Derrida famously declared, “Il n’ya pas de hors-texte”—there is no outside of the text—a foundational postulate of postmodernism that points to the intertextuality of all culture, the absence of a transcendental point above the fray from which to observe cultural phenomena, and perhaps above all, the lack of ontology for things outside the manner in which they are represented—that being, the “real,” adheres somehow to the order of language, not the order of material objects. Most people who never sat in a graduate seminar think this is nonsense, but I found some support for Derrida’s dictum in a remarkable declaration mentioned in this AdPulp post. “Three years ago at Madison and Vine, Coca-Cola’s then CEO stood up and told the room his company was not in the business of selling sweet drinks, but was in fact a media company selling brand impressions.” That’s a pretty astounding statement—Coca Cola doesn’t sell soda, they sell the name “Coca-cola”—but it seems inescapable, self-evident, when you think about it. The material world recedes as the nebulous concept of the brand, which exists only as language, becomes primary. The products themselves are effluvia, arbitrary conduits for the brand, in which all value is stored. If we can’t consume a product as an idea, as a lifestyle, as a set of prepared, intertextual connotations, we really can’t at this point consume it at all. The water pours dowen our throat, but if it’s not Evian or Dasani or whatever, we won’t even notice it; it’s is below the level of consumption and thus sub-real.
Economists always like to complain that there is no real incentive for voting, since one vote (yours) never decides the outcome. As Steven Landsburg explains in this 2004 Slate column,
Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election’s outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.
The traditional reply begins with the phrase “But if everyone thought like that ... .” To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn’t think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it’s hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you’d have in the voting booth.
Landsburg must be delighted then that the state of Arizona now has a ballot referendum to institute an award of $1 million to one lucky voter chosen at random. This seems borderline unconstiutional, but you can see the immediate appeal. More people will vote, and more people voting is a de facto good thing. But is it? Steve Benen argues that this is probably a bad idea: “The logic behind this effort is that higher turnout is an inherent good. I disagree. An unengaged voter, who knows literally nothing about the candidates or the issues, may feel inclined to cast a ballot on Election Day, filling a ballot with choices he or she made more or less at random, for a shot at $1 million. That person hasn’t become engaged by the process or captivated by a sense of civic duty; that person is essentially throwing darts at a board for a chance at a cool million. Democracy doesn’t thrive on more votes; it thrives on quality votes — an engaged electorate that knows the issues, studies the candidates, and cares about the outcome. Even if a lottery boosted turnout, and I suspect it would, what’s the benefit? Who wins when a potential bribe spurs minimal action among those who would otherwise not care?”
But we can’t assume that the new voters this scheme would attract would be any more poorly informed than voters who currently exercise the franchise. People already vote out of a misplaced sense of duty, seeing the civil action as a viable and laudable replacement for actually following politics and being aware of governmental issues. A better argument against this gimmicky scheme is that it debases the vote and makes it incidental to the contest, something like the Big Mac is to the Monopoly game piece. It implies votes are for sale for the infintesimal amount that is equivalent to the odds-adjusted real value of $1 million lottery ticket. (One of Benen’s commenters estimates it come out to around 55 cents.) If votes are for sale, you should get a lot more for it than that, especially considering how much lobbyists pour into campaigns in order to win those votes.
Thom Yorke - Cymbal Rush [Live on The Henry Rollins Show]
PopMatters review: The Eraser
“Waiting for My Ruca” [MP3]
“Another Fine Day” [MP3]
video: “Open Book” [streaming]
Stephen Perkins, RAS 1, Eric Wilson (of Sublime), Josh Fischel, Angelo Moore (of Fishbone), 2Mex, Murs, and more
video: “Doin Time Jam Session” [streaming]
“Love Connection pt. II” [MP3]
“Passion Is Accurate” [MP3]