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...

Ferraro's comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.