sound the alarm

One thing I've noticed from arguing absolutely blue in the face with really intelligent and well-informed middle-class liberals is their pretension to reasonableness and rationality. Of course, they also pathologically load their arguments with non sequiturs, hyperbole, and, (who can forget?,) all those oh-so-hushed tones of moral outrage. But, even at their best, you know, even when they follow arguments to their logical conclusion, and they do all the requisite "fact checking," they always end up clinging to the "incremental" securities and sensibilities of their "pragmatic" and "progressive" (read: craven and pompous) politics. And that's a fucking problem! 

So even when you call them out on the flabby presumption they categorically make when arguing in the spirit of lesser-evilism and Compromise that the country is at least on the better track 'cuz the Democrats are winning elections and stuff, and that it will take time, they will never accept how intellectually and morally bankrupt that presumption - as well as the ostensibly acceptable options their phony Realpolitick has dictated for you - truly is. The world is not headed in the right direction! But they'll never get around to sounding that fucking alarm! They have their elections, their Congress people, their micro-politics, their petitions, and their alibi, i.e., those evil, obstructionist Republicans, and so they'll easily forgo more structural and comprehensive political criticisms. They will absolutely never think to use political language to reshape context; they'll never consider tapping into the hopes, dreams, and fears of ordinary people, much less indict the minimalist framework charted out for them by the bipartisan lock on political discourse. They'll never understand how urgent it is that we shed the banality of DC bubble-talk to fight for ideals that have been lost. And so, they'll never really win 'cuz they'll never really risk losing.

I've been thumbing the pages of my Eichmann in Jerusalem lately, and always come back to the usual passages of "thoughtlessness," "lack of imagination," or where Arendt described those who "commit (their) crimes under circumstances that make it well-nigh impossible for (them) to know or to feel that (they) are doing wrong." (Penguin paperback, Revised and Enlarged Edition, p. 276) All of which makes me wonder: so much lesser evilism = compromise with evil = the banality of evil albeit in a newer form?

This passage from L'Hôte, says alot of what I've been thinking: 

 Nowadays I'm as likely to evaluate people based on their language as anything else: what percentage of their statements of principle come before the word "but"? "I don't like drone strikes, but..." "I don't like that Obama put social security and Medicare in play, but..." "I don't like that the administration has been aggressively going after medical marijuana dispensaries, but..." Last night, when I reflected on the people I've been fighting with, it occurred to me that I couldn't recall the last time they expressed a moral principle that wasn't just a setup for an argument for why it had to be violated. Yes, I know, it's an imperfect world. But at some point, if you want to claim a principle, you actually have to stand for it itself, and not use it as a chip to be traded on, to be given away. Surely the fact that everyone must sometimes compromise is not an argument that every compromise is principled, or benevolent, or fair. I have asked my various antagonists many times, and in as specific and frank a way as I know how: where is the limit? What is the boundary beyond which you will not compromise? I've never received any answers.

Married to the notion that you must compromise your beliefs in the pursuit of partisan politics or else be worthless is the proud acknowledgment that partisan politics will likely bring you little anyway. The furor with which people argue that politics happens only within the boundaries of Democrats and Republicans is, somehow, married to an admission that we cannot achieve truly moral ends with those means. So what you end up with is a perfect lockbox of acknowledged impotence and aggressive enforcement of same. This stance has the virtue of an impregnable defense. Unlike the activism vs. partisan politics debates of my youth-- I always tried to do both-- the debate is now not between people arguing how best to improve the world. The argument is rather against those who have walled off every avenue to effect that improvement. As I said, that's an easily defended opinion, because the cynicism of "it cannot be done" speaks volumes in an age defined by reflexive retreat to the presumption of failure. The problem is that people are suffering, are dying, and they don't have the luxury of a showy disbelief in the ability to create positive change.

Only the comfortable could insist that there are no politics but partisan politics while they simultaneously acknowledge that partisan politics will not stem our violence or our cruelty. Only those who have never suffered could assert that impotence with pedantry and with pride.

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.       

Obama as "the more effective evil"

Criticism matters if only to correct the record - and that's just what Glen Ford achieves for the most part as Michael Eric Dyson, the new Obama apparatchik at MSNBC, makes an ass of himself on this morning's Democracy Now! (The debate starts at about the 16:30 mark.)



I used to think the difference between the GOP and the Democrats was like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. And there was a difference: one tasted better and was, at least we we were told, less filling. It was pretty much a difference without a distinction between two corrupt, failed, oligarchical parties. The evil of two lessers, in other words. More recently, I had to come to think of the difference between the two parties as kind of like the difference between two corporate-militarist-plutocratic Orwellian factions with different branding strategies: one cast somewhere in between a Benetton advertisement and the dust-covered box set of Will & Grace in your closet - and the other, far more politically incorrect, juvenile, and downright depraved in its antics. Now I think the difference is probably more akin to that existing between a calmer, more rational, and deceptively more "inclusive" Republican party, aka Ford's "more effective evil," which has not just moved to the right of both Nixon and Reagan but every once and a while poses and parades itself as a "Democratic Party" to muster appeal from unsuspecting sycophantic soi disant pwogwessives and their "centrist" collaborators - and,  a party that is simply far more politically incorrect, radical, depraved, and more apocalyptic in its antics. A more strategically "effective evil" does not mean a greater one in absolute terms just a less extreme, more compromised, stealthier one. Both still fail but there is a difference.



* UPDATE  9/9/12*

Watch Glen Ford address the issue again with Paul Jay on The Real News.

funny me, funny you

And watch Glenn Greenwald take on Andrew Sullivan on this same exact issue.

what's up with Brand Obama?

Great discussion via Corey Robin on what’s really going on. Is Obama just a “bad negotiator”? Or something worse?

I post a few rounds….and provide my own takeaway at the end.

Corey Robin: What do you guys think of this Greenwald piece? I think it’s excellent, but I’m not convinced. Obama didn’t get the tax cuts he wanted. It’s not clear this will help him electorally (the state of the economy in the fall of 2012 will matter much more than his pose of bipartisanship now; there is zero evidence to suggest this deal will help the economy and lots of reasons to think it will hurt.) Though it’s true that Obama has wanted cuts to entitlement programs for some time, he doesn’t get them in the first phase of the deal, and in the second phase, assuming the trigger mechanism kicks in, Social Security remains off-limits.

What’s your sense of why Obama wants these cuts? We know why the GOP wants them. But what are the ideological underpinnings or economic/political interests of Obama’s position? Even within the framework of neoliberalism, I’m not sure I get the motivation. Have the financial markets really been pushing for these cuts? My anecdotal sense was that people like Summers — I know, now out of the administration, but I took him to be a fairly good representative of that sector — thought this wasn’t the way to go. My assumption is that the reason Obama has taken this route is that he thinks it’s a good way to position himself electorally, and that this is coming less from the money people than the politicos. But I am more than happy to be told otherwise.

So what do you guys think: Weak president? Moderate right president? Shrewd negotiator? What?

Doug Henwood: He’s going to position himself as the “reasonable” alternative to extremists, the man who can compromise where they can’t, etc. His partisan selling point will be his bipartisanship, unlike the other guys, who are just rigid ideologues. He’ll have to do this subtly, so he doesn’t sound too partisan.

Corey: Doug, so is your position that the motivation for this is electoral or do you also see pressure for this coming from the bond markets, the money men, etc?

Rick Perlstein‎: “The people hate partisan gridlock”; “I defeated partisan gridlock”; “The people will hail me as a hero, bearing me aloft on their shoulders.” The fellow’s not quite well.

Doug: He loves it that both “extremes” are complaining.  Wall Street wants budget balance with no tax increases on itself. That means cuts. Their major jones has been for “entitlement” reform, which means anything from a squeeze (CPI gimmickry, etc.) to outright privatization. The squeezers are more the WS establishment, like Goldman; the outright privatizers are the hedge fund guys, who tend to be more libertarian, often rabidly so. A lot of WS doesn’t follow details closely – they just *know* that gov spends too much and needs to be “reined in.” A lot of the time, their “facts” are wrong. But there’s no doubt they want spending cuts, big ones. And the only way to get that is SS & Medicare. BTW, Summers is now a good guy, as these things go.

Jay Driskell: To me, he reads like a classic late 19th century progressive – that there are smart people who know smart things and it is they who should sit down in a room and hammer out the details above the “partisan fray.” The problem, then as now, is that there is no way above that fray – especially when one or both parties are trying to game the non-partisan/bi-partisan negotiations for their own partisan advantage. However, I really do think that Obama really believes that he is making progress. Otherwise, his negotiating strategies make absolutely no sense. I’d like to think he’s in the thrall of capital, but more and more of me think that he is naive and clueless and out of his depth. That is, if he were in the thrall of capital, that would at least be comprehensible (and reprehensible) to me.

Katha Pollitt: IMO, he’s weak. He made a strategic error in letting the debt ceiling, which has a rigid deadline, be connected to deficit reduction, a longterm and complicated issue. this allowed the Republicans to hold the debt ceiling hostage to their ongoing attack on entitlements and discretionary spending on anything good. he also failed to hold the line on raising revenues through taxation. That kind of disappeared.

And so it goes. 

Now for the takeaway. Obama is personally not a fascist, perhaps not a “conservative,” likely not a “right wing Republican.” Actually, it makes little difference at this point what he is, where it is on the political spectrum he identifies, or what it is that he believes in his soul of souls. I know it may be difficult to accept but....“He” has become largely irrelevant. The more important issue is that the political system of the country has moved so far to the right over the decades, including the office of the Presidency, and that Obama, (as Adolph Reed says in the forum linked to above, and as Glenn Greenwald documents, also linked above,) has performed as President like another neo-liberal-opportunist-inside-man for today’s right-wing corporate plutocracy – or, what I would prefer to call, an inverted fascism. The dark truth: the political realm – from the government, the courts, the tax system, the laws, the military, the gamut of public bureaucracies at the federal, state, and local level, our everyday lives – has over the decades been increasingly saturated and taken over by “private” industries, as well as by various shadow institutions and bands of elites. The political culture itself has become one big neoliberal mind-fuck reduced to catering to the whims of spoiled rich kids and their daddies. And the country, only more reckless and belligerent, more destructive, more fearful, more xenophobic, and more heedless. Its tendency for self-destruction is evident; yet some elite few at the top continue to profit enormously from this dysfunction and collapse. It can only get worse. And so it goes.

Yet the office of the Presidency is still a powerful institution. And insofar the Presidency still matters, and I suspect it would still matter if we believe Presidential elections still matter, Obama's performance as President, as Greenwald shows, has been a failure. Instead of a promising leader of a progressive political movement Obama looks like a figure-head doing public relations for various elite powers who tug, push, extort, and coddle him in all sorts of ways. All the “negotiations” and “fights” he and his staff ostensibly enter into with the GOP, as well as with the tugging, pushing, extorting, and coddling elite class, (which he is part of anyway,) amounts to backroom deals and incremental number-crunching – not structural reform nor the Change We Can Believe In that the country needs and voted for.    

Obama does not have the powerful political personality to make the Presidency a “progressive” lever of power, much less take on the GOP and his detractors. But the continued focus of Him,and what He is really up to, reflects the inability or unwillingness  to see our systematic crisis accurately. And yet it is still in these respects that the real significance of “his” political performance, at least as an individual for objective assessment, will be difficult to ascertain in an epistemologically pure light. We’ll keep coming back to these kinds of questions: WTF Obama? Or less crudely, to what degree can it be said that “he,” or any other individual statesman of late modern post-industrial globalized nation-states, are indeed political actors capable of creating and taking responsibility for the policies enacted in their name? To what extent does Obama and his staff operate from a position of power? What kind of power does the President have? Or is it rather in terms of “weakness,” or some other characterization, we should be thinking? In what ways can it be said that these political actors, including the President, the Congress, and political parties, are autonomous agents – and not, say, merely a concentrated consortium of players very cognizant of their interests and of the discontented masses but which only play the Punch and Judy show for the cameras? Are the actors in the ring really battling it out? Or are they throwing phantom punches, taking dives? And does it even matter given the power structures in place which make their “battle” possible? When is a fight not a fight? A debate, not a debate? A negotiation, not a negotiation?  

By continuing to offer various rhetorical palliatives and rationalizations Obama and the Democrats create the illusion that the interests and welfare of Americans are truly "their" priority. These campaign strategies are advertisements and slogans, and they define the compromised style that political opposition within a rigged system takes. Although I certainly disagree with Mattt Taibbi’s statement that the White House is “the most awesome repository of political power on the planet,” he is definitely onto something when he says,

We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? Is it possible that by ‘surrendering’ at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?

One last thing. The system is not static. Things still happen. Shit happens. And Obama and the rest of them still have to sell and spin whatever comes down the pike, at least for the public relations “battle” between them – even shit they accept, like, and push for. And the tact for re-election will likely remain, as Glenn Greenwald writes, “as a compromise-brokering, trans-partisan deficit cutter willing to ‘take considerable heat from his own party.’” Thus, “the ‘reasonable’ alternative to extremists,” in Doug Henwood’s portrayal, “the man who can compromise where they can’t, etc. His partisan selling point will be his bipartisanship, unlike the other guys, who are just rigid ideologues. He’ll have to do this subtly, so he doesn’t sound too partisan.” It may be the case after all, as Adolph Reed says, that “Obama’s one trick was good for getting him elected to successively higher offices, but now he’s where the buck stops where that trick — the equivalent of a short con — doesn’t work so well. And he doesn’t have a long con to operate. So all he has is a knack for getting himself out of the room he’s in at the moment.”