,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This needs amendment. For most of congressional history, this fits. Ideological, intra-party attacking members do not typically fair well.
But there is a notable exception. Newt Gingrich.
But there is a notable exception. Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich also had bold, unorthodox conservative positions relative to his party. He was more socially conservative, bold in confronting those who disagreed, and more openly hostile to those in his party who did not share his policy views.
Gingrich had no problem attacking fellow Republicans. His attacks were direct, indirect, vitriolic, and unapologetic. But importantly, they were organized. Through the Conservative Opportunity Society, Gingrich sought tactics amplifying his vision.
This meant frequently shunning Republican leadership. He made Bob Michel’s life difficult. He undermined deals cut with Democrats. He created political incentives to undermine the legitimacy not just of the other party, but for the “fake-conservatives” among his ranks.
He used the media and television in novel ways that broke decorum and norms within Congress. Not unlike AOC, he harnessed new and emerging technologies to create political opportunities.
It was an organized assault on the internal norms and machinations of the Republican Party and congressional politics. His influence grew. He was elected Minority Whip. He continued to push his party leadership while in the leadership. And eventually, was elected Speaker.
Gingrich was one of the few members who rather than assimilate to gain influence, fought to change the party around him. It worked. The Republican Party of the 1990s was unrecognizable from a decade or two prior. It was also the recipe for his undoing several years later.
But this strikes me as an apt comparison to AOC. Attacking colleagues is not a way to win friends. However, her political momentum right now is ridiculous. She’s the most followed member of Congress, period. She has a national following, not just a local constituency.
In crossing her, leaders risk losing their base on any given issue. In a polarized political system with decision making structures in Congress biased toward the majority’s base, this makes her incredibly powerful.
She enjoys leverage over the party’s agenda in ways many previous ideological intraparty instigators didn’t.
This also fits into broader trends. Institutionally, informally, and technologically, there are structural features enabling populist-styled voices. Bernie Sanders transition from marginalized congressman to progressive/populist icon reflects how recent this change has been.
I don’t have a conclusion, really. Only to add, after about a week’s reflection and some convincing points by @MEPFuller, I’m less convinced her Democratic colleagues can marginalize AOC in ways her predecessors were.
She may become the left’s Newt Gingrich. Or she may reshape the party without emerging as its formal leader. Regardless, I’m less convinced she becomes anonymous. That breaks previous conceptions about institutional norms, careers, and politics in Congress.
(As terrible as the Gingrich analogy is, that’s really the only congressional career parallel I can adequately describe AOC’s current position in the caucus. In no way am I suggesting she will ruin the institution in the same way. Just that her rise has parallels.)
