By Skylar Letteer
After Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was questioned on making factual mistakes and spouting inaccurate statistics on Pentagon spending, Cortez fixated on the Washington Post’s “fact checkers” who deemed her statements worthy of “four Pinocchios” in relation to the incorrect data. Cortez responded to the criticism during an interview with Anderson Cooper on a broadcast of “60 minutes”. She has been accused of not only being untruthful when discussing the true cost of her proposals and the tax burden they would impose on the middle class, but also using a “fuzzy math” tactic in order to fit her agenda. When asked about these remarks, Cortez became frustrated, stating “I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right”.
While Cortez briefly mentioned the importance of being factually correct, this raises the question of which should be more prominent in decision making? Or, what should be more influential when making a decision as a REPRESENTATIVE? Being factually correct under her circumstance should matter more than her moral compass in order to efficiently get things done. Is being morally right a good enough excuse for misconstrued facts? Sure, people may alter the things they do and say in order to appeal to a certain person or group maybe once or twice, but is that still acceptable when talking about a congressional representative? Should citizens continue to hold Cortez responsible for all her inaccuracies, or should we leave her her alone and accept her “morality” defense? While morals and facts can work hand and hand, it’s important to look at the severity of the situation and what role you may have on it before putting one above the other.