shorter presidential debates...and just as tedious

The business and power of the state take place not in representational assemblies - and certainly not in the vapid spectacles of partisan pandering - but in the deeper and more encompassing structures of state bureaucracies, (i.e., public and private,) which imbricate one another - and dictate the conditions of who you vote for and how you live your little life.      

The exercise of this kind of power is not even acknowledged because on a very fundamental level it presents no overt conflict to behold. Just like in a magnetic field which alters the motion and positions of objects susceptible to magnetism, powerful forces dominate from the periphery, from unseen or unknown coordinates, by simply structuring the very parameters of the field of operations as well as the rules of engagement and the possibilities for direction and movement. Of course, albeit these powers easily do away with more unpredictable irritating factors from appearing altogether, conflict still appears - if one chooses to call it that - but only within the acceptable confines of engagement. Contests, like official Debates, are thus dramatized to heighten differences, and hide unspoken accords and presumptions. "Coke vs Pepsi," for example, effectively distracts you from how similar their ingredients are. And elections are staged precisely to feed you bullshit & make you stupid by inflating and twisting your mind while garnering the halo of legitimacy.

Of course, to avoid boredom most of us end up drinking some form of kool-aid anyway. Moreover, our suspension of disbelief enables us to exaggerate the differences between the actors, and take sides. We even try to push and pull in some directions against or at the expense of others. We even sometimes even place bets or look to influence the field in some banal, trivial way. But we can't. Those few however who are capable of coordinating the field given their institutional positioning and financial clout don't like being bored either - and so they do some bidding bidding of their own. And so it goes.

when Hope & Change become We'll Take Anything We Can Get

What good is Barack Obama if he is indeed another inside man for the corporate plutocracy? What good is winning the election if all that Hope and Changey stuff was frankly bullshit? More importantly, what are the deeper implications of Hope and Change transmogrifying into We'll Take Anything We Can Get? 

Despite campaigning in 2008, and now in 2012 it appears, as an "outsider," who tells millions "you can't change Washington from the inside," Obama has governed from the Oval Office as The Consummate Insider. (All of which prompted a very funny segment from The Daily Show.) But what really gets my goat going is when liberals shoot back with the predictable excuse, "he had no choice because of those stupid, evil republicans!," as if they know that Obama, somewhere deep-down in his soul, is really a progressive, and not a soulless neoliberal apparatchik. Yet do they have any EVIDENCE, (besides that secret plot he's got going against Rahm Emanuel & the banksters,) that Obama would govern as a liberal-progressive, you know, if it wasnt for all that realpolitick jazz? Do they have EVIDENCE that Obama is not the blue-dog he says he is? Any EVIDENCE that he plans - or even hopes - to replenish Social Security and Medicare after they're cut, or bring back labor unions after they get decimated, or bring back Habeas Corpus, or Keynesian economics, or undo climate change, or give back to citizens the civil liberties he and the Republicans have taken away, you know, once he has enough power to do so? 

Perhaps the most important accomplishment of Obama's Presidency, (besides extending Bush's Patriot Act; voting for FISA; extending Bush tax-cuts; taking upon himself the sole authority to kidnap or kill any American citizen without due process; appealing a court ruling on NDAA; using drones to kill innocent Muslims without being transparent about it, and approving the use of drones over domestic air-space for commercial and state purposes; failing in Copenhagen; kissing the ass of Wall St. bankers; cracking down on unions and working people; presiding over greater gaps of inequality than his predecessor; undermining attempts to better integrate public schools; invading foreign countries illegally despite being a Constitutional lawyer; buying into the Austerity racket and  sending signals that, like his Republican partners in crime, will actually cut Social Security & Medicare; and moving the party to the right of both Reagan and Nixon) has been to pour cold water on his supporters, aka his "base," while simultaneously convince them that he, really deep-down in his soul, is a pwogwessive... whatever his accomplishments, whatever he says.

LIBERALSARESOSTUPIDLIBERALSARESOSTUPIDLIBERALSARESOSTUPIDLIBERALSARESOSTUPIDLIBERALSARESOSTUPIDLIBERALSARESO STUPIDLIBERALSARESOSTUPIDLIBERALSARESOSTUPIDLIBERALSARESOSTUPIDLIBERALSARESO

What makes all this so alarming is that its not just "the lesser evil" his supporters will be voting for; they'll also be voting for, what Glen Ford calls, "the more effective evil" given  their perfect alibi: those evil, stupid Republicans. As Paul Street writes, "I have been asking Obama-mad campus town liberals to tell me if there was any particular line in the sand Obama could cross where they would withdraw support for him. The question has been consistently met with silence except for one who told me they would cease to back Obama 'if he joined the Republican party.'"  

Obama seems like a great guy. He also has a beautiful family. But judging from his acts and deeds as an elected public official, qua POTUS, his priorities are nothing less than fucked up. He'll fight for Bush policies but not for the CTU - nor even campaign for public sector workers in Wisconsin against a Republican Governor! He'll stay silent when it comes to the gun-laws but not when it comes to ridiculing "the professional left." He'll sit by as poverty grows while find the time to coddle the rich. The real proof is that Obama refuses to go out into the land to rally the people on these issues, (you know, that put-pressure-on-Congress thing,) but he will go out to the swing states during election time when he needs their votes. Such a great speaker, apparently an inspirational figure too, yet such an insider! Thus, to build from what Charles Ferguson, (despite intending to vote for Obama,) wrote a few days ago: the fact of the matter is that the more the two electoral candidates pretend to be (are?) at each others' throats, the more similar they are in reality because being at each others throats requires access to big money, and thus enslaving yourself to the framework of corporate power. It doesn't matter what either of them say or what either of them say otherwise.

Thus my quest has now become to radically disillusion "the left" and their "centrist" collaborators of elections because elections, at least as they are practiced within the United States these days, not only make the electorate more stupid - they also have the brume of legitimacy about them. I used to think to look forward to elections because at least they got ordinary people, you know, the demos, talking about politics - or at least what passed for politics. I still look forward to these engagements. But I also know that every two years the lowest common denominators get pumped up and paraded, and the historical records conveniently evaporate into the ether, while the race to the bottom stays on course. I also am reminded how important it is to know that the elections are a sham because the difference between an F+ and an F- just ain't gonna cut it. Actually, the difference between the two parties these days, to rephrase it, looks like the difference between someone putting a gun to you & your family's head, saying "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing!," and another person leading you and your family down a long dark alley, saying Don't worry, I know what I'm doing!" I'll leave it up to you to figure out who is who. But be prepared for tedious, exhausting debates because whether or not you live in a red state or a blue state, you'll have to endure inane charts and memes, & do plenty of "fact checking."

On the really important issues that are defining and dictating how people live their lives, and what their futures entail, (the domination of corporate and financial power, increasing police power & militarism, the cracking down on unions; the withering away of social safety nets as well as Social Security and Medicare, growing gaps of inequality, and, of course, climate change,) the difference between these two parties ain't worth squat. That one may be intent on only picking up the pace as we fly of the cliff may be true; but that an opposition is either incapable or unwilling to stop us from hitting the ground seems also true. None of this is all that new. But we are getting closer to making it a whole lot worse.       

go ahead, make my day

Corrente writes,

Maybe it's me, but last night's convention/sideshow convinced me that this whole process of electing a president is nothing but a sham, something for the rubes to chatter about while the real action is going on in an entirely different tent.

Actually its not you - and you're not the only one. But what makes this time different?

People have suspected these things for a long time. The problem is that they know the show is fake but still fool themselves by thinking they've spotted the real distinction, the real importance, between what is real and what is not. Reality is multi-layered. Offstage creeps onstage. One convention is present in another while the same issues are absent from both. And as long as Americans continue their fickle love-affair with reality they'll always have something to seize upon, size up, and dispose of no matter how contrived. Reality requires an effort of the imagination. 

    

Paul Ryan's Ordo Praedicatorum

Libertarian ideology seems to be quite the rage these days. No longer the nomenclature of right-wing economists and nerds that it was in previous decades it has  gained considerable visibility and acceptance - despite its failures, despite Alan Greenspan. Ron Paul's attempts for the Presidency, for instance, though not exactly successful, have increased their following with each consecutive run, while, more tellingly, his libertarian son, Rand Paul, was elected Senator of Kentucky in 2010. Also, a movie based on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was released last year, and, just this last June, the first Ayn Rand Summit was held in DC and attended by John Stossel, Allen West, Grover Norquist, and President candidate, Gary Johnson. The Libertarian Party itself boasts having become the third-largest political party in the US. And considering the more substantial extent to which neo-liberal "free market" policies and talking-points have been adopted across the board, by both Democrats and Republicans, should any of this be much of a surprise?

Another self-proclaimed Randian, Paul Ryan - who in 2009 admitted, "the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, it would be Ayn Rand" - has now been tapped to share the GOP ticket. Ryan has not only reportedly said as far back as 1999 that the books he most often reads are "the Bible, Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged," but also confessed his proselytizing efforts to The Weekly Standard in 2003: "I give out Atlas Shrugged as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well... I try to make my interns read it." Yet some libertarians are complaining. Though some see in Ryan a man of ideological credibility who can balance out the Republican ticket, others are crying he's a phony - a big-government conservative even. Indeed, as lots of the commentary has already pointed out this past weekend, Ryan's record suggests that he is both for economic "austerity" (the gradual privatization of social security, deep cuts to spending, and "a balanced budget") as well as for "big government" (government bailouts, TARP, Ethanol subsidies, unemployment extensions, the Patriot Act and other federal intrusions, Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage as well to criminalize flag burning, and many proposed measures to restrict the reproductive freedom of women.)      

That Ryan even started dialing back his Randian cred a few months ago, evoking Thomas Aquinas, may only cause libertarian voters to harden their convictions, and maybe vote for Gary Johnson. Who knows? But I wonder: what in the world can be more utterly glibertarian than to balance out neo-liberal Austrian economics with an "epistemological" turn *cough* to a 13th century Dominican Catholic priest? (See this take down of neo-liberal Aquinian grandstanding.) And what can be more harmful to the GOP in November than this rift between free-market contractarians who find inspiration in the atheism of Rand's "objectivism," and conservative God fearing Christians? Thus, in Romney's words, "Paul is in public life for all the right reasons — not to advance his personal ambitions but to advance the ideals of freedom and justice; and to increase opportunity and prosperity to people of every class and faith, every age and ethnic background. A faithful Catholic, Paul believes in the worth and dignity of every human life." Well, well...

Ryan's move away from Rand signals the electoral liabilities of associating with her, which Ryan and the rest of today's politerati obviously recognize. Democrats will thus likely try to tag Ryan to her Social Darwinist pretensions - but not so much because she was a free-market libertarian but because she was an ideological hack with as much intellectual depth as a nine-year old. Unfortunately, as Democrats look to exploit that particular angle, the failed economic policies of neoliberalism, and the growing gap between "producers" and "moochers," as Rand put it, will get the obligatory free pass. 

But even by their own "small government" standards libertarian ideas are a failure: they simply don't work. On one level, the I-got-mine-now-fuck-off school of thought creates economic and political counter-movements, to borrow a phrase from Karl Polanyi, which are antithetical to it. But in an even more obvious respect, any "small government" exponent running for office in "big government" by default cannot govern on such principles because big capital will always be there to make sure that the corporate mega-state - and its spending sprees and dysfunctions - will remain in place. Thus, the Paul Ryans and the Rand Pauls of the world who sit in political office will always be compromised, and always fall short of their libertarian spiel. Big capital and its spokesmen will never acknowledge that the effort to "bring back effective and responsible government" actually requires a call to resist this very collusion between big government and big capital.

Big capital will also always be there to remind us time and time again, whether through the mouth of Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, or petty bureaucrat, that the functioning of a successful economy requires transforming political categories and expectations into economic ones. These reminders translate into generating more cost cutting measures and bigger profits. They also make even those who are most well-meaning view the country's problems through the language and schemes of short-term practical payoffs and "market" discourse. The long-term political effects of such incessant zero-sum economizing only preclude the chances that any political alternative to the neo-liberal cul de sac we find ourselves in might ever get off the ground and be worth fighting for. (I mean, who wants to fight a losing impractical battle these days when, to recall Margaret Thatcher's words, "there is no alternative"?) 

Big capital also doesn't need the ideological purity of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson to do its bidding because its already the biggest show in town. By occupying the electoral margins such libertarian figures enable "free market" rationalities to operate as business-as-usual, more informally, more impersonally, and more inevitably. Their mere presence also makes it easier for Paul Ryan to try to back away from his Randian schtick just as he moves into November's spotlight.         

the takeaway 2010: the coming disaster of the Obama Presidency and the triumph of New Feudalism

Expectantly the Democrats lost big last Tuesday. And the purging of the Blue Dogs should demonstrate to even the most fashionably clueless among us of the political failure of Democratic “centrism.” Looking on the bright side, we could be tempted to say that the midterms have at least crystallized the liberal and progressive platform, even if Pelosi gets demoted in the process. As Ari Berman anticipated about a month before Nov. 2, “Democrats would be in better shape, and would accomplish more, with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus.” True, less blue-dogs in Congress would be a benefit insofar Democrats are able to shape and control their narrative without party bickering. And though I would love for this to be the takeaway of the 2010 midterms, I also detect some stupid here not getting the scrutiny it deserves. First of all, the remaining 24 Blue Dogs in the House, true to form, are already calling for Pelosi to quit. More obviously, if less numbers overall ostracize the Democrats as an ineffectual incumbency it will only require from Brand Obama and members of the party brass more leadership, more heavy-lifting. And given the statements already being made by Obama it is clear the White House intends to remain at odds with the party’s liberal base, and do its best by clinging to the diminishing “center.” 

So why would Obama once again reaffirm his willingness to “compromise” rather than try to fire up his own troops in his own party – especially when the signals sent by the GOP tell us that it has no intentions of compromising whatsoever? You know, there was a time not all that long ago when Obama was considered not just a great orator but some new kind of inspirational leader. You know, he had charisma in a good er, "progressive" way. He was even a "community organizer" guys!!! So how can the President continue to foolishly reach across the aisle only to be taken for another ride? Can it be he is just another inside-man for the corporate plutonomy? (Hey everybody! look at Mika!)

One sure lesson to be learned from 2010 it is that even without enough votes to get its policies enacted the gains made by the GOP enables it to simply watch “gridlock” take its toll and dismantle what’s left of the age of Obama.  

Energized by the Theo-Cons of the religious right, as well as Tea Party antics and rhetoric, the GOP has been able to rise from the dead in just two years to effectively denounce and repudiate Obama and the Democrats. How did they do it? Sensing weakness in the Dems, they fought and fought continuously. Republicans knew nothing could be gained for their party if they simply went along with the policies of a majority party: Obama and the Dems would get the credit if their policies succeeded and were popular, just as they would surely get blamed if their policies stalled, needed cover, or downright failed. Thus the Republicans became known on MSNBC as The Party of No. 

In reinventing themselves the Republicans were also able to distance themselves from the Democrats in a very clear way. What they did was take a feudal turn to the right, and got a huge push from "outsiders" otherwise known as The Tea Party. This New Feudalism is evident not only in the House of Representatives but also in the Senate where old white men parody 1950s middle-class America by evoking the spirit of Balance-the-Budget hardhead Calvin Coolidge and the coming specter of A Socialist Takeover. These New Feudalists speak everyday of America’s ennobled place in history as it  soldiers on against infidels, libertines, and the shiftless. They plunder the serfs back home. They make others fight their wars. They spread the gospel of wealth while speaking in tongues. They steal from the poor to give to the rich. Some of their additional accomplishments? Presiding over economic and financial collapse through financial deregulation and disregard; dilapidated and starved social institutions; unprecedented expansions of executive power and surveillance; two losing wars; a bloated military budget which – when paired with rising health care expenses – is bankrupting the country; xenophobia; a plutocratic “austerity” agenda which professes to cut state spending “across the board” by privatizing social security, Medicaid, and Medicare, while making the Bush tax-cuts permanent; and, of course, extolling of private wealth growing disparities in income and wealth inequality. Republicans have also gotten older. But perhaps the most telling sign of the coming of a New Feudalist establishment is the redistricting of congressional seats it is about to redraw. 

Surely it isn't new to say that the GOP is radically at odds with the demos. For no matter how much talk there is today of a “populist” Tea Party take over of government don’t expect the Marco Rubios of the world to rock the boat of the Republican establishment. We'll see how much of that Defense budget Rand Paul wants to cut. We'll see how much executive power Dick Armey or that guy in Wisconsin who beat Feingold wants to cut back. Can't wait for Sarah Palin to fight for the unemployed and uninsured. Yeah, both parties are

joined at the hip in profound ways which make meaningful distinctions between them utterly specious: thoroughly corporatist, militaristic, neo-liberal, anti-democratic, and dispassionately fascist just poised at the edge waiting to wage a jingoistic boot stomping of all opposition into oblivion perchance the opportunity ever presented itself. How totally awesome is that? Yet unlike the Democrats who are plagued by caution and "thoughtfulness," (as any good latte drinking feminist sympathizer is,) Republicans can dress themselves up in callous, go it alone, cowboy regalia and rhetoric to give them the semblance and reputation of inherent autonomy, of a Going Rogue toughness and independence, which many, many Americans find appealing. And so by STAYING ON MESSAGE they can position themselves to pull this whole fucking mess of a country continually to the right. You see, Rush and Hannity know stuff. They and their propogandist blowhards know how to create reality so liberals can report it. 

Judith Butler on President Obama

A good piece by Judith Butler appeared in the November 5 issue of IndyMedia. Though I am skeptical of just how far one can truly take the "economic" factor as a determinant in Obama's appeal to voters, as if the country, (or at least those who voted for Obama,) has turned the proverbial corner of some "moral" or "cultural" antithesis. I also read Butler's piece with Rahm Emanuel in mind, ...and, as CNN hinted yesterday, the possibility of Bush acolyte Colin Powell.

And see Jodi Dean's response posted on November 10.

But here is Butler's article in full.

"Very few of us are immune to the exhilaration of this time. My friends on the left write to me that they feel something akin to "redemption" or that "the country has been returned to us" or that "we finally have one of us in the White House." Of course, like them, I discover myself feeling overwhelmed with disbelief and excitement throughout the day, since the thought of having the regime of George W. Bush over and gone is an enormous relief. And the thought of Obama, a thoughtful and progressive black candidate, shifts the historical ground, and we feel that cataclysm as it produces a new terrain. But let us try to think carefully about the shifted terrain, although we cannot fully know its contours at this time. The election of Barack Obama is historically significant in ways that are yet to be gauged, but it is not, and cannot be, a redemption, and if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes ("we are all united") or that we propose ("he is one of us"), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. There have always been good reasons not to embrace "national unity" as an ideal, and to nurse suspicions toward absolute and seamless identification with any political leader. After all, fascism relied in part on that seamless identification with the leader, and Republicans engage this same effort to organize political affect when, for instance, Elizabeth Dole looks out on her audience and says, "I love each and every one of you."

"It becomes all the more important to think about the politics of exuberant identification with the election of Obama when we consider that support for Obama has coincided with support for conservative causes. In a way, this accounts for his "cross-over" success. In California, he won by 60% of the vote, and yet some significant portion of those who voted for him also voted against the legalization of gay marriage (52%). How do we understand this apparent disjunction? First, let us remember that Obama has not explicitly supported gay marriage rights. Further, as Wendy Brown has argued, the Republicans have found that the electorate is not as galvanized by "moral" issues as they were in recent elections; the reasons given for why people voted for Obama seem to be predominantly economic, and their reasoning seems more fully structured by neo-liberal rationality than by religious concerns. This is clearly one reason why Palin's assigned public function to galvanize the majority of the electorate on moral issues finally failed. But if "moral" issues such as gun control, abortion rights and gay rights were not as determinative as they once were, perhaps that is because they are thriving in a separate compartment of the political mind. In other words, we are faced with new configurations of political belief that make it possible to hold apparently discrepant views at the same time: someone can, for instance, disagree with Obama on certain issues, but still have voted for him. This became most salient in the emergence of the counter Bradley-effect, when voters could and did explicitly own up to their own racism, but said they would vote for Obama anyway. Anecdotes from the field include claims like the following: "I know that Obama is a Muslim and a Terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway; he is probably better for the economy." Such voters got to keep their racism and vote for Obama, sheltering their split beliefs without having to resolve them."

"Along with strong economic motivations, less empirically discernible factors have come into play in these election results. We cannot underestimate the force of dis-identification in this election, a sense of revulsion that George W. has "represented" the United States to the rest of the world, a sense of shame about our practices of torture and illegal detention, a sense of disgust that we have waged war on false grounds and propagated racist views of Islam, a sense of alarm and horror that the extremes of economic deregulation have led to a global economic crisis. Is it despite his race, or because of his race, that Obama finally emerged as a preferred representative of the nation? Fulfilling that representative-function, he is at once black and not-black (some say "not black enough" and others say "too black"), and, as a result, he can appeal to voters who not only have no way of resolving their ambivalence on this issue, but do not want one. The public figure who allows the populace to sustain and mask its ambivalence nevertheless appears as a figure of "unity": this is surely an ideological function. Such moments are intensely imaginary, but not for that reason without their political force."

"As the election approached, there has been an increased focus on the person of Obama: his gravity, his deliberateness, his ability not to lose his temper, his way of modeling a certain evenness in the face of hurtful attacks and vile political rhetoric, his promise to reinstate a version of the nation that will overcome its current shame. Of course, the promise is alluring, but what if the embrace of Obama leads to the belief that we might overcome all dissonance, that unity is actually possible? What is the chance that we may end up suffering a certain inevitable disappointment when this charismatic leader displays his fallibility, his willingness to compromise, even to sell out minorities? He has, in fact, already done this in certain ways, but many of us "set aside" our concerns in order to enjoy the extreme un-ambivalence of this moment, risking an uncritical exuberance even when we know better. Obama is, after all, hardly a leftist, regardless of the attributions of "socialism" proffered by his conservative opponents. In what ways will his actions be constrained by party politics, economic interests, and state power; in what ways have they been compromised already? If we seek through this presidency to overcome a sense of dissonance, then we will have jettisoned critical politics in favor of an exuberance whose phantasmatic dimensions will prove consequential. Maybe we cannot avoid this phantasmatic moment, but let us be mindful about how temporary it is. If there are avowed racists who have said, "I know that he is a Muslim and a terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway," there are surely also people on the left who say, "I know that he has sold out gay rights and Palestine, but he is still our redemption." I know very well, but still: this is the classic formulation of disavowal. Through what means do we sustain and mask conflicting beliefs of this sort? And at what political cost?"

"There is no doubt that Obama's success will have significant effects on the economic course of the nation, and it seems reasonable to assume that we will see a new rationale for economic regulation and for an approach to economics that resembles social democratic forms in Europe; in foreign affairs, we will doubtless see a renewal of multi-lateral relations, the reversal of a fatal trend of destroying multilateral accords that the Bush administration has undertaken. And there will doubtless also be a more generally liberal trend on social issues, though it is important to remember that Obama has not supported universal health care, and has failed to explicitly support gay marriage rights. And there is not yet much reason to hope that he will formulate a just policy for the United States in the Middle East, even though it is a relief, to be sure, that he knows Rashid Khalidi."

"The indisputable significance of his election has everything to do with overcoming the limits implicitly imposed on African-American achievement; it has and will inspire and overwhelm young African-Americans; it will, at the same time, precipitate a change in the self-definition of the United States. If the election of Obama signals a willingness on the part of the majority of voters to be "represented" by this man, then it follows that who "we" are is constituted anew: we are a nation of many races, of mixed races; and he offers us the occasion to recognize who we have become and what we have yet to be, and in this way a certain split between the representative function of the presidency and the populace represented appears to be overcome. That is an exhilarating moment, to be sure. But can it last, and should it?"

"To what consequences will this nearly messianic expectation invested in this man lead? In order for this presidency to be successful, it will have to lead to some disappointment, and to survive disappointment: the man will become human, will prove less powerful than we might wish, and politics will cease to be a celebration without ambivalence and caution; indeed, politics will prove to be less of a messianic experience than a venue for robust debate, public criticism, and necessary antagonism. The election of Obama means that the terrain for debate and struggle has shifted, and it is a better terrain, to be sure. But it is not the end of struggle, and we would be very unwise to regard it that way, even provisionally. We will doubtless agree and disagree with various actions he takes and fails to take. But if the initial expectation is that he is and will be "redemption" itself, then we will punish him mercilessly when he fails us (or we will find ways to deny or suppress that disappointment in order to keep alive the experience of unity and unambivalent love)."

"If a consequential and dramatic disappointment is to be averted, he will have to act quickly and well. Perhaps the only way to avert a "crash" – a disappointment of serious proportions that would turn political will against him – will be to take decisive actions within the first two months of his presidency. The first would be to close Guantanamo and find ways to transfer the cases of detainees to legitimate courts; the second would be to forge a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to begin to implement that plan. The third would be to retract his bellicose remarks about escalating war in Afghanistan and pursue diplomatic, multilateral solutions in that arena. If he fails to take these steps, his support on the left will clearly deteriorate, and we will see the reconfiguration of the split between liberal hawks and the anti-war left. If he appoints the likes of Lawrence Summers to key cabinet positions, or continues the failed economic polices of Clinton and Bush, then at some point the messiah will be scorned as a false prophet. In the place of an impossible promise, we need a series of concrete actions that can begin to reverse the terrible abrogation of justice committed by the Bush regime; anything less will lead to a dramatic and consequential disillusionment. The question is what measure of dis-illusion is necessary in order to retrieve a critical politics, and what more dramatic form of dis-illusionment will return us to the intense political cynicism of the last years. Some relief from illusion is necessary, so that we might remember that politics is less about the person and the impossible and beautiful promise he represents than it is about the concrete changes in policy that might begin, over time, and with difficulty, bring about conditions of greater justice."

The Morning After

The Audacity of Hope indeed. The phrase just rubs it into progressives. Yes, of course, it is truly wonderful for the country to have elected its first African American President. "Hope" has been revived for millions of people, especially people of color, minorities, the young, and lots of single-moms, and that is very, very important. But how long can it last? Should it last? The importance of Obama's victory has more to do with feel-good enthusiasm, a re-branding of the American Dream, than with anything substantial, at least from a progressive point of view... and that is why Obama is the mythological candidate par excellence.

The audacity reached a peak late last night when the NY Times said remarkably in a headline on its website that "racial barriers" have "fallen." The truth is Obama is a surrogate for, what Adolph Reed called, “the ‘progressive’ wing of the investor class.” "He" is also a colossal media-event. The victory last night had nothing to do with voting records nor with policy and economic plans for the country. Obama has already surrounded himself with Clintonians Rahm Emanuel, Paul Volker, and Rob Rubin, already voted for the new FISA laws, as well as for the the re-authorization of the Patriot Act. He has flip-flopped on public financing, said he wants to expand the military budget, voted for the bailout swindle, been silent on poverty, a living wage, and the impeachment of Bush & Co. All of this lurks just around the corner waiting to mug liberals.

For a really great take on Obama check out Simon Critchley, who said "Obama's politics is governed by an anti-political fantasy."

Sorry to piss on all the celebration.

Let the Victors come after us

Let the Victors come after us.

~ Walt Whitman

Losing is an experience we are all advised to get past. Success requires the will and intelligence to not just “seize” opportunities but play the dirty game of maneuver, compromise, and deceit. And so we play – some of us more whole-heartedly than others. But what is at stake when the dowdy shards of previous convictions and beliefs get ransacked by the sick and shameless, the petty and petulance, of temporal parochialism – and ultimately discarded by powerful forces beyond our control? Will it be the nature of the defeated to continually reappear in their impotence and dwindling irrelevance and eccentricity? Posed a little differently, how much reinvention is feasible for self-styled "progressives" in the coming age of Obama without simultaneously accepting our immolation?

The scoop on Ralph Nader is that he is too old and too infuriatingly stubborn to be running for President in 2008. The country is not only rife in economic and political crisis – even undergoing “paradigm shifts” we’re sometimes told – but ready to elect its first African-American President. Yet Nader’s core fight-the-power delivery still hasn’t changed since when I first heard him speak in the mid 1990s. As William Greider recently put it in a piece for The Nation, Nader “pierces the fog of propaganda with hard facts and reason, but the smoke rolls over him and he disappears from public view.” The few exceptions to Nader's otherwise systematic and expected erasure from the established medias are typically spiked with contempt.

And while the enthusiasm at rallies and events have varied over the years one thing has remained fairly constant. They have always remained gatherings of ordinary people who are usually very well-informed, who enjoy political debate, and who love sticking it to The Interests – even to Nader himself now and then. They can be astute but also sloppy; persistent yet disorganized and homespun. “Is the mic on?” Simply put, Nader and ordinary people because Nader gives ordinary people hope. You can ask him questions, even shake his hand and take your picture with him, have him read your fortune. In attendance lately is not a mob of the faithful marching in step with lapel pins but an exceedingly casual, at times even inherently disagreeable, motley bunch. It is so sooo democratic. Even the truly exciting and remarkably propitious Super-Rallies held back in 2000 in sporting arenas across the country were still improvisatory enough, (from the celebrity speakers to the attendees,) to fall well short of being choreographed into mass spectacles.

And these are the assets – meager as they may be – that are inherently at odds with the advancing plans of the corporate green Godzilla. Nader has led the good fight for decades. So call it sabotage, call it resistance. It is all worth preserving, all worth fighting for, and that’s why I’m voting Nader!

The Issue of Impeachment

Someone asked today after class why the Democrats have given up on impeachment proceedings of Bush & Co. (I felt my ears twitch a little.) When someone in the back of the room quickly replied that it was because “the Democrats want to win the election, and they can't turn off the moderates...it’s as simple as that - that's why!” there was a precipitous silence over everyone in the room – a room filled mostly, may I add, with those of the argumentative Poli Sci Type-A genotype. This tactic, of course, has been used by centrist Democrats for decades. Yet it must be queried how the hell this ultra-pragmatic affectation has been able to so successfully shut everyone up and get us in line? I mean, it was incredible! No one could even muster a peep about the recidivist “high crime and misdemeanor” violations and blatant disregard for the law! I mean, absolutely powerless!

So how has it come to this? Have we all gone out of our fucking heads?

The silence was too deafening, at least for me, (7 seconds, I swear!) so I politely asked whether the response was actually a reason at all, or “perhaps” an excuse, “presuming of course,” that it was highly unlikely that any political party would ever take up the issue after the election, you know, after all the votes are counted. I also managed to work in a final tweaker: that the new administration “may very easily want to take advantage of the unprecedented growth in executive power.” And so the student smirked and took the last word, “well, then it will be irrelevant.”

Unfortunately many Democrats are blind to the fact that if Obama “has to do” such and such “to get elected” he will probably have to do the same – and a whole lot worse – to be able to govern because voting season will be over. No more speeches, no more interviews, no more horserace, no more elections. What will people think then? What will the crowd do?