It is amazing what some people will do to denigrate someone
they don't like. To critique the economic theory articulated by Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, Liam Warner wrote an article that was printed on July 17, 2018
in National Review Online under the title: Ocasio-Cortez Embarrasses Herself on
Firing Line.
Warner based his article entirely on a half-hour
conversation he watched on television. He saw and heard Ocasio-Cortez respond
to questions in three areas of interest: capitalism, education and foreign
policy, he says. From the little that he wrote about the foreign policy part of
the conversation, it is obvious he cared very little about it. But because the
topic pertained to Israel, he found himself duty bound to spew the usual thing.
More about this later.
Liam Warner quickly disposed of that topic by mentioning
what it entailed, and by characterizing it this way: “Unfortunately this wasn't
simply the one scar of an otherwise flawless performance.” This done, he went
on to critique Ocasio-Cortez's views on economics and education. Unfortunately,
however, he made two big mistakes, that totally blemish his own performance.
Let's begin with the second mistake: His critique of the
economics and education part of the interview.
Liam Warner says that Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). He says she began by summarizing the
economic principle and goal of the movement when the interviewer asked why
democratic socialism would be the proper vehicle to achieve that goal. Her
response, he says, was that “DSA is the only organization pushing for universal
health care and college”.
That response did not sit well with Warner because, he says,
it did not answer the question. He explained that the interviewer wanted to
know why the mechanisms of socialism are the best at delivering the desired
results but the answer was something else. Well, had he said this much and
stopped here, he would have only been accused of splitting hair. But he went
further, and in so doing, set himself up to making the first big mistake.
He used the occasion to explain and to mock that the
question was not, “whether the DSA is more explicitly socialist than, say, the
Tea Party,” but that the answer amounted to: “Democratic socialism is the best
way of giving us free college because democratic socialists are the loudest in
demanding free college.” That was humorous but inaccurate. What's wrong with
it, anyway?
What's wrong is that Warner has used the gauge of a written
debate to measure the precision of a verbal debate. The difference between the
two can be seen when you look at this: “Democratic Socialists of America” and
then look at this: “democratic socialists of America.” Do you see the difference?
Surely, you must have spotted the upper characters in the first expression, and
the lower characters in the second. The first refers to an organization whereas
the second refers to those who believe in the philosophy of the organization.
It is like the difference between the Conservative Party and those who adhere
to the conservative cause. The written word helps to spot that difference but
not the spoken language. Confusing the two is what happened during the
television interview.
But why could Liam Warner not see this? He could not see it
because he is closer to being a one-dimensional man than a rounded-up man. And
there is yet another example to prove it. He latched onto a saying that goes:
“Profit at Any Cost,” and called it an oxymoron. Well, it would be an oxymoron
if I made a profit of ten dollars by spending ten dollars. But if I made a
profit of ten dollars by polluting the environment and costing everybody else
ten dollars or more in health disbursement; it is not an oxymoron. It is
“no-holds-barred, Wild West hyper-capitalism”.
Now to the first mistake: His critique of the foreign policy
part of the interview:
Writing for a right-wing publication in America, and
discussing Ocasio-Cortez, the New York politician that does not toe the Jewish
line, Liam Warner had no choice but to say something nasty about her. He began
by saying she did not have command of the issues. He then took up the “widely
circulated highlight … her reference to the occupation of Palestine.” Pressed
repeatedly by the interviewer to clarify her answer, Ocasio-Cortez demurred, he
says. He then threw this at her: “This wasn't one only scar. Most of the time
she opened her mouth only to change feet”.
This is the attitude that was expected of him even if he's
not “of the body” that's emotionally attached to the story. But what comes out
the little that he said, is that Ocasio-Cortez neglected to clarify –– meaning
to define –– the word “occupation.” In fact, none of the others – all of them Jews
– who wrote about the subject tried to define that word either. But pressing
someone to define a word is a trick that they often use to trap someone in a
gotcha moment and then work on wrecking his or her career.
The Jews do at times pretend to define a word or an
expression, but all they do is haggle endlessly among themselves. And you can
bet that if they try to define the word occupation, they'll spend a lifetime
haggling over it till they die of old age not knowing what the hell they were
haggling about.