Corporate media pundits depict establishment's evident panic in front of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's huge victory

globinfo freexchange

Shortly after recent political earthquake with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's huge victory, the establishment apparatus started to react as expected.

TYT immediately responded by identifying the common narratives used by the corporate media pundits in the following video:

In this video you can track at least two kinds of typical 'arguments' provided by the neoliberal ideological framework. We wrote several times in this blog about such arguments that their carriers present them as being perfectly rational using 'logical leaps', while in reality, they are deeply irrational.

In the first argument, Steve Schmidt labels progressivism as 'dishonest', simply because it fights for free education, free healthcare, etc. The basic 'argument' is the usual: ordinary people can't have such things because of the enormous debt. Of course, the logical leap here is the fact that the neoliberal pundits always avoid to refer to the billions in bailouts to the Wall Street parasites, continuous tax-cuts for the rich, or, trillions for the endless wars by the US war-machine that bring chaos and destruction. Trillions of dollars – that significantly contribute to the rise of the national debt - are being vanished, suddenly and magically, from the whole political discussion, to make the argument appear 'rational'.

Through this trick, progressives appear as 'unrealistic', or 'dishonest' for talking about such benefits that should be provided by every truly advanced nation.

In reality, of course, the exact opposite happens. Progressives are the ones who actually provide simple and rational arguments. They always condemn endless wars. Therefore, trillions would be saved for the government to build a modern social state. Further chaos and destruction would be avoided abroad. Terrorist attacks inside US soil would be diminished. National debt would be reduced and millions of jobs would be created through public investments.

But Schmidt's second 'argument' is even worse. He puts in the same basket the progressivism and the Trumpism by labeling both as 'dishonest', in order to highlight the neoliberal center as the only option for the voters. The logical leap here is huge, exactly because the ideological gap between progressivism and Trumpism is also huge. This is a trick that the neoliberal pundits and politicians use very often in their effort to push the electorate to the political center. That is, the neolliberal establishment.

Yet, probably the most important in this case is that Schmidt struggles hard to persuade voters that is somehow irresponsible to vote for real progressives. And this depicts the panic of the establishment on the prospect of a big progressive wave that could literally transform the US political map to the ground.