La Politique Avec Peu Ryan

greed and the regulation of classes

2008-11-17T11:46:00.006-05:00

President Bush is suffering from a bit of a guilt trip. In almost every speech I've heard him give over the last two weeks, he's touted the importance of a free market. Irony aside, he is desperately making the claim that free markets still work and are at the center of democracy. And then in an appallingly simple dismissal of a trillion dollar bailout, he claims that excesses can be found anywhere, and should not discredit all of the benefits a free market has brought.

As much as I hate to say it, the President has a point, albeit an obvious one. Greed is inherent within a capitalist society. Greed, and our acceptance of and aversion to, helps to form all sorts of economic and socialist policies and has been involved at all levels of this financial crisis. Yet, the President only excuses a certain kind of greed. It was greed that permitted banks to make shoddy loans to homeowners with little regard of who can pay. And it was also greed that coaxed homeowners into buying houses that were far larger than necessary. One of these greeds is considered a byproduct of the system, and the other as a lack of individual responsibility. The greed on behalf of banks and Wall Street CEOs, according to popular culture politics, can be overlooked. It offers no negative commentary on the status of American society, and is thought of as regrettable but necessary. When it happens we can spend the week, or even the month, lamenting these awful people for their riches and their selfish decision making. When they are on television in front of Congress, our government threatens to sell their private jets and teach them a much deserved lesson. But back in private, nothing happens and we accept it as an inevitable function of freedom. In fact, it is often thought that CEOs deserve excessive wealth, and their reluctance to give it up is, while lamentable, also understandable. On some level corporate excess is interpreted as effectiveness. A corporation is supposed to be well run when the CEO can afford to have private jets and gold shower curtains, despite all other signs of success. That is, at least in part, what allows CEOs to live in expensive surroundings while cutting health care and pensions of their employees, slashing jobs, outsourcing labor and requesting bailouts.

On the other side of the spectrum, middle class greed is unacceptable because it is regarded as the quintessence of what is wrong with American society. A lack of individual responsibility helped bring down the entire financial system. In September when discourse about the bailout was in the public's attention, most people expressed anger at the individual homeowners and not CEOs or banks themselves. Many people were shocked and appalled at the notion of bailing out homeowners who entered into mortgages they knew they would not be able to pay back, but don't seem to be as concerned now that the money is going directly to shareholders and corporate executives.

Why is corporate greed symbolic of American capitalist success, when middle class greed represents a national problem? Taking it a step further, why is working class greed absolutely unacceptable? Cutbacks on social services are always done because of a supposed working class greed. Abuse of the system is always at the forefront of any discussion and Ronald Reagan's made up a stories about black welfare queens, despite defying every statistic available, resonated deeply with voters. Even the most basic and fundamental social services are seen as largely unnecessary, because they are thought to only encourage lazy people to be lazy. They remove the incentive from capitalism and provide supposedly undeserving people with tools that allow them to continue depending on the public.

It has been the Bush Mantra that regulations do not work. He repeats this phrase all the time, and I am inclined to agree that rules are not always the best and most effective way of solving a problem. However, the sitting President offers no alternative besides the Free Market, showing that he fails to understand what regulations are supposed to do. They are not supposed to interfere with the market's effectiveness, nor are they supposed to hinder executive's abilities to do their jobs well. Regulations are supposed to combat greed and interject a set of working class ethics into the system. In the same way, restrictions on social services are supposed to restrict greed and interject a set of working class ethics into the system (work for your services, don't just get them free...). If President Bush wishes to convince people that regulations do not work, he must provide an alternative for approaching the problem of greed. But even he fully admits that greed is at the core of what moves American capitalism.

His logic fails to make sense, but it does not need to do so in order to be effective. The goal is not to make a solid argument against or for greed, or even convince the American public that regulations are good. His rhetoric seeks to define a Marxist paradigm where the working class is controlled by a series of power apparatuses. Greed is unacceptable and symbolic of un-American values in the working and middle classes, but outside these walls is a virtue.

just say no to politics in sports

2008-11-10T20:33:00.003-05:00

Friday's Democracy Now podcast briefly discussed a football player who attempted to hold up a black and white glove after scoring a touchdown, as a way of displaying racial harmony. For reasons pertaining to football rules, his teammates persuaded him not to, and Democracy Now explored the one sided relationship between politics and professional sports. Their central analysis was that sport franchises often quell athletes' rights to freedom of speech, and gave some convincing examples.

However, I think there's a larger point about politics to be made. Sport teams are narrow in their ban on self expression. It's perfectly OK for an athlete to be a spokesperson for any number of products. One can make the claim that politics is more controversial, and therefore may anger fans and turn them off from watching games. However, many of the products these athletes endorse are controversial as well. (Granted no one talks about the obscene human rights violations committed by Nike, Coke, etc. ).

But I think this ban on politics is meant to be more symbolic than anything else. It symbolizes the compartmentalization of the political within private life. We live in a society that has a very limited view of what is political and what is not. Many, many people claim they 'don't follow' or 'aren't interested' in politics, which displays the assumption that our lives are not inherently political. The feeling is that one can ignore politics by simply looking the other way.

Allowing professional athletes to take political stances - especially during the sporting event - is confrontational because it forces the viewer to recognize political saturation. We are fine with media and advertisement saturation. We, as a society, don't mind being interrupted during our most personal activities by products, but take offense if the personal appears to be political. 'Don't discuss politics at the dinner table' sounds like a reasonable recommendation, but it would be absurd to suggest that someone should not wear a GAP sweater in this setting. Why does talking about politics (or religion) speak more about your personal beliefs than driving an SUV or buying products made in Chinese sweatshops? Doesn't a comment about shopping at Walmart speak more about someone than supporting President-elect Obama?

The illusion that politics and private life are separate is at the heart of American consumerism. It allows people to not think about human rights violations, global poverty, corporate greed, pollution or any of the other costs associated with compulsive consumption. Forcing recognition that football, baseball, golf, shopping malls, who wants to be a millionaire, etc. all have political meaning (or even all exist in a world that is political) has dangerous repercussions to the social order. This isn't about freedom of speech, this is about preservation of the American way, to feign innocence as a means of ignoring one's complacence and hypocrisy in a complex social order.

a conversation on race

2008-11-06T10:46:00.007-05:00

With the election finally over, there is a news void at precisely the time when news-media ratings are way up and the public's desire to consume information is high. These conditions are ripe to grow a national conversation. However, any conversation must capture and hold the population's short-term attention span before a new television series about people being unnecessarily and purposelessly rude steals the show. Thus, any national conversation created to fill this void must be high in drama and offer the illusion of controversy to remain significant. What I mean by the illusion of controversy is one that is not actually controversial, that won't actually offend anyone in the same way that rude behavior appears edgy but is so played out that it doesn't actually offer anything offensive.

The nation just elected its first non-white President, and as such the national conversation has quickly turned to race. Race offers plenty of drama - more than is required to keep people's attention focused on the news-media. But it also offers genuine controversy. Regardless of any election results, people are still offended by racial discussions. Thus, any national conversation on race absolutely must be tempered. And as such, news networks are quickly framing the discourse about race into a long-established structure of power, albeit in a unique way, making it difficult to recognize.

According to the news-media, in the wake of such election results, the nation is evaluating its relationship with race and asking many questions on its status. The question, quite obviously, is whether or not racism still matters and the media's answer to this question is significant. Dissecting it speaks more about the nation's identity than race relations per say.

Does racism still matter? The media (defined here by pundits, commentators and their interviewees; in short the entire discourse offered) can only answer yes, for a few reasons:
1) Answering no just sounds stupid. Black (and really all non-white) voters aren't going to believe it, and while it may feel good to many white voters, it isn't very logical. Race issues that garnered attention for the last two years cannot simply go away overnight.
2) It is a controversial answer to a delicate question. If CNN airs clips of pundits proclaiming the end of racism, it is likely to draw a lot of negative attention. When something racist happens, as it inevitably will, they will look like fools.
3) While it carries controversy, the answer does not carry enough drama to sustain ratings. If racism simply no longer exists in the United States, how long can they make this claim before people lose interest? There isn't much racial analysis left to be done if we live in a racial utopia.
4) Least importantly, it simply is not true.
Disclaimer: While it does have some bearing on the answer, the 'reality' of the situation is not the determining factor. A relationship between the supposed 'truth' and what's reported does exist, but it is not necessarily a causal one.

The answer has to be yes for all of the above-mentioned reasons. But in the wake of an emotional election, this is not a very popular answer. The potential for controversy still exists, as it is dangerous for any news-media organization to accuse a nation of being racist. In order to assuage this claim, the answer is tempered with a 'yes, but'. And it is this but that says a great deal about how this nation still sees itself: as white.

Coincidentally, I watched the movie Bobby last night. The character Edward Robinson, played by Laurence Fishburne, addresses the issue of race very succinctly when he states "White folks ain't trying to keep you down. White folks just don't like to be pushed into a corner. They'll come around. You just got to make it look like it was their idea, like they're the ones that thought of it. They need to feel like they're the great emancipators. Like it was theirs to give in the first place. Let'em have it. I mean, if that's all it takes, let them have it."

They need to feel like they're the great emancipators. This is precisely how the news-media has been covering the Presidential election results. Commentators consistently discuss the symbolic nature of electing a black President. It may not eliminate racism all together, but it does show how great America can be. CNN has been filled with non-stop clips of African American children from public, inner-city schools exclaiming that they can be president one day, as if to say 'look what white America has done!' Racism may still be a structural problem, but we are such a great [white] nation that we will look past race and elect one of them to be our President.

The national dialogue on race does not need to say anything about black America. I have not heard any conversations about racial problems like poverty, injustice and education because electing a black President does not necessarily have an impact on any of these issues.
Instead, the conversation about race has been about white America breaking down symbolic racial barriers. Many, many pundits have claimed that only in America could a black man be elected. The historical/global truth of this statement aside, it is a comment aimed at talking about race without actually talking about race. These are comments designed to keep people intrigued, following the news by talking about a dramatic subject while simultaneously abating the controversial aspects. The statement 'only in America' is a pristine example of the role racism still plays in America. The election of a black President is as much a victory for white America as for black America.

Lisa Simpson and Harrison Ford: Destroying American Democracy

2008-11-02T15:15:00.007-05:00

With three days until the presidential elections, it seems prudent focus my comments on (or at least about) this event. A commercial, posted on youtube here, rife with celebrities addresses the concept that every vote counts. In an attempt to be funny through masked intentional banality, the commercial sets out to convince the viewer that her vote matters by dismissing its importance. Actors are instructed to tell us that we should not bother voting, but struggle to do so convincingly. Try as they may, the natural significance of democracy overpowers each actor and they find themselves unable to continue. Instead, with an air of cogent truthfulness, we are reminded of that old conviction that defines our patriotism; participating in democracy is what makes us American, and therefore gives us our virtue.

We watch this clip, and its turn of events, with a certain wistful satisfaction - perhaps even a sense of relief. One is relieved to hear that the individual does matter and the meaningless implied by the director was really a ploy by those in charge. It takes Harrison Ford, a man who played the President we all wish we had, to expose this wicked (english wicked, not New England wicket) plot, call its bluff and reaffirm what the audience already knows.

Strange that we live in a world where the importance of democracy is taught not in schools or through journalism, but by actors through commercials. Democracy is a product that must be sold to the public and exported to other nations. Just as is the case with a vacuum cleaner, without commercials we forget its usefulness. Commercials are being employed to do what they do, to strike an emotional chord in the viewers and remind them of why they enjoy the product. What's being sold in this case is civic duty, patriotism and love for our working system.

But what is perhaps more interesting is the dynamic created between viewer and nation. I am reminded of Lauren Berlant's concept that utopias are often used to hide structural inequality, and a dichotomy is created between these two 'extremes'. In her chapter Theory on Infantile Citizenship, she explores the question: "Are naive infantile citizenship and paralyzed cynical apathy the only positions a normal or moral American can assume?" We see these two supposedly oppositional viewpoints laid out to view. At first the apathy of a nation that knows the individual does not matter in the least. Yet, when someone has the courage to stand up, we shift instantly to a naive conception of citizenship where the individual is the only thing that matters.

When Ford bravely states that "537 people decided the 2000 election", we are reminded (as was Lisa Simpson in Berlant's example) that the system works. All nuance is quickly brushed aside. We aren't told how the Supreme Court played a significant role in choosing George H. W. Bush, nor are we told about any of the other facets of our complex relationship with our own national identity. Berlant's lines about Lisa Simpson almost apply exactly:

And we realize, on thinking back to her speech, that at no point did Lisa know anything about America. She could be inspired by the National Symbolic and disillusioned by the corruptions of capital; she is moved aesthetically by nature's nation and repelled by the boorish appetites of both professional and ordinary men.

In the end, the commercial speaks volumes about how Americans relate to their nation. We are made cynical by empty symbols we all know are functional aspects of the American way of life: greed on Wall Street, rumors of forged election results, partisan politics, gas and oil prices, presidential rhetoric, international wars. We love our politicians to tell us how these symbols demotivate us. Then we're inspired by equally empty symbols: every vote counts!!

what do farmers markets, bourbon and wikipedia have in common?

2008-10-31T08:11:00.009-04:00

This week's post topic address an idea I've been casually thinking about for many years, but have yet to put into formal words: a movement away from a centralized (or recognizable) system of power.

There has been a trend, in recent years, towards the individual. We can see this in any number of incongruent fields. In food, the shift is away from mega-marts and towards CSAs, farmers markets, buying local and organic. Small batch bourbons and microbreweries are experiencing a sharp rise in popularity, while the appeal of their mass produced cousins are, at the very best, leveling off. In technology, it's possible to find an open-source version of many more computer programs today than 5 years ago, anywhere from virus scanners to photo editing programs. Most still don't use Linux, but people now recognize the name, and there seems to be a general consensus that open source means faster and more reliable software. Information has perhaps seen the most substantial shift from centralized to individual with Wikipedia, blogs and podcasts serving as a significant site of journalism. While I don't have any statistics to prove this significance, one needs only to read David Carr's piece, Mourning Old Media's Decline, in the Times from yesterday to see the effect. Carr comments on the Christian Science Monitor's announcement that it would move to an online-only publication, the LA Times' decision to cut its newsroom staff by 75 people, as well as a variety of other reductions in the printed news world.

You may remark that I am talking about entirely disparate fields that have little in common with each other. I may be. But in any event, it is hard to ignore what seems to be a similar trend in each; a movement in recognizing the importance of individualization. This does not mean that grocery stores, Microsoft or the Washington Post are going to go out of business within a matter of months, or even years. There is a recognizable need for these services, and each provide products that cannot be produced anywhere else. Your local farmer's market will never offer four varieties of pears in February, nor will the kind of journalism found on a political science student's blog consistently compete with a major newspaper.

However, if this trend implies anything about society, it is that people don't like the appearance of power. Once the symbol of power is noticed, it has to be fought. Luckily for power, it's efficacy shares an inverse relationship with the spotlight. In order for it to work, it must remain hidden. When society perceives an overt structure of power, it symbol is dismantled, but the structure remains intact.

Take feminism as an example. The first wave dealt with (white) women's suffrage. The symbol of patriarchy (war, greed, pollution, rampant capitalism), was represented by a men-only voting system. In order to keep it a patriarchal society, women had to be restricted from voting. This argument became too obvious, and the symbol of power was eventually dismantled. Women received the right to enter into the patriarchal sphere, but the structure remained intact. The patriarchy still exists, and women are now active participants.

A similar case can be made for racism. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were once the symbol of racism. Once dismantled, it is harder to make a case that racism still exists in society, even though a critical look at poverty, food distribution, consumption, AIDS, education, voting patterns, immigration, social services and even hurricane preparedness will easily prove otherwise. As the argument goes, racism no longer seriously exists because there is no obvious symbol of racism to confront. I have not done a race-focused critique on Presidential media coverage, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that news outlets are particularly sensitive about appearing racist in their coverage of Senator Obama. It is also not unthinkable to suggest that if he were trailing in the polls, a new symbol of racism would emerge in the way it did with Senator Clinton and sexism(ie particular kind of coverage, attitudes about the candidate in question, conservative fears).

Trying this back to localization, it appears that Americans are slightly more hesitant about corporations than in the past. With a massive increase in the line between rich and poor, with CEOs receiving multi-million dollar compensation packages and significant federal money, with more and more tainted products coming from China, with increased global interconnectedness and decreased global security, with an administration that has been blatant in its disregard for the individual in every conceivable manor, it is understandable that many people are reticent with putting their money or safety in the hands of corporations.

It's time to make a conclusion, even though I am not sure I have one. When I began, I had a preconceived argument in mind - that power shifts away from public attention, and the above-mentioned examples of individualization are proof that the power of information is shifting as well. But as I wrote, my perception of the situation changed. This reminds me of a professor I once had who insisted the correct way to write an essay was to write the opening and conclusion first, and then fill in from the middle. As if language stems from thought. I was always of the mindset that thought is created from language, and this, Dr. Whoeveryouare, is an example of why I never heeded your advice.

Anyway, I am avoiding the conclusion. Perhaps we are seeing a somewhat unconscious distrust in the symbol of this decade's oppressive power: the massive-conglomerate-corporation. This distrust is, at least in part, internalized as fear of blatant authority and a reliance on the individual to decide between right and wrong.

Think for a moment on how difficult it is to determine anything anymore. Questions that once seemed easy are now so grey, so mired in detail and rhetoric, that they aren't even worth asking. What food is bad for me? The answer to this question changes every day. Two weeks ago, everyone was in agreement that high fructose corn syrup was as bad as could be. Now we see commercials all the time about how it's really not that bad. How does the average person (who doesn't know what high fructose corn syrup is, let alone what food it is in, or what it does) decide? Information is so easily manipulated (or should I say created) that there is no longer a singular message. What is good today will be bad tomorrow, and vice versa. Joe the plumber will be saved by McCain. Joe isn't even a plumber! He'll be saved by Obama. Both candidates are liars and only care about getting themselves elected. Obama stands for hope. McCain stains for security. Which is better, hope or security? Watch 30 seconds of political news, and you get all of these contradictory messages about the same topic delivered simultaneously. In a world where there the number of messages dramatically exceeds the objects those messages are about, a central authority is no longer capable of providing a narrative other than confusion. So we're taking to the streets (or the pipes of the internet - had to get in a Ted Stevens reference, however parenthetical!) to do it ourselves.

One final point, I promise. At the end of his article, Carr expresses a fear about the internet becoming "a 'cesspool' of useless information". What he fails to realize is that society has been that way for decades already.

the pornography of politics

2008-09-22T21:41:00.003-04:00

A few years ago, former Prime Minister Sir John Major said of an increasingly politicized British political body, "[s]pin is the pornography of politics".

Pornography has a unique and almost ironic ability to entice us by saying absolutely nothing. It offers nothing new, nothing exciting or unknown. It represents the total and absolute eradication of seduction and therefore the subsequent destruction of desire. Yet congruently, pornography remains capable of producing the illusion of seduction, and thereby remaining one of the most profitable businesses in the United States.

Two commonly stated yet rarely thought out axioms: sex sells and sex is repressed. How else but through a simulation could these two ideas simultaneously exist? It would appear that sex is used to sell nearly every product (except those often directly sexual, as if doing so would be vulgar), yet continues to remain taboo. Of course, the ability of sex to sell is contingent upon its feeling as taboo. If we did not think it naughty, the images of nearly naked supermodels selling us clothing they aren't even wearing would no longer work. Yet what is the seductress here? Something within this image of sex lures us in, enthralls us enough to associate positive (in the capitalist sense) emotions with an arbitrary product. The seducer can no longer be that which remains physically hidden, as the picture reveals almost the entire woman's body. By an act of inversion, it appears that the affectivity of an image increases as more is shown. The revelation of a woman's body increases its seductability, implying that the allure has little to do with what is actually being shown.

Of course, there are parts of the image that will forever remain hidden, and one could possibly posit a theory that suggests the genitals are key. The looker, not quite a voyeur, remains enthralled because the quintessence of woman remains hidden in underwear. However I am not apt to believe that the entire crux of desire rests upon these areas. No, instead they remain the symbol of desire thereby distracting us from the vulgarity of obviousness; that taboo exists within the communication of sexuality itself, not within the image.

Of course, I borrow this idea from Foucault, who says that society, "speaks verbosely of its own silence, takes great pains to relate in detail the things it does not say, denounces the powers it exercises, and promises to liberate itself from the very laws that have made it function...What lead us to show, ostentatiously, that sex is something we hide, to say it is something we silence" (The History of Sexuality, 9)? In other words, Foucault is asking how, in a society surrounded by nonstop sex, we can claim it is repressed? Repression is communicated through the expression of sexuality. These expressions of sexuality are thought to be naughty and shocking - as contrary to the stuffy, Victorian-style decency that supposedly regulates our behavior. Pictures of naked women package this feeling of liberation and sell it to us through jeans, shorts, shoes, cars, beer, hamburgers, vacation packages or just about anything else one can imagine. Unfortunately for a consumerist culture, edginess is not something you can wear. Hegemony, however, is.

Which leads us to pornography. Porn is a pristine example of hegemony at work, as it packages and sells the feeling of excitement and liberation through reinforcing the existing power structure (power structure here being the sexual commodification of women's bodies in all its manifestations, from social to spiritual to economic). If pornography were actually taboo, it would show loving, caring relationships. It does not.

Pornography and politics are similar in the respect that both subjugate through a false hope of agency. Neither challenge mainstream structures of power, yet both remain marketable by selling the allure of doing just that. Spin is especially guilty of being vulgar, as it intentionally sells the image of salvation through enslavement. Work shall set you free. If politics were actually taboo (aka politicians who were real mavericks or agents of change), they would seek to destroy the power structure. If politicians actually believed in family values, mothers would collect a salary for staying at home. If they believed in alternative sources of energy, they would have to lead a fight not only against oil, but against masculine domination of nature.

Spin is the pornography of politics because it turns us on without offering us anything we don't already know. It is both masterful and pathetic all at once. Isn't that what we want, after all?

eroticized subjects of meaning

2008-09-18T09:08:00.010-04:00

Continuing with my obsession of Baudrillard, in Cool Memories he says, "Lacan is right: language does not convey meaning. It stands in place of meaning. But the result produced are not effects of structure, but seduction effects. Not a law which regulates the play of signifiers, but a rule which ordains the play of appearances..."

My interest is in the final line which appears to be a reinterpretation of Lacan's bar restricting signification. Lacan stages language as a signifier over a signified, the two forever resisted by a barrier. In my most loved of his works, "Agency of the letter in the unconscious, or reason since Freud", Lacan clarifies his work as not merely examining the "arbitrariness of the sign", but questioning the assumption that "the signifier answers to the function of representing the signified" (149, 150). His goal is not to suggest that the words used to describe reality are inherently meaningless, and that the sound 'dog' has nothing to do with the very ridiculously cute creature asleep on my left leg at the moment. Rather, Lacan is questioning the supposition that the sound dog even references this ridiculously cute being. We acts as though it does, and surely on some level communication is possible. But Lacan's focus is on the ways in which this very signifier (the noise dog referring to any one specific dog) never quite fully signifies anything completely.

In a particularly dense sentence, Lacan suggests that it is a metonymic structure that is the connection between signifier and signified which creates a lack in the object being referenced. Words are related to each other (I believe as individual chains in a linked fence was Derrida's metaphor), and defined by one another. Thus, in order to talk about a specific subject, many words can be needed. Without full and complete signification by any one word, we add more and more to the sentence, desperate to find a phrase, a paragraph, a sentence, a book that will achieve the goal. Each word and every substitution leaves lack, as each new word posits its lack into the object (the furry creature who still sleeps). It is this very substitution of words that drives our desire. We desire because we cannot signify (completely) and we perpetually lack because the ego is rooted in signification. The lack of a full and complete signification causes a fragmentation we constantly and unconsciously try to fulfill.

Baudrillard is perhaps suggesting that desire is more seductive. Each word's lack hides something from us in an almost sexual manner. The bar's prevention of signification tempts and allures us to explore the mysterious. We always explore the unknown in our quest to become the Knowers. What is it other than knowledge that separates god from man? We are driven to mystery, or perhaps Baudrillard would say that mystery tempts us as a seductress.

Theology aside, Baudrillard takes a Foucaultian stance in exploring the process of analyzing. Competition among multiple analyses, he says, "is quite secondary by comparison with their joint commitment to the operation of dissection and transparency. Whatever you analyse and however you do it, you are helping to give primacy to desert forms, indifferent forms" (10). In other words, truth is less concerned with which of the multiple analyses are 'correct' than with the process of figuring out. Or perhaps the only truth that exists is the process of uncovering, naming, classifying, categorizing and subsequently, destroying.

In any event and most optimistically, it is no longer feasible to determine the role truth plays in contemporary American political culture. However, the illusion of objectivity still tantalizes us, but in an environment of sound bytes and talking points, even the supposedly objective reality is merely a construction aimed at appearing to be real. As David Foster Wallace says, television no longer needs to point to reality. Instead it points only back to itself.

The veritable army of reporters that follow around political candidates no longer captures Senator Obama as an individual. They only broadcast his simulacrum, a very carefully constructed image intent, if not hell bent, on appearing real. Mr. Obama can advocate for an amorphous change without ever dismantling power by addressing himself as the 'change candidate'. The concept of change becomes good, and therefore the Senator himself becomes good, all the while the influences of power that shape society slink by unnoticed; a change candidate who's existence relies on his own failure to make change. McCain's 'Straight Talk Express' is little more than a market where the Senator sells icons to the American voting public. As symbols are apt to do, they push aside reality and 'straight talk' becomes what McCain says, rather than the reversal. The Senator will simultaneously eliminate greed on Wall Street through government regulation while eliminating greedy government regulation on Wall Street. What will remain when he is finished? The Bush Administration is able to dismiss nearly any claim by repeating its antithesis. Saying 'we do not torture' makes it so, despite people being tortured. The motivation for war changes almost nonstop - that is to say, the only motivation for war changes almost nonstop. The United States is fighting Iraq to prevent the very terrorist connections the fighting created. The prevention of Al Qaeda in Iraq is the only motivation for the war, despite it being a byproduct of the war.

We are seduced by our own confusion over politics, drawn inexplicably towards the place where two or more oppositional statements merge. We attempt to make sense of the world under a paradigm of truth that never existed, one we believe is connected to the physical world. Thus, we remain eroticized subjects of our own attempt to discern meaning.

Now, how to turn the above into a paper for my folklore class.

2008-09-17T10:33:00.005-04:00

Again, I have taken a substantial break but am back to wax philosophic about meaning and significance in contemporary American culture, specifically around Presidential politics. Two things have been on my mind lately, and I've been trying to weave them into my coursework so I can explore them in a broader context.

The first is an article posted in the Times on Monday about candidates trying to "break through the media fog". The article explores the candidates frustrations at trying to control the media message. "It has reached a point where senior campaign aides say they are no longer sure what works, as they stumble through what has become a daily campaign fog, struggling to figure out what voters are paying attention to and, not incidentally, what they are even believing", says the Times. In addition, NPR's Fresh Air segment on 9-16 explored various interpretations of Obama's recent comment about "lipstick on a pig". In it, former Governor of Massachusetts, Jane Swift, claims "[y]ou're responsible for words even if they're misconstrued", and that Obama's main fault was in simply using words that could be considered offensive. As accurately described by Geoff Nunberg, it often "doesn't matter if an interpretation makes logical sense" to be believed.

Both of these news pieces point to an increasing complexity in cultural meaning. Candidates' words often get interpreted and reinterpreted multiple times, dizzily swirling around on major media outlets, then onto on podcasts and blogs and then often times back into the major outlets. A cursory examination would suggest that, in a world where 24 hour news and increased, multifarious access to the internet is the standard, there is far more time and space for interpretation. However, I think this phenomenon, if it can even be described as such, signifies a revelation in the way meaning is fluid. It is not an increase in news time and space that has created the situation, but it is this time and space which reveals a rift between words and reality.

Words, if spoken truthfully, were once thought to represent reality. With the exception of the occasional schizophrenic, lying would be a conscious choice. One could decide to tell the truth, and thus use words to accurately describe Reality. Of course, postmodernism refuted that claim, insisting multiple interpretations of reality exist, but this did not linger in the minds' of many people as they participated in democracy or read the newspaper. Now it is difficult not to find an individual who fails to recognize the ambiguity of truth and lying around this political campaign. It is no longer a question of whether or not Senator Obama meant Governor Palin is a pig with lipstick, or whether he meant that she was the lipstick on a piggish campaign. So concerning oneself with meaning of the words he used entirely misses the point - truth is (aka appears to be) no longer linear. Instead, it grows organically, out of the communication itself.

Reality seems to be infested with truths, contained within and simultaneously produced by individual narratives. It is not simply that there are multiple layers of truth being broadcast, which seem to coincide and contradict each other. If such were the case, these truths would exist within a hierarchy and battle for superiority. Truths produced by the Swift Boats Veterans for Truth would lose status as they lost credibility. Eventually, they would cease to be truths at all, and exist only as myths, speculations or blatant lies. However, so long as these truths exist in the media, they do not seem to lose credibility; in fact, they gain strength even through their repudiation.

structure(s) of power and change

2008-03-23T08:35:00.003-04:00

In doing a morning wade through the bloggy marshlands in search of opinions that offer insight and analysis, I came across one that touches on a few points I have been considering for some time, but had not yet put into words. In the post The Postmodern Politics of the Clintons, the author refers to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Jean Baudrillard where a few ideas struck me as relevant.

The first, "If modern societies, for classical social theory, were characterized by differentiation, for Baudrillard, postmodern societies are characterized by dedifferentiation, the "collapse" of (the power of) distinctions, or implosion. In Baudrillard's society of simulation, the realms of economics, politics, culture, sexuality, and the social all implode into each other." Structures of power still remain and shape pliable bodies, but have become so complex that it is no longer possible to distinguish between them. In fact, perhaps one could argue that there are no more structures of power, but instead a power apparatus whose shape is always shifting.

The complicated and interconnected fashion of modern-day society makes it incredibly difficult for a candidate of change to have any specific appeal without appearing to be anti-mainstream and therefore absurd (Nader, for example). It is not possible to 'change' the war in Iraq without changing other complicated political systems such as economics, foreign policy, class divides, etc.

These issues are addressed as individual and separate structures, albeit with some overlap. However, one cannot change a singular aspect of a complex power apparatus without effecting the entire structure. The war in Iraq is not just connected to American foreign policy, but is connected to the 'reality' in which Americans live. Our foreign policy is structured on aggressive, masculine values that privilege American interests over all else, and are designed to promote an aura of protection around the simulation in which we live. If we accept that "realm of the hyperreal (e.g., media simulations of reality, Disneyland and amusement parks, malls and consumer fantasylands, TV sports, and other excursions into ideal worlds) is more real than real", we acknowledge that in order to have any substantial political change, our current vision of reality will be destroyed. After all, the war in Iraq is about amusements parks and consumer fantasylands, isn't it? Is it not about the preservation of American interests both physically and symbolically? Certainly, oil is at the center of any American interest - the prototypical American trip to Disneyland or weeknight excursion to the mall is not possible without oil. But more so than that, Iraq is about America's right to exist in a consumer fantasyland, is it not? We fight terrorists abroad so we do not have to fight them at home and disrupt the American way of life. We are compelled to continue business as usual, or the terrorists win. Existing within this simulation is what makes us feel safe, and thus is worth the cost of people's lives.

However, the Presidential candidate whose mantra is change must break down this amorphous structure of power and address it as many separate issues. Perhaps she defaults to the past, to a time where these powers could be addressed individually, or perhaps their individuality has has always been a part of the simulation. Either way, he must be cautious about how these issues are addressed, taking care not to discuss specifics, as no details can exist that do not result in a systematic collapse of the fantasy of American life. Instead, the popular candidate is one who can remain ambitious but simultaneously inspirational - in other words, one who can be a part of the simulation and offer the feeling of change without disrupting anything. After all, isn't it typically American to attempt changing only the 'bad' but leaving the rest of the system as it was? Think of all the medications we have that are designed to identify our one 'problem', solve it and leave the rest intact.

Unfortunately, I must cut this post short but will continue on to the second point, about randomness and gambling, soon...

David Foster Wallace and Hillary Clinton

2008-03-17T20:56:00.005-04:00

Steven Colbert brought up an excellent point about cultural representations of meaning on his show last night. He asked if the media switched its focus from Hillary Clinton to Barak Obama because they had grown tired of the female senator, and were presented with the opportunity to participate in their favorite activity, to talk about themselves and how they had given him a free pass. I was quickly reminded of David Foster Wallace's comment that "[t]elevision used to point beyond itself", at real life; but no longer is reality necessary to sustain television's popularity. Now it can point only at itself.

In this case, television needs not the reality of the democratic campaign, as it can create its own. Clinton offers examples of 'fake' television debates in a 'real' television debate, which provides television an opportunity to focus back on itself. No longer is the coverage tied to the physicality of a candidate. The story is not Clinton or her actions, but the media's portrayal of her. Popular commentators comment on their ability to offer commentary, and populate the Sunday morning news with favorites such as 'media frenzy' or 'liberal bias'. The news no longer needs to come from reality, instead news is generated from the way it is reported.

Television is already saturated with impersonations of candidates - the re-creation of so called reality in such a way that it mimics the real rather than commenting on it. But eventually people grow bored of these impersonations, so another layer of reproduction is added where candidates actually appear in the mimicry. Yet, it does not default back to reality. Instead it offers a confusing, exciting new layer where people can act as voyeurs and watch as their real live politicians mock those who mock the caricature of themselves on which they spend so much effort.

I think Colbert hit the nail right on the head - when the same old story of Clinton's imminent demise is no longer shocking, coverage desperately searches the landscape for new material, taking any chance it could get to draw attention to itself.

In the words of Baudrillard, "[i]t is not illusion which conceals reality. It is reality which conceals the fact that there is none."

Ferraro's comments

2008-03-16T09:14:00.003-04:00

I feel a sense of obligation to comment on the Geraldine Ferraro remarks of last week, as it pertains to all things race and gender.

However, I am not sure what to say. On one hand, I think the comments she made are very worthy of an examination and have been too easily dismissed as racist or patently absurd by people who are already hyper-sensitive about the Clinton campaign's handling of race.

On the other hand, the Clinton campaign has consistently botched any attempt at commenting on race, and Ferraro's response to criticism about her claims as a form of reverse discrimination are patently absurd.

I get what the campaign was doing - as an intelligent blogger points out, the comments she made were aimed at getting a few people to think about Obama's race and shift their votes to her. In typical Clinton fashion, they were blunt enough to get a lot of people angered, but most likely only African Americans and upper-middle-class pseudo-liberal whites. But strategy aside, was it an ethical comment?

Is it appropriate to remind white-skinned blue-collared Obama supporters that they should fear Obama's race? No, it is not. Invoking reverse discrimination in hopes that the blue collar workers in question are reminded about all the times they feel a black person has been given more favorable treatment than them is absolutely absurd, and is really deplorable behavior.

Her original comment, that Obama would not be where he is today if he were not black, is what was seen as offensive. Many can interpret this remark, along with her reference to his luck, as a suggestion that he benefited from his blackness in a way that a white man could not. It is entirely understandable why people would be reticent to agree, as it suggests reverse discrimination. However, you can also interpret her comment as an analysis on modern day culture. Part of Obama's appeal is because he is black and therefore different. His inspiration is surely connected to his race. He reminds people of Martin Luther King (people conflate MLK into feelings of innocence and inspiration, and do so with Obama as well). To many, he is not a person, he is a phenomenon unlike the Democratic party has seen in a while. As I have said before, he benefits greatly from the circular logic of modern culture. People love him because everyone loves him; he is inspirational because everyone talks about how inspirational he is.

For whites, Barak Obama is a guilt free alternative to mainstream American politics. Pseudo-liberal whites can support him without having to worry about his baggage. He doesn't put anyone off and he won't pit black against white, which is the age-old pseudo-liberal dilemma - how to call yourself a liberal without feeling guilty because you don't support someone who actually gives a damn about race relations (ie Kerry over Dean, Gore over Bradley, anyone over Nader). Thus, making a comment that suggests his popularity can be attributed to his race is not over the top, and is not necessarily racist. I also think that a small portion of his success among whites is because it is harder to dislike him without being seen as racist. Say what you will about the structures of power, for a white man, it is easier to be openly sexist than to be openly racist. The abated argument is, if a white man is racist it could potentially pose a physical threat to his safety, but if a white man is sexist, who is going to beat him up? I do not think many white men are put into a position where they support Obama because they are afraid of being racist (most of these men belong to the Republican party, I'd imagine), but it is still worth a mention.

The accuracy of Ferraro's next line is more clear. She states that if Obama were a woman of any color, he would not be as successful - aka his success is in part due to his gender. This critique on the structural sexism within society needs no elaboration. A male candidate can get away with a lot more than a female candidate, and most of the hatred that surrounds Clinton can be attributed, at least in part, to her gender. People feel that she should not have stuck by her husband in the Lewinsky scandal - if the situation were reversed, and he stuck by her, he would have been revered for his sincerity and lovingness. People questioned her motives when running for Senate - when was the last time you heard about a male candidate who's motives were questioned? All politician's motives should be questioned, so why was her Senatorial candidacy so much more controversial (to non the New Yorkers who are always on about it) than
any other Senatorial race. Surely she isn't the first Senator in modern times who moved to an area and ran for office, and even if she is, so what? She campaigned and won. People claim is is manipulative with a contempt that is rarely applied to a male candidate (women aren't supposed to be political, they are supposed to be nurturing and caring). When she is masculine, we hear endlessly about her pantsuits. No one comments on McCain's masculine behavior. When she is feminine, we hear that she is faking it for politics. No one comments on Laura Bush's contrived role as a the perfect wife. She's thought of as weak because she is feminine, and too masculine because she is strong (talk about strange, circular logic)! We abhor her laugh. We detest her lack of emotion in her speeches. This list could continue on forever.

All that to say, the points Ferraro made are worth some examination. What she said is true, but the reasons she said it are, at the very least, questionable.

the face of the other

2008-03-09T15:21:00.005-04:00

I borrowed the name of this piece from Levinas, even thought I can't profess to know much about the article whence it came. Regardless, I use it without shame.

Kristof's piece in the Times today referenced a gallop poll that claims "94 percent of Americans said they would vote for a black candidate for president and 88 percent for a woman", whereas a previous poll from a prior period professes that only 34 percent of people would vote for a Muslim. First off, I do not believe any statistical analysis that makes claims about the status of race or gender. But more importantly, I am interested in the relationship between the 88% of Americans who claim they would vote for a female president and the 66% of Americans who claim they would never vote for a Muslim president. These statistics are a sign of how ingrained structural sexism is within our society, as many people genuinely believe they would support a female candidate, while fearing the election of a Muslim candidate for the very same reasons.

I believe there are some major similarities in the reasons people would not vote for a Muslim candidate and the reasons people would actually not vote for a woman candidate, despite what claims have been made. The first question that begs to be asked is 'why would you not vote for a Muslim?' Surely, the simply answer is September 11th. The President has been quite successful reminding the American public that another act of terrorism is eminent and we should live in a constant state of suspicion. Recall that by the 5th anniversary of September 11th, the President was still referring to our 'enemy' as having 'a perverted view of Islam', as 'evil and [who] kill without mercy'.

This fear of an enemy does not go without affect. Even if most Americans attempted to make a distinction between those with a 'perverted view of Islam' and those with a peaceful view of Islam, it would be nearly impossible under a paradigm of such fear. Fear of an enemy must be rampant in our society. If it wasn't, why was national security the most important issue in the 2004 presidential elections? Why wouldn't the constant actions of the Bush Administration to increase the powers of the CIA (such as yesterday's veto of a bill that would have prohibited waterboarding) receive more attention? Why are we still in Iraq (or why did we go in the first place)? Needless to say, fear of an enemy is at the center of president-day American politics.

I intentionally use the phrase 'fear of an enemy' rather than 'fear of the enemy' because the enemy does not have a specific identity. What we know about our other is vague. He (we know it is a he, although more on this in a minute) is evil, he has a perverted view of Islam, he kills without mercy. He resides in the Middle East, his system of values are murky at best, but more likely just plain wrong. More generally, but more accurately, we know the enemy is completely different than us. His value system is the antithesis of our western, civilized way of life. Thus, it makes sense that, in a society where Muslims are seen as the antithesis of the American way of life, a vast majority of Americans would not even consider one as a political candidate, as it would compromise our system of values.

Similarly, many feel that electing a female president would also compromise our system of values. The values of consumerism and consumption are rooted in masculinity, and our public sphere (politics, culture, business) is given far more value than our private sphere (family, children, health). A perfect example is that men's work is higher paying than women's work. Citizens are controlled and forced into obeying laws through physical power, and our understanding of security is through restraint. High schools and colleges respond to a string of shootings with increased police, by installing security cameras and locking doors. Our federal government responds to terrorism with war and increased power to interrogate. We, as a society, respond to violence with more violence. We attempt to achieve peace by enforcing submission to the rules and ignoring the reasons why people want to lash out.

All that to say, our society is structured on masculine values. Voting for a woman candidate could (at least in the minds of many people) compromise these values in the same way as voting for a Muslim. Both are easily conflated as being anti-American. While it may not be stated quite so bluntly in the case of women, this is why so many people are so staunchly opposed to the Clinton campaign, or at the very least, far more sensitive to the things she says and does.

Our identities are structured not only off of this association with masculine values, but also in relation to our mythical other. If the other, our enemy, is staunchly different than us, and we are masculine, by default they must be feminine. Look at the way we emasculate the other in war with conversations about turning the Middle East into a parking lot, dominating it with 'Shock and Awe' tactics, freeing their women from the burka (because their men aren't good enough protectors to ensure the freedom of their own women). The gender of this mythical other is vague and shifting, as is their sexuality.

Thus when Americans claim that their system of values will be eroded by voting for a Muslim, they are really stating that the system of values will be eroded by moving away from a masculine public sphere. But many do not make this immediate association. Instead, they wholeheartedly believe that they would vote for a woman, just so long as she can uphold a masculine sphere without compromising her femininity. Unfortunately, structural sexism is difficult to uncover through statistics.

meaning, values and clinton. oh my!

2008-03-08T08:59:00.007-05:00

I am consistently infatuated by the way meaning is shaped in popular culture - more specifically, meaning within this democratic presidential primary campaign. The complicated race/gender dynamic between two candidates equally qualified, equally loved and equally disliked in their own ways is reduced to talking points. This point, in and of itself is nothing new, nor anything specific to this particular primary. All modern elections, campaigns and presidencies are run this way, but what I find to be particularly interesting is to which talking points these two complicated campaigns have been reduced.

Both exist under the umbrella of change, as the entire democratic party is in agreement that change is 'good'. (The republican party early on had been fixated on change, but now that a nominee has been selected, this verb no longer has a place on banners or podiums). Their relationship, portrayed as oppositional, is defined by a set of dualities, including 'a new kind of politics' and 'politics as usual', 'empty rhetoric' and 'experience (to advocate change)', 'sincere' and 'disingenuous, aka a monster who will stop at nothing', 'inspirational' and 'practical', and probably a dozen more escaping me at the moment.

Read any news article, and actions or words of either candidate are fit into the aforementioned shells. I am reminded of a line from Baudirillard's 'Passwords', where he claims "...because the sign always effaces the thing. So the object designated the real world, but also its absence - and, in particular, the absence of the subject". Baudrillard is, of course, talking about language and meaning. He states that the symbol, in this case a category such as a monster who will stop at nothing, effaces or hides the reality. Clinton criticizes Obama on his foreign policy experience and the dynamic is abated to 'a new kind of politics' versus 'politics as usual'.

What does a new kind of politics mean? What does a new kind of politics look like? What are the benefits of a new kind of politics? The actual meaning, the reality, is never discussed. The Obama campaign says it is sticking to the issues - but fails to actually mention any substantial policy initiatives. Instead, it continues to communicate by advocating these categories of difference (I won't get into how advocating categories of difference is the exact same thing the Clinton campaign is doing, the McCain campaign will do, and is the quintessence of what is wrong with American politics). Instead, Obama chalks up Clinton's win in Texas and Ohio to her going negative. He fits their relationship back into a category of new versus old, but still does not elaborate on the specifics, of sincerity versus disingenuousness. (Clinton claiming she has more foreign policy experience and therefore will be able to handle international crises is not really negative in any sense, but perhaps on the coattails of unnecessary comments about Obama's race in January, is seen as more aggressive).

Aggressive or not, Clinton is elaborating on the image being portrayed. Successfulness aside, she is attempting to make Obama appear as an empty shell in relation to her practical experience. She is using the sign to her advantage through elaborating on it and making it appear as connected to reality Or, as Baudrillard might say, turning it into a true simulation. Obama, on the other hand, is only reiterating the image. He criticizes her for going negative, he criticizes her for politics as usual, he says he is inspirational and he claims he will stick to the issues. But what this all boils down to is that that she voted for the war and he claims he would not have.

Baudrillard asks, "The fact remains that the study of value is complex: whereas commodity value can be apprehended, a sign value is feeling and fluid - at a particular point it gives out and is frittered into 'show'. When everything eventually gives way to artifice, are we still in a world of value, or in its simulation?" The value or significance of either campaign's symbolism is inherently meaningless. Obama is only inspirational insofar as he can inspire people. And for some time now, people have become inspired because he is considered to be inspirational. At a particular point, the reality of the situation gives way and we exist only in a simulation, a simulation of a new kind of politics where people's political inspiration is expressed by talking about their inspiration.

iraq and identity continued

2008-03-03T17:12:00.000-05:00

In memory of William F. Buckley, I am blogging whilst enjoying a mid-afternoon cocktail and cigar on this unusually warm day.

Today, an elaboration on my thoughts from yesterday. A) Clinton's gender succeeding where Obama's race fails.

Both Clinton and Obama are trying to embody two possibility oppositional values, change and experience. They want to come across as refreshing, hep with youth and representative of a new direction in American politics. They want also to remain politically experienced in the minds of voters, enough so to run a pretty large country. Race and gender are particularly touchy subjects with either campaign, and are often placed on the metaphoric back burner more often than one would expect from the first serious black and first serious woman candidate. This is partially because neither knows how to address the issues properly - race and gender are seen as agents of change, but at the same time, also highlight a lack of experience. If talked about too much, they narrow the candidate's accessibility. Obama could run the risk of being seen as the 'black' candidate and Clinton as the 'woman' candidate, rather than, say, John Edwards who would clearly have remained accessible to everyone.

Where Clinton's gender can provide a significant opportunity for change, Obama's race may not. This election, much like the last, will not be decided on domestic issues. In a general election, both opponents will argue that more needs to be done for health care, trade, jobs, education and taxes, but advocate different means. The American public will listen contently and either default into political assumptions (socialism versus greed), or fail to understand all together. The war in Iraq will serve as possibly the most significant issue for those who don't already know for whom they will vote.

The more favorably the war in Iraq, the more McCain will talk about national security, and a conversation about national security is really a conversation about American identity. In this masculine, militarized society, no male can argue for a feminine (domestic) approach to security without looking weak. Obama cannot come out against the war without simultaneously coming out against American security. He can argue that Iraq has made us less secure and we all knew they possessed no WMDs, but he is simply not going to be able to paint McCain as a right-winged, war-monger.

Any argument where McCain can articulate the need for war without looking insane is going to make Obama look at best naive and at worse anti-American. McCain can easily say that Obama's absolute refusal to support the war is either because he does not get importance of national security, or simply is not concerned. The McCain campaign will make a simple statement like 'National security is not something we take chances on. You want a commander in chief who will make the tough decisions and not put the nation at risk out of ideological objections. We are talking about the lives of Americans...September 11th... evil... unpredictable... need to be proactive... disagreed with how Bush implemented the war...would have went better my way...etc'. And how can Obama react without losing support amongst those who are already confused about whom to support?

Obama's race will do little to help him in this situation. Clinton's gender, however, will make all the difference. She is a pro at walking the fine line between feminine and masculine, aggressive but caring, progressive but realistic. She's a masculine democratic woman politician - how on earth can she not be skilled at passing for either side?

In the primaries, Obama's cautious approach to change and experience is working well. If we leave her gender out of the picture (as her campaign has mistakenly done) he is far more symbolic of change without it detracting from experience. However, this will not pass in the general election. His race will do little to propel him as an agent of change in the context of national security, and his lack of experience will be clearly visible next to the 71 pushing 72 year old white male. Clinton's gender, underutilized in the primaries, will be the best tool for arguing change without compromising experience in the general election.

I am not the only one who thinks so. Stanley Fish, a man whom I must confess to know nothing about, has made a very similar argument in a Times editorial this morning. Among other things, Fish argues that McCain can use Obama's war vote against him.

Iraq will make all the difference

2008-03-02T22:09:00.003-05:00

I know it has been a while. I know I only blog when I have something negative to say about how I perceive the Clinton campaign to be faltering. I know you eagerly await my musings and often grow impatient in the silence. But that's how it has to be.

A few things. One is that I still cannot stand Maureen Dowd's smugness. Two is that people like Obama for only a few reasons (on which I will elaborate shortly), and Clinton should have used this to her advantage months ago. Three is that a Baudrillardian analysis of the media can provide a refreshing take on the state of political affairs.

Allow me to elaborate on point two...Obama has a few main claims to fame, some more sensible than others. People like him because he is a black politician who has achieved a celebrity-like status. I, too, like him because of that. He is inspirational (aka he can deliver an articulate speech that feeds off of the energy of a crowd). If this inspiration of which people speak increases American interest in politics and the status of the world around them (unlikely), it is very significant. If it allows people to rally around a particular candidate as though he were a mythical JFK, a mere symbol of inspiration and youth whose basis is rooted in his status as a celebrity, and whose status as a celebrity is rooted in his symbolic inspiration and youth (more likely), it is thoroughly meaningles. (If I were selecting my candidate based on this supposed inspiration, I'd rather vote for Steven Colbert; at least he is funny.) Obama did not support the invasion of Iraq. A point that he has been mentioning every time Clinton opens her mouth. So far, their disagreement on the issue (even though contrived, still less so than their differences on anything else) has been a great success for Obama. Democrats are less supportive of the war, he is able to liken her to President Bush and identify himself as a more liberal (aka young, inspirational, Kennedian) candidate. He has done a fantastic job painting this picture, and she has done an awful job defending herself. Now that the war is suddenly popular again (mainly because the media has turned its attention elsewhere and are no longer reporting the casualties), Obama's popularity in the national polls vis-a-vis McCain is falling.

I never expected the public's opinion on a significant issue to change so quickly. (How did my sarcasm come across?)

Right on cue, I prove myself correct. In an Obama versus McCain general election, Obama does not stand a chance if people are in a pro-national security mood. Remember *shudder* John Kerry? Remember how he could orate convincingly for hours about why he was the better candidate and Bush could respond by saying 'internets' and emerge a victor? That, my fellow Americans, is because of masculinity. As I have been saying for years, literally for years - check my blog history, when the national image is on the line, people vote for the more masculine candidate. We perceive the President as a national father and will vote for someone who looks the part; a tough but supposedly sensible protector of the nation.

If the war in Iraq is seen favorably, more independents will be drawn to McCain. McCain will use the war as a major vantage point and Obama will be unable to opt out of this timeless debate. He can talk about health care, NAFTA, gun control, abortion, drug laws, fiscal responsibility, energy conservation, immigration, trout fishing and apricot souffles all he wants, and all McCain will have to say is 'national security'. Obama's only experience with national security is when he disagreed with the war in Iraq, and in relation, will look weak, naive and most importantly..wait for it...foreign. Mark my words, the McCain campaign (or a proxy) will easily make a connection between Obama's opposition to Iraq and possible tie to terrorism. And if you believe it is too far fetched, too improbable, offensive or absurd to happen, I have only 4 words. Swift boat veterans for truth. Ok, 5 words.

The only one (I am getting so sick of typing this sentence) who can opt out of this never-ending cycle of tougher-than-thou is Hillary Clinton, because she is not a man. Where Obama's race will fail, Clinton's gender would succeed.

That is all for now. Later I will elaborate more on a) why gender is more significant within this context than race b) a Baudrillardian analysis of culture, in particular how Hillary Clinton appeared on SNL to mock herself mocking herself, but also how people's perception of the war in Iraq can change simply because it is no longer being discussed c) Obama's role as inspirational, and its limitations (to white voters).

This is national news??

2008-01-31T07:42:00.000-05:00

Thus far, voter turnout has been exceptional. This has been anything but an ordinary primary race, with now two interesting and equally popular democratic candidates and at least one (not counting Ron Paul - sorry Mr. Paul) fairly mainstream, sensible and electable republican. If the mainstream American public will regain its interest in politics any time soon, it will be this year.

However, as a society, we are doomed (doomed, I say!) to lapse back into a quagmire of despair, where the voting public fails to even acknowledge a Presidential election, let alone take an active role in democracy if we are not careful. In reading Maureen Dowd's Op Ed piece in the Times this morning, I can't help but think, 'This is national news?'. Barak Obama snubbed Hillary Clinton by not shaking her hand at the State of the Union Address? It's retaliation for Hillary Clinton snubbing him when he decided to run for President.

Seriously, if the discourse around national politics in this country is so petty, so insignificant and so god-awful boring, I cannot blame the American public for their lack of interest. It's a shame that something as personal and significant as American politics is so quickly reduced to nothing.

Ms. Clinton taking my advice, but again, too late.

2008-01-30T08:36:00.001-05:00

I think Mrs. Clinton needs some advisers who better understand the role of gender in American culture. According to a Times article on Tuesday, the campaign is seeking a calmer, gentler role for Mr. Clinton. It seems as though his perceived aggressiveness has turned some people off to her campaign, for a variety of reasons.
1) Mr. Clinton was clearly trying to chalk up Mr. Obama's support to the black vote. It's disheartening to see a supposed liberal-icon participating in divisive politics among one of the most consistent and underrepresented groups in his party. It's also foolish on the campaigns fault, as the media would have done it (and was doing it) without him. Instead, now it seems forced, created, and Clinton's fault instead of a societal problem. He should have played it the other way around, 'exposing' the 'phenomenon'. It would have made the Clinton's seem much more nurturing, something that would have helped Mrs. Clinton indefinitely. It would not have persuaded any more white voters to vote for Mr. Obama, but instead his actions did.
2) She is not a male candidate, and cannot get away with acting like one. People are very sensitive to her behaviors and actions. She acts too tough, her womanhood is questioned; she acts too soft, her political viability is questioned. Having Mr. Clinton make these attacks while she played the good cop role made her seem masculine yet weak. His actions and words are instantly attributed to her, so when he was aggressive, she was seen as being aggressive. Yet, she was not the one making the statements, so people questioned her ability to do so. There were hundreds of metaphors used over the last week about Mr. Clinton being the 'big dog' and Ms. Clinton's inability to restrain him.
3) It's just wrong. If Mr. Obama had started attacking Mrs. Clinton on her gender, attempting to portray her as the 'women's candidate', the Clinton campaign would have been up in arms. It also would have benefited her campaign, allowing her to bring up gender without ever bringing up gender. They should have been able to anticipate that the reverse is also true.

These don't seem like terribly difficult things to figure out. I often wonder if the Clinton's think that gender is playing a role in this campaign, and if they bother to have any people who understand the subject matter as advisers. If they don't, they really do not stand a chance.

structural racisim

2008-01-22T07:55:00.000-05:00

I have not posted in a few days, as the fierce rhetoric over gender has mainly subsided, but in reading a blog this morning predicting South Carolina’s actions on Saturday, I was reminded of how we should be mindful of structural racism and its many manifestations throughout culture.

The blog predicted, I think very accurately, that a South Carolina win for Mr. Obama will not translate to any significant momentum on super Tuesday, as the mainstream (ie white) voters will not be phased that he was able to carry the black vote. If Mr. Obama wins South Carolina, every major story is going to immediately chalk it up to his popularity among African Americans, as was the case in Nevada. Whereas a Clinton win in South Carolina would be a surprise and help prove her electability, an Obama win will be largely dismissed by white states.

Why? Why does Clinton winning the female vote read as more significant than Obama winning the black vote?

The short answer to this question is structural racism. Race will affect Obama's campaign in the same way that race affects the criminal justice system. No one specific person within the system considers himself to be racist, yet on an aggregate level race is clearly an issue. That piece is relatively obtuse (unless, of course, someone feels threatened, in which case he can deny vehemently that race has ever played a role...), but what I find more interesting is why this is not the situation is different with women.

Granted, there are some major differences that make a casual comparison difficult; I suppose the most significant of which is that women simply do not vote as a group. Overall, women vote for democratic candidates more than men, but I think in most cases, women's votes mirror those of their husbands. The role of a woman in society is in staunch opposition to the role of a man. Women are assumed not to be political (unless their children are in danger), and therefore the 'woman' vote is largely discredited.

Yet, when Hillary Clinton carries a large percentage of the 'woman' vote, it may get talked about as often as Barack Obama carrying a large percentage of the 'black' vote, but is somehow more valid in the minds of mainstream America.

I will have to continue this exploration when I have more time...

John and Hillary in Europe

2008-01-16T19:51:00.000-05:00

In searching around the great blogosphere, I came across this article which claims Hillary Clinton and John McCain once engaged in a vodka drinking contest. Perhaps a John McCain/Hillary Clinton ticket could be in order...What a way to appeal to moderates and independents. Normally, I would think it too absurd to even suggest, but this election has thus been anything but normal for both parties.

Everyone is playing the gender card.

2008-01-15T17:41:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I made the comment that by talking about gender, one talks about race in this political campaign. These two candidates share a relationship through their non-white-maleness, thus talking about one will inadvertently bring up the other.

I find it interesting to note how many blogs, how many commentators are proving me correct, only by an inverse relationship. In accusing Ms. Clinton of playing the race card (whether or not it is true aside), people are constantly bringing up her gender. They say that she, too, is playing the gender card. Note that, while I wish she would start playing the gender card, asides from having a 2.3 second emotional hiccup and making the statement 'I've found my own voice', she has done a remarkably solid job avoiding the subject of gender all together, yet it is all over the place.

People, such as non-closeted misogynists like David Limbaugh, constantly accuse her of harping on the fact that she is a woman. When was the last time someone accused Giuliani of playing the gender card by incessantly citing 9/11? When was the last time someone accused McCain of playing the gender card by singing bomb Iran? Why (I know the answer, but I want to ask the damn question anyway) does gender mean female? Why (I know this answer too, but I still want to ask the god damn question) does masculinity, toughness, war mongering, or blind patriotism go uncommented upon, get treated as normal in politics, but one tiny emotional expression (contrived, staged, planned, faked, made up or genuine) mean femininity?

Plenty of people have been on about how the Clinton campaign is awful, just awful for making statements about MLK (the intentionality of the statements, the meaning they were thought to have or where to place the blame aside), yet no one other than her has been accused of playing the gender card. How come no Republican candidates are accused of playing the race card, even when supporting blatantly racist policies (supporting tougher drug and crime sentencing, building a wall between the United States and Mexico, school vouchers all have negative effects on race relations)? How come, to such an intelligent nation, Mr. Obama can liken himself and the struggle of his presidency to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and no one thinks of race (see my previous post), but Ms. Clinton talks about the same man and she is talking about race? How come, to such an intelligent nation, Mr. Obama can liken himself and the struggle of his presidency to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and no one thinks of gender, but Ms. Clinton talks about the same man and she is talking about gender?

Gender means both male, female and everything in between. Gender means being afraid of a woman because she is tougher than you. Gender means trying to pretend as though military might is a substitute for a penis. Gender means being too afraid to advocate for health care, social security, child care or any other social service because they are seen as feminine and therefore non-necessary.

God, politics gets me pissed off.

Clinton should apologize for race remarks

2008-01-14T18:20:00.000-05:00

All I have seen, all I have heard in the last day or two has focused around issues of race and gender between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama. And with South Carolina's primary getting closer, the discussion around these issues is likely to continue to grow...

Yesterday evening, NPR featured three African American women from South Carolina who offered commentary on the primaries. One of which explained that she would support of Mr. Obama because she could better identify with the category of race than gender. She talked of legacies, that it would be more important to tell her children she voted for an African American than a woman.

Once again, I am obligated to comment that a more maternal approach to politics would help Ms. Clinton with voters like these. Ms. Clinton is a woman politician, something that many people find unsettling. The constantly cultural reproductions of politics as a masculine sphere shape the way we think of our politicians, and are likely to turn women and men off to supporting Ms. Clinton if not played right. Women aren't strong, women aren't political, women aren't aggressive, so when we find one who is, we immediately question her authenticity as a woman.

As discussed before, she did an excellent job with the approach in New Hampshire, but it is also no coincidence that the state is almost entirely white. The only category white women have to identify with is woman. White is not a category, it is a cultural norm. We (ie white people, the media and the culture at large) assume white when we mention American, we assume white when we say man, we assume white when we say woman, and to a large extent (although this is slowly changing), we assume white when we say human.

Black women, on the other hand, as the women on NPR last night discussed, are struggling between identifying with being black and being women. It is already going to be a tough sell to convert many black women to Ms. Clinton's campaign, but if you add to the mix the inherent misogyny of our society which tells us, in many ways and shapes, that women are not naturally political, black women may feel less inclined to connect with the women category. Playing up a maternal role will surely allow more, far more women to identify and connect, and may even convert those concerned with leaving behind a legacy. Motherhood is the main category with which women are socialized to identify. Ms. Clinton will not win over a large percentage of African American women unless she can convince them that she is a mother who is running for office for her children. The African American women on NPR spoke of leaving behind a legacy for their children in terms of race alone, because gender is seen as divisive; it is commonly regarded that a woman president would be of little benefit to sons of future generations. But if this race were about motherhood, the legacy would be about the children themselves, rather than just their race.

Instead, the Clinton campaign has made several blunders in talking about race. I do not know why the campaign felt it necessary to discuss race (they claim in each of these situations they were not, but it is a sensitive topic and surely someone could have seen what kind of meaning was going to be inferred from a bunch of blunt unncessary comments), but as I have said yesterday, the best way to bring up the issue of race is to not mention it at all. Every time Ms. Clinton mentions she is a woman, the issue of race will be brought up. It may not sound logical, it may not make sense, but the relationship between the two of them is based on their non-white-maleness, and you can't bring up one without the other soon following.

What Ms. Clinton really needs to do, especially since Mr. Obama seems to be taking the high road in this debate, is apologize; say the words she used have taken on different meaning than intended. Blame it on culture, blame it on the racially charged atmosphere in which we live, blame it on the excitement and confusion this race has caused, but say she is sorry and did not mean to put race in the forefront of everyone's mind. Being upfront about the situation will excite people. It will show a striking difference to the current administration, which has never once admitted its incorrectness (even after being proved wrong by the news, by its own intelligence agencies, by its own studies, and even by its own comments). But most importantly, it will show that Ms. Clinton has no masculinity to prove.

Where's that voice she found?

2008-01-14T07:42:00.000-05:00

Over the last weeks and months, and really, since 2004 when I started blogging about politics and masculinity, I've been repeating the claim that the country would benefit from someone who pushes for positive peace through a maternal approach to politics and security. I strongly believe the Clinton campaign can use this approach to win over a lot of voters who want change - what on earth could be a bigger change from the current administration's security-through-force policies? The maternal approach would also be a way of talking about gender without actually talking about gender.

At the moment, I do not have time to spiral out to a much larger conversation about how newspapers are reporting both Mr. Obama's and Ms. Clinton's campaigns approaches to race and gender, but I will offer a very quick summary (if only so I can remember my own point for later). The media is all over the way Ms. Clinton is approaching race, and if her campaign is not terribly careful, it will backfire. Bringing up gender is a surefire way to bring up the issue of race, without actually saying a single word about it. But more on that later...

What I have seen, up until New Hampshire, is a Clinton campaign that has taken a masculine approach to politics, and only very cautiously touched on her role as a mother. I can understand why - a majority of men, who believe they have something to prove to themselves (that they are actually men) and to each other (that they are actually men), would be very apprehensive about admitting their support (or even worse, possibly showing some admiration) for a candidate who is not (masculine) tough. But the other day, her brief display of emotions was at least one factor that most believe contributed to her win in New Hampshire.

I agree with Richard Cohen's article on Thursday, when he likened her emotional display to a maternal "weep for the country", and unless her win and subsequent surge of popularity was a fluke, or was entirely unrelated, it proves that people are ready for a mother. After 8 years of President Bush, people want someone who cares about their nation, and not just for economic gain or because they have something to prove. It will be awfully hard for people to doubt her sincerity if Ms. Clinton used this "found my own voice" mantra to usher in a debate about the need for maternal security. It would force Mr. Obama into taking up the role as a paternal authority figure (which is not hard to do, as any man who attempts to deviate from this stance is already going to be in question), and at least around the topic of security, he would appear just how he is: more of the same.

I just hope someone listens to me!

Response to Ms. Moore

2008-01-13T08:50:00.001-05:00

I am writing in response to the Op Ed in the Times this morning by Lorrie Moore, where she, in a possibly confused state, claims "[t]he sexes have always lived together, but the races have not". First off, I need to point out that her piece does exactly what Gloria Steinem wrote about a few days earlier, it treats race as a unifier and gender as divisive. Maybe race is playing the unification card now, but put Mr. Obama up against an old white republican male and lets see how many times rhetoric of 'the other' is evoked.

She also claims the landscape of women in politics, which she cites as a speaker of the house, a few governors and a supreme court justice that is just waiting to retire out of, say, 5,000 men, is not bare. Maybe some people think a few women in leadership positions are evidence of sexism being dead, but as bell hooks says, difference can surely be used to reinforce the norm.

But I take serious issue with her stance that the children (aka high school male dropouts) will see more benefit from having a black male president in office than a white woman president. While I am confident that a decent argument can be made, hers is anything but. Perhaps one can rationalize that Mr. Obama, being black, can better relate to the needs of young, confused males who need a positive role model in their lives. Perhaps one can claim that Mr. Obama, being black, will better understand the pressures affecting young black men and can articulate it to a population blind from disinterest. But one cannot claim that the 'system is designed by and for white girls'. Ms. Moore is essentially saying that the terrible public educational system in this country is created for women, which is why so many men cannot succeed. But what about the system of masculinity which cajoles young boys into thinking they have something to prove? Granted the educational system does a terrible job with the men in question; masculinity and a forged toughness is the only thing they learn, but if you want to fix the problem, you have to fix the masculinity itself.

Ms. Moore does make reference to some environmental factors which shape the masculinity these boys feel they need to prove: a lack of economic opportunities and a criminal justice system that does not work. However, in the general election any attempt by Mr. Obama to feminize these systems will translate as a victory for republicans. Regardless of the rhetoric used, the debate will be framed in terms of a conservative stance on the issues. One side will claim we need to be tough on crime, tough on drugs, have respect for authority, because that is the American way. The other will be heard as saying we need to lighten our laws, be more lenient with sentencing, we need to raise taxes so we can make sure our criminals are living better lives than the citizens struggling to survive. Two men cannot have this debate. If Mr. Obama wants to win, he will have to reduce his views to a masculine-winner-takes-all-stance where he will drone on about the need to embody conservative values while pretending he's liberal. He got where he is today because of toughness and respect for authority and blah, blah, blah. Mr. Obama's race is not going to excuse him from this paradigm. In fact, I believe it will only make him more susceptible.

Ms. Clinton is the only candidate who will be able to make the point that security comes not from locking our children up, but from fixing the environment. She will be able to look a white, republican male in the eye and play the mother card, while at the same time talking about toughness. She can straddle the line between the two because women have done for thousands of years, and Hillary is really, really good at it.

Racial symbolism absent of racial meaning

2008-01-11T06:59:00.000-05:00

It seems that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has become the latest object in a long line of pop-cultural-political reproductions. Mr. Obama's speech in New Hampshire and Kerry's endorsement speech both referenced the King, as well as did Ms. Clinton in an interview on Fox. I understand that this (political) race is about (skin colored) race; I also understand this race is about gender. But what I find more fascinating is the power culture has in symbolizing. Dr. King's name need only be mentioned to conjure up new meaning. His name can stand for the plight of African Americans if used by Mr. Obama ("and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land: Yes, we can, to justice and equality"), can stand for change if used by Mr. Kerry, as referring to Mr. Obama's candidacy, and can be used as a measure of political experience if used by Ms. Clinton. The name can simply be thrown into a speech and it is automatically assigned meaning.

While this kind of production and reproduction of cultural meaning happens almost non-stop in popular culture, it got me to wonder why no one (that I have seen, at least) has been quoting famous feminist figures. Are they seen as more divisive? Has Dr. King become so comfortable for white America, (no doubt partly because of the constant use and reuse of his name) he is no longer seen as a threat? Dr. King may no longer stand for racial tension, but instead for equality and the struggle for what's 'right' (one of our favorite American past times, assigning moral values). Let's be honest, America is not free of racism, yet citing a figure who once stood for a very racially controversial idea is now remembered only as positive, without the country's loss of the racial tension itself. Yet this is not the case with famous feminist figures, who would continue to conjure up images of negativity alone (among white mainstream America).

The argument is not that there is less racism than sexism, that would not even make sense. It is also not that people can relate better to the struggle of African Americans against racism than women against sexism. I am also not interested in making some sweeping generalization about two massive discourses. But why can political candidates use Dr. King's name without fear, while doing the same with Elenore Roosevelt would cause shock?

Perhaps its worth examination that Mr. Obama does not use Malcom X's name (at least to my knowledge, but I will be doing an investigative report later). Granted people have an association (however untrue) of Malcom X's name and violence, but it does seem strange that Mr. Obama can be likened to Dr. King, and only Dr. King, without an association to the struggle against racism itself. There are also constant references to JFK, the United States' official symbol of inspiration. Has Dr. King been, pun intended, white-washed? Reduced to a symbol of inspiration by a mainstream culture that can recognize his positive qualities without acknowledging the context?

On some level, if the above is accurate, it is a shame that the democrats were not able to 'smooth over' some 'infamous' feminist and create a discourse of inspiration-without-the-supposed-controversy, thereby being able to liken Ms. Clinton to someone historical. On another level, that is absurd and I am horrified to even suggest it.
Either way, it sounds like a job for George Lakoff. I wonder who he is supporting for president.

Define electability...

2008-01-10T16:31:00.000-05:00

I am curious about the notion of electability and its relationship to American identity. How does a voter define someone as electable?

If you recall from my rantings in the 2004 election, morality was a major concern of the voters. Most people who voted for George W. Bush cited moral values as the most important issue of the campaign. I strongly argued that people evaluated both candidates in relation to an image of how closely they thought an American (male) was supposed to act. Bush more accurately resembled the stereotype of an American male - gritty, working class, tough guy who is a straight shooter (there's enough irony in these characteristics that Alanis could write another half dozen songs) - while Kerry's effeminate attitude was likened to his European (and possibly even *gasp* French!) aristocratic background.

Moral values may arise again later, but for now people are evaluating Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton in terms of their electability, and I am wondering on what this value is based? How do people come to a decision that one candidate has a better chance of being elected than another? On one side, the concept is a bit absurd to me. I liken it to my misunderstanding of the stock market (I will be the first to acknowledge that my understanding of the market is extremely limited); people fear a stock's value will decrease, so they sell their stock. This, in turn, causes the stock's value to decrease. I vote for a candidate who I consider to be electable, but my act of voting for the particular candidate is what defines her as electable. It is almost as if we treat the act of considering electability and the act of voting for a candidate to be separate. Or, perhaps, that someone can possess the ability to be elected, which remains separate from actually being elected.

I suppose that we are really talking about predictions. People attempt to predict what their fellow voters are thinking (which often is not hard, as the media tends to influence how we think). And it is in this prediction where the concept of American identity surfaces. Do we measure candidates up to an image? Does an electable candidate have to fall within a certain acceptable paradigm, as the moral candidate does?

It will be far more difficult to solicit meaning from the din of electability rhetoric that will surround Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton than it was in 2004. First and foremost, Ms. Clinton is a woman ( I know, I was also shocked. Her gender never comes up in the discourse that surrounds her campaign!!) I have been called very second wave and accused (along with Gloria Steinem from her op ed in the Times the other day) of reducing Ms. Clinton to her gender, but I do think it plays a very heavy role in how voters see her, interpret her message and ultimately decide her electability. She will not be evaluated on the same scale as her opponent, as Kerry and Bush were in '04. Mr. Obama's masculinity will surely never be questioned throughout the campaign, unless he wins the nomination and runs against a white, republican male. But Ms. Clinton's femininity (and masculinity) will be a constant point of discussion, and will most likely affect her electability.

I suppose I have to taken moment and acknowledge that Obama's 'freshness' also plays into his electability, as change is the 3rd word every candidate, republican or democrat, utters. If people predict that they want change (I understand how absurd that statement sounds, but I am leaving it intentionally), it stands to reason that a candidate who best signifies that change will be regarded as more electable. I suppose I can further branch out here and ask why on earth Mr. Obama's lack of time in Washington signifies change more than his race, or more than Ms. Clinton's gender, but we will have to get back to that question later.

All that to say, the candidate's ability to portray him/herself as more masculine than the other is no longer viable, but by god that doesn't mean masculinity is a moot point. I still think masculinity will dominate the way we view our candidates, but it will not be as obtuse as it was in the previous election. I am also aware that I did not answer my initial question, in the least bit.