News about Sarah Palin: apparently she's blah blah blah blah blah.
Sarah Palin: theories as to why she apparently arouses hatred. I probably do hate her, and insofar as I do, I hate that I hate her. To inspire the hatred of others is to wield a peculiar kind of power. There's also a part of me that is in a sense unfazed by her personally, that sees in her a representation of many of contemporary America's most morally objectionable tendencies. It is these tendencies that I oppose with all my might, whether she's there to embody them or not. Right? ...
But, Sarah Palin: she's got to be a symptom of something rather than the other way around, right? Because what symptom could possibly be CAUSED by a Sarah Palin? No. She must be the symptom. The side effect.
Sarah Palin: a side effect. Like television commercials for various god-knows-what prescription medications marketed to Baby-Boomers, so that they don't have to poop at inopportune moments, or whatever it is. SIDE EFFECTS MAY INCLUDE SARAH PALIN. Sometimes these advertisements -- the funniest of them, to be sure -- devote, like, over half of their running-time to the announcer guy reading out laundry lists of scary-ass side effects, which MAY INCLUDE MUCUS, SEIZURE, BLOOD CLOT, LOSS OF HEARING, OR -- IN RARE CASES -- SARAH PALIN...
I don't hate Palin so much as I fear the consolidation of political power among those who love her.
Sarah Palin -- to paraphrase the Sex Pistols -- She ain't no human being!, but a constellation of images, allusions and gestures.
The mediated phenomenon "Sara Palin" evokes nostalgia among a large number of Americans -- although, as far as I can tell, not a majority of them -- for a past that does not exist/that never existed.
I am reminded of accounts I have read of what it was like to witness the ascendancy of National Socialism in the tempestuous final days of the Weimar Republic: the celebration of ignorance, of seething, unfocused resentments.
The final revenge of style over content.
Sarah Palin makes George W. Bush look like a civil libertarian. She makes Ronald Reagan look pro-education. Sarah Palin is worse than these men because, whereas their moral precepts were delusional, hers are non-existent.
She's amoral: she represents indifference toward morality, indifference toward the Constitution, indifference toward the quality of life -- and livelihoods -- of present and future generations, indifference toward science, indifference toward representative democracy, indifference toward the separation of the branches of government, indifference toward education, indifference toward art, toward culture, toward freedom, toward poverty, toward the pursuit of happiness, indifference toward the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers, indifference toward religion in its meaningful sense, indifference toward history, indifference toward ideas, and indifference toward suffering.
The only thing toward which she is not indifferent is Sarah Palin. She doesn't care about the people who celebrate her. The people who celebrate her do so in the sense that they live vicariously through her. She embodies a collective, incoherent and self-contradictory dream. This dream pines for the destruction of all things unfamiliar in the interest of preserving the self as the self construes itself.
We really should be explaining the Left objection to her in moral terms: Sarah Palin is amoral.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
People have brought up her resignation in the last couple of days, and my response is "I don't want to talk about her."
What I do want to talk about is yesterday's amazing Fourth of July here in Milwaukee.
Actually about Steve Malkmus and The Jicks and their performance at a free street festival sponsored by Pabst in Bay View on Potter street right by Hi-Fi and Rush-mor.
First of all, mad props need to be extended to Pabst and whoever else organized the event as it could have been the coolest thing Milwaukee has ever seen. It was outdoors on a street in the middle of apartment buildings with people hanging out on their balconies watching the show along with a throng of the rest of the people enjoying the tunes.
A band called Maritime came on. They kinda sucked. Then came Maps & Atlases whom I had not heard before. They were a treat, with their proggy blend of punk and psychedelia.
Then I went to go smoke some weed and came back as The Jicks were performing (I think we only missed a song or two).
Malkmus, looking strangely like Christian Bale, confidently played guitar and sang his brilliant brand of . . . I don't even know what to call it, but it blew Maps & Atlases out of the water, even though, as I said I enjoyed M & P a lot. I recently saw Wilco, and the Jicks blew them out of the water. I will even contend that I would rather hear Steve play guitar more than N Cline.
I gotta go, but more on this later.
But, as my Brother said about Speed Queen BBQ "(it was) no joke."
ha! i've met the bass player form m&p. kristina used to be friends with him, maybe still is for all i know.
anyway, it sounds like it was fun.
and, yeah, i agree let's forget about what's-her-face. life's too short.
But, I will comment on SP, as I don't want to completely hijack your post.
This post is dedicated to the victims of George W. Bush.
My opinion on Sarah Palin is that I don't give a shit about her. CFT, you seem to have this grand fear about America turning into a rightist dictatorship, and that people like SP are the people who could make it happen.
My opinion is that I have more faith in the American political system, believe or not. I would be writing this even if it was February 13 instead of July 6th.
While it has gotten hairy sometimes in our nation's history, something that could be said is that we've never become a dictatorship. (I don't want to spend too much time talking about this fact; I do acknowledge the horrors of our territorial expansion against Native Americans; the absolute evil of slavery, Jim Crow and the continuing racism that goes on here; the muzzling of certain freedoms by Lincoln during the war; the Nixon/W. Bush propensity for spyiing on American citizens; and the internment of Japanese-Americans by FDR. All of these were terrible, terrible things. We can address them individually later if need be.)
Now, before you harangue me (can harangue be a verb?) with the dangers of American exceptionalism, I'll have you know that I get it. I still believe the chances of America becoming a dictatorship of any sort are slim.
A few points in no particular order.
First, as alluded to a little bit before, our country has a long, long track record of not falling into authortarian governments. The prez. is around for 8 years at the most and if the country gets too shitty, there are enough reasonable citizens out there who will vote for the country not be shitty. I also believe that if a president tried to grant him or herself powers too excessive within that eight years, that the reasonable citizens of this country will act to oust the president, or actively retard any such power-grab for the eight years.
Take George W. Bush.
Fact: George W. was one of the five worst presidents in U.S. history. We need not go nuts with an explanation of this, but with his foreign policy bungling and short-sightedness; an embrassing, ridiculous, and tragic handling of Katrina; an economy that went to shit under his watch; and more relevant to this discussion, strange ramping up of the government's ability to spy domestically.
This last feature is important here because it was a move TOWARDS dictatorial power that curtailed the rights of our citizens. I honestly get quite paranoid about police listening to my phone conversations, checking out my text messages, reading stuff on my Facebook(tm), and looking at my comments on this fair blogsight. It is probably too much paranoia, a lot caused by Bush, especially when it was revealed that companies like AT & T were in cahoots (its probably still happening). This whole set of policies is SHIT. PERIOD.
However, even given this fact, I do not think that at any point during W the country was in any real danger of become a "fascist dictatorship" as many lefty worry-worts warned. The domestic spying sucks my balls, but I don't see the SS roaming the streets.
We had eight years of that shit, but we got by. Let me acknowledge here, though, that not everybody got by, including the victims of Hurricane Brownie, our dead and bleeding service-women and men overseas, along with hundreds of thousands of deceased Middle Easterners. These are tragic victims of one of the five worst presidents in American history and please don't take it that I am just cavelierly brushing past these cruel realities.
BUT, the point stands that I don't think that we were/are in danger of becoming a rightist dictatorship.
(cont'd)
We had eight frickin' years with the guy, and now we have a president who now gives many reasonable Americans hope for the future, who appears to have the needs of the whole nation and world in his heart, is the first minority president which nothing to sneeze at, and who I predict will be re-elected in 2012.
While Bush was ridiculously re-elected in '04 (why, oh why? Oh yeah, John Kerry/John Edwards completly blew as a Democratic ticket), there was almost zero chance that McCain/Palin would have won the 2008 election. Why? Well, along with the brilliance of Obama, the country also was reeling after those eight years and when a country is reeling, they'll vote for someone new if that someone has an ounce of credibility. Kerry sucked, that's the big reason in my mind why Bush was re-elected.
People died and suffered because of Bush, but we as a country weathered the hurricane and now we at least appear to be heading in a positive direction. Some freedoms we're curtailed; Bush blew donkey balls, but we certainly did not become a totalitarian dictatorship.
Now the shoe's on the other foot. Obama has the right-wing locking their daughters' in the basement. They think he is the Boogeyman hiding in their bedroom closet. Even some good people who happen to be on the right have this delusional fear that Barack is marching us towards the Utopian promise of a socialist dictatorship and with drape a hamme and sickle over Lady Liberty's crowned head. Right radio is screaming, gun-owners are cowering, my frickin' therapist whom I love and who has helped me immensely in my life can't resist bringing up how Obama is ruining our country by the end of our sessions.
To me, it is hysteria. If Obama made a vast grab for power and there were tell-tale signs of the country careening towards communism (a term which I am using for fun), reasonable people whould not allow it to happen. He would be thrown out of office, or not re-elected. Luckily for us, he is not doing these things.
I guess the main point is that there are enough reasonable people in this country who know that they do not want any sort of government that deprives the citizens of vast amounts of their constitutional rights. Usually these people are not heard because their views do not sell magazines, or garner ratings on television or radio. The nuts of the extremities are heard more because they yell louder and have politcial takes so ridiculous that it is interesting/entertaining to watch, read, or listen to.
What does this have to do with Sarah Palin?
I'll put it this way:
I am not afraid of Sarah Palin. Fine, she wants to resign as governor of Alaska? That's great. In fact, I am happy for the people of Alaska.
If the resignation means she's running for president, go ahead, Sarah. You won't win. We'll have to deal with having you beamed in to our living rooms for about a year, which will be hellish in its own right, but we can handle it.
There are too many reasonable citizens in America to allow someone like that piece of shit (I understand the dangers, CFT, of engaging in this type of name-calling, but I don't care) become president.
Call me complacent if you wish. Make fun of my sentimentality towards the American system, fine.
A note to end this post on, I would like to reitarate that I acknowledge those moments in American history when our governments and our presidents have failed in their duty to protect the citizenry and have failed in their duty to foster the most peaceloving and free land that they could. These moments were tragic, and many, many people suffered. We can only hope (or pray if you want) that our future leaders can have more courage, and stronger sense of (ahem)moral fortitude. But, I personally will not allow our country become a totalitarian dictatorship.
Thanks.
Hmm. I sense a tone of defensiveness in your comment... I was going to respond: "YOU'RE SENTIMENTAL!!!!"
Look, I guess what I would say to you is that I am as fed up as anyone with the constant and often highly irresponsible ramping-up of the rhetorical stakes.
Although I recognize that maybe like some bloggers or something on the putative Left whipped themselves into over-the-top hysterics over Bush, I haven't lately noticed all that much from that corner, and that's probably mainly because I just don't really see any reason to care at the moment.
Have I indulged in it myself? Ermm.... I'm not really sure. Maybe sometimes, but the point of this blog (as with most any blog) is as much as anything else to blow off steam from time to time, although that was primarily during the election, and saying things that you don't really backup when you consider them with distance and in a calmer frame of mind, well that comes with the territory. And I actually have to insist that spewing forth invective towards the likes of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld is kind of a different thing, because these dudes exercised considerable power both in front of and behind the scenes, and they REALLY DO stand fora vision of what America is, has been and should be all about that is directly opposed to my own. I mean, in several important matters, my ideas are in DIRECT conflict with theirs, and they have never showed a shred of decency or goodwill toward those with whom they disagree, so why should I (who has no power other than a few gems like freedom of speech) be all nicey-nicey about them when they pound their fists on podia, INSISTING that government-sanctioned and executed torture is not only Constitutional, but patriotic and morally right? You see my point re: Cheney/Rummy?
Now, what I would say re: Palin is that she represents for me a very cynical and, to my mind, extremely dangerous brand of reactionary-pseudo-populism that the Republican Party is at once trying to court and trying to make meaningful use of. The kinds of statements that were being made during the campaign, both suggestive utterances by MCain/Palin/various redneck GOP governors and the large-scale out-and-out racism of sections of the GOP faithful, not to mention shameless Neo-McCarthyist rhetoric toward Obama/the Dems that bordered on the fascistic -- all of this stuff is NOT something that was or is "typical" of our recent national discourses. It's extremely mean-spirited, self-pitying, close-minded and anti-intellectual. You did not have this stuff during Reagan. You had a bit of it during the GW Bush/Dukakis campaigns, but once GW Bush had cheated his way into office, his patrician, WASPy, bullshit gentility & obvious personal disregard for hardcore right-wing wing-nuts had the effect of disbursing it.
But I believe that what we have now, the truly disturbing shit that you are increasingly hearing otherwise reasonable people saying, is the effect of eight years of highly rhetorically charged politics of division, self-pity, and "messaging" under Bush, preceded by eight years of basically all of the same things under Clinton.
You mention your shrink, and the stuff he can't help saying about Obama: I think that really, as we've discussed, you and I have different temperaments re this stuff. That kind of shit just tries my nerves, and I think that it would do that almost as much were it coming from a shrink who were, say, adamantly--to a rhetorically unhinged extent--Leftist. I don't know what it says about me, but I don't think I could see a shrink who thinks in way yours does about politics. I would find it too distressing. : )
This leads me to my final point of somewhat-disagreement with you. I agree that it is irresponsible to ramp-up the rhetoric to truly outlandish and violent proportions, for a host of reasons, the main one being that I think any reasonable adult, even if he gives in to some rhetorical crap that blames everything on Obama/etc., will recognize in retrospect: "Jeez; I really sounded like a huge baby." Or: "Am I really that stupid that I think the world is divided into two groups of people, the good guys & the bad guys, and that I have the temerity to count myself automatically as one of the good guys?" In the latter case, especially if he goes around calling himself a "Christian" or something like that... But the disappointing fact of the matter is that all too many people, people from whom I'd have assumed for whatever reason that I could expect better, are simply not reasonable or reflective enough or imaginative or empathic enough to see things outside of the context of the little universe they've assembled for themselves and in which they live out day after day of their hypocritical, parochial existences. Not to beat up on him specifically, but the fact that somebody like my father, who, begrudgingly admitting to the thing that must be true given his beliefs and background, which is that he wasn't enamored of Sarah Palin, the fact that my father voted for John McCain anyway, despite knowing that this shrill, self-centered nightmare of a person was his VP-running mate...
I
I'm sorry, but if there's proof that we in fact CANNOT rely on "reasonable people" to make sure bad stuff doesn't go down in this country, this is it. History shows us that "reasonable people" of all political persuasions do all sorts of retarded and sometimes deeply sinister things, support demagogues who will "make the trains run on time," or who will "fight the Red Menace." I think the thought experiment that those in our generation should do is to think really hard as to whether or not they could picture their parents and clapping enthusiastically by the side of the road as Der Führer 's motorcade passes by in Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will..... How many of us can say with total certainty that our parents or grandparents, if they found themselves living in chaotic economic and political conditions, wouldn't allow themselves to be brainwashed into supporting the guy who promises to get rid of the Communists, or whatever?
It' s a chilling thing to contemplate, but I, for one have long recognized that for all of my father's positive, Enlightenment-esque (if I may!) qualities, his love of books, his dedication to the truth, etc. etc., the fact is that inside the man is a deeply ingrained disposition that is uncomfortable with disorder. He is someone that, for all of his intellect, has never broken with the world-view of his upbringing, in which critical thinking, questioning of authority, expressions of alienation from the forces of the status quo, all of these things seem sinister to him in a way that he himself will never recognize--it runs too deep. The fact is that it all springs from the time and circumstances of his upbringing. "Questioning authority" was synonymous to many in his dip-shit, poverty-stricken little reactionary Indiana town with "disrespect for authority." Expressions of dissent or alienation or ennui were synonymous with idleness, sloth, self-centeredness and ill-intention toward others.
That his worldview, his orientation to the people, institutions and forces around him is still predicated upon this deeply personal, highly contextual and entirely autobiographical frame of reference and system of valuation/morality is, of course, the most self-centered thing in the world. But the fact is, I'd be lying to you if I said that my dad would be quick to cry foul were a Hitler appear on the scene and promise to restore law and order. It's painful to contemplate, but it's true. And, unfortunately, I think the same is true of many, for example, Baby Boomers.
Yes, I see.
Without going in to everything you wrote, are you saying that despite previous threats to the American. . .whatever, Palin and friends represent something fundamentally DIFFERENT than before? That they represent some kind of new reality in which the type of cynical diarrhea they espouse (which is certainly not nearly the first diarrhea to be sprayed on the American peoples' faces) may actually lead to an American reality we (you and me) will really abhor? I mean REALLY abhor, to the point where we would leave the country, or maybe take up a revolutionary base in Naga-Waukee Park, find followers, arm ourselves, and try to topple the government. Look, I'm not saying things that in this new millenium things haven't been mostly shitty. I was just making a prediction: we shall overcome any such threat that Sarah Palin represents.
This space station is the ULTIMATE POWER in the galaxy. I suggest we useit.
"This space station is the ULTIMATE POWER in the galaxy. I suggest we useit."
HAHHAHAHA!
Uh, well. Look: don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
Oh, and also: you're right that Palin does not in and of herself represent the embodiment of an unprecedented, violent & reckless form of politics that will rise to a position of supremacy. And I think that you're right that the reason for this is that her appeal is simply not widespread enough.
If that's your point, fair enough. But I detected in your remarks an additional idea: that the critical mass of reasonable, informed and intelligent people in our country can be expected at all times to serve as a bulwark against the ascendancy of tyranny and/or a regime of shrewd lies and stagecraft.
And my only point is, no we can't. I do think that Palin represents something new with respect to RECENT history, as I explained in my last rant. And the new thing has two facets: 1) the rhetoric has become a lot more blatantly mean-spirited, un-neighborly, reckless and sometimes sinister. This is a change. 2) Her base/demographic, a minority though it may be, which is different from the so-called Christian Right that was so instrumental in bringing George W. Bush to power. She represents a new brand of resentment that is much less directed/ideological in its basis than was the Christian Right version, and is based entirely on pure self-pity. It's rural, it's white, it's racist, it's uneducated, it's poor and it's really susceptible to pure demagogy. The scary thing about it being less ideologically based than the classic Christian Right coalition is that those who are trying to figure out how to fashion electoral gold out of this mass can pretty much cut in any direction they want, and as long as it can be made to 'tie in' to resentment of cities, educated people, the arts and the science, it will work.
So the combination of these two things is just something that I think people who care about civil liberties and reasoned discourse should keep an eye on. That's all.
Now, if I were saying the sky was falling, THEN I could understand your resistance to my comments. Because that is, after all, the an example of the kind of ramped-up rhetoric that I am expressing concern about. Maybe a better metaphor is 'crying wolf'. I think people who want to work toward the preservation of democratic values need to keep in mind is that the best response to the over-the-top shit is simply to diffuse it, the way Obama frequently and brilliantly does, and say: "Look: NO BOGEYMAN HERE," whether it's freedom of speech or war protests or public education or a revamped health care system.
But that doesn't mean that we should stop paying attention to what's going on. I mean, I'm not like losing sleep over this stuff (got my own shit to worry about!), but that doesn't mean I don't pay attention from time to time and -- most importantly -- have ongoing conversations with people like you just to hear ideas out, engage in friendly debate, etc., etc.
Later!
cft
Indeed. I hear you. Even with what I am saying, I don't want to suggest that evryone should stop paying attention and become complacent.
I am for non-complacency combined with sober readings of today American political reality.
Yeah, I recognize at this point that, in the main, we are in agreement on this stuff.
The whole idea is to steer a course that resists:
1) alarmism,
2) defeatism,
3) the temptation to immerse oneself in an ideologically based non-reality, based upon resentment toward others and fear, and
4) an impatience deriving from one's sense of moral, spiritual or intellectual superiority,
while simultaneously resisting complacency with things the way they are, the way they seem always to have been, and the way that, when it comes down to it, it is nothing more than a personal convenience for them to be in the future.
I have what I believe to be a much better way of saying what I was trying to get at in the last part of my previous comment. I meant to issue a reminder that, to use your excellent terminology, neither
"non-complacency"
nor
"sober readings of today['s] American political reality"
are guaranteed in all circumstances to result in the easiest personally or least complicated ways of relating to the world in which you live. And yet, to the extent that ordinary people who care about these kinds of things keep one another informed and assist one another in thinking through them (in whatever form, be it books, conversation, etc., etc.), it gives us something much more valuable and tangible than the alleviation of fleeting discomforts and mental/moral challenges.
What it gives us, I think, is access to the truth.
Post a Comment