The Weakness Inside Political Ambiguity

And when they have run into a blind alley, when they have compromised themselves sufficiently to be compelled to carry out their threats, they do this in an ambiguous way, avoiding the means to the end like the plague and clutching at excuses for their failure.
— Karl Marx, as quoted in J. X. Cooper's Modernism and the Culture of Market Society

Yes, it's certainly a dark time in our history. The Republicans are openly appealing to radical nationalists to win their majorities, and seem to be waiting for any excuse to use the bully pulpit to antagonize the Democrats, further radicalizing the government to impose their corporate-friendly agenda. Their puppets in the Tea Party have recently vocalized their goal: the complete dismantling of the welfare state. This is in the face of the collapse of the world economy, American hegemony, the environment, and it seems, hope in the future. Meanwhile, the Democrats, and by this I mean all of us, not just the politicians, have dropped the ball. Our party is almost as weak as the economy, yet far more hopeless.

Left and Right, these reactions don't surprise me all that much, since there is hardly any principled opposition heard in the media that would serve as a partial remedy. Most of the Left's efforts appear self-serving, and at the very least reactionary. For example, President Obama will come out every now and then and take advantage of some negative aspect of Republican politics that is undeniably visible, such as Senator John McCain's complicity in Bush's agenda or the GOP's childish refusal to compromise. This is important, as politics does involve defining the character of your opponent. But if I had to name one flaw in Obama's strategy, it would be that he doesn't give the public a clear example of what a government focused on building the kind of solidarity we need actually looks like. I believe that public trust is only won through explaining a working model that people can access, and pragmatism happens to be the one ideology that fails that test.

I should point out that this probably does fall outside the traditional duties of our form of government. Because of this, Obama might very well turn out to be a lost-cause: a flash-in-the-pan opportunist whose best instincts have been driven out by special interests (e.g. the financial sector). This is invariably what to expect should the common man stay in the powerless state he is in now, unable to influence his supposed representative in the government, the president, in a substantial and meaningful way.

The root cause as I see it is the corrupting influence of power and it manifests itself in several ways: the ever-dwindling number of responsible pundits in the corporate game, an abundance of fraud, and the overall want to feel superior and safe. Such a system can only exist because it is self-perpetuating -- the spiritual void it creates is approached only with risky solutions that usually make things worse.

I suppose I may be accused of being overly cynical. That likely depends on what your goals are. It's certainly no mindset to be in should you want to advocate for a something other than complete political Nihilism. Mild reformism is a much better strategy, and that requires seeing shades of gray. It often does include things like repeating yourself to make a point memorable and being slightly pollyannish should you decide you want to hold the ear of a wide spectrum of pundits. Even language games play a part, though they the risk of obscuring the situation further and getting mired in petty squabbles that are only justified because people believe they supposedly represent some deep seated conflict in our culture. Obviously, my cynicism extends to such tactics as well. It's my own attempt at countering the kind of magical thinking that ends up distracting us from real issues. (Ivan Illich, an Austrian anarchist philosopher called these tactics "rain-dances" -- an attempt to "domesticate" what we cannot control through the belief in action-at-a-distance.)

To explain this from a different angle, an ideology of despair is only improved through more despair, and therefore generally weakens one's ability to accept harsh realities unless it is paired with a nearly impossible ability to tolerate displeasure. Outside of artists and maniacs, this is rare. Positivity on the other hand allows for a better view of what is going on because it provides strength and skills to see and analyze disgusting and disheartening things. In not trying to shape the world into a bleak image that projects but does not explain personal suffering, the task of understanding one's opponent's position so that he can be countered effectively becomes much more probable and attractive.

A good example of this difference of mentalities was when Rachel Maddow brought up the Tea Party's support in Indiana in her interview with Jon Stewart. It prompted Stewart to go into a intellectualizing of the problem, literally with the words "What does that [even] mean?" Following that, he babbled on citing half-baked examples that were intended to show the media's incompetence. Maddow tried to pin Stewart down on a point of view, anything that can be used to promote constructive criticism, but all that resulted was more confused anecdotes that lacked any kind of overarching similarity except their depressing nature.

The deeper truth (the overall hugeness of the problem) was briefly touched on and the two tried to grapple with it without taking it apart. This accomplishes nothing more than evidencing of their knee-jerk logic while they distract themselves with a game of "Hot Potato," which is usually where the opposition finds weakness. One commenter on Maddow's page summarized Stewart's mantra as this: "let's talk in inside voices and not [catch ourselves] saying anything disagreeable." He politely asked Maddow to not encourage this behavior.

I must admit that I share the blame that I see myself so easily putting on Obama, Maddow and Stewart. I can always define myself as the opposite of what I consider evil, but I'm not really contributing much if I don't try to understand the intricacies of the situation, a task they take on every day. A part of understanding this, I believe, also takes away some blame one might put on them. They face immense amounts of pressure because of problems with their institutions, which they have limited control over. Obama may sound quite harsh in blaming the Republicans for the economy, but unless he wants to be called a hypocrite, can hardly be expected to criticize Bush's heinous abuses of power. Maddow and Stewart (it seems) see themselves as cogs in a system of sane, rational people responding to the craziness of the world. At most though, they fill the role of a comforting presence to us and an irritation to power. That is the most you can expect from a leader in a crisis. It's something, but not everything.

Were they to step outside this system, they might snap, or they might transform into a beautiful enlightened butterflies from their cocoons of mildly informed propaganda. I don't really expect this second option to happen because of the institutional problems. As Stewart put it "As a satirist, I can always criticize, but I can't actually do anything. We have an advantage in terms of loose rules, in terms of language hyperbole and sarcasm, but what we don't have at the end of day is what the lowest ranking member of an organization that builds things has." Maddow termed this "responsibility." Stewart went on to explain quite rightly in my opinion that there was no "real honor" in the "deflation" of a "toxic" things, (a term which I consider Newspeak for the side effects of imperial capitalism). He explained that in his role, unfortunately, truth and authenticity are minimized to the role of something that smooths over the finished product, rather than a moral obligation of an intellectual.

Maddow is substantially different, or at least, she presents herself that way. She is unabashedly partisan, and this is a good thing. She does not engage in the kind of immature dissociation that you find in people facing a spiritual crisis (who happen to look a lot like Obama and Stewart). I think this is reflected in her cheerful and energetic demeanor, and in her attempt to approach issues in an intimate but balanced way, using humor when possible but not as a defense mechanism. I think the bigger picture that must be painted must come from this kind of positivity, not just despair. Still, she works for a corporation that will try to squeeze people out, as Olbermann almost had been.

While it is important to understand their weaknesses, I must admit that they do have their moments -- times when their abilities are exactly what is called for. Maddow has a serious approach to things, which I presume is meant to further the cause of journalism. Stewart's ability to intellectualize and provide comforting distractions are also important. It's good for the Left to recognize and encourage such traits, even if, in the end, they do not result in the type of "responsibility" (as Maddow terms it) that we need.

All I ask of Maddow and Stewart is to recognize that the task likely requires us to avoid the the attention-seeking behavior that Stewart ironically projects only onto FOX. We need a type of enlightened approach that is ultimately beyond the abilities of the talking heads and elite intellectuals on TV. Were they up to the task, it would probably not even survive the format anyway. As Noam Chomsky likes to point out, commercial breaks have a way of hampering any kind of meaningful discussion.

Still, I think it's important we should hope for some reality to break through, and for some success to come with fighting fire with fire, because what is good can never be put into a totalizing dispassionate system of analysis. We must do our best to organize, but if our despair and cynicism are too overwhelming to be hidden, we should at least express them the best we can. We are human after all, and it's no coincidence that the greatest minds in history have found comfort in this simple fact.