera, et cetera. What does she know about this current political moment? And the thing that's unfortunate that I think a lot of people have yet to recognize, is that the motivations and the sense of investment and faith in our democracy and governance from people and communities like mine also determine majorities. And they also determine the outcomes of statewide races and presidential races. And when you have a gerrymandered house, when you have the Senate constructed the way that it is, when you have a presidency that relies on the electoral college

and the fashion that it does, you're in this room and you see that all of these people who are elected really are truly representative of our current political system. And our current political system is designed to revolve around a very narrow band of people who are overall materially okay, and it does not revolve around the majority.

You used a phrase earlier in the midst of this, if we have a democracy 10 years from now, do you think we won't? I think there's a very real risk that we will not. I think what we risk is having a government that perhaps postures as a democracy. and may try to pretend that it is, but isn't. What's going to bring us to that point?

I mean, you hear talk now about being on the brink of civil war. That's the latest phrase and series of books that have come. But what will happen to bring us to that degraded point if, in fact, it happens? Well, I think it has started. But it's not... You know, it's not beyond hope, or never beyond hope, but we've already seen the opening silos of this, where you have a very targeted specific attack on the right to vote across the United States, but in particular in areas where Republican power is threatened over both changing electorates and demographics.

You have, you know, white. nationalist reactionary politics starting to grow into a critical mass. And so what we have is the continued sophistication and takeover of our democratic systems in order to turn them into undemocratic systems, in order to overturn results that a party in power may not like. And your concern is that we will look like what nation, anybody, any, any nation in particular? I think we will look like ourselves. I think we will return to Jim Crow. I think that's what we risk. You think we'll return to Jim Crow. What's the scenario for that happening? Well, you have it already happening in Texas where Jim Crow style disenfranchisement laws have already

been proposed. I mean, you had members of the state legislature just a few months ago, flee the state in order to prevent voting laws from being passed. We're talking about Florida, where you had the entire state vote to allow people who were released from prison to be re-enfranchised after they have served their debts of society. And now that's essentially being replaced with poll taxes, with intimidation at the polls. You have the complete erasure and attack on our own understanding of history to replace history with institutionalized propaganda from white nationalist perspectives. in our schools. I mean, this is what the scaffolding of what Jim Crow was. And so there's so many

impulses to compare this to somewhere else. And there are certainly plenty of comparisons to make, you know, with the rise of fascism in, you know, post-World War I, Germany. You know, people often try to make these types of comparisons. But you really really, don't have to look much further than our own history. Because what we have, I think, is a uniquely complex path that we have walked. And the question that we're really facing was, was the last 50 to 60 years after the Civil Rights Act, just a mere flirtation that the United States had with a multiracial democracy, that we will then decide that was inconvenient for those in power, and we will revert to what we had before, which, by the way, wasn't just Jim Crow, but also

the extraordinary economic oppression as well. Do you think many Republicans share your concern about the fate of democracy, and do you have those kinds of conversations? It's a complex question because there's so many different kinds of Republicans. But I also am reluctant to get into the naval gazing of it because at the end of the day, they all make the same decisions. And so you might be able to appeal to the good natures or even a sense of charity of a handful. But ultimately, we have what we have. So at the end of the day, you know, who cares if they're true.

believers or if they're just complicit, they're still voting to overturn the results of our election. And we're told constantly, if you could only hear in the cloak rooms that a lot of Republicans find Donald Trump repulsive, but they know that they're going to lose their seats if they say so, which leads me to think, is being in Congress such a great job that you will trade your principles and soul for that job? Well, what I think some Republicans struggle with, the very few that are in that position, is that there is a concern that they will be replaced by someone even worse. You know, okay, externally, I might look like a good soldier. I might look like I'm falling in line. But, you know, if I lose my primary and I get replaced with 10 more Marjorie Taylor Greens, you know, we'll be in an even worse situation. And so I think that's perhaps where they may be coming from.

And to a certain extent, you know, you do have these critical moments. You have January 6th. And if Mike Pence made a different split-second decision that day and did what President Trump was asking of him, we would be in a very different place right now. My conversation with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continues in a moment. When you were asked questions about whether or not Nancy Pelosi should stay a speaker, when you're asked questions about the rather advanced ages of Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn, or Chuck Schumer, does it make a real difference?

You're saying it's structural. It's not generational. Well, it is both. The reason we have this generational situation that we do is also in part due to our structures. The generational aspect of things is absolutely pertinent to the kind of decision-making. There is like this, just this worldview, this an appeal of a time past that I think sometimes guides decision-making. So I legitimately believe that President Biden thought that he could, you know, talk with mansion like an old pal and bring him along. And frankly, that was what

the White House's strategy was in terms of what they communicate. to us. That's how they tried to sell passage of not even half a loaf, you know, a tenth of a loaf. And it was, we promise we'll be able to bring them along. And so I really do believe that there is this idea that, you know, that this is just a temporary thing and we'll get back to that. And for those of us that, you know, I grew up my entire life in this mess, there is no, no, there's no nostalgia for a time when Washington Washington, worked in my life. Let me be blunter then. Is it healthier or not healthier for the Democratic Party for her to remain in place as the Speaker or leader of the caucus? Well, you know, I think it's really all about a specific moment that we're in.

We are in such a delicate moment of the day-to-day, particularly with the threats to democracy. I believe that at the end of the day, there is going to be a generation. change in our leadership. That is just a simple fact. Now, like when that particular moment happens or precipitates, I think, is a larger question of conditions and circumstance. But you don't want to go near this one. It is a, it's a tough question. I mean, but it's not even just a question of the speaker. It's like a question of our caucus. I wish our, I wish the Democratic Party had more stones.

And I wish our party was capable of truly supporting bold leadership that can address root causes. Is it representatives that don't have the stones, or do you want a different public opinion,

as it were? In other words, there are, for example, take defund the police as a policy demand. Suddenly, in New York City, no one is talking about that at the center of politics. Certainly as a matter of protest, yes.

Activists, yes. But we now have a new mayor who's anything but defund the police in New York City. Who are you disappointed in? Well, I still am disappointed in leadership and in my colleagues because ultimately, you know, these conversations about defund or this, that, and the other,

that is what is happening in public and popular conversation. And our job is to be able to engage in that conversation, to read what is happening, and to be able to develop a vision and translate it into a course of action. And all too often, I believe a lot of our decisions are, reactive and to public discourse instead of responsive to public discourse. And so just because there was this large conversation about defund the police coming from the streets, the response was to immediately respond to it with fear, with poo-pooing, with this isn't us, arms distance. So then what is the vision? And that's where I think the party struggles. Aren't you seeing it in

City Hall now? I mean, in the shape of Eric Adams? Well, I think you also see it in the shape of the city council that was elected. You know, you have a record number of progressives. People often bring up the mayor as, you know, as evidence of some sort of decision around policing. And I, you know, I disagree with that assessment. I think that representing a community that is very victimized by a rise in violence, and I represent Rikers Island. What oftentimes people look over is that the same communities that supported Mayor Adams also elected Tiffany Caban. And so I think what the public wants is a strong sense of direction. I don't think that an election of Mayor Adams meant that everyone in the city supports bringing back torture to Rikers Island in the form of solitary confinement.

I think what people want is a strong vision about how we establish public safety in our communities. And so, for example, one of the ways that we engage is supporting some of the only policies that are actually supported by evidence to reduce incidents of violence crime, violence interruption programs, summer youth employment. When we talk about the surge of violence happening right now, when I engage in our hospitals, doctors, social workers, everyone's telling me there's so many things we're not discussing. One, this surge in violence is being driven by young people and particularly young men. And we allow discourse to make it sound as though it's like these shady figures in the bush

jumping out from a corner. These are young, these are boys. And then secondly, we're also not discussing writ large, is the mass mental health crisis that we are experiencing as a country as a result of the pandemic. And so because we run away from substantive discussions about this, we don't want to say some of the things that are obvious. Like, gee, the child tax credit just ran out on December 31st, and now people are stealing baby formula.

but we don't want to have that discussion. We want to say these people are criminals, or we want to talk about people that are violent instead of environments of violence and what we are doing to either contribute or to dismantle that. I've never seen anybody, at least more quickly, become a lightning rod for right-wing,

not just criticism but obsession. What's with that? Why do you think there's such a fixation on you personally? I mean, I think there's just some surface-level stuff. And it's, you know, to be honest, it's not just the right wing. I was laughing because a couple months ago, someone showed me some of the footage, news footage and coverage from the night that I was elected. And obviously, I didn't see any of it because I was...

I was like losing my mind. But it was this footage. I think it was like Brian Williams. And it's like breaking news. You know, the third most powerful Democrat in the House of Representatives seems to have been unseated by this radical socialist. Like all the buzzwords that the right wing uses now were also completely legitimized by mainstream media the night of the election.

Like I never had a chance. You know, like people act as though there are things I can do or that there was something I could have done. And there really wasn't. There truly wasn't. It was kind of baked in from the beginning. And my choice was how to respond to that. And I think because I respond to it differently,

that increases a certain level of novelty, which then increases interest. But then there's also just the basic stuff. I'm young. I'm a woman. I'm a woman of color. I'm not liberal in a traditional sense. I'm willing to buck against my own party.

And in a real way, and, you know, I'm everything that they need. I am the red meat for their base. But you worry sometimes that you. take the bait a little bit too much, or poke the bear in a way that might not be, in retrospect, something you should have done. Like, for example, the MetGal, the tax, the rich dress, or your response to the really weird tweet about your boyfriend's feet, and then you responded that, you know, if Republicans are mad, they can't date me, they can just say that, et cetera, et cetera.

Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, all the time. Every day you make decisions and you have to make decisions about whether it's a good idea to go after this or a bad idea to go after it. And sometimes you make good decisions. Sometimes you make less than optimal ones and then you reflect on them and you try to kind of sharpen your steel. What were the less than optimal ones if you want to? I don't know if it's like less than optimal because everything has a different goal, right? And so if you're at home on Twitter or if you're at home on TV, there are some things that are not for you.

There are some things that I do that you don't like that it's not intended for you to like. You know, like what happened with the Metcala. There are a lot of folks that did not like that. There's some like, quote, unquote, principled leftists that didn't like that. But also, when you look at my community, it's not a college town. socialist, leftist, academic community. It's a working-class community that I'm able to engage in a collective conversation about our principles. And honestly, there's response to that in some circles online that may be negative. But in my community, the response was quite positive.

The Metcalfe thing was positive in your, in the... Yeah, yeah. How did you feel? How did you feel it? How did that come back to you? Because sometimes you just need to give a little bronch jeer to the rich and to the spectacle. And you need to puncture the facade. My community and my family were postal workers. My, you know, my uncle's a maintenance man. My mom's a domestic worker. And sometimes you just need to have that moment. And it is a bizarre psychological experience to. live specifically now because the environment now, we're not even talking about a culture of celebrity. We are talking about now a culture of commodification of human beings from the bottom all the way to the top. And there's absolutely a bizarre psychological experience of that. that also plays into these decisions. But, you know, for example, like what happened in responding to, like, these bizarre things about, you know, like my boyfriend's feet,

I have felt for a long time that we need to talk about the bizarre psychological impulses underpinning the right wing. And it is not politically, quote unquote, correct to be able to talk. talk about these things, but they are so clearly having an obvious impact on not just our public discourse, but the concentration of power. We have to talk about patriarchy, racism, capitalism, but you're not going to have those conversations by using those words. You have to have those conversations by really responding to it. and uplifting moments.

And I don't really care if other people understand it. But sometimes what seems to some folks, a moment that is gouged or something that I do, I often do it with the intention of exposing cultural or psychological undercurrents that people don't want to talk about, which, by the way, way is why I think sometimes people read these moments as gaush or low class or or whatever they may be. And sometimes how I felt is like if I'm just going to be this like commodified avatar thing, then I'm going to play with it like a toy. It's a it's a it's a rough thing to deal with. Yeah. It's awful. Now one of the cudgels used by the right, these

days, and not only the right, is fears about cancellation and wokeness, and we've even heard members of the House give speeches about the dangers of so-called cancel culture. And at the same time, it does seem like norms around speech are changing around fears of online backlashes. I know you've criticized that term cancel culture, even dismissed it. And you did so in a tweet, and I'd like you to broaden that out your answer to that. And beyond social media? Well, you look at the capture of power in the right wing, the assent of white nationalism, the concentration of wealth, and you cannot really animate or concentrate a movement like that.

You can't coalesce it into functional political power without a sense of persecution or victimhood. And that is the role of this concept of cancel culture. It is like the speck of dust around which the raindrop must form in order to precipitate takeovers of school boards, pushing actual discourse out of the acceptable norms, like in terms of the 1619 project, for example, getting books banned from schools. you know, they need the concept of cancel culture, persecution, etc. in order to justify, animate, and pursue a political program of takeover or really at least a further concentration of their own power. And so, you know, you talk about cancel culture, but you notice that those discussions only go one way.

We don't talk about all people who were fired. You just kind of talk about, like, right-leaning podcast bros and, like, more conservative figures. But, for example, Mark Lamont Hill was fired for talking, you know, discussing an issue with respect to Palestinians pretty summarily. And there was no discussion about it, no engagement, no thoughtful discourse over it. just like pure accusation. Last month, an ex-staffer of New York senator, Kristen Gillibrand, told the New York Post that you could mount a very, very credible challenge and quite likely beat her.

How do you feel about that? How do you view your political future? And would you like to make an announcement right here and now? So I think that I'm not trying to be like, I'm not like the other girls. I'm not trying to like make, you know, posit myself in that way. But I just, I don't think that I make these kinds of decisions with some sort of like 10 to 15 year plan like a lot of people do. Or I mean, you know.

Yeah. Or like, you know, half this town, if not more has been to like a fancy Ivy League school. And so, you know, as a consequence, everyone. is like, okay, like what chess pieces are being put down for what specific aspiration. And, you know, I make decisions based on where I think people are and what we're ready for, particularly as a movement. I think a lot of people sometimes make these decisions based on what they want, right? What I want is a lot more decentralized.

And I think it's a lot more rooted in mass movements. Could you see yourself walking away from public office entirely and going to a life of, as it were, mass movements? Absolutely. Absolutely. I think about it all the time. You know, when I entertain possibilities for my future, it's like anybody else, you know. I could still be doing what I'd be doing.

I could be doing what I'm doing in a little bit of a different form, but I could also not be an elected office as well. Like, it could come in so many different forms. And I wake up and I'm like, what would be the most effective thing to do to advance the power and build the power of working people. Well, do you wake up sometimes in your Capitol Hill apartment and say, what the hell am I doing here?

I'm one of one representative out of hundreds. Yeah, of course. I'm in a gridlocked situation. I'm not affecting the change I want to, and I'd rather join or lead or help lead a movement outside of government. Mm-hmm. You know, have I had those thoughts? Absolutely. We all have different options in front of us. And the choice of what option we take at any given point is a reflection of all of those conditions, our motivations, all of those things. And there are times when I'm cynical and I sometimes fall into that. I'm just like, man, like, maybe I should just learn to like grow my own food and teach other people how to do that.

But I also reject the total cynicism that what's happening here is fruitless. And the thing is that I've been in this cycle before, previously in my life, before I was even, before I even ran for office, before it was even a thought. The social media folks at the New Yorker have invited people to propose questions for you via Instagram. And I have to say, hope is the theme that is the center of almost all of these.

And if I can distill them, the most basic question is, what would you say to people, particularly young people, who've lost hope? So, um, I've been there. And here's what I can say is that when you're feeling like you've lost hope,

it's a very passive experience, which is part of what makes it so depressing. And that's what I had to go through. There was all this hope when Obama was elected in 2008. And at the end of the day, a lot of people that had hope in our whole country had those hopes dashed. You know, I graduated. My dad died.

My family had medical debt because we live in the jankiest medical system in the developed world. My childhood home was on the precipice of being taken away by big banks. You know, I'd be home and there'd be, you know, bankers in cars, parked in front. front of my house taking pictures for the inevitable day that they were going to kick us out. I, you know, was supposed to be the great first generation to go to college and graduated into a recession where bartending legitimately and waitressing legitimately paid more than any college level entry job that was available to me. And I had a complete lack of hope. I saw a Democratic Party that was too distracted by institutionalized power to stand up for working people, all of that.

And I decided this is bullshit and no one, absolutely no one cares about people like me. And this is hopeless. And I lost hope. And what did that lead you to? You lost hope. How did that manifest itself? And it manifested in depression. I would really say, feeling like you have no agency and that you are completely subject

to the decisions of people who do not care about you is a profoundly depressing experience. It's a very invisibilizing experience. And I lived in that for years. And this is where sometimes what I do is speak to the psychology of our policy. rather than the, you know, the polling of our politics. And what is really important for people to understand is that to change that tide and to actually have this well of hope, you have to operate on your direct level of human experience. And when people start engaging individually enough, then it starts to amount to something bigger.

And we have a culture of immediate gratification where it's like if you do something and it doesn't pay off right away, then we think that it's pointless. But truly, if more people start to truly cherish and value the engagement and the work in their own. own backyard, it will precipitate much larger change. And the thing about people's movements is that the opposite is like very top down. When you have folks with a profound amount of money, power, influence, and they really want to make something happen, they start with media and you look at these right-wing organizations. They create YouTube channels. They create, you You know, their podcast stars. They have Fox News as their own personal ideological television outlet.

You know, legitimate change in favor of public opinion is the opposite. It takes a lot of mass public building engagement, unrecognized work until it gets to the point that it is so big that to ignore it threatens the legitimacy of mass media outlets, institutions of power, et cetera. where it has to get so big that it is unignorable in order for these positions up top to respond. I guess what I'm saying is going forward, what do you think is the optimal role for you to play? Well, you know, I guess we'll say with the Climate Justice Alliance, some communities here at home, they say they don't talk about leadership, they talk about being leaderful.

And I think that people's movements, especially in the United States, is leaderful. And we're getting more people every day. And like that's the untold story is actually the momentum of what is happening on the ground. You have Starbucks that just unionized its first shops in Buffalo. You know, I went up there to visit them. And it's like, sure, you know, I went over there to support a mayoral election, which didn't ultimately pan out, but also to support a lot of what was going on. And if it wasn't for that mayoral election, I would argue, if it wasn't for that mayoral election and the amount

of intensity and organizing and hope and, and just all of that, a lot of these workers who were organized may have given up. There is no movement. There is no trying. There is no effort. There is no unionizing. There is no fight for the vote. There is no resistance to, you know, draconian abortion laws if people think that the future is baked in and nothing is possible and that were doomed. Even on climate, especially on climate. And so, yeah, you know, the day-to-day of my day job is frustrating. So is everyone else's. You know, I ate shit when I was a waitress and a bartender, and I eat shit as a member of Congress.

It's called a job. You know? And, yes, I deal with the wheeling and dealing or, you know, whatever it is, that insider stuff. And, you know, I advance amendments that some people would criticize is too little and too small and et cetera. And also I also advance big things that people say is unrealistic. and naive. You know, work is like that is like always the great fear when it comes to work or pursuing anything. You want to write something and in your head it's this big, beautiful, like, Nobel Prize winning concept.

And then you are humbled by the words that you actually put on paper. And that is the work of movement. That is the work of organizing. That is the work of elections. That is the work of legislation. that's the work of theory of concepts, you know, and that is what it means to be in the arena. Congressman, thank you so much.

It's always a pleasure talking with you. Of course. Thank you so much. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents New York's 14th Congressional District. I'm David Remnick. Thanks for listening. See you next time. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of Tune Arts. This episode was produced by Alex Barron, Ave Carillo, Brita Green, Calalea, David Krasnow, Gauphin in Putuguele, Louis Mitchell, Michelle Moses, and Stephen Valentino.

With help from Alison McAdam and guidance from Emily Boutin. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.