Research Paper Post: Comparing AOC and Newt Gingrich as Messagers

In my paper, I compared the Republican Party's situation in the 1980s with the Democratic Party's current situation in Congress. In both instances, the parties were under divided government (they had control of either the House or the Senate but not both) and percieved that they could attain a majority in both houses in the next election cycle. According to Lee, the party is responsible for both legislating and messaging under divided government. As we've discussed in class, legislating and messaging are often at odds with each other because bipartisan compromises are necessary to govern and party conflict is necessary to mesaging. The question thus stands: how does a party manage these conflicting goals at the same time under a divided government? 

I argued that established party leaders tend to dominate legislating while new members tend to dominate messaging. Although it may seem like new members would want to work with the political establishment to move up in the ranks later and avoid negative attention as a controversial figure, new members are often in ideal positions to reject establishment standards and incite conflict, making them perfect champions of messaging. The clearest illustrations of this dynamic are Newt Gingrich's role in the Republican Party in the 1980s and Ocasio-Cortez's role in the Democratic Party since 2018.

First, let's consider Gingrich. As a freshman congressman in 1982, he wanted to withdraw from budget negotiations with the Democrats while senior Republicans wanted to compromise. He was integral in founding the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS) in 1983 which used special orders to request discussion of conservative issues like abortion and school prayer on the House floor, knowing that the Democrats’ denial of the request could be mutated into attack ads. Gingrich staged failures on votes like the line-item veto amendment for the same purpose. He also undermined the ethical standing of the Democratic majority when he felt the Democrats limited opportunities for Repulican discussion. All of these actions prompted party conflict and thus fulfilled the party's messaging goals. 

Now consider Ocasio-Cortez. As an incoming congresswoman in 2018, she proposed the Green New Deal. Party leaders like Feinstein and Pelosi knew the bill couldn't pass and thus couldn't endorse it because they needed to maintain bipartisan relationships. AOC, however, did not have to cater to the same constraints since she was not an established politician. Thanks to AOC, the failure of the Green New Deal is a great messaging tool. Democrats can shame Republicans as climate-change deniers without sharing responsibility for the outcome. The Green New Deal is especially useful because linking economic growth to environmental policy can increase its favorability by 14 points without suffering a loss of Republican support. Ocasio-Cortez also symbolically voted no on USMCA and the immigration bill, both of which had bipartisan support to pass, because she believed they didn't go far enough to the left. Whereas Pelosi had to make concessions to pass the bill, AOC could demonstrate that the Democratic Party stands for liberal reforms. In Gingrich's mirror image, she challenged the morality of the Republican Party when McConnell refused to let the Senate discuss the Green New Deal. You could even go so far as to compare COS to The Squad in terms of using media to attract attention. 


Gingrich and AOC both used new media of their time (C-SPAN, Instagram and Twitter) to accomplish the main requirements for messaging: attract attention and display confrontational behavior. As new members, they were able to focus on messaging because they did not have a stake in establishment politics. Under divided government, party leaders recognize the need for messaging but can't personally engage because of the pressure to govern. These moments are opportunities for new members like Ocasio-Cortez and Gingrich to take on messaging roles. Party leaders may condone and even appreciate this convenient division of labor for some time, but they also must weigh the cost of intraparty factionalism.