Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Does Competence Matter?
Is there a bottom line or are perceptions reality?
On any given day over at Twitter you can see a stream of Tweets mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), the recently elected Democrat-Socialist Representative from New York, for some incorrect, inaccurate, or perceived to be outrageous statement. There is no shortage of memes which inelegantly let the world know that the person sharing them believes AOC is stupid. Stupid, however, is an epithet used very loosely. Some very intelligent people have been called stupid at one time or another. Calling them stupid did not make them stupid. Repeating the name calling did not make it more true than before. Cartoonist and persuasion guru Scott Adams wrote Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter outlining how President Trump used persuasion to win his unlikely bid to become US President. I have no doubt that President Trump's persuasive ability, as well as his talent stack were a large part of why he won the 2016 Presidential Election. However, I also wonder whether Trump's perceived level of competence due to his success in multiple fields - real estate, television, as an author, licensing, etc. - as well as his reputation for getting things done can be teased out of the equation when deciding what exactly was the reason he succeeded in 2016.
At least a couple of arguments regarding persuasion as it relates to AOC and others. The first is that the pull of President Trump's persuasion, and the seeming ease with which he employs it, risks the perception that someone equally or more persuasive than he is can use that ability and be elected as President. In reality, what Trump does isn't easy to duplicate because his persuasion is wrapped up in his talent stack, his personality, the particular point and time the US is passing through in the current historical cycle, Trump's opposition, etc. On the other hand, perhaps Trump's election as US President is the equivalent to Roger Bannister breaking sub-4-minute mile. It was often thought to be impossible to run a mile in less than 4 minutes until Bannister did it. Afterwards, with the psychological barrier gone, others believed it was physically possible and successfully repeated Bannister's achievement. Is it possible that Trump's election as US President has now cleared the way for other non-traditional, and some believe, powerfully persuasive candidates like AOC to become President of the United States?
Many Presidents have had wild swings of fortune, ranging from mediocrity and failure to success. In fact, a great many have lived through monumental failures, personal tragedies, and periods where failure appeared the far more likely outcome. President Truman's trajectory was fairly unremarkable until at age 50 he was elected to the US Senate. President Eisenhower held various ranks while in the US Army, but was a Major from 1924-1936 and it appeared his military career was stalled until he served as chief military aide to General Douglas MacArthur. President Lincoln's electoral career was spotty with his political defeats and victories overall were near even. A few Presidents were widely believed from an early age to be destined for greatness, while many more shocked those who knew them by their ascension to the nation's highest elected office. But, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, almost all of those who rose to become US President were slowly but steadily building their competence, knowledge and understanding of the world that informed their political views and gave them an uncanny ability to persuade the public to their side on the issues of the day.
The question is then, AOC a person who has exhibited, or is exhibiting now, the building up of competence, learning, experience and understanding that makes her particularly qualified to represent, lead and persuade the wider body politic of the United States? Is AOC persuading in such a way that she is not only deepening the support of people who already believes the things she believes, but she is also appealing to those who would not have considered supporting the ideas she advocates before now? Does the of her personal history, her experience, her knowledge, her leadership, etc. tip the scale to not only be counted as persuasive, but so powerfully persuasive that it alters the course of history? Can she move public opinion - not the opinion of those who frequent social media - but the mass of people across the country who may only dip in and out of the stream on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc? Can she go beyond battles and "claps" online, to moving the needle offline, in Congress and the arena of public opinion, on issues such as Climate Change, universal free education, and medical care for all?
Even the most persuasive politicians of their age often fail to achieve one or many of their goals. It often takes generations for certain objectives to be achieved. However, it is the achievement of those objectives that is the yardstick by which success or failure is measured. Those objectives are achieved largely, if not almost wholly, on the basis of persuasion. But, can the persuasion be separated from the persuader? Is the best technique enough to persuade? Why is it that two people can make essentially the same argument and one person persuades while the other does not? How much does personal experience and competence matter in the realm of moving public opinion? Are we in a new era of persuasion where persuasiveness and competence are less intertwined? Are we living in an age where fame is success and that is enough to persuade? In a world of reality stars and social media, does competence matter?