On the other hand. Was: The end of the republic?

I just posted this earlier today (okay, the other day):

Lex Anteinternet: The end of the republic?: Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post, whom I don't always agree with but whom I enjoy reading, believes that American democracy has c...

This post raised some disturbing questions about our ability to govern ourselves, and it cited a couple of examples, far from the most important, that contribute to that question.  All of that remains perfectly valid in my opinion.

However. . .

this was all before the video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing as a college student went viral in no small part to snark over it..

What's that have to do with anything?  Well, maybe more than we might wish to admit.

Ocasio-Cortez is all of 27 years old.  She's right out of college, basically.  Did she dance in college?  I sure hope so.  If you have to criticize that, ask yourself if you danced when young.  If you didn't, why the heck not?

And that is what I think she's taking flack for.

In an era when the government is dominated by a select group of East Coast monied elite, no matter how crude they may be, she 's not part of it.  Donald Trump is.  Chuck Schumer is.  Nancy Pelosi, her supposed California base aside is.  Joe Biden is.  Bernie Sanders even is.  

Ocasio-Cortez is from the East Coast but what it is evident is that she's a fiery Puerto Rican ethnic who is, at least so far, absolutely unyielding in her positions.

Do I agree with all of those positions?  No I don't. But in looking them up, I don't think they're as universally off base as some might suppose in every single instance.  Indeed, some of them have moved from radical to accepted within the last six years even if I don't agree with them or remain stoutly opposed to them. And what she really stands for is replacing the old dead wood, and it's thick, in both political parties with some youthful chutes.

It'll be interesting to see if time and experience burn this out of her, or if she's simply a flash in the pan. But maybe not.

Maybe she's a Robert LaFollette, or a W. E. B. Dubois, or a Malcolm X.  All of them were radicals and quite frankly, had I been commenting during the lives of any of them (only Malcolm X's life overlaps mine, but I was a young child when he died) I would have disagreed with them on most things. But their fiery nature stoked a flame when things really needed to be addressed.  No, I don't think Battling Bob LaFollette was right on World War One, the economy or most things, but his voiced raised questions that needed to be asked, even if I wouldn't have been supporting his views at the time.  No, I don't think W. E. B. Dubois was right when he sympathized with Communism (and he later admitted that position was wrong), but voices like his gave rise to progress for African Americans that came later.  No, I don't think Malcolm X was right on most things, and I don't even think his conversion from Christianity to Islam (which I think he would have abandoned and returned to Christianity from had he lived) was wise nor justified, but I do think that his radicalism ended up being the flanking protection for what those like Martin Luther King advanced.

My point is that there really are things that desperately need to be addressed.  People like Trump, Pelosi, Schumer are going to talk about issues, probably superficially, but there's no reason to believe that they're going to address them. They are too ingrained in their long lives to do so.  People like Ocasio-Cortez have long lives yet to live and have to live in a world that is impacted by what they do.  Trump, Pelosi ,and Schumer aren't going to be around long enough, given the natural advances of time, to where that this is true and only have their future legacies, which none of us live to appreciate in this world, to contemplate.

No, I don't think that Ocasio-Cortez is right on everything, or even on most things.  But she's willing to stick to her position in spite of harassment, even from the liberal press, that's basically sexist and juvenile in nature.  And at least that should give us hope that there's still people like Roosevelt, LaFollette, and Rankin around who are willing to advance a fresh conversation irrespective of the entrenched old one.  And even where we vigorously disagree with them, that means that there's hope conversations can advance on a real level.