Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has addressed questions regarding the shifting nature of progressive political rhetoric, particularly concerning the period often labeled "woke 1." The discussion emerged as Ocasio-Cortez defended Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong, a candidate for Wisconsin governor, who has faced criticism for past statements.
During an appearance on ABC's "This Week with Jonathan Karl," Ocasio-Cortez suggested that Hong has "moved away" from some of her more controversial past positions. The New York representative also acknowledged comments from NYC Councilman Chi Ossé, who referred to the earlier period as "woke 1," implying a shift in political discourse.
This exchange has prompted a closer examination of progressive stances on issues such as "cancel culture," police funding, and gender identity that were prominent in the early 2020s. Critics argue that some progressive figures are attempting to distance themselves from these earlier positions, which they deem too extreme for mainstream appeal.
Ocasio-Cortez herself has indicated a temporal shift in how these issues are discussed. She stated, "I think that when we talk about crime today, it’s fundamentally different than the way that we talked about crime, in bringing crime down, right? I think that during lockdown, of course, rhetoric in that time is not rhetoric that we would use today."
However, her past statements on police funding and the criminal justice system have been highlighted. In June 2020, Ocasio-Cortez supported calls to defund the police, stating, "Defunding police means defunding police. It does not mean budget tricks or funny math." A month later, she commented, "Crime is a symptom of a diseased society that neglects its most marginalized people, and we do not solve that problem with police."
Furthermore, in 2019, prior to the pandemic, Ocasio-Cortez engaged in discussions about "decarceration & prison abolition." Critics question whether these past views have truly been abandoned or if current statements reflect a strategic recalibration of messaging.
The debate underscores a broader tension within the progressive movement about articulating core beliefs in a way that resonates with a wider electorate, particularly in light of electoral results that some attribute to public reaction against earlier progressive messaging. The assertion from critics is that the underlying ideology remains consistent, despite changes in public-facing communication.