infantile leftism

Ralph Nader:

To put it simply, he [Barack Obama] is our first African American president, or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he is going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.

the republican brand

The McCain campaign (if not John McCain himself) is as emotionally stable as Alex Rodriguez when he's in a room with Madonna. It's (he's) angry and resentful at one moment, then respectful and civil at another. Which McCain will show up at the final debate? Palin is comfortable with an attacking style and doesn't seem worried about the consequences (as her actions and inactions concerning the Alaskan trooper indicate). She is an appealing attack dog, whereas McCain comes off as a grumpy old man when he goes negative. For that reason, I suspect McCain will not try to ayersize Obama Wednesday night. If he does, it will be the final misstep in a campaign which will become the textbook on how not to run for president.

*

It has to be dawning on McCain, the son and grandson of four-star Navy admirals, that he has a good chance to lose the race to Obama, raised by a single mother (who was an anthropologist). Can an October Surprise such as the capture of Osama Bin Laden reverse McCain's fortunes?

*

If Obama-Biden are elected I think the low level political slime artists will slink back to their safe houses: talk radio and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. In the face of a national economic emergency, FoxSpace might change its tune if Rupert Murdoch's rapprochement with Obama holds and Roger Ailes is canned (not a likely scenario though). However, in the darkness of political defeat, a dozen foetid conspiracy theories take root. What is remarkable about the chattering class of Republicans is how they spent the 1990s trying to undo the outcome of two presidential elections. Will they spend their precious resources to undo this election if it doesn't go their way? 

*

The Republican party would face a serious choice in the wake of a defeat. Does it become the party of Palinoconservatives, i.e.,  a party of anti-intellectualism, an anti-government party that gives people reason to be anti-government when Republicans are in charge, a party of unrealistic libertarianism, a party of moral minoritarians whose unchristian behavior belies their professed faith? Or does it move towards the center and reclaim for the Republican brand a more rational and less apocalyptic version of conservatism?

*

Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will continue to entertain their audiences and will be well compensated for it. But they don't rise to the level of significance that someone like Father Coughlin did during the 1930s. I think more serious opposition to an Obama presidency could emerge from House Republicans (as it did in the 1990s). The Republicans also have two congenial figures to draw on to rehabilitate their brand: Huckabee and Gingrich (whose fall from grace seems to have been forgotten).

*

Since economic issues will be central for the foreseeable future, I'd expect the moral minoritarians (i.e., James Dobson and Tony Perkins) to become increasingly irrelevant. Unfortunately for Obama (if he's elected), the economic reality he'll face is being shaped by Bush and Paulson.  

*

Alaska is a tiny state: population 670,000. Wasilla, AK is a blip on the Google Earth screen: population 9,780. 62,000 people live in my neighborhood; 2.5 million in my borough. Palin's "executive experience" doesn't qualify her to run a neighborhood block association much less the country if McCain were stricken.  Palin will have to add some substance to her record to be viable as a national candidate in 2012 (obviously she feels -- erroneously -- that running the Congress as vice-president would help on that front). She will remain viable within the Republican party no matter what she does. Every Republican fundraiser will want Palin on their program. However, if she remains governor (i.e., survives the abuse of power charges) she won't enter the 2012 Republican primary season in the same position that Hillary Clinton did in 2007, as the presumptive favorite. I expect Huckabee, Gingich, and Romney to be back. Palin would face challenges from these types even if she is the sitting vice-president.

supertroopers

Now that the troopers have come home to roost, we know who wears the Dick Cheney mask in the Palin household: Todd. However, I've noticed that the McCain campaign blames Obamayers for forcing Todd "to use the governor's office and the resources of the governor's office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired." Family First! That One wouldn't know anything about that.

call me irresponsible

A message of intolerance goes over much more easily when it comes with a smile and a wink. The "he's not one of us" theme seems ready-made to appeal to the baseness of the Republican base. Hence, the shouts of "kill him" (i.e., Obama) and other slurs heard at McCain-Palin campaign stops are not surprising. The crowds seem less interested in hearing about what McCain will do in office and more interested in "chowing down" on the red meat thrown from the stage. What's interesting is the contrast that is created between Palin as a devout Christian and Palin as an innuendo-mongering candidate. Hence, the question the McCain campaign -- in the absence of any coherent political program -- raises vis-a-vis Obama rebounds on the vice-presidential nominee: do we really know the real Sarah Palin?

*

Obama has said he won't play the politics of personal destruction, and he hasn't. Even when he criticizes Bush, he does it in a more temperate way than the people at MoveOn.org would like, focusing on flaws in Bush's policies and not Bush's motives. I think the situation for the Republican candidates is similar. There are elements in the Republican party who want, who desire, to be inspired by hatred and fear. McCain and Palin have a choice to make: either to give in to this element or not. It seems they have decided to give in, to campaign in a full rich negative position, and are not concerned about the byproduct of this: "kill him." McCain has charged that Obama would do anything to get elected. McCain is now risking a heightening of political and social divisions during a moment of economic crisis and seems to find this to be an acceptable price for getting elected. Pot, Kettle.

**

What we're witnessing is the fact that Governor Palin owns the Republican party. She is the most popular figure in the party now. She will be the party's standard bearer even if McCain is elected. Her tone and her brand of the politics of division (she's a Buchananite) are now at the center of the Republican presidential campaign.

_________________________________________________

Photo credit: Rex Features/The Guardian

rage against the street

_____________________________________

Mr. Monopoly and Scrooge McDuck perform here

hey don't scratch my Maclaren Techno XT

I've already ranted about the stroller mafia here. Well now there's valet parking. For strollers. There are other opinions on this phenomenon.

palinoconservative

Governor Palin seems to be a novice in a lot of things, a necessity which she has turned into virtue. Ou la chevre est lie e faut qu'elle broute. It makes her a maverick by default. In other words, factual ignorance is political bliss; grammatical errors and tortured syntax are actually representations of the righteous rage of the Sixpack demographic, which will not be fooled again by predatory lenders or the intellectual elite. Not knowing something makes her an outsider to people who do know something. And this is a good thing.

*

Peggy Noonan issued a warning about the response to criticism of Palin in today's Wall Street Journal:

We saw last week, too, a turn in the McCain campaign's response to criticisms of Mrs. Palin. I find obnoxious the political game in which if you expressed doubts about the vice presidential nominee, or criticized her, you were treated as if you were knocking the real America -- small towns, sound values. 'It's time that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency,' Mrs. Palin told talk-show host Hugh Hewitt. This left me trying to imagine Abe Lincoln saying he represents 'backwoods types,' or FDR announcing that the fading New York aristocracy deserves another moment in the sun. I'm not sure the McCain campaign is aware of it -- it's possible they are -- but this is subtly divisive. As for the dismissal of conservative critics of Mrs. Palin as 'Georgetown cocktail party types' (that was Mr. McCain), well, my goodness. That is the authentic sound of the aggression, and phony populism, of the Bush White House. Good move. That ended well.

This leads me to wonder whether Peggy Noonan has missed the point, that a new formation of conservatism has coalesced around Sarah Palin. Who are the Palinoconservatives moved by the Governor's candidacy? No doubt they aren't part of Noonan's social circle. Palinoconservatives are beer drinkers (e.g., Coors) and Alaskan mothers who schlepp hockey equipment and children (e.g., decent, law-abiding people). Palinoconservatives are self-styled mavericks. They don't put much stock in book learning or polished speech. Above all, Palinoconservatives oppose the three Gs of evil: government, gay marriage, and gun control. While other conservatives identify with Teddy Roosevelt (e.g., John McCain), Palinoconservatives would rather field dress a bull moose than vote for one. Palinoconservatives aren't Neo- or Paleo-; they have little use for think-tanks or position papers. They would rather look at Salma Hayek than read Friedrich Hayek. They are the new face of the Republican party, post-Reagan, post-Gingrich, post-Bush.

grading the vice-presidential debate

Senator Biden: you were disciplined and didn't come off as condescending. Your task was pretty easy, but you didn't raise the bar. You can't coast at this level. Final Grade: B

*

Governor Palin: This debate was all about you. Unfortunately, even in the "unfiltered" format in which you could smile into the camera and address Joe Sixpack and Hockey Mom directly, you still appeared to be in test-prep mode. When your cue cards didn't address a question, you rambled on about something else you knew by heart, even when the answer had nothing to do with the question. Is that what it means to be a maverick? Where I come from, the refusal to answer a question that is asked politely is considered to be rude and evasive. Too often after giving an answer, it appeared you were waiting for a pat on the head. I'm afraid you're not in Alaska any more Governor Palin. Final Grade: C

*

Is this the best the Republican Party has to offer?

straight outta Wasilla

What happened to the special needs baby? Sarah Palin's experience as a working mother (hockey mom) seemed to be one of the qualifications she claimed for herself as McCain's vice-presidential nominee, thus offering herself as a 21st century Frances Willard. Since most of her other qualifications have either turned out not to be true or to be less than compelling, I thought the hockey mom angle would be prominent (and the baby would be a ubiquitous presence).

*

I saw David Brooks on one of the Sunday morning shows. His prediction about her upcoming debate performance was not encouraging; he said she was "not stupid" and that she would rise to the level of "mediocre" in the debate. Laura Bush noted that Palin lacked a sufficient foreign policy background. And Tina Fey continues to provide the most incisive presentation of the strengths of the Governor.

*

Governor Palin appears to be a continuance of the trend in the Republican party to present under-whelming candidates for the highest offices: Quayle and Bush blazed a trail for Palin. Quayle never got a sniff of actual power. Bush did: and the consequences are well known. Like Quayle, Palin is a boutique choice, who appeals to a select demographic group among Republican voters. For other voters, who don't hunt moose, who don't view polar bears as predators of humans, who don't believe abortion should be banned even in cases of rape, and who know what the Bush doctrine is without prompting, Palin is only a curiosity and occasion for mirth.

*

The McCain-Palin sit-down with Katie Couric (who, inadvertently, is becoming the Edward Morrow of this campaign) reminded me of a high school parent-teacher meeting, of a father explaining why his child shouldn't have received a C grade in a social studies course.

*

I noticed Palin made a remark about having heard about Joe Biden while she was still in grade school: "'I'm looking forward to meeting him,'" she continued. "'I've never met him. I've been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, the second grade.'"

I suppose she first heard about John McCain while she was, like, still in utero.

*

On the other hand, the fact that she's "average," that she doesn't know things she should know if she's planning to be vice-president, are assets for a sizable segment of the electorate. This segment resents "smart people" and, like Palin, probably doesn't read a newspaper on a regular basis. Palin's social trajectory mirrors their own and they are proud to find that "one of us" has made it: Governor today, vice-president tomorrow. She talks like them, her family reminds them of their own family. Nothing about Palin makes them feel inadequate. It may turn out that Palin's "inadequacies" are keeping McCain close in the race with Obama.

party out of bounds

Who's to blame when parties really get out of hand?

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)

Who's to blame when they get poorly planned?

*

Fortunately, the grownups (i.e., the Senate) will vote first on the revised "Rescue" bill.

___________________________________

Lyrics: B-52s "Party out of bounds"

scorecard

"After nearly eight years of voting in virtual lock step with President Bush on everything from tax cuts to torture, House Republicans decided on Monday to break ranks on the survival of the nation's financial system." New York Times, 9.29.08

*

House Republicans have placed ideology and/or their self-interested hopes for re-election before the public good. One hopes an invisible hand materializes to turn these private vices into public virtues.

*

Has there every been a lamer lame duck than G. W. Bush? Has a Speaker of the House ever been more inept than Nancy Pelosi? 

*

Irony: Hank Paulson (former Sachs Goldman CEO) can't close the deal.

non!

133 House Republicans to George W. Bush: drop dead!

Wall Street to 133 House Republicans: -777.68

______________________________________________

Photo credit: Reuters/Liberation

Shea no more

_________________________________________

Photo credit: Chang W. Lee/New York Times

toxic president

At a (new) defining moment of his presidency, George W. Bush finds the political capital of his office to be about as valuable as shares of Bear Stearns. Around November of 2001, his approval rating hovered near 90 percent. By tomorrow morning, with approval ratings in the low 30s, Bush will have made 3 separate speeches (actually one speech and two speechlettes) extolling the Paulson plan and exhorting support for it, and still can not rest assured that his financial bailout (now called a "rescue") of Wall Street, Main Street, and Global Capitalism, Inc. will be passed by recalcitrant members of his own political party. The original plan had all the hallmarks of Bush/Cheneyism and enough irritants to send House and Senate leaders of both parties into a collective rage. At last Thursday's photo-opportunity of blessed bipartisanship, the President had to endure the revolt of Republican Senator Richard Shelby and a shouting match between the presumed deal makers, all without the cover of shadow president Cheney. We are a long way from the "dead or alive" and "bring it on" bravado of the early days.

*

There may be a larger lesson to learn from this: beware Republicans who run for office on a platform of running against government. They make abysmal governors once they attain office.

body language

Much is being made of the fact that John McCain rarely (if ever) made eye contact with Barack Obama during their first presidential debate. While it's possible that McCain was showing disdain for Obama by not looking at him, I also think the moderator's effort to stage-manage the debate was a little silly. The candidates are trying to persuade us (the television audience, whose perspective is entirely controlled by the camera) not each other, so whether they looked at each other or addressed each other directly is irrelevant.

*

Having said that: McCain, like Hillary Clinton before him, is incredulous as he faces the prospect that people might prefer Obama over him. The entitlement attitude that excreted from the Clinton campaign (and continues to tinge Bill Clinton's remarks) is present in the McCain-Palin campaign. However, whereas Hillary Clinton did articulate a general vision of what her presidency would be like and the policies she felt were significant, McCain-Palin articulate only this: "we aren't Obama." McCain's responses during the debate were mostly attacks on Obama. When he ventured into a description of his own plans, he stumbled to find the right words.

*

Perhaps this is a reflection of McCain's political psychology: the self-proclaimed maverick is most comfortable when he stands against something rather than standing for something. When McCain-Palin venture into stating what they stand for, a string of attractive cliches come forth -- Country First!, patriotism, etc. -- over which they claim exclusive ownership. The performative contradiction in this claim is apparent: they prefer to divide the country (i.e., to stand against other citizens) in order to win the election and are willing to do so by defining their opponents as unpatriotic. In other words, they don't place country first and their effort to demonize other citizens makes their notion of patriotism less than credible.

(lack of) money changes everything

"This sucker could go down," Bush is said to have told the group -- referring to the teetering US economy. (reports The Guardian)

Perhaps Bush should call for a "Coalition of the Giving" and collect funds from generous member nations like Poland or Georgia: "Hey, Saakashvili, can we renege on the 1 billion dollars Dick Cheney promised you?"  Or the USA could apply for a loan from the World Bank.

*

In the meantime, House Republicans are reading von Mises and von Hayek while finance capitalism burns. Republican representative Mario Diaz-Balart (Fl.) lectured on Ortega y Gasset in the House friday morning. And Sarah Palin hasn't gotten back to Katie Couric yet.

political hysteria: McCain and the crisis

Deal or no deal? A lot is riding on this for McCain. House Republicans clearly don't want to sign off on the bail out. I assume the plan could pass despite House Republican opposition. But that would seem to doom McCain with important conservative constituents. If McCain can get the recalcitrant House Republicans to sign off (apparently a visit from Dick Cheney didn't move them at all and I doubt Bush's speech will persuade skeptics on the right), then he can take some credit, but only for reeling in the conservative rump. If he can't pull this off, the Republican party would be split (and not without good reasons) and Obama can point to the "ideology-driven partisanship" of House Republicans as another sign that "Washington is broken."

*

McCain's suspension of his campaign and request to postpone the debate scheduled for Friday seems a little hysterical. He has successfully directed attention to himself and the punditocracy is slavishly fixated on his "decision." Will he? Won't he? The media is unable to recognize when it's being jerked around.  The short term strategic impact is that McCain has taken media attention away from Obama. The more general impression is that McCain's histrionics about the debate is another egocentric (generously termed "maverick") move on his part. Refusal to attend the debate would, however, be a disaster for McCain. It would leave a lasting image of the war hero hiding in his bunker, not leading but being led by the crisis. In other words, McCain First!

stealth campaign

Republicans have preferred well choreographed photo-op situations and tightly scripted speeches before handpicked, friendly audiences since the Reagan years. So the sudden press phobia of the McCain/Palin campaign is not unexpected. After Palin's performance during her interview with Charles Gibson (which was hardly a tough interview), one can see why the Republicans don't want her out there giving spontaneous answers to questions about the proposed bail out of finance capitalism, credit-default swaps, or the weakening of the Anbar "Awakening." The format for the vice-presidential debate will suit her strength entirely: the ability to give scripted non-responsive responses.

securitize this!

Remember the last "blank check" the Congress handed to President George W. Bush? I believe one Congressperson voted against this blank check and she was hounded on all sides. What did she know at the time that the other 534 members of Congress didn't?

*

The main argument for "swift passage" of this $700 billion dollar blank check seems to be psychological: we need to restore "confidence" in the economic system for the confidence men and women who will then resume gambling.

*

Americans have a predilection for seeking "something for nothing".+

*

Wall Street opposes restrictions on executive compensation for financial operations which are selected for this bail out. Maybe a salary cap would be a more palatable option (it works for the NFL, NHL, and NBA).

*

I've been taught to believe that market discipline should apply on both the bottom and top rungs of the economic ladder. If you fail, you fail: this is Social Darwinism 101. To reward failure is Un-American (aren't public school systems ending "social promotion"?). Suddenly unemployed finance bankers can apply for the public relief that's available through TANF as long as they participate in workfare (many streets in lower Manhattan need sweeping). The two year limit on this public relief is the stick that will incentivize them not to become dependent on welfare.

**

Is it possible that a sleeper cell of irresponsible financiers actually posed a more significant threat to the American Way of Life than Saddam Hussein? How many Iraq wars could be fought (and won!) for $700 billion?

__________________________________________________

+ Jackson Lears, Something for Nothing: Luck in America (NY: Penguin, 2004)

minima oeconomica

It was precious to see the former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg begging for money during his interview on MSNBC. He implored the Fed: "AIG is a national treasure." And it just so happens that most of his wealth is tied up in shares of AIG.

What was even more precious was learning that the Fed bought the sob story and floated a $85 billion loan to AIG.

I found myself agreeing with Republican Senator Richard Shelby (member of the Senate Banking Committee), who said "No entity is too big to fail."

The events of last week should make it difficult for Conservatives to bemoan "welfare dependency" without including "corporate welfare dependency."

*

The "PC" term on Wall Street for this move by the Fed is "leveraged buyout." Government "bail out" is less PC. However, it could also be called "nationalization" (the term the British newspapers use). So the U. S. government has nationalized, Freddie, Fannie, and AIG.

Somewhere, Hugo Chavez must be smiling.

When Chavez or Evo Morales do it, it's nationalization. When Bush-Paulson-Bernanke do it, it's "stabilization."

I think this duck quacks.

*

I don't know what to make of business leaders who plead for government help and yet resist government oversight. Should they be allowed to have their cake and eat it too?

The politics of blame has taken an interesting turn: now short sellers are the evildoers (not incompetent CEOs like Fuld of Lehman Brothers or Willumstad of AIG).

John McCain could send Governor Palin on a hunting expedition to kill bearish short sellers.

*

It would be nice to have the billions dumped into Iraq back at this point.

*

Since the Reagan era, "liberalism" has been a political schimpfwort and the Democratic party has been tainted by association with liberalism. However, if liberalism is associated with laissez-faire (economic liberalism), then the logic behind this association of liberalism and Democrats becomes more complicated: both Republicans and Democrats are economic liberals, with perhaps more rhetoric on that front from the Republicans. (In reality, laissez-faire is a myth, as the current nationalization of AIG indicates). One offshoot of economic liberalism can be termed "crony capitalism." A commentary by Tim Egan comparing Palin's governing style with the issue of golden parachutes for CEOs of failed corporations is enlightening. 

"People should stop picking on vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin because she hired a high school classmate to oversee the state agricultural division, a woman who said she was qualified for the job because she liked cows when she was a kid. And they should lay off the governor for choosing another childhood friend to oversee a failing state-run dairy, allowing the Soviet-style business to ding taxpayers for $800,000 in additional losses.

What these critics don't understand is that crony capitalism is how things are done in Alaska. They reward failure in this Last Frontier state. In that sense, it's not unlike Wall Street's treatment of CEOs who run companies into the ground.

Look at Carly Fiorina, John McCain's top economic surrogate -- if you can find her this week, after the news and her narrative fused in a negative way. Dismissed as head of Hewlett-Packard after the company's stock plunged and nearly 20,000 workers were let go, she was rewarded with $44 million in compensation. Sweet!

Thank god McCain wants to appoint a commission to study the practice that enriched his chief economic adviser. On the campaign trail this week, McCain and Palin pledged to 'stop multimillion dollar payouts to CEOs' of failed companies. Good. Go talk to Fiorina at your next strategy meeting.

Palin is a cultural cousin to this kind of capitalism. The state may seem like a rugged arena for risky free-marketers. In truth, it's a strange mix of socialized projects and who-you-know hiring practices."

*

I see no substantive distinction between American "liberals" and "conservatives" concerning the economy: both groups are pro-capitalist (the charge that liberals are 'socialists' is preposterous). Hence, we have different political parties that both operate on the assumptions of economic liberalism and have the goal of perpetuating the form of life that derives from economic liberalism. Anti-capitalist, populist rhetoric is a ruse employed by politicians of both parties to appear to be the friend of the "common man." No president of either party would risk enacting anti-capitalist policies for fear of an investment strike or capital flight (of course, capital flight -- outsourcing and relocation -- has already occurred under business-friendly policies).

*

Both parties have put in place policies that have impacted the economy negatively. Everyone can point to a particular example. My example will be energy policy. To be sure, prior presidents have set this policy, but my immediate reference is Bush-Cheney. Today, it seems everyone is alarmed by America's "oil dependency" on foreign oil ("dependency" is a particularly stigmatized term: think "welfare dependency"; this is one step removed from "oil slavery"). After years of denying the existence climate change, now Conservatives are talking about "alternative fuels." However, one can ask who set the pro-oil dependency policies of the Bush-Cheney presidency? Was it not Cheney's still secret energy policy harem? Who can forget Bush's hand-holding diplomacy in Saudi Arabia? Is Cheney "liberal" or "conservative"? Will the U.S.'s energy policy cease to be premised on economic liberalism after the odious pair are gone?

*

I expect free trade, small government, anti-tax Republicans to throw up a road block to the $700 billion dollar bail out of the unhappy few whose improvident behavior has backfired magnificently and will cost the many dearly. The Paulson plan seems to be a reversal of the principle of utility: the greatest happiness for the smallest number.

last game

_______________________________________________

Photo credit: Vincent Laforet/NY Times

Durer on broadway

A few of the engravings and woodcuts exhibited at the Museum for Biblical Art in Manhattan.

as the polls turn, or: what would a McCain presidency entail

According to the polls, Obama is losing support from "white" women to McCain. I wonder if those Democrats who have switched to McCain have pondered a McCain Presidency. What exactly would a McCain presidency entail anyway?

*

The only original "idea" (i.e., something that diverges from the Bush presidency) I've heard from him is the "League of Democracies", which I suspect would turn out to be very much like the "Coalition of the Willing" (which turned out to be not much of a coalition and mostly unwilling). It seems very unlikely that European powers (the UK included) who are committed to existing international institutions, namely, the UN, the International Court, the Geneva Conventions, etc., would sign on to such a thinly veiled end run around such institutions. Hence, this "League" would likely be staffed by nations like Poland and Georgia (which, according to McCain's Vice President, should gain NATO membership) who will claim a larger share of American foreign aid largesse (such as the 1 billion dollars that suddenly materialized for Georgia recently). The threat to boot Russia from the G8 is a non-starter as well. McCain says he'll "win" the war in Iraq, but doesn't know when that will happen. How long will a Congress controlled by Democrats continue to allow American taxpayers to foot the bill? I suspect McCain will be on a short leash in Mesopotamia. Eventually, McCain would have to make good on his threat to bomb Iran ("Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain sang to the tune of "Barbara Ann") if the nuclear program isn't suspended, otherwise the USA will look weak. Who knows how much collateral damage will be inflicted if this comes to pass.

*

In terms of domestic politics, as a lame duck in his only term, McCain could feel liberated and engage with his alleged maverick side. That would mean true bipartisanship with congressional houses controlled by Democrats. This would bode well for immigration reform (McCain could tell nativist Tancredoites and the vigilantes patrolling the Mexican border to stuff it). It could mean he proposes non-activist (i.e., non-Scalian, non-Federalist Society) jurists for appointment to the Supreme Court. It could mean he reverses his support for the Bush tax cuts.

*

What is more likely is that McCain's non-maverick side will win out. As his selection of Palin indicates, he feels obligated to the theocratic fringe of the Republican base, as well as the Reaganite dead-enders. This means he'd propose jurists for the Supreme Court who pass the Perkins-Dobson-Norquist-LaHaye-Weyrich litmus test. He'll waste time trying to jam through more tax cuts to the highest income bracket and offer school vouchers as his major social policy initiative. He'd speak tendentiously about the evils of "gay marriage" and the Darwinian threat to God without doing anything about it (or perhaps the culture warrior dossiers would be assigned to the Vice President's office). Energy policy will continue to be directed by the same people Dick Cheney relied upon during the Bush years.

*

On the positive side (yes there is one!), Democrats will likely gain more seats in the House and Senate during the 2010 midterm elections as a consequence of a McCain presidency.

 

campaign detritus

_______________________________________

Photo credit: Craig Lassig/EPA (The Guardian)

what's good for the goose is good for the ... goose!

God bless Jon Stewart.

And Viacom:

The video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International Inc.

I'm John McCain and I'm running against the Republican Party

What a remarkable speech by John McCain to wrap up the monocultural Republican National Convention. Claiming service over selfishness, and arguing that Washington hasn't served the people, he intends to fight against 30 years of Republican leadership. This speech was filled with contradictions. First and foremost: he's a maverick, a fighter, who will nonetheless work with others (who agree with him).  If this was an honest expression of his vision of his campaign, then why has he paired himself with someone who represents the epitome of selfishness, who insists on a moral and cultural politics that is shared by a minority of Americans?

*

The difficulty McCain faces is that he's been in Washington for a very long time. While he's taken some positions that didn't please the increasingly nativist and narrowly fundamentalist base of the Republican party, he has also been very much a supporter of the Republican policies that have done little for the little people for whom he claims he will now fight. If he takes on his own party -- as he must -- in order to do what he claims he'll do, then the likely outcome is a doubling of partisan posturing, first from the hardcore resisters in his own party (its corporate and theological flanks) and then from Democrats. In the end, a McCain presidency would likely produce more of the same rather than 'change.'

getting to know Sarah Palin

Last night was Sarah Palin's second minute of fame at the Republican National Elder Hostel. I was shocked and relieved to find out that Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton (I imagine the remaining, disappointed Clintonistas are not so relieved). What's curious is her apparent selling point for McCainites: she's an average person with an average family. Sure, she reminds me of my (hypothetical) next door neighbor hockey mom; I'm sure my neighbor also hunts bear, can field dress a dead moose, and has found time to threaten to ban books in the local library and join a secessionist political party. Talk about Country First!

*

Anyway, I'm relieved to have learned that a person I suspected to be average is, in fact, average (leaving aside the book banning part). What our intrepid media corps will reveal soon is whether this conservative Christian with an unwed, pregnant daughter (I'm suddenly longing for Dan Quayle's jeremiad against the unwed and pregnant fictional character Murphy Brown) is an average Amy Grant or an average Gretchen Wilson.

democratic convention - night 1

________________________________

Photo credit: Kennedy & Obama (Stephen Crowley - New York Times).

what you don't have you don't need it now

This is almost the end of the road for Hillary Clinton's campaign. She won't be VP. Aside from the historical baggage the Clintons lug around with them, H. Clinton could have been Obama's VP. However, her primary campaign foreclosed that option. Pursuing an all or nothing strategy, she will have to settle for nothing and another fifteen minutes of fame on the second day of the Democratic convention and the symbolic roll call vote. I don't expect either Clinton to be an effective campaigner for Obama: he stole their legacy, or at least deferred it until 2012. Hardcore Clinton supporters continue to overlook the wafer thin policy differences between Hillary and Barack, preferring to remain fixated in a self-destructive form of resentment that could advantage McCain (who shares none of the policy positions of H. Clinton). 

it's a beautiful day

The waiting is over: number two on the Democratic ticket is Joe Biden. Obama played this safe. According to pundits, Biden will move Hillary's 'white working class' supporters into the Obama camp. Joe from Scranton, the Scranton scrapper, the poorest Senator, Catholic Joe: this will be the political detritus of the coming week. The code words don't really code anything: Biden is supposed to counteract the effects of race; i.e., Obama's melanin (dis)advantage.

*

Of course, that's not all Biden will do. He is allegedly a foreign policy heavyweight. To his credit, after supporting the decision to invade Iraq, Biden has been a persistent critic of the conduct of the war. I remain convinced his suggestion that Iraq could be broken into three states (a suggestion that recognizes the thoroughly constructed nature of post-colonial states) is an idea worth pursuing. The pundits immediately jumped on this perceived strength, arguing that it shows Obama's weakness (in foreign policy). This sort of argumentative gibberish, which turns into a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" sackgasse, will also contribute to the political detritus of the coming week. 

*

I haven't taken to Biden in the past. He comes across as bombastic and shows too much attraction to his own rhetoric. However, the choice of Biden is probably the best possible among a weak pool of Democratic politicians. Of course, there was Hillary Clinton...

___________________________________________

Photo credit: A. Spencer Green (AP)

knights redux

Move aside Dick Cheney, the original Crusaders are back.

knorwegian knight

Sir Nils Olav.

________________________________________

Photo credit: David Moir/Reuters

sovereignty for dummies

It looks like Saakashvili's provocations stirred the Russian bear -- with entirely predictable consequences. Unfortunately, Georgians are suffering the consequences of his irresponsible leadership. It's simultaneously risible and tragic when something like this happens and some fearless leader cries for help from the international community. Thinking like a state isn't exactly rocket science.

First rule of sovereignty: don't pick a fight you can't win by yourself.

Second rule of sovereignty: don't expose your civilian population to external attacks unnecessarily.

*

The violation of these rules is criminal.

_____________________________________________

Photo credit: Zurab Kurtsikidze/European Pressphoto Agency

USA! USA!

_________________________________

Photo credit: Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images

double (un)consciousness? - on Bourdieu's "Sketch"

I have been captivated by the work of Pierre Bourdieu since I first struggled through Outline of a Theory of Practice in my second year of graduate school. He remains for me an intellectual touchstone because of the rigorousness of his work (a term he would undoubtedly reject). Hence, I looked forward to the translation of his "final" book with anticipation and some trepidation, for I sensed a logical but troubling divergence from the general orientation of his previous studies: an invocation of experience. Some inkling of this tendency appeared in earlier interviews and specifically in his Pascalian Mediations and the Science of Science and Reflexivity.  

*

Bourdieu's Sketch for a Self-Analysis* is a curious undertaking. On the one hand, Bourdieu wishes to trump potential future biographers, who would, he seems to fear, get him wrong. On the other hand, the opportunity to self-analyse himself, an act of self-objectification he did not make available to the numerous people whom his models objectified, risks the charges of self-indulgence and, worse, self-promotion. There is a bit of both in this book, but less than might be expected from someone who did earned the right to commit the sin of intellectual egoism -- unlike the vast majority of academics who fry small fish caught in puddles and then present themselves to others as if they've harpooned the great white whale.

*

The book itself is interesting as a representation (to be sure a selective one) of the French intellectual field in the 1950s and 1960s, and the intersection of philosophical, institutional, and  political trends: existentialism, Marxism, the rise of the social sciences; the war in Algeria and 1968. This period, according to Bourdieu, is decisive for his subsequent scholarly trajectory, drawing out his habitual contrarian disposition, which, of course, remained self-reflexive. Bourdieu presents himself as a contrarian who refuses to make a virtue of the necessity of this position-taking since -- and this is the central motif that runs throughout the book -- he was by circumstance an outsider: a child of provincial life, the product of a peasant/small bureaucrat paternal inheritance, who gravitated away from the highest form of intellectual life, philosophy, and toward the then less legitimate fields of ethnology and, eventually, sociology; never a Communist, he nonetheless fixated on issues of social reproduction and complicated Marx's basic scheme; never a structuralist, he nonetheless developed his theory of practice out of the ground of structuralism (i.e., Levi-Strauss); never a public intellectual in the mold of Sartre (his anti-model of academic life) and Foucault, he nonetheless engaged with political issues; finally, while he is viewed as a sociological auteur, he seems most proud of his effort to work within a team of empirically-oriented researchers.

*

And on and on. Contradictions, contraries, and contrarianness appear on each page of Sketch. Bourdieu's self-analysis is congenial, and probably will be received as such, by anyone who, in other terms, operates in a liminal space, betwixt and between two presumably incompatible binary oppositions. Such an account resonates with Du Bois notion of double consciousness. Bourdieu describes this as the "hidden face of a double life" (72), his cleft habitus (100) or his double distance.

The sense of ambivalence towards the intellectual world that is rooted in these dispositions is the generative principle of a double distance of which I could give countless examples: a distance from the great game of French-style intellectual life, with its fashionable petitions, its demonstrations du jour or its prefaces for artists' catalogues, but also from the great role of professor, engaged in the circular circulation of thesis juries and examination boards, the games and stakes of power over reproduction; a distance, in politics and culture, from both elitism and populism. (107)

This ambivalence, evidenced in his account of his inaugural lecture** at the College de France, is not analyzed by Bourdieu in psychoanalytic terms: the Oedipal conflicts with various Fathers (but apparently not his biological father), his symbolic castration of these Fathers in the inaugural lecture (which shows that authority of the Father is arbitrary), his preferred immersion in empirical studies (perhaps reproducing the oceanic feeling?) and discomfort with playing the leading role of a leading French intellectual (e.g., his disdain for Sartre); in other words, he acquired the authority of the Father while refusing to play the role comfortably.

This tension perhaps never appeared to me in a more dramatic fashion than when I gave my inaugural lecture at the College de France, in other words at the moment of entry into a role that I found hard to integrate into my own idea of myself. (...) Finally, I thought I saw a way out of the contradiction into which I was thrown by the very fact of a social consecration which assaulted my self-image: to take as the object of my lecture the idea of delivering an inaugural lecture, of performing a rite of institution, thus setting up a distance from the role in the very exercise of the role. But I had underestimated the violence of what, in the place of a simple ritual address, became a kind of 'intervention' in the artists' sense. To describe the rite while performing the rite is to commit the supreme social barbarism, that of wilfully suspending belief or, worse, calling it into question and threatening it in the very time and place where it is supposed to be celebrated and strengthened. I thus discovered in the moment of doing this, that what had become for me a psychological solution constituted a challenge to the symbolic order, an affront to the dignity of the institution which demands that one keep silent about the arbitrariness of the institutional rite that is being performed. The public reading of that text which, written outside the situation, still had to be read as it stood, withoug modification, before the assembled body of masters, Claude Levi-Strauss, Georges Dumezil, Michel Foucault and others, was a terrible ordeal. People told me later that my voice was toneless. I was on the point of breaking off and leaving the rostrum. Jean-Pierre Vernant gave me a severe look, or so it seemed: I read on to the end, for better or worse. (108, 109-110)

Anyone who has felt compelled, as I have, to objectify the arbitrariness and violence of the authority of a father can understand Bourdieu's compulsion and trauma: the need to fight all Father figures (i.e., to recreate them -- and the original Oedipal situation -- whenever ambivalence surfaces) and, nonetheless, to undermine the authority and privileges that accrues to one who successfully slays the Father (i.e., the prohibition on incest).

*

Beyond this, however, one can question the motif of doubleness in Du Bois and Bourdieu. Regarding the latter, the self-analysis in Sketch makes it appear as if Bourdieu's singular intellectual trajectory was possible only on account of this doubleness which Sartre or Foucault (for example) lacked. Thus, Bourdieu explains his critical difference from Foucault, that Foucault always remained a "philosopher", on this basis: Foucault originated from a "well-to-do provincial bourgeois family" (79) whereas he (Bourdieu) did not. The assumption here which is unannounced in Bourdieu (and Du Bois) is this: only certain backgrounds generate doubleness, the cleft habitus. Is this really the case? Is it not the case, on the contrary, that everyone is afflicted or privileged by this disposition (e.g., ambivalence is a fundamental psychoanalytic concept)? If this is true, or at least is as plausible as an assumption as one that holds that only certain individuals have this cleft habitus, then Bourdieu's account of his singular trajectory is called into question; in other words, his propensity to epistemological breaks is not fully explicated by a habitus acquired in the family which predisposed him to recreate that habitus within the intellectual field. If everyone partakes in ambivalent relations with objects (people, ideas, things), then Bourdieu's singularity must be accounted for in a different manner.

__________________________

*Pierre Bourdieu, Sketch for a Self-Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).

**Pierre Bourdieu, "A lecture on the lecture," in In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), 177-198.

Photo credit: Daniel Boudient (Ministere de la Culture - France)

ready to tan

Paris for Prez.

freedom of criticism

Cartoon caricatures have become a political issue, ranging from the depictions of Allah in the Danish press, to the caricature of the Obamas on the cover of The New Yorker, to a recent cartoon concerning the son of Nicolas Sarkozy in a French magazine, which was criticized as anti-semitic and which led to the firing of the cartoonist "Bob Sine". The defenders of these cartoons have raised the banner of free speech and freedom of expression and denounced critics as enemies of speech. This is profoundly muddled thinking on the part of free speech absolutists. Freedom of speech carries a risk, the risk of a negative reaction, i.e., criticism, which is also a form of speech that presumably is protected. I don't believe Sine's 'speech rights' are violated in this case. He published his cartoon. His firing does not prevent him from publishing similar cartoons in other venues (he just won't be able to do so in Charlie Hebdo). 'Anything-goes' libertarian absolutism often degrades into passive-aggressive claims of victimization. This appears to be the case with Sine and his supporters.

getting carded

John McCain played his 'Obama played the race card' card a little early, which shows some desperation to change the narrative from inevitable Republican defeat in November. However, this might be McCain's best strategy: spin out absurd over-reactions to justified criticisms of the Republican playbook (from Atwater to Rove). Otherwise, he is reduced to blaming Obama for high gas prices, which only shows that surrealism is alive and well.

_________________________

Photo credit: McCain for President web site

a model for negative social thought

After everything, the only responsible philosophy is one that no longer imagines it had the Absolute at its command; indeed philosophy must forbid the thought of it in order not to betray that thought, and at the same time it must not bargain away anything of the emphatic concept of truth. This contradiction is philosophy's element. It defines philosophy as negative.

*

Each of those thinkers [Xenophanes, Aristoteles, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Marx] found his own truth in critique. Critique alone, as the unity of the problem and its arguments, not the adoption of received theses, has laid the foundation for what may be considered the productive unity of the history of philosophy. In the progressive continuity of such critique even those philosophers whose doctrines insist on the eternal and the timeless acquired their temporal nucleus, their historical status.*

__________________________

*T. W. Adorno, "Why still philosophy," in Critical Models: Interventions and Catchwords (NY: Columbia University Press, 2005), 7, 8

Photo credit: Jeremy Shapiro (Horkheimer and Adorno [center]; Habermas [far right]).

war cathexis

Obama is willing to lose the war in order to win the election in the fall: this is the message of John McCain, who believes he 'wins' on war. Hence, he cannot afford to suggest anything that would wind down the war in Iraq or ratchet down tensions with Iran. 

The 'Surge' is McCain's political Viagra.

McLame

John McCain, taking a page from the Clinton campaign handbook, is accusing the 'media' of having a love affair with Barack Obama in a TV ad titled 'Love'. However, the 'media bias' claim is wearing thin. After months of being called "Hussein" and "Osama bin Laden", and wading through the muck of Rev. Wright et al., Obama finished ahead of Clinton and is leading nationally versus McCain. Of course, it is still early in the campaign and things could change. But it is interesting that all the arguments against Obama (not experience, not ready, is a closet Islamist, hasn't done anything in his life, etc.) have not enabled McClinton to gain a decisive and expected advantage. I doubt that 'media bias' alone explains this. It is an unusual year and all of Sean Hannity's horses and men have not yet been able to put the Republican Party back together again.

the last word -- the last laugh?

When one moves from one apartment to another, old treasures are unearthed. Thus, I came upon a 'farewell' note I posted to co-workers at a job I held just before heading to graduate school. Despite its dated Adornoean style, the content remains remarkably timeless.


In most cases when one leaves for greener pastures, the usual pleasantries conveying thanks for years well spent and memories made are laid out not unlike merchandise which awaits purchase at a twenty-four hour clearance sale. It is as if the unwanted product of many years spent poorly, in actuality, must be gotten rid of lest it trail behind indefinitely, cluttering one's mental inventory. I will spare you these mundane expressions, however -- not so much as to save time, but as not to insult your intelligence. The situation as it has been is well-known, that only through sheer obstinacy has sanity been retained. Indeed, it is 'no fun' to work in a bureaucracy, yet this situation is intensified in the present surroundings. It may be that never before has so little difference in educational experience between some and others meant so much in terms of salary and respect. Of course, this difference is so precarious that it must be enforced. The overall, over-active ego, which is constantly at work, weaves the magical veil of authority, yet, in spite of itself, seeks to downplay the power that it so desperately wants. The inane and clumsy chatter which marks the social interaction between groups belies the often promoted team concept. What is misunderstood is that in a situation in which authority has no legitimacy there can be no real power; and the meagerness of the carrot which matches that of the stick dangled before the low ones adds to the stalemate of powerlessness.

centering

Having vanguished the suddenly populist Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is now tacking back to the center of the political spectrum and, in the process, has unnerved legions of the American Left (namely, the MoveOn.org crowd). Suprisingly (mock shock) he is not so absolutely against 'free trade' (and what President has been?). He thinks the government spying act (i.e., FISA) is acceptable in its current version. He wants good old boys in downstate Illinois who elected him to the Senate to be able to keep their shotguns. And he wants to expand the role of churches in social welfare provisions. Has Obama suddenly become G. W. Bush as suddenly as Hillary Clinton became William Jennings Bryan?

*

The short answer is "no." One weakness of the Obama campaign has been its failure to pick battles to fight more judiciously. Hence, it floundered in responding to every provocation emanating from the Clinton camp. Perhaps he has learned a lesson. It is not a winning or worthwhile proposition to reject free trade as the potential president of a capitalist economy. As Claus Offe pointed out long ago, government policies that give an incentive to corporations to disinvest are self-defeating when one wants to simultaneously impact areas such as poverty or health care reform. On the Supreme Court's 2nd amendment decision, why stir the hornet's nest of the NRA needlessly. Let the sleeping lunatics lie. FISA is a bit tougher sell for me. However, as President, Obama can seek to use the powers it authorizes more judiciously; in other words, he can submit his own use of FISA to more oversight than Dick Cheney could stomach. Finally, on 'faith based initiatives,' this is very understandable: Obama's community organizing background undoubtedly brought him into contact with 'progressive' churches (such as the one he recently abandoned) which don't seek government funds only for the purpose of imposing evangelical morality on the people whom they help.

*

All of these moves are reasonable from a person who seeks to run a truly national campaign (not the typical presidential campaign that focuses on a few swing states to the neglect of all others). Obama is hunting on McCain's expected safe territory; finally, a Democrat is not simply conceding Red States and religious fundamentalists. If Obama can actually co-opt the Fundies (especially those under 30), he will have broken the stranglehold of the legacy of the Moral Majority, which would be an accomplishment equal to getting the USA out of Iraq in a timely manner.

finally the campaign begins

After months, the Democrats have their candidate. One question remains: will feminists abandon the Democrats in November?  The fall election offers a test of the state of the Second Wave, whose disappointment over the decline of the inevitable Hillary Clinton presidency threatens to put McCain in her place. On substance, there is a wafer thin difference between Obama and Clinton (leaving aside her war vote). Their contest boiled down to differences in political style, melanin, and chromosomes. It is unnecessary to worry about those who oppose Obama based on his melanin advantage. It is more necessary to worry about those who may reject him based on gender.

*

Why Clinton? Why have older women and feminist organizations hitched their wagon of dreams to such a controversial figure? Clinton promised much, in particular a return to the good old 1990s when the economy boomed and the Yankees were world champions. However, she became a shape-shifter in the face of Obama's utopian wave. First, she was the most experienced candidate ('Ready on day one'). Later, she became the populist candidate of the single parent waitresses. In the end, she came out as a feminist candidate. Which Clinton is the real one? I would suspect the latter self-presentation is the truest. But it is fair to ask whether the difficulty she faced was not only sexism in the media but also her own personal history. Hillary Clinton is not just a woman candidate, she is a brand name. And her brand is not untarnished. Her front-runner status in January 2008 was based on name recognition. Once this shown to no longer suffice to move voters to her cause, the game was over. Her 'experience' advantage was not so overwhelming; hence, it didn't turn the tide against Obama. And her 'experience' in the area of policy in which she is most passionate, universal health care, was an abject failure. (Perhaps she thought this failure was erased from the memories of the Democratic electorate). Moreover, something else went without saying: Republicans would fight to the death to defeat such a policy proposed by a second President Clinton. Hillary Clinton's legacy in this area is much like her legacy as the first woman to crack the political glass ceiling: her defeat opened the door to more pragmatic choices. 

*

Political feminism should not be depressed over the dramatic fall of the inevitable one. Other less problematic women candidates exist and will emerge in time. Hillary Clinton was probably not the 'best chance' for putting a woman in the White House, although this particular nadir in Republican party prospects is a good chance for any breathing Democrat.

will our media connect the dots between...

George Bush, before the Israeli Knesset:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

and

Israel and Syria will begin indirect negotiations in Instanbul in a few weeks, in an effort to reach a peace agreement. (...) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz on Wednesday that 'there had been a development in Syrian positions and the contacts with Syria are a historic breakthrough.' Olmert added that 'these exchanges have been ongoing for a long time and they have now matured.'

tempelhof

Tempelhof, my local neighborhood Flughafen during the Berlin year, is closing.

Oddly, its historical significance doesn't relate to my residence in the Tempelhof district but rather with the Luftbruecke of the late 1940s.

_________________________________

Photo credits: aerial view, Markus Schreiber /AP; interior views, Oliver Hartung New York Times.