115
If AOC Doesn’t Run for President, Run a Union Worker
(jacobin.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
115 points (98.3% liked)
politics
30712 readers
1846 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not going to sit here and pretend a strong, well liked leader doesn't help a political party. But like, how can it be wise to lean so heavily on an individual? Is it a symptom of how 'high stakes" US elections are?
IMO it's not wise, and it is a symptom. Congress has been ceding more and more of its authority to the executive for a few decades now because it makes it easier for incumbents to avoid controversy and win reelection. The executive branch has become more powerful and is now being molded by the Unitary Executive Theory, or the "What if we had a king but used a different word" theory. It's this idea that all executive power flows from the office of the president, so anyone not the president must either toady up or prepare to get fired. Except the fed, for some reason 🤔🤔🤔
I think some other executive departments, particularly DoJ, should have directly elected leaders and should be able to control their disbursements from Congress independently of the President. They should be a check on the President just as the President should be a check on them. I'm pretty sure that would require a constitutional amendment and I'd want someone more versed in political theory than me to describe exactly how executive authority should be divided, but as it is the US presidency is far too powerful for the country's own good.
I yapped about it too much over here but like...
If the president can do whatever he wants within the confines of his role
And there is no way for his party to hold him to account
And there isn't even an overall party platform so we can't even pretend there is a mandate
How is it not just choosing a new king every 4 years?
I agree with that, but also see why the problem exists. We as the left hate having a single point of failure like a leader, but occupy wallstreet I think was the biggest demonstration of what happens without it. IE when the movement is a large group, the media says "OK there's no leader so anyone we talk to in the group speaks for the group, therefore we can look for the person in the crowd who looks the least capable of making an arguement, interview them and declare the whole movement as aimless".
It's likely I'm not understanding your point so I would appreciate it if you could correct my interpretation..
I'm hearing that it's important to choose a leader because a party or movement without a leader could not communicate the platform effectively and would surely lose even if people agreed with them. I wasn't suggesting that within an electoral system a political party should not have a leader or at least a spokesperson.
I realize my example doesn't have the same meaning to people who are unfamiliar with other political systems but parties just yeet leaders and move on. I suppose there are structural differences that make that impossible in the states, like having the election for president being entirely separate from electing local representatives and that being party leader or even PM in canada doesn't require you to hold a seat. I also keep forgetting about primaries lol. Those are not a thing.
I was looking at US congressional election results to see if I could imagine a comparable scenario but I think the systems are too different..
In 2019 the new leader of the Conservative party lost the election. His party wasn't in power before, and they actually gained 26/343 seats but he had to step down as leader because his party was not happy with his gains. He's still in office and still a member of the party. He even served as interim leader again when the next guy got ousted.
The next election in 2021 had a new leader and they lost again but did not gain or lose any seats. His party was still mad but this time it was more about him not being right wing enough:
He kept served the rest of this term but did not seek election.
I remember some of the discussion around Bidden stepping down from reflection and how it seemed to be portrayed as a weakness of the party or something that would doom the party. I also think about how the president can basically do whatever they want without needing to get buy in from the party, especially in the context of "blue no matter who" and the question of supporting Palestine in 2024. There is no party cohesion because there isn't a mechanism to have consequences for pissing off large sections of your party while you are in office. A more positive framing would be there is no mechanism to ensure the party leader is representing the wishes of the party, which is assumed to be the wishes of the public who elected them. If I understand correctly platforms are individual rather than party based as well that doesn't really help with a cohesive message either.
I think I now understand better why emphasis on the individual is so important in this system:
In contrast, in other systems you don't need an election for the party to say "nah you don't represent us any more" and the person doesn't lose their seat/you don't topple the government. It's rare it happens to the sitting PM, but our last PM resigned from the job basically under duress because his own party was like "don't make us kick you out" and the opposition was like "don't make me trigger an election".
it's not a magic approach. The last PM broke his promise on electorial reform and his party did not care at all, but obviously they had vested interest in it not changing. But that was more about the public losing faith, not the party.
I think it's more a symptom of how low information US voters are.
Moar leik how few people are allowed by the plutocracy to run in the rigged US elections
Idk I think canada has a lot of that too. People rely on fox news type shows, facebook, and political advertisements to decide. We have a lot of the same absurd misinformation shit. People did literally believe the prime minister was the son of Fidel Castro, for example.
Even if they buy into "immigrants are stealing our jerbs" they have to pick which right wing party to vote for and leadership has kinda been a revolving door at both the federal and provincial levels in recent years. Not sure if it's the cause or effect?
Parties do spend a lot of time and money promoting the leaders. I don't want to pretend we're above that or anything lol. A hilarious example:
It didn't work lol, he's still a fucking nerd. After he lost the last election (both for the party and his own seat) he decided to try harder and moved to Alberta. I can't find the photo but apparently he showed up wearing the cowboy hat backwards and folks did not take kindly to that 🤡
I don't know much about the political climate in countries other than the US and canada but it would be interesting to know if the emphasis on the individual is so high.
Conservatives thought Trudeau was elected because of his dreamy hair and went on about it for years. So the plan was to put lipstick on their pig. It backfired.
I was just discussing this with my spouse so we refreshed our memory on how previous elections went. I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just think it's funny that they went from Sheer to O'Toole to this guy and we're like, "Yes, this is the fresh new face we need to appeal to the youth." 🤭
I think that anyone who was paying attention when Trudeau entered politics knew the party was treating him as their savior. That said, I had forgotten how blatant it was. I lived in Michael Ignatieff's ward. I remember at the time an thinking '"this guy is fucking cooked" after it came to light that he made disparaging remarks about Ukrainian people in his book and then doubled down when asked about it.
People loved Jean Augustine (MP prior) in Etobicoke Lakeshore. I remember people crying at events to honour her when she retired. She was a teacher, and a Black woman who immigrated from Grenada as a domestic worker. It gets overshadowed by Little Jamaica but Etobicoke Lakeshore has a very large Caribbean immigrant community because many of them came as skilled workers to the (formerly) heavily industrial area. So they plop this suit who has lived in the states for 30 years and taught at Harvard in this riding and thought it would work out? It suddenly makes more sense why Trudeau was seen as being able to save the party lol. They steered too hard toward a leader like Harper and it did not work out for them.
I’ve never seen the level of willful ignorance that we have now! It’s a cult!