Alexandria Ocasio-Churchill
Is the British Bulldog AOC's Political Model?
We haven’t seen the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez before, at least in this country. Jack Hughes reaches not into pop culture for a parallel but across the pond where he sees a lot of AOC in Winston Churchill’s early political career.
by Jack Hughes
For months, I had an unshakable feeling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reminded me of someone. It was irritating because I just couldn’t place who it was. I knew it wasn’t about any physical resemblance or political philosophy but, rather, her public profile and stage presence. Ocasio-Cortez has an outsized persona for an elected official, and that’s when it hit me. AOC is the modern-day WSC – Winston Spencer Churchill.
To be clear, I’m not talking about post-war, iron curtain Churchill but pre-war, pre-prime ministerial Churchill – the contrarian who, like AOC, made his political career (if fewer friends in caucus) going rogue and taking positions that were in direct and open rebellion with the policies being championed by the senior leaders of his own political party – which, of course, isn’t to say that WSC (or AOC) was always right.
AOC and WSC are often criticized by a mix of jaded political opponents and jealous political allies for being shameless, even shameful, self-promoters. Yet even their harshest critics will concede, perhaps grudgingly, they both exhibit an exceptional capacity to harness and leverage innovative communications technologies – from telegrams to Instagram, AM radio to Among Us – and yet that’s not all the two share.
WSC and AOC were each elected to office in their late twenties and quickly joined factions of progressive lawmakers (the ‘Hughligans’ and the ‘Squad’ respectively) supporting increased union rights while opposing increased military spending and religious discrimination in immigration. They even share New York roots. WSC’s mother was, like AOC, a native New Yorker – though from Brooklyn, not the Bronx.
Tragically, though perhaps tellingly, AOC and Churchill both lost fathers whom they revered at a young age – she was only 19 and he was 21. Ocasio-Cortez told Vanity Fair that “I don’t think there’s any way to overstate how close I was to my Dad...that sense of ambition to try things when the odds are so unfavorable, that very, very much comes from my father. It felt like...I didn’t just lose my Dad, I also lost myself.”
Winston and his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, had a far, far more complicated relationship even accounting for the times, and yet the son idolized the father and after his death identified him as the source of his ambition saying: “All my dreams of comradeship with him, of entering Parliament at his side and in his support were ended – there remained for me only to pursue his aims and vindicate his memory.”
But if you want a more recent example of their symbolic symmetry, you need only look at two of Joe Biden’s early decisions. Soon after he was elected president, Biden distanced himself politically from AOC. Soon after he was sworn-in as president, Biden distanced himself physically from WSC – removing the famous Churchill bust from the Oval Office. Neither will be getting much facetime in Biden’s White House.
Despite these similarities, they also have major differences – most notably their views on socialism and hyphenated last names. AOC had to defend her hyphened last name when conservative critics claimed she was hiding her true identity Sandy Ocasio. WSC was born Spencer-Churchill but dropped the hyphen and used Spencer as a middle name. (Conservatives never accuse Churchill of trying to deceive them.)
Still, if AOC’s political career is tracking to Churchill’s it won’t be some inexorable, uninterrupted ascent to the top – but, instead, a veritable cardiogram of vilified lows and vindicated highs. Their path to destiny isn’t the easy express lane, but an arduous test of endurance and resilience. And, in that, we’ll perhaps see another parallel – ’21 as the crucial year of their political careers. For WSC it was 1921, for AOC it’s 2021.
In his Oblivion or Glory: 1921 and the Making of Winston Churchill historian David Stafford writes convincingly that 1921 was perhaps the pivotal year for Churchill. He was rescued from the tragedy that was the failed Dardanelles strategy of the First World War – for which he still shouldered the blame – but his political gains were offset by his personal losses – his mother, daughter, brother-in-law, and two mentors.
For Ocasio-Cortez, 2020 ended with disappointment. The election didn’t deliver the anticipated influx of socially progressive Democrats to Congress – and some within her own party blamed her for the Republican’s stronger-than-expected performance. If so, Trump supporters showed little gratitude as the new year started with increased taunts and threats towards her with some Capitol Hill rioters explicitly targeting her.
The biggest question AOC faces in 2021 is what’s next? She could certainly remain in the House of Representatives for decades to come, easily becoming the kind of lifelong Congressional fixture her colleague Steny Hoyer is – he’ll mark 40 years in the House this May. If she serves until Speaker Pelosi’s age she’ll be in Congress until the year 2069, almost matching Churchill’s 62 years in the House of Commons.
(In 1941, Churchill was invited to speak to a Joint Session of Congress and observed the twist of fate that had brought him there: “By the way, I cannot help reflecting that if my father had been American and my mother British instead of the other way around, I might have got here on my own. In that case this would not have been the first time you would have heard my voice…So perhaps things are better as they are.”)
Of course, the British Parliamentary system allowed Churchill to serve in both the legislative and executive branches of government at the same time – being a Member of Parliament while also taking on a succession of ‘great offices of state’ including Home Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, ultimately, Prime Minister. The American system doesn’t give that option; AOC might have to move on to move up.
What would Churchill do? Churchill the idealist bided his time sitting as a powerless backbencher during the 1930s, taking strong personal stands on issues from Ireland to India, abdication to appeasement. Stilled by his sense of destiny, he had faith that fate would deliver Britain to him at the appropriate hour. Churchill the pragmatist,however, crossed the floor twice (switched political parties) to improve his prospects.
Churchill placed the occasional high-risk bet against the odds, and, if he lost, he’d always find and fight his way back from defeat. If Winston Spencer-Churchill were in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s position, in a two-party system where crossing the floor wasn’t in the cards, he’d look for another equally brazen way to break publicly with his party leadership to better position himself for future political advancement.
For her part, AOC isn’t denying rumours she may mount a Senate primary challenge against Chuck Schumer in 2022. She’s been told that if she does she’ll lose – the kind of warning more likely stir her competitive instincts. But it’s a risk. Churchill’s luck in ’21 didn’t hold in ’22 when, as he wrote: “In the twinkling of an eye, I found myself without an office, without a seat, without a party, and without an appendix.”
Still, Churchill’s losses in 1922 were just a blip. He would rise and fall again many times over before he would reach, to borrow a phrase, “the Everest in his career of Himalayas.” If AOC is truly the modern-day WSC she may have to endure short-term losses to ensure long-term victories. Churchill famously fought what he called ‘black dog’ bouts of depression, but seldom let failures temper his faith in the future.
In the end, many might think my comparison between one accused of being a fan of Castro’s Cuba and one acclaimed for being an aficionado of Cuban tobacco to be, aptly and literally, close but no cigar. They’ll invoke the Churchill quote “if you’re not a liberal at 25 you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 35 you have no brain.” But it’s apocryphal, he never said it. In his 30s, like AOC, WSC was a Liberal.
Jack Hughes is a communications consultant based in Canada. His previous contributions to The Experiment include “Same of Thrones,” “Tippecanoe and Agnew Anew,” “Harris / Shuri 2020,” “What Would Nixon Do?” “Firth and Firthiness,” and “The Ballot of Bill McKay,” among others. His inexplicably extensive writings on Dan Quayle are “The Unusual Suspect,” “The Unusual Suspect II,” “The GOPfather” and “Porqua, CoQau?” His most recent contribution was Connect with him on LinkedIn here.
What do you think of today's email? I'd love to hear your thoughts, questions and feedback. I might even put ‘em in the newsletter if I don’t steal it outright.
Enjoying this newsletter? Forward to a friend! They can sign up here. Unless of course you were forwarded this email, in which case you should…
If your new year’s resolution was to lose weight, try Noom, and you’ll quickly learn how to change your behavior and relationship with food. This app has changed my life. Click on the blue box to get 20% off. Seriously, this works.
Headspace is a meditation app. I’ve used it for a couple years and am absolutely shocked at how much it’s taught me about managing my inner life. Try it free for a couple weeks. Don’t worry if you’ve never done it before. They talk you through it.
I now offer personal career coaching sessions through Need Hop.
We set up a merch table in the back where you can get T-shirts, coffee mugs, and even tote bags now. Show the world that you’re part of The Experiment.
We’ve also got a tip jar, and I promise to waste every cent you give me on having fun, because writing this newsletter for you is some of the most fun I’ve had.
Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of the American Myth by Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and myself comes out June 8 from Penguin Random House. There is no better way to support this book than to pre-order a copy. You’re going to love reading what really happened at the Alamo, why the heroic myth was created, and the real story behind the headlines about how we’re all still fighting about it today.
