structure(s) of power and change

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...

meaning, values and clinton. oh my!

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

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

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).