By Douglas V. Gibbs
At the Munich Security Conference, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked a direct, uncomplicated question by Bloomberg Television’s Francine Lacqua: “Should the U.S. commit troops to defend Taiwan if China were to move?”
AOC could not answer it. Instead, she offered a meandering string of platitudes before retreating to the vague claim that U.S. policy is “longstanding” without explaining what that policy is.
Meanwhile, the facts are straightforward. Taiwan is a self-governing island with its own military, currency, and independent government. China insists it owns Taiwan and regularly conducts military drills near the island, prompting concerns about a potential invasion. Beijing has also loudly objected to the Trump administration’s approval of an $11 billion arms package for Taiwan.
On the surface, AOC’s evasiveness looked like simple unpreparedness; an awkward moment for someone rumored to be testing the waters for a 2028 presidential run. But her inability to answer revealed something deeper than a lack of foreign-policy fluency.
AOC is a product of an ideological movement that views America as the problem and global collectivism as the solution. Her political formation is rooted in a worldview that seeks to fundamentally transform the United States into something the Founders never intended. That worldview does not allow her to articulate a clear defense of American interests abroad, because doing so would contradict the ideological framework she embraces.
She wasn’t the only one struggling. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer also stumbled when asked about Ukraine, offering a similarly vague and uncertain response.
What ties these moments together is not mere inexperience. It is the hollowness of the progressive foreign-policy worldview. Its advocates speak in abstractions: “social justice,” “multiculturalism,” “equity” – but they avoid acknowledging the ideological engine behind those terms. They will not admit that these concepts are rooted in cultural Marxism, so they rename and repackage them.
When pressed on real-world geopolitical threats, the façade cracks. Why did AOC and Whitmer sound lost? Because their true answers would be unacceptable to most Americans. Their worldview does not operate in the realm of strategic reality or common sense. It operates in the realm of oppressor-versus-oppressed narratives, where any nation aligned with Marxist ideology must be handled gently and any assertion of American strength is suspect.
Had AOC spoken plainly, her answer would likely have been: “No, the U.S. should not intervene. Taiwan belongs to China.” But saying that openly would expose the ideological commitments she works hard to obscure. So she stalled, hedged, and searched for language that would neither sound like Donald Trump nor reveal her own radical leanings.
Contrast that with the clarity of a more traditional American approach: apply economic pressure first, pursue diplomacy second, and reserve consequences as a final step. That is a coherent strategy rooted in national interest. It is also something AOC and Whitmer could not articulate, because it does not fit within their ideological frame.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
