I’ve got no problem accepting the importance of aesthetics in the formation of political identities; but then comes the question of how you justify (if you can justify...) one choice of identity, one aesthetic, over another. Below is an attempt at evaluating a couple of the political lifestyles available to choose from in this day and age, a justification of my own choices; my response to this from DM in comments: “This would involve constructing an argument for why involvement in the Democratic Party enables the production of an identity that is more appealing than being an evangelical, an anarchist, or an apathetic academic....” This ended up pretty long, so rather than take up the whole front page with my post, I’m going to start it here and continue it in comments...there should be a way to collapse longer posts; I don’t feel like messing around with Blogger right now to figure out how, but if any of you know how, please fill me in! Anyhoo...
Basically, right now in the US you've got a coalition of evangelicals, neocons, and various other right wingers that has attained an enormous amount of power in our society. Intrinsic to these different strains of right wing identity is the desire to limit the ability of other people to freely form their own identities. This can be a very direct attempt to limit identity formation: The attempt to deny gays and women identities not confined to traditional gender roles. It can also be a more indirect, secondary effect of other actions: Economic policies that result in stagnating wages, the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands and the erosion of the social safety net leave more and more people, including increasingly more affluent members of the middle class, on shaky ground. In this state you're far less free to construct a a satisfying identity for yourself as you're too busy just trying to meet basic needs. My dream may be to, say, open a 24 Hour Pho Restaurant, but I can't follow that dream because I've got a health condition and can't afford to buy private health insurance; so I stay at a job I don't like that defines me in a way I didn't choose. Another example is the suppression of unions and unionization by the right. The ability of workers to take back a little control over their workplace, to improve the work environment and get fair hours and compensation, which allows them to pursue non-work identities in their leisure time. We could also mention the right’s attempts to limit immigration, their apathy and incompetence leading to lives lost and destroyed in New Orleans. We could talk about how the increasing authoritarian streak on the right limits political identity formation by limiting protest and conducting massive surveillance of their opponents. At the extreme end they've claimed the right to arrest Americans on American soil, classify them as enemy combatants, torture them and imprison them without trial indefinitely. I could seriously keep going in this vein for quite a while, but you all know about this stuff. If you want to talk about politics in terms of how we form identities that make us feel good or provide meaning to our lives, I think it's clear that the right wing in America wants and acts to seriously limit our ability to do so.
Continued in comments...
3.31.2007
3.30.2007
"Change is now"
The Byrds most commonly appear as the poster boys of the 60’s peace rock revolution as it appears in the sweeping montage of love-ins and the mass hippy momentum that is all somehow signified in their 1965 song “Turn, Turn, Turn.” But this collapsing of image, historical moments and song is deeply unstable, just as are most representations of the complex decade of the 1960’s. Bob Dylan is of course the most idolized figure of this moment of “change,” one defined by a scale of mass cultural production and consumption very difficult to understand today. The Byrds made hits by making electrified pop versions of Bob Dylan songs like Mr. Tambourine Man and the Time Are A-Changin’, thus solidifying their “peace band” image. Of note however is that the majority of the songs from their ’65-’66 period albums are basically songs that demand anonymous sex with women that they encounter as world traveling peace-rockers. Intertwined with raw sexual pleas and peace anthems are also psychedelic romps like Wild Mountain Thyme, Fifth Dimension, Renaissance Fair, Mind Gardens that derive their content from the mainstream culture of “change” and contribute to it. I mention this loose outline of their role in that moment for the Byrds offer a stark contrast with the present situation of cultural production. At both the mainstream and the emergent sub-main field of cultural production, there has been no similar capitalization of “protest music” “peace music” or any other form that can engage the complexities of the present as naively as the Byrds once did. Any discussion of this particular group should also point out the popularity of the group at the sub-mainstream level which adores their pleasant sound and has spawned a handful of pastiche bands since Beachwood Sparks onwards.
But here I turn to the 1968 song “Change is Now” from the Byrds album “The Notorious Byrd Brothers”, released Janurary 3, 1968. Minimal pounding drums, a single note bass line, and a electric twelve string guitar line lay the foundation for this mind-blowing jam that demands not the fleeting pleasures of free love, but insists “Change is now.” This chanted prioritization of the present as the locus of “change” seems common sensical enough, and merely reasserts the urgency of the mass culture of “change” produced and consumed by a society conventionally represented as torn between “change” and the “status quo.” This opposition was on some level a political one for the same clearly meant war, racism and other bad stuff like the military-industrial complex. But not only is change now, the lyrcis continue to state that in this mass moment “things that seemed to be solid are not,” and thus possibilities abound. In fact, “All is now, all is now, The time that we have to live” which totalizes the present as the only moment in which reality exists. History and future utopia be damned, all is now is the infinite possibility of the present, now freed from that which was solid by the mass forces of “change.” But then the song’s driving chant is interrupted by its chorus, filled with harmonious country slide guitar and the simple lyrics, “Gather all that we can, Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan.” This chorus here presents a profound contradiction for the infinite possibilities of the present must be gathered to our ability as they accord with “love’s sweet plan.” There is order in the liberating possibilities of the present produced by “change ” and it demands we comply with an unknowable plan that is sweet and belongs to love. Luckily, while we are briefly thrown aback by this ambiguous demand to accumulate according to the invisible designs of agreeable pleasure evoked by the rush of slide guitars, we return to the driving foundation where fuzz guitars illuminate an expansive terrain with their aleatory harmonies. This middle passage offers a more concrete space representative of the possibilities stipulated by the phrase “Change is now.” For it is one that could go on forever, locked in a groove driving and pounding through the extensive immediacy of the present.
Coming aground in the second verse, from this brief glance at the abyss of the infinite groove, we come to the truth: “Truth is real, truth is real/ That which is not real does not exist”. This could be reduced to the phrase, “That which is not true it does not exist”, or “all that exists is truth, and it is real”. This logic of pure immediacy locates truth in the infinite present, forever bringing into existence the real and then instantly becoming untrue as it becomes past, where it no longer exists. Next we encounter a different temporal dimension: “In and out roundabout/ Dance to the day when fear it is gone” A day will come, (as a result of the change perhaps) when fear it is gone, and we can dance in and out, roundabout until then.
The circular form of the truth of the present, the bringing in and out of existence is oriented towards a future when “fear it is gone”. This phrase is the trajectory of “change” promised by this song. Rather than simply saying change will bring the day when “fear is gone” it seems that it could also say “‘fear it’, is gone” or “fear of ‘it is’, is gone”. The present tense ‘is’ reproduces the time of the present which here, although displaced to a future to come, embodies an immediacy without fear, where fear is not. However, the ‘it’ inserts a further ambiguity that is compounded by the chorus which reasserts itself at this point, almost as if from an entirely different sonic universe. “Gather all that we can/ Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan” The two interruptions by the chorus inscribe a thought provoking contradictory form within this anthem of change. Are we gathering the present, accumulating change in compliance with some divine plan that will bring the day when fear is gone? Is this a Buddhist ethics of karmic accumulation? Do we have here a primordial formulation of the experience economy which prioritizes the consumption of experiences and emotional intensities so well in tune to the marketing of extreme culture? Can we detect herein the deeply contradictory origins of present?
What is the point of confusingly unfolding the contents of a naive mainstream hippy jam? That “Change” is ambiguous, and to understand the present we might be able to trace its key features to specific moments of contradictions within the very fabric of aesthetic production and consumption (here I use the dictionary meaning of aesthetic that includes decorative and affective functions). Popular music seems to be a form ripe for these questions regarding the political. For example the present absence of self-described “political” music may be a fascinating point of departure for further inquiry. As DM demonstrated in his use of ZZ top, these forms have a very concrete way of illustrating abstract contradictions that define the recent past and present in complex but interesting ways.
Download “Change is Now” link in comments.
Lyrics:
Change Is Now (Hillman/McGuinn)
Change is now, change is now
Things that seemed to be solid are not
All is now, all is now
The time that we have to live
Gather all that we can
Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan
Truth is real, truth is real
That which is not real does not exist
In and out roundabout
Dance to the day when fear it is gone
Gather all that we can
Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan
Change is now, change is now
Things that seemed to be solid are not
In and out roundabout
Dance to the day when fear it is gone
Fear it is gone
Fear it is gone
But here I turn to the 1968 song “Change is Now” from the Byrds album “The Notorious Byrd Brothers”, released Janurary 3, 1968. Minimal pounding drums, a single note bass line, and a electric twelve string guitar line lay the foundation for this mind-blowing jam that demands not the fleeting pleasures of free love, but insists “Change is now.” This chanted prioritization of the present as the locus of “change” seems common sensical enough, and merely reasserts the urgency of the mass culture of “change” produced and consumed by a society conventionally represented as torn between “change” and the “status quo.” This opposition was on some level a political one for the same clearly meant war, racism and other bad stuff like the military-industrial complex. But not only is change now, the lyrcis continue to state that in this mass moment “things that seemed to be solid are not,” and thus possibilities abound. In fact, “All is now, all is now, The time that we have to live” which totalizes the present as the only moment in which reality exists. History and future utopia be damned, all is now is the infinite possibility of the present, now freed from that which was solid by the mass forces of “change.” But then the song’s driving chant is interrupted by its chorus, filled with harmonious country slide guitar and the simple lyrics, “Gather all that we can, Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan.” This chorus here presents a profound contradiction for the infinite possibilities of the present must be gathered to our ability as they accord with “love’s sweet plan.” There is order in the liberating possibilities of the present produced by “change ” and it demands we comply with an unknowable plan that is sweet and belongs to love. Luckily, while we are briefly thrown aback by this ambiguous demand to accumulate according to the invisible designs of agreeable pleasure evoked by the rush of slide guitars, we return to the driving foundation where fuzz guitars illuminate an expansive terrain with their aleatory harmonies. This middle passage offers a more concrete space representative of the possibilities stipulated by the phrase “Change is now.” For it is one that could go on forever, locked in a groove driving and pounding through the extensive immediacy of the present.
Coming aground in the second verse, from this brief glance at the abyss of the infinite groove, we come to the truth: “Truth is real, truth is real/ That which is not real does not exist”. This could be reduced to the phrase, “That which is not true it does not exist”, or “all that exists is truth, and it is real”. This logic of pure immediacy locates truth in the infinite present, forever bringing into existence the real and then instantly becoming untrue as it becomes past, where it no longer exists. Next we encounter a different temporal dimension: “In and out roundabout/ Dance to the day when fear it is gone” A day will come, (as a result of the change perhaps) when fear it is gone, and we can dance in and out, roundabout until then.
The circular form of the truth of the present, the bringing in and out of existence is oriented towards a future when “fear it is gone”. This phrase is the trajectory of “change” promised by this song. Rather than simply saying change will bring the day when “fear is gone” it seems that it could also say “‘fear it’, is gone” or “fear of ‘it is’, is gone”. The present tense ‘is’ reproduces the time of the present which here, although displaced to a future to come, embodies an immediacy without fear, where fear is not. However, the ‘it’ inserts a further ambiguity that is compounded by the chorus which reasserts itself at this point, almost as if from an entirely different sonic universe. “Gather all that we can/ Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan” The two interruptions by the chorus inscribe a thought provoking contradictory form within this anthem of change. Are we gathering the present, accumulating change in compliance with some divine plan that will bring the day when fear is gone? Is this a Buddhist ethics of karmic accumulation? Do we have here a primordial formulation of the experience economy which prioritizes the consumption of experiences and emotional intensities so well in tune to the marketing of extreme culture? Can we detect herein the deeply contradictory origins of present?
What is the point of confusingly unfolding the contents of a naive mainstream hippy jam? That “Change” is ambiguous, and to understand the present we might be able to trace its key features to specific moments of contradictions within the very fabric of aesthetic production and consumption (here I use the dictionary meaning of aesthetic that includes decorative and affective functions). Popular music seems to be a form ripe for these questions regarding the political. For example the present absence of self-described “political” music may be a fascinating point of departure for further inquiry. As DM demonstrated in his use of ZZ top, these forms have a very concrete way of illustrating abstract contradictions that define the recent past and present in complex but interesting ways.
Download “Change is Now” link in comments.
Lyrics:
Change Is Now (Hillman/McGuinn)
Change is now, change is now
Things that seemed to be solid are not
All is now, all is now
The time that we have to live
Gather all that we can
Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan
Truth is real, truth is real
That which is not real does not exist
In and out roundabout
Dance to the day when fear it is gone
Gather all that we can
Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan
Change is now, change is now
Things that seemed to be solid are not
In and out roundabout
Dance to the day when fear it is gone
Fear it is gone
Fear it is gone
Critical Theory Reading List
Not being very familiar with critical theory stuff, I'd like to ask the critical theory people: What critical theory texts (either "classic" or contemporary) do you think are most relevant to politics today? What would you recommend I read, and why? You can put Das Kapital on the list, but I'd also like to see some things I might actually have the time to read and understand.
3.27.2007
Continued Thoughts on Aesthetics, Identity, Value, ZZ Top, and Localism
I think the fundamental difference between Tigrenoche’s position and my own is in how we define value. Perhaps this moves us towards transcritiques initial question of “what is politics?” TN mentions the inability of anarchists or other small politically radical activist groups to have an important impact on “creeping authoritarianism and inequality.” In emphasizing the importance of aesthetics and identity for politics I am also questioning how authoritarianism and inequality are defined. Tigrenoche states, “It sounds a little too close to saying that striking some kind of radical pose and feeling good about yourself for doing so is more important than actually accomplishing anything; image over substance and all that.” In fact this is exactly what I am saying, although not necessarily that one is more or less important than the other, but that feeling good about yourself is accomplishing something. Just as working at a job that pays a living wage can improve a person’s mental well being, so can being accepted by one’s peers. If our notion of value is expanded to include the ability to construct a desirable identity or a meaningful life, then the purpose of political action must also be expanded.
Tigrenoche mentions the evangelical right, and I think that this is an excellent example of the successful linking of identity and politics. To be an evangelical is to construct a definite identity that is positively evaluated within a particular community. It is an identity that is closely related to consumer practices surrounding clothing, music, choice of neighborhood, housing, and food. In this sense, The Evangelical is similar to The Anarchist in that for both politics and lifestyle are inseparable.
The question is often raised of why the working class votes against their economic interests. In the United States this seems to frequently be the case among poor, rural or suburban whites. I would argue that no one votes against their interests, they simply define their interests differently. It is more important for the evangelical to have the peace of mind that comes with peer acceptance and success in the afterlife than to have a living wage or health insurance. Differences in values are often overstated, and this was particularly common after the ’04 election with all of the blue state/red state talk. Understanding the political differences between the left and the right as based in different systems of values is no better than analyzing the war on terror as a clash of civilizations. Rather, my argument here is that the political action of evangelicals is inseparable from a desire to feel good about one’s self, and attaining that desire represents a real accomplishment that cannot simply be explained away as ideology or false consciousness.
Returning to the Tigrenoche’s continual defense of the democratic party, I welcome a more in depth discussion of actual policy, particularly foreign policy. However I think this is only half of the discussion and we must also consider the sort of identities formed through participation in party politics. If, as I have argued, the Democratic party works to continually transform Progressive Obamas into Nationwide, Long-Beard, Sleeping Bag Era ZZ Top Obamas then we certainly need to question if this is the type of meaningful life that we wish to be producing. Because of the need to appeal to a broader audience macro level politics is inevitably problematic. I may enjoy dancing to a disco remix of sleeping bag, but I can be no more sincere in my appreciation for this experience than I can in my committment to party politics.
On earlier discussions of the aestheticization of politics, my notion of the term aestheticize here probably fits more closely with the dictionary definition of “beautify” and “decorate” that A mentions in a comment on transcritiques “ambiguous politics.” I welcome a more thorough discussion of Marx, Benjamin, and others (I think David Harvey deals with these issues in a relatively clear manner), but really all I am saying is that participation in politics is in part an attempt to beautify one’s life. That beauty comes both from changing laws and changing one’s identity. Neither should be prioritized over the other. In this sense, to acknowledge the aesthetic dimension of politics is to take identity seriously. This not only refers to identities directly produced through political action (anarchists and democrats), but the manner in which policy impacts one’s ability to construct an identity (for example, forest management may prevent people from becoming loggers).
Tigrenoche mentions the evangelical right, and I think that this is an excellent example of the successful linking of identity and politics. To be an evangelical is to construct a definite identity that is positively evaluated within a particular community. It is an identity that is closely related to consumer practices surrounding clothing, music, choice of neighborhood, housing, and food. In this sense, The Evangelical is similar to The Anarchist in that for both politics and lifestyle are inseparable.
The question is often raised of why the working class votes against their economic interests. In the United States this seems to frequently be the case among poor, rural or suburban whites. I would argue that no one votes against their interests, they simply define their interests differently. It is more important for the evangelical to have the peace of mind that comes with peer acceptance and success in the afterlife than to have a living wage or health insurance. Differences in values are often overstated, and this was particularly common after the ’04 election with all of the blue state/red state talk. Understanding the political differences between the left and the right as based in different systems of values is no better than analyzing the war on terror as a clash of civilizations. Rather, my argument here is that the political action of evangelicals is inseparable from a desire to feel good about one’s self, and attaining that desire represents a real accomplishment that cannot simply be explained away as ideology or false consciousness.
Returning to the Tigrenoche’s continual defense of the democratic party, I welcome a more in depth discussion of actual policy, particularly foreign policy. However I think this is only half of the discussion and we must also consider the sort of identities formed through participation in party politics. If, as I have argued, the Democratic party works to continually transform Progressive Obamas into Nationwide, Long-Beard, Sleeping Bag Era ZZ Top Obamas then we certainly need to question if this is the type of meaningful life that we wish to be producing. Because of the need to appeal to a broader audience macro level politics is inevitably problematic. I may enjoy dancing to a disco remix of sleeping bag, but I can be no more sincere in my appreciation for this experience than I can in my committment to party politics.
On earlier discussions of the aestheticization of politics, my notion of the term aestheticize here probably fits more closely with the dictionary definition of “beautify” and “decorate” that A mentions in a comment on transcritiques “ambiguous politics.” I welcome a more thorough discussion of Marx, Benjamin, and others (I think David Harvey deals with these issues in a relatively clear manner), but really all I am saying is that participation in politics is in part an attempt to beautify one’s life. That beauty comes both from changing laws and changing one’s identity. Neither should be prioritized over the other. In this sense, to acknowledge the aesthetic dimension of politics is to take identity seriously. This not only refers to identities directly produced through political action (anarchists and democrats), but the manner in which policy impacts one’s ability to construct an identity (for example, forest management may prevent people from becoming loggers).
Means and Ends
To me, asking “what is politics?” is asking about what kind of society I want to live in, how that society might function, and how to get “there” from “here.”
I was thinking that maybe trying to answer these questions would be a way of bridging my very pragmatic orientation, transcritique’s desire for a more radical re-thinking of the political, and the different posts and comments on localism.
So, whether you’re interested in the local, the national or international, whether you’re a radical or a moderate, what’s your end goal? What’s do you think it's going to take to get there? Do we need a revolution? Better elected officials? Communal living and more free love?
I’ll post my own thoughts later.
I was thinking that maybe trying to answer these questions would be a way of bridging my very pragmatic orientation, transcritique’s desire for a more radical re-thinking of the political, and the different posts and comments on localism.
So, whether you’re interested in the local, the national or international, whether you’re a radical or a moderate, what’s your end goal? What’s do you think it's going to take to get there? Do we need a revolution? Better elected officials? Communal living and more free love?
I’ll post my own thoughts later.
Who's responsible?
TC08 worries in comments that we're not addressing responsibility for the (Iraq, I assume) war. OK, starting with the Republicans, the whole party shares in the blame. I don't know of a single prominent Republican or Right Winger who opposed the war, at least not until it had already become obvious to everyone that it was an absolute disaster. Not only did none of them oppose it, they actively exploited it as a political cudgel to bash the Democrats and pick up seats in '02 and '04. The Republican party of today is corrupt from top to bottom, intellectually bankrupt, and run by and for authoritarian extremists and religious fanatics. I don't think there's anything redeemable left to it.
In the run-up to the war in '02 and '03, the vast majority of Democrats were either too chickenshit to speak out against the war, cynically hoping to achieve some political advantage by supporting it themselves, or actually thought it was a good idea. Regardless of which of these reason any individual dem was operating from, they failed miserably at the greatest political test of the decade (and beyond). Those that have admitted that they were wrong and show some signs of having learned from the experience (Edwards) I'm willing to cut some slack. Those that continue to support the idea of the war, and only criticize its execution (Hillary) deserve nothing but scorn. Those that didn't support the war (Obama, Gore) deserve praise. Talking about responsibility for the war's continuation into it's fifth year now is a bit more complicated a question as even though a growing number of dems have wanted to end the war for a while now, they're actual ability to do so is pretty limited. It's a lot easier to start a disastrous war than it is to end one.
The mainstream media also deserves huge heapings of blame and scorn for their role in this. They completely failed in their duty to question the claims made by the government, to investigate and try to find the truth. They were too excited about the ratings boost they'd get from showing bombs raining down on Baghdad and get to dress up as soldiers and embed with the troops.
I think that there's plenty of blame to go around, and I don't think anyone should be let off the hook for their role in making the Iraq war a reality.
In the run-up to the war in '02 and '03, the vast majority of Democrats were either too chickenshit to speak out against the war, cynically hoping to achieve some political advantage by supporting it themselves, or actually thought it was a good idea. Regardless of which of these reason any individual dem was operating from, they failed miserably at the greatest political test of the decade (and beyond). Those that have admitted that they were wrong and show some signs of having learned from the experience (Edwards) I'm willing to cut some slack. Those that continue to support the idea of the war, and only criticize its execution (Hillary) deserve nothing but scorn. Those that didn't support the war (Obama, Gore) deserve praise. Talking about responsibility for the war's continuation into it's fifth year now is a bit more complicated a question as even though a growing number of dems have wanted to end the war for a while now, they're actual ability to do so is pretty limited. It's a lot easier to start a disastrous war than it is to end one.
The mainstream media also deserves huge heapings of blame and scorn for their role in this. They completely failed in their duty to question the claims made by the government, to investigate and try to find the truth. They were too excited about the ratings boost they'd get from showing bombs raining down on Baghdad and get to dress up as soldiers and embed with the troops.
I think that there's plenty of blame to go around, and I don't think anyone should be let off the hook for their role in making the Iraq war a reality.
3.26.2007
One option, but I can't quite get this figured out...
Here's the code for one music playing option. There should be a way to make this into a little music player/playlist thingy rather than a link, that currently consists of one of the ZZ Top songs and the Boston song, but this isn't working out right...maybe one of you could mess with it and have better luck
New Links!
I've added a couple links...There's a couple of the liberal political blogs I keep referencing; my favorite music criticism sites (all you theory fiends should check out K-Punk, which talks about music, culture and politics from a far-left and theory heavy perspective); and a couple great (if usually incredibly depressing) examples of blog journalism out of Iraq.
The post in which I respond to DM and further establish my identity as a boring sell-out
Hmmm...I'm not sure how I feel about DM's argument. It sounds a little too close to saying that striking some kind of radical pose and feeling good about yourself for doing so is more important than actually accomplishing anything; image over substance and all that. Maybe it's just the example that you're using. I mean, what have the black-clad anarchists really accomplished, even at the local level (and outside of Berkeley)? And how powerful and desirable an identity is that? The anarchists are a subculture, and I like having lots of subcultural folks around, it makes for a more interesting cultural environment, but I don't see how they do anything to slow the creeping authoritarianism and inequality of our society.
I do agree that local political action is important (though I think we need a clearer definition of "local"--Greenmedallion jumps between local=town councils and local=the state of California in his post below, for example), but don't see this needing to take the form of some radical avant-garde outside of the larger political culture of the country. Why not be involved in the Democratic party at the local level? In this position one could potentially influence who ends up running for city or state office, helping more progressive candidates to get elected or pushing the party platform to the left; state and city offices function like the minor leagues, helping groom people for national office; more real leftists at the local level will eventually translate into more real leftists at the national level.
This is something that the right, especially the evangelical right, has done to great effect, while the Democratic party totally neglected their local level party organization throughout the '90s, which arguably played a big part in their losses in '00, '02 and '04. Howard Dean got elected head of the DNC in large part because he promised to strengthen the local party infrastructure and run candidates in every congressional election, not just the ones that looked like safe bets. As a result, we've got a Democratic congress that's raised the minimum wage, passed a (decent, not perfect) resolution to end the Iraq war, passed card-check union elections and started investigating the incredible abuses of power that defined the last six years of Republican one-party rule. What's wrong with all that? Bush will veto everything they pass, but that just says to me that it's that much more important to elect enough dems to overturn a veto and a dem president next year, not that we need more local avant-gardes.
The other area I wanted to bring up in response to DM, is that while the local is important, I think that the rise of political blogging, on-line communities and on-line activism means that there's the potential to reach people, influence national debates and advance progressive goals beyond just the local level in a really direct way. For example, you can go on Dailykos, register and post a diary, and possibly have it be seen by the over-100,000 people a day that check out the site. Lots of dem politicians now post there regularly, and if you want to comment on what they've got to say, you can (Admittedly, I'd assume that a lot of the posts by politicians are really being posted by their aides, but the parties and candidates definitely track what's being said about them on the political blogs). Another example is the on-going US Attorney firing scandal, which looks likely to at the very least lead to the resignation of Alberto Gonzalez. The blog Talking Points Memo was writing about this and doing actual investigative journalism on it a full month before any of the mainstream media picked up on it. Those are just two examples of some of the new possiblities that I think are opening up; you could also get into the ability of campaigns to raise money online through large numbers of small donations, thus being less beholden to the big money donors representing narrow corporate interests; the ability of groups like Moveon to influence debate...lots going on; lots of possiblities.
I don't know. For myself I don't see anything wrong with being involved in Democratic party politics; I don't see the need to claim some radical or hip, above-it-all identity, and I don't think we necessarily need to choose between local and national involvment.
I do agree that local political action is important (though I think we need a clearer definition of "local"--Greenmedallion jumps between local=town councils and local=the state of California in his post below, for example), but don't see this needing to take the form of some radical avant-garde outside of the larger political culture of the country. Why not be involved in the Democratic party at the local level? In this position one could potentially influence who ends up running for city or state office, helping more progressive candidates to get elected or pushing the party platform to the left; state and city offices function like the minor leagues, helping groom people for national office; more real leftists at the local level will eventually translate into more real leftists at the national level.
This is something that the right, especially the evangelical right, has done to great effect, while the Democratic party totally neglected their local level party organization throughout the '90s, which arguably played a big part in their losses in '00, '02 and '04. Howard Dean got elected head of the DNC in large part because he promised to strengthen the local party infrastructure and run candidates in every congressional election, not just the ones that looked like safe bets. As a result, we've got a Democratic congress that's raised the minimum wage, passed a (decent, not perfect) resolution to end the Iraq war, passed card-check union elections and started investigating the incredible abuses of power that defined the last six years of Republican one-party rule. What's wrong with all that? Bush will veto everything they pass, but that just says to me that it's that much more important to elect enough dems to overturn a veto and a dem president next year, not that we need more local avant-gardes.
The other area I wanted to bring up in response to DM, is that while the local is important, I think that the rise of political blogging, on-line communities and on-line activism means that there's the potential to reach people, influence national debates and advance progressive goals beyond just the local level in a really direct way. For example, you can go on Dailykos, register and post a diary, and possibly have it be seen by the over-100,000 people a day that check out the site. Lots of dem politicians now post there regularly, and if you want to comment on what they've got to say, you can (Admittedly, I'd assume that a lot of the posts by politicians are really being posted by their aides, but the parties and candidates definitely track what's being said about them on the political blogs). Another example is the on-going US Attorney firing scandal, which looks likely to at the very least lead to the resignation of Alberto Gonzalez. The blog Talking Points Memo was writing about this and doing actual investigative journalism on it a full month before any of the mainstream media picked up on it. Those are just two examples of some of the new possiblities that I think are opening up; you could also get into the ability of campaigns to raise money online through large numbers of small donations, thus being less beholden to the big money donors representing narrow corporate interests; the ability of groups like Moveon to influence debate...lots going on; lots of possiblities.
I don't know. For myself I don't see anything wrong with being involved in Democratic party politics; I don't see the need to claim some radical or hip, above-it-all identity, and I don't think we necessarily need to choose between local and national involvment.
A Response to Tigrenoche: Some notes on localism.
A Response to Tigrenoche: Some notes on localism.
The discussion about choice and no choice, two party or no party, pragmatism or idealism, is ultimately not much fun. All of TN’s (Tigrenoche) arguments are more or less irrefutable. Clearly the democrats are a better option than the republicans and there is a significant difference between the two on a number of levels. It is almost as clear that actively seeking to change the democratic party is a better option than non-participation and griping. And yet this argument brings no satisfaction. It leaves me feeling bad about being old and selling out. Both of these sensations are more or less irrational. I am old and I’ve never really had anything to sell. But I think that we can both acknowledge the truth of TN’s argument and also accept that political activism has an aesthetic dimension. (I originally wrote this before transcritique’s comments. I like his references to Benjamin, as the “aestheticization of politics” has usually been used as a sort of critique. The discussion that follow can be seen as sort of a recuperation of aesthetics – an argument that regardless of their political significance, aesthetics are impossible to ignore.)
I stumbled across an anarchist book fair in Golden Gate Park last weekend. A powerful and clear aesthetic that offers the participant a chance to feel good. Many of the items for sale were obviously image oriented. Clothing patches with drawings of beets and kale. Everyone in layers of black. Nikki McClure calendars for sale in the main hall. There is part of me that wants to scoff at such obvious fashion among anarchists. But at some level I think it feels good to be active in this environment. To combine activism with a feeling of in-group avant garde. I’ve always wanted to be an anarchist (or at least a hippie), but I’ve never had much interest in being a democrat.
There is an important conflict between the aesthetic and political dimensions of activism that I think can be solved by focusing on the local. A third party or an avant garde has no ability to impact national level politics. The best that one can do is become involved in the Democratic party, but this has absolutely no appeal. Involvement in local politics brings the chance to have a voice and operate in a manner closer to one’s choosing. The anarchist is able to effect change at multiple levels while also living a lifestyle that creates a powerful and desirable identity.
I think the contrast between the local and the national may be well illustrated through the career of ZZ Top. If we were sitting around my living room drinking cans of Hamm’s right now I would probably play the first couple of tracks off of Tres Hombres and pass around some of the album covers. “Waitin’ For the Bus,” smoothly segues into “Jesus Just Left Chicago.” (I will attempt to post these tracks in the comments section later – although others should feel free to do this for me.) This is Top’s third album and some say the best. The album features an amazing centerfold of a TexMex feast. Back before the beards ZZ Top played fucked up Texas blues. Texas was essential to their sound and image. Their next album came out in ’74 and represented a slight transition although the long beards were still yet to come. Fandango is a live album and the sleeve features a photo captioned “ZZ Top’s First Annual Texas Sized Rompin’ Stompin’ Barndance and BBQ, With 80,000 Friends.” Texas was still essential to ZZ Top, but Texas was becoming an image. Some of the live stuff is amazing and certainly ranks up there with some of the other amazing stuff that was coming out in ’74, but ZZ Top was changing. A few years later they were playing on a Texas shaped stage and bringing lives buzzards and longhorns with them on tour. By 1980 they had the long beards and popular tune with a chorus of “I’m Bad. I’m Nationwide.” The Texas blues band uses the symbol of the local as a tool to transcend. Soon Texas was forgotten for the spectacle of fur covered guitars and long beards. I love the song Sleeping Bag and I think there are some beautiful things about their transformation, but on some level I think it demonstrates the strange interplay that exists between the local and national (macro) within politics.
Obama demonstrated some progressive ideals while he was in Illinois. He uses these ideals and accomplishments as symbols of progressive credibility in order to advance to the national level. The transformation occurs and spectacle takes the place of policy.
The local provides a concrete space where images and actions may be melded. It is a space where we can act and feel good about it. We should not deny our vanity and need for constructing identities. We simply need to find a context in which identity and action are united.
The discussion about choice and no choice, two party or no party, pragmatism or idealism, is ultimately not much fun. All of TN’s (Tigrenoche) arguments are more or less irrefutable. Clearly the democrats are a better option than the republicans and there is a significant difference between the two on a number of levels. It is almost as clear that actively seeking to change the democratic party is a better option than non-participation and griping. And yet this argument brings no satisfaction. It leaves me feeling bad about being old and selling out. Both of these sensations are more or less irrational. I am old and I’ve never really had anything to sell. But I think that we can both acknowledge the truth of TN’s argument and also accept that political activism has an aesthetic dimension. (I originally wrote this before transcritique’s comments. I like his references to Benjamin, as the “aestheticization of politics” has usually been used as a sort of critique. The discussion that follow can be seen as sort of a recuperation of aesthetics – an argument that regardless of their political significance, aesthetics are impossible to ignore.)
I stumbled across an anarchist book fair in Golden Gate Park last weekend. A powerful and clear aesthetic that offers the participant a chance to feel good. Many of the items for sale were obviously image oriented. Clothing patches with drawings of beets and kale. Everyone in layers of black. Nikki McClure calendars for sale in the main hall. There is part of me that wants to scoff at such obvious fashion among anarchists. But at some level I think it feels good to be active in this environment. To combine activism with a feeling of in-group avant garde. I’ve always wanted to be an anarchist (or at least a hippie), but I’ve never had much interest in being a democrat.
There is an important conflict between the aesthetic and political dimensions of activism that I think can be solved by focusing on the local. A third party or an avant garde has no ability to impact national level politics. The best that one can do is become involved in the Democratic party, but this has absolutely no appeal. Involvement in local politics brings the chance to have a voice and operate in a manner closer to one’s choosing. The anarchist is able to effect change at multiple levels while also living a lifestyle that creates a powerful and desirable identity.
I think the contrast between the local and the national may be well illustrated through the career of ZZ Top. If we were sitting around my living room drinking cans of Hamm’s right now I would probably play the first couple of tracks off of Tres Hombres and pass around some of the album covers. “Waitin’ For the Bus,” smoothly segues into “Jesus Just Left Chicago.” (I will attempt to post these tracks in the comments section later – although others should feel free to do this for me.) This is Top’s third album and some say the best. The album features an amazing centerfold of a TexMex feast. Back before the beards ZZ Top played fucked up Texas blues. Texas was essential to their sound and image. Their next album came out in ’74 and represented a slight transition although the long beards were still yet to come. Fandango is a live album and the sleeve features a photo captioned “ZZ Top’s First Annual Texas Sized Rompin’ Stompin’ Barndance and BBQ, With 80,000 Friends.” Texas was still essential to ZZ Top, but Texas was becoming an image. Some of the live stuff is amazing and certainly ranks up there with some of the other amazing stuff that was coming out in ’74, but ZZ Top was changing. A few years later they were playing on a Texas shaped stage and bringing lives buzzards and longhorns with them on tour. By 1980 they had the long beards and popular tune with a chorus of “I’m Bad. I’m Nationwide.” The Texas blues band uses the symbol of the local as a tool to transcend. Soon Texas was forgotten for the spectacle of fur covered guitars and long beards. I love the song Sleeping Bag and I think there are some beautiful things about their transformation, but on some level I think it demonstrates the strange interplay that exists between the local and national (macro) within politics.
Obama demonstrated some progressive ideals while he was in Illinois. He uses these ideals and accomplishments as symbols of progressive credibility in order to advance to the national level. The transformation occurs and spectacle takes the place of policy.
The local provides a concrete space where images and actions may be melded. It is a space where we can act and feel good about it. We should not deny our vanity and need for constructing identities. We simply need to find a context in which identity and action are united.
Ambiguous politics
Here by initiating an attempt to question what is politics I think I have opened a particular kind of Pandora’s box. The discursive space of a common usage defined “politics” is one that I would not feel comfortable with even provisionally entering into without some caution. By asking what is politics I had in mind something that does not exist, or rather, something that could exist, a sort of possibility inherent in the present moment but denied by what is called in common usage “politics.” I have come to realize in reading the initial reactions posted here and beyond this blog that they are in fact the correct, “irrefutable” engagements with the existing language of politics. In my ignorance of this actual language of politics, I have assumed it would be possible to articulate through a perpetual questioning of this inherited “political” language, a sense of this possible politics. But even before this possibility can come into view, some engagement with the existing realm of political language must be performed. The difficulty is however, that given the structure of political language, a universal language that guarantees the equality of all by he perpetual articulation of inequalities within social reality, it would be a fairly precarious and irresponsible gesture to somehow pretend I had the capability to “deconstruct” the linguistic space of politics in a moment such as this. Which I think points to the need to identify the particularly ambiguous contours defining this moment.
Having said that, I must admit that this is in itself an incredible challenge, as we are by no means on certain ground and very much in transition between moments, geopolitical systems, and economic modes. As disorienting as this passage is, and despite the effectiveness of the abundant disorienting strategies of neo-conservative global forces that take advantage of this transition, we need some clear lines of sight that can steer us towards the actual possibilities that this perpetual questing hopes to articulate. I think DM rightfully identified one of the central forces of this transitional moment as being the aesthetic dimension of everyday life which confronts the inherited realm of politics with a deep ambivalence. The aestheticization of politics through lifestyles and diversified consumer practices as embodied in the avant garde of the forces of the coming mode of accumulation reveal for us today a deep abyss between not only the black-clad anarchists and national politics, but also a rupture between the affective regime of the aesthetic dimension and the common-usage discursive space of politics today.
The phrase above, the “aestheticization of politics,” was born at a critical juncture when the rising forces of fascism appropriated the inherent revolutionary possibilities of industrial capitalism through its expropriation of the affective dimensions of the collective social body. (I am of course referring to Walter Benjamin’s “The work of art in the age of its mechanical reproducibility,” where he says, “This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic. Communism responds by politicizing art.”) But without going into the past too far, it remains crucial to engage the rising aesthetic regime and map its implications for the coming moment from the contradictions it embodies in the present, between different modes of accumulation. Does the present aestheticization of politics indicate a homologous juncture between fascism and revolution? That is another open question I think we need to address before we can begin to ask what is politics.
To continue with an outline of the present, let me just leave that question open and turn to one of the central ambiguities inherent within the present's so-called political discourse. In tandem with the rise of the reactionary political leadership with which we have justified contempt, the other party has been classically complacent until their gains in the election that brings us to the present moment where Dem ascendancy appears guaranteed. The “choiceless choosings” I referred to as the coming election has less to do with lack of difference between candidates and more to do with the ambiguous nature of the choice. If all goes as the present would indicate, a righteously justified Dem government will right the wrongs of an aberrant leadership, and perform what could be the single greatest accumulation of state power in the name of capitalism ever witnessed. By positing the failings of the abusive few as their literal raison d'état, the war responsibility of hundreds if not thousands will be completely obscured as a better, more polite government “moves forward” and “puts behind its differences” to deliver that idolized “bi-partisan” form of government that gave us such achievement’s as Clinton’s obliteration of the duties of the state to provide social welfare to its less prosperous members. The justified state might even do things we want, like “go green” and “stabilize the inequalities" (that is, not address their origins, but treat its symptoms) but these would all be problematic to say the least. To criticize what does not yet exist may seem ridiculous, but I think this “thought experiment” (although it is admittedly light on any actual thought so far) identifies a need for a means of questioning the “politics” of the present that can at once begin to identify the rightists’ full responsibility in bringing into existence the domestic and international atrocities of the present regime, and, at whatever level, to also identify the dem’s own responsibilities not only in the past six years, but responsibilities towards the coming moment to not sell the country short in the name of doing only a little better than Bush. That is, we need a dual mode of critique that can both confront the obvious wrongs where they exist past, present and future, and also confront the more subtle contours of the past, present and future even when it goes against our common sense. And I hope that is what we set ourselves to do when we ask what is politics.
Having said that, I must admit that this is in itself an incredible challenge, as we are by no means on certain ground and very much in transition between moments, geopolitical systems, and economic modes. As disorienting as this passage is, and despite the effectiveness of the abundant disorienting strategies of neo-conservative global forces that take advantage of this transition, we need some clear lines of sight that can steer us towards the actual possibilities that this perpetual questing hopes to articulate. I think DM rightfully identified one of the central forces of this transitional moment as being the aesthetic dimension of everyday life which confronts the inherited realm of politics with a deep ambivalence. The aestheticization of politics through lifestyles and diversified consumer practices as embodied in the avant garde of the forces of the coming mode of accumulation reveal for us today a deep abyss between not only the black-clad anarchists and national politics, but also a rupture between the affective regime of the aesthetic dimension and the common-usage discursive space of politics today.
The phrase above, the “aestheticization of politics,” was born at a critical juncture when the rising forces of fascism appropriated the inherent revolutionary possibilities of industrial capitalism through its expropriation of the affective dimensions of the collective social body. (I am of course referring to Walter Benjamin’s “The work of art in the age of its mechanical reproducibility,” where he says, “This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic. Communism responds by politicizing art.”) But without going into the past too far, it remains crucial to engage the rising aesthetic regime and map its implications for the coming moment from the contradictions it embodies in the present, between different modes of accumulation. Does the present aestheticization of politics indicate a homologous juncture between fascism and revolution? That is another open question I think we need to address before we can begin to ask what is politics.
To continue with an outline of the present, let me just leave that question open and turn to one of the central ambiguities inherent within the present's so-called political discourse. In tandem with the rise of the reactionary political leadership with which we have justified contempt, the other party has been classically complacent until their gains in the election that brings us to the present moment where Dem ascendancy appears guaranteed. The “choiceless choosings” I referred to as the coming election has less to do with lack of difference between candidates and more to do with the ambiguous nature of the choice. If all goes as the present would indicate, a righteously justified Dem government will right the wrongs of an aberrant leadership, and perform what could be the single greatest accumulation of state power in the name of capitalism ever witnessed. By positing the failings of the abusive few as their literal raison d'état, the war responsibility of hundreds if not thousands will be completely obscured as a better, more polite government “moves forward” and “puts behind its differences” to deliver that idolized “bi-partisan” form of government that gave us such achievement’s as Clinton’s obliteration of the duties of the state to provide social welfare to its less prosperous members. The justified state might even do things we want, like “go green” and “stabilize the inequalities" (that is, not address their origins, but treat its symptoms) but these would all be problematic to say the least. To criticize what does not yet exist may seem ridiculous, but I think this “thought experiment” (although it is admittedly light on any actual thought so far) identifies a need for a means of questioning the “politics” of the present that can at once begin to identify the rightists’ full responsibility in bringing into existence the domestic and international atrocities of the present regime, and, at whatever level, to also identify the dem’s own responsibilities not only in the past six years, but responsibilities towards the coming moment to not sell the country short in the name of doing only a little better than Bush. That is, we need a dual mode of critique that can both confront the obvious wrongs where they exist past, present and future, and also confront the more subtle contours of the past, present and future even when it goes against our common sense. And I hope that is what we set ourselves to do when we ask what is politics.
3.25.2007
My Opening Argument...
Ok, here's the e-mail I sent out the other day in response to Transcritique's first post, which has since garnered a couple responses. I want to reply to the replies when I get a chance. In the meantime, I wanted to ask the other folks posting here if they ever read any of the big liberal/lefty blogs (DailyKos, Atrios, Talking Points Memo, TAPPED...there's lots and lots of others)? I've been reading these out regularly for a couple years now and they're probably the single biggest influence on my own politics and I think the most exciting new avenue for political involvement and activism out there. I'll probably get into why I think this more later, but for now I'd recommend you all check out what's already being done with political blogging. Anyways, here's that e-mail:
Ah, I actually (drunkenly) read that AIPAC speech the
other night after getting home and was going to e-mail
you my take on it when sobered up but then forgot.
Not much going on at work today so here goes...
My take on it is that, as much as I'd like to hear a
full-throated denunciation of the Isreali bombing of
Lebanon last summer, no politician who wants to have a
shot at winning any elected office in this country is
going to do so in front of AIPAC. Just speaking
technically, Hezbollah did make the first move in that
whole terrible mess (kidnapping the Isreali soldiers)
and, once Isreal then attacked them, shot off lots of
Iranian supplied unguided rockets that inevitably hit
some civilian areas. Those are both illegal acts, the
second is definitely a war crime, and the fact that
Isreal caused far more damage and killed far more
people in Lebanon, that their actions were most
definitely war crimes as well, doesn't change that. I
don't see that being disgusted with the Isreali
response means that I've got to support Hezbollah.
Now, if I'm a politician and want to be able to raise
money from prominent American Jews, and don't want
AIPAC shelling out millions of dollars to run ads
accusing me of anti-semitism and probably morphing my
face into Ahmadinajad's, I'll denounce the actions of
Hezbollah and just skip over any objections I've got
to the Isreali response, at least when speaking to
Jewish right-wingers. What I'd be curious to
read/hear is what Obama would have to say when
speaking in front of an Arab or Lebanese American
group.
On the Iran issue, while Obama, like everybody else,
seems compelled to repeat the "all options on the
table" phrase, I think that it's pretty clear that
he's not interested in military action against Iran,
and sees diplomacy as the course to take. Note the
reference to negotiating with the Soviet Union during
the cold war--they had thousands of nuclear weapons
aimed at us, and we were willing to talk to them; Iran
doesn't even have one yet, so why not do diplomacy.
Actually the best response on Iran from any of the
Democratic candidates that I've seen was a while back
from Bill Richardson, who has way more experience in
diplomacy than any other candidate on either side, and
he didn't even bother with the stupid "all options on
the table" crap. I could look up his statement if
you're really curious...
I'm curious if when you say our big choice in 08 will
be among very similar people who have already made the
major choices for us, if you mean the entire field of
candidates dem and rep or not. If so I've got to
strongly disagree with you; even if you're just
talking about the dem field I think that implying that
there is no real choice is wrong. I think that
there's huge differences between the democrat and
republican candidates, on both domestic and foreign
policy. Another republican president, even a
"moderate" one like Guiliani, will end in income
inequality continuing to worsen, poverty increasing,
unions weakened even more, another four to eight years
of doing absolutely nothing about global warming, a
supreme court willing to outlaw abortion, and probably
a continued belligerent, warmongering approach to the
rest of the world. A democratic president may not be
able to fix global warming or income inequality, and
whatever they do will be constrained by the numbers in
congress and how viciously the right wants to fight
whatever they put forward, but I think they'd at least
consider these (and others) to be real problems worth
addressing.
On the dem side, there's differences as well. I'm
actually not sure about Obama, who's a hell of a
speaker, but who's actual policy stuff is really vague
right now. I could see him being a transformative
progressive president, like FDR...or just as easily a
decent but totally middle-of-the-road president like
Bill Clinton. Hillary on the other hand I don't see
as having any real progressive potential; her health
care ideas are the weakest of the big dem candidates
and her foreign policy is the furthest right. She's
the only one still saying it was right to go into
Iraq, and for that alone I'd have a real hard time
supporting her. Edwards is taking a really strong
progressive/populist economic stance, and has some
pretty strong, concrete proposals out on things like
health care. Richardson is pretty good on most
things, too, but is overweight and apparently has a
tendency to sexually harass women, so he's probably
not going anywhere.
Anyways, any one of them though would be a huge
improvement over the current president as well as
anyone the republicans could run this year. Saying
there's no real choice is garbage. There isn't the
choice of "the guy who believes all the same things as
me and could convince enough people to vote for him
and enact all my/his ideas" but there's never going to
be. In 2000 I didn't think the choice between Bush
and Gore was a real choice at all, and look how that's
turned out. A president Gore wouldn't have solved all
our problems and made everything perfect, but he
wouldn't have led the country into one disaster after
another for eight straight years. I think that you or
I or probably any of our friends are secure and
affluent enough that the admittedly often small range
of allowed differences in mainstream politics don't
affect us much or seem like much of a difference. But
if you're someone who relies on the social services
that are getting defunded, or live near a power plant
that doesn't have to worry about pollution regulations
being enforced, is a woman seeing their reproductive
rights limited or has a family member serving in Iraq
(or, on the other hand, are one of the handful of
families who will see their income skyrocket if the
estate tax is abolished), then this stuff does matter.
And I think that if you believe that neither of the
big parties are far enough to your end of the
ideological spectrum, the answer isn't to just become
disengaged and curse the system, it's to get involved
and try to sway things in the direction that you think
it should be going. That's one of the reasons that I
believe that the left in America is in such poor shape
these days: the far-right nut-jobs are for the most
part very involved in Republican party politics;
really the far right folks took over the party from
the old-school Rockefeller Republicans and made it
into the crazed beast that it is today. A lof of
people on the left, on the other hand, gave up on the
democratic party and spend all their time talking
about what a sellout it is and supporting little third
parties that can't do anything but get Republicans
elected.
Alright...I should get back to work. I do have a few
things to do. I've got lots more thoughts on all this
stuff if you're interested, so if you're looking into
any sort of online forum for us to discuss I could
probably participate. Feel free to forward this on to
the other bros if you like this topic as a starting
point.
Ah, I actually (drunkenly) read that AIPAC speech the
other night after getting home and was going to e-mail
you my take on it when sobered up but then forgot.
Not much going on at work today so here goes...
My take on it is that, as much as I'd like to hear a
full-throated denunciation of the Isreali bombing of
Lebanon last summer, no politician who wants to have a
shot at winning any elected office in this country is
going to do so in front of AIPAC. Just speaking
technically, Hezbollah did make the first move in that
whole terrible mess (kidnapping the Isreali soldiers)
and, once Isreal then attacked them, shot off lots of
Iranian supplied unguided rockets that inevitably hit
some civilian areas. Those are both illegal acts, the
second is definitely a war crime, and the fact that
Isreal caused far more damage and killed far more
people in Lebanon, that their actions were most
definitely war crimes as well, doesn't change that. I
don't see that being disgusted with the Isreali
response means that I've got to support Hezbollah.
Now, if I'm a politician and want to be able to raise
money from prominent American Jews, and don't want
AIPAC shelling out millions of dollars to run ads
accusing me of anti-semitism and probably morphing my
face into Ahmadinajad's, I'll denounce the actions of
Hezbollah and just skip over any objections I've got
to the Isreali response, at least when speaking to
Jewish right-wingers. What I'd be curious to
read/hear is what Obama would have to say when
speaking in front of an Arab or Lebanese American
group.
On the Iran issue, while Obama, like everybody else,
seems compelled to repeat the "all options on the
table" phrase, I think that it's pretty clear that
he's not interested in military action against Iran,
and sees diplomacy as the course to take. Note the
reference to negotiating with the Soviet Union during
the cold war--they had thousands of nuclear weapons
aimed at us, and we were willing to talk to them; Iran
doesn't even have one yet, so why not do diplomacy.
Actually the best response on Iran from any of the
Democratic candidates that I've seen was a while back
from Bill Richardson, who has way more experience in
diplomacy than any other candidate on either side, and
he didn't even bother with the stupid "all options on
the table" crap. I could look up his statement if
you're really curious...
I'm curious if when you say our big choice in 08 will
be among very similar people who have already made the
major choices for us, if you mean the entire field of
candidates dem and rep or not. If so I've got to
strongly disagree with you; even if you're just
talking about the dem field I think that implying that
there is no real choice is wrong. I think that
there's huge differences between the democrat and
republican candidates, on both domestic and foreign
policy. Another republican president, even a
"moderate" one like Guiliani, will end in income
inequality continuing to worsen, poverty increasing,
unions weakened even more, another four to eight years
of doing absolutely nothing about global warming, a
supreme court willing to outlaw abortion, and probably
a continued belligerent, warmongering approach to the
rest of the world. A democratic president may not be
able to fix global warming or income inequality, and
whatever they do will be constrained by the numbers in
congress and how viciously the right wants to fight
whatever they put forward, but I think they'd at least
consider these (and others) to be real problems worth
addressing.
On the dem side, there's differences as well. I'm
actually not sure about Obama, who's a hell of a
speaker, but who's actual policy stuff is really vague
right now. I could see him being a transformative
progressive president, like FDR...or just as easily a
decent but totally middle-of-the-road president like
Bill Clinton. Hillary on the other hand I don't see
as having any real progressive potential; her health
care ideas are the weakest of the big dem candidates
and her foreign policy is the furthest right. She's
the only one still saying it was right to go into
Iraq, and for that alone I'd have a real hard time
supporting her. Edwards is taking a really strong
progressive/populist economic stance, and has some
pretty strong, concrete proposals out on things like
health care. Richardson is pretty good on most
things, too, but is overweight and apparently has a
tendency to sexually harass women, so he's probably
not going anywhere.
Anyways, any one of them though would be a huge
improvement over the current president as well as
anyone the republicans could run this year. Saying
there's no real choice is garbage. There isn't the
choice of "the guy who believes all the same things as
me and could convince enough people to vote for him
and enact all my/his ideas" but there's never going to
be. In 2000 I didn't think the choice between Bush
and Gore was a real choice at all, and look how that's
turned out. A president Gore wouldn't have solved all
our problems and made everything perfect, but he
wouldn't have led the country into one disaster after
another for eight straight years. I think that you or
I or probably any of our friends are secure and
affluent enough that the admittedly often small range
of allowed differences in mainstream politics don't
affect us much or seem like much of a difference. But
if you're someone who relies on the social services
that are getting defunded, or live near a power plant
that doesn't have to worry about pollution regulations
being enforced, is a woman seeing their reproductive
rights limited or has a family member serving in Iraq
(or, on the other hand, are one of the handful of
families who will see their income skyrocket if the
estate tax is abolished), then this stuff does matter.
And I think that if you believe that neither of the
big parties are far enough to your end of the
ideological spectrum, the answer isn't to just become
disengaged and curse the system, it's to get involved
and try to sway things in the direction that you think
it should be going. That's one of the reasons that I
believe that the left in America is in such poor shape
these days: the far-right nut-jobs are for the most
part very involved in Republican party politics;
really the far right folks took over the party from
the old-school Rockefeller Republicans and made it
into the crazed beast that it is today. A lof of
people on the left, on the other hand, gave up on the
democratic party and spend all their time talking
about what a sellout it is and supporting little third
parties that can't do anything but get Republicans
elected.
Alright...I should get back to work. I do have a few
things to do. I've got lots more thoughts on all this
stuff if you're interested, so if you're looking into
any sort of online forum for us to discuss I could
probably participate. Feel free to forward this on to
the other bros if you like this topic as a starting
point.
3.24.2007
3.23.2007
Solutions and Localism
Seems the duly elected democrats are actually solving problems. Iraq timetable passed, and NYT as usual produced a nice graphic.
On the issue of localism, picking up where DM left off, offline. The local is the only insterstice of the politic, the only site where the individual can maintain a proactive relation with political power. In an era where governments are perpetually mediated, and post-Nixon highly aware of the affect of mediation, politics at the local level are the only space for direct debate. (Unless you make a habit of sitting in the Senate's peanut gallery.) Economics may trickle down, but political progressiveness trickles up. As is evident by California's liberal policies on the environment, stem cell research, marijuana, etc, the politics of the local burden the national politic with an impetus of change. (Feinstein's attempts to translate California's environmental policy nationwide are particularly reticent of the ZZTop paradigm of local/national politics.) Anarchist book fairs, bake sales, and city and town councils are the site of non-watered down debate, and have radical potential.
I propose a group field trip to the LA City Council. Hey why not? For FP, SB, and myself, Tom LaBonge is the man, though Eric Garcetti's district is literally across the street.
In the assumed global era, the power of the local is shockingly evident in Iraq. The 'insurgency' is the violent face of a local politics shunning the policies of an out of touch, and down right non-sympathetic puppet government. It is the current of 'no taxation without representation.' If our politicians could get a decent grade in history class, maybe they would learn from the cycles of history. Then again, Kerry is a radical at heart, and he knows better, its just he lost touch with the local.
Remind me - Boston's S/T debut, and its correlation to the disaffected American worker in the late 1970s.
On the issue of localism, picking up where DM left off, offline. The local is the only insterstice of the politic, the only site where the individual can maintain a proactive relation with political power. In an era where governments are perpetually mediated, and post-Nixon highly aware of the affect of mediation, politics at the local level are the only space for direct debate. (Unless you make a habit of sitting in the Senate's peanut gallery.) Economics may trickle down, but political progressiveness trickles up. As is evident by California's liberal policies on the environment, stem cell research, marijuana, etc, the politics of the local burden the national politic with an impetus of change. (Feinstein's attempts to translate California's environmental policy nationwide are particularly reticent of the ZZTop paradigm of local/national politics.) Anarchist book fairs, bake sales, and city and town councils are the site of non-watered down debate, and have radical potential.
I propose a group field trip to the LA City Council. Hey why not? For FP, SB, and myself, Tom LaBonge is the man, though Eric Garcetti's district is literally across the street.
In the assumed global era, the power of the local is shockingly evident in Iraq. The 'insurgency' is the violent face of a local politics shunning the policies of an out of touch, and down right non-sympathetic puppet government. It is the current of 'no taxation without representation.' If our politicians could get a decent grade in history class, maybe they would learn from the cycles of history. Then again, Kerry is a radical at heart, and he knows better, its just he lost touch with the local.
Remind me - Boston's S/T debut, and its correlation to the disaffected American worker in the late 1970s.
starting a blog about "politics"
SInce our big "choice" in 08 will be a choice among very similar people who have already made the major choices for us, I wanted to get a collective exploration of "what is politics" in a blog format, as I suggested at thanksgiving.
With so many of us with different realms of work, it could be interesting to not answer the question,but to make a place for a perpetual questioning of this overdetermined language of politics in the present, (an era that by all historical measures would be considered deeply apolitical). It could also be a forum to write about all the music we have encountered on the internets, as I find these two things to be directly linked in some very abstract ways, which could be interesting to explore collectively.
With so many of us with different realms of work, it could be interesting to not answer the question,but to make a place for a perpetual questioning of this overdetermined language of politics in the present, (an era that by all historical measures would be considered deeply apolitical). It could also be a forum to write about all the music we have encountered on the internets, as I find these two things to be directly linked in some very abstract ways, which could be interesting to explore collectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)