Two Futures for the American Left

The recent spat between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Marjorie Taylor Greene has exposed a deep fissure within the American left, threatening to upend its values and principles. Beneath the surface-level squabbles over personalities and tactics lies a fundamental choice between two irreconcilable futures for the leftist movement.

One vision is embodied by Ocasio-Cortez’s commitment to democratic socialism and her willingness to work within the Democratic Party. This approach has a long history in the United States, dating back to the New Deal era when communists and socialists collaborated with liberals to advance progressive causes. By building on America’s liberal tradition while pushing for more radical reforms, this vision seeks to harness the power of democratic institutions to drive progressive change.

In contrast, the alternative vision is exemplified by Greene’s populist anti-elitism and her willingness to make common cause with right-wing nationalists. This approach is fueled by a deep-seated distrust of liberalism and its institutions, which are seen as beholden to powerful interests and hostile to the concerns of ordinary people. The Israel issue has become a litmus test for this divide, with some on the left embracing Greene’s reversal on the matter as evidence of her newfound commitment to anti-imperialism.

However, this reading ignores the fact that Greene’s shift is motivated by cynical opportunism rather than a genuine desire to stand in solidarity with Palestinians. For years, Greene has been a vocal supporter of Israel, using its policies to attack progressive critics. Her sudden about-face on the issue is a classic example of right-wing tactics, where unpopular positions are abandoned in favor of more palatable alternatives.

The left’s response to this development has been telling, with some figures like Cenk Uygur and Glenn Greenwald praising Greene’s newfound criticism of Israel as evidence of her intellectual honesty. However, this assessment ignores the fact that Ocasio-Cortez has consistently supported Palestinian rights and faced criticism from within her own party for her stance.

Ultimately, the real issue at stake is not whether leftists should occasionally collaborate with right-wing nationalists but what kind of movement they want to build. Do they want to create a broad coalition that includes liberals and socialists or forge an alliance between the far left and the far right? History provides some clues on this question, with the Spanish party Podemos serving as a cautionary tale.

Podemos’s attempt to ignite a left-right groundswell against an ill-defined establishment ultimately failed, unable to translate its populism into electoral success. Its efforts instead undermined the very institutions it claimed to be fighting against. The American left would do well to learn from this lesson and recognize that democratic socialism and working within the Democratic Party may not be perfect but have produced significant progressive reforms.

In contrast, the populist anti-elitism represented by Greene has a track record of failure and division. As the left grapples with this choice, one thing is clear: the fate of its movement hangs in the balance. Will it choose to build on its liberal traditions and push for more radical reforms or opt for a trans-spectrum populism that threatens to undermine its values and principles? The answer will determine not only the future of the American left but also the course of progressive politics in the United States.

The choice is clear: will the American left stand with its liberal traditions or abandon them in favor of a divisive populism?