Obama as historical rupture
In this LRB essay, Slavoj Žižek ponders the significance of Obama’s election. While it seems to represent a temporary triumph over political cynicism—“what the cynics don’t see is their own naivety, the naivety of their cynical wisdom which ignores the power of illusions”—does it also imply some sort of decisive break in historical continuity? Has Obama introduced a whole new game rather than merely adjusting the rules of the existing politics? (See Larval Subjects’ thoughts on that here.) As the transition has been assembled, we’ve seen some of the same Washington power players from the Clinton era shuffled back into prominence, which has led to articles (like this one) pronouncing that nothing’s really changed. This allows some pundits to dismiss the outpouring of emotion when Obama won as overdramatic self-congratulation by liberals who will deserve to be disappointed by politics as usual. (Update: See leftist philosopher Simon Critchley’s view here.)
Of course, politics will largely remain the same—various interests will continue to compete for priority and so on. This is a good thing; dreams of post-partisanship are misguided in presuming some underlying consensus among peopple with irreconcilable differences. Žižek makes this point in an aside: when the financial crisis led to bipartisan action, what that meant in effect was “that democratic procedures were de facto suspended.”
But it’s hard to look at something like this, the first of what promises to be a weekly YouTube chat from Obama, on a government website that is almost unprecedented in its user-friendly slickness, and not feel that something is fundamentally different about this administration. That difference—a comfort with new media and the opportunities that stem from it—seems irreversible. (I’m sure this has already been called Politics 2.0 somewhere.) I have to admit that it’s a little sinister and Big Brotherly in feel, and I am still cynical enough to suspect these traits will help make it go over well with the general public.
What Obama’s team seems to want to do is establish Obama as an untarnishable brand, anchored in images of youth and progress (hence YouTube), that can then be used to win approval for policies without having to convince people of their merits. Participating in politics tends to make people uncomfortable, and few people do it at any level beyond voting. It involves compromise and confrontation and a willingness to be reminded again and again that reality falls short of ideals. But people love participating in brands—no compromise necessary there, as the engagement takes place on the fantasy level and consists of pure vicarious pleasure. If we become invested in brand Obama, we will end up absorbing the progressive ideology he may espouse as a kind of by-product. And this can then inform the polls that inform political decisionmaking by legislators. Maybe this is nothing new; this is the “bully pulpit” theory of executive leadership. We just have been without a credible leader for so long in the U.S. that’s it is hard to remember what that is like.
Comments
“Participating in politics tends to make people uncomfortable, and few people do it at any level beyond voting. It involves compromise and confrontation and a willingness to be reminded again and again that reality falls short of ideals. But people love participating in brands—no compromise necessary there, as the engagement takes place on the fantasy level and consists of pure vicarious pleasure.”
This is brilliant. Always such a pleasure, reading this smart blog, Rob.
Comment by Ann R. from Manchester — November 18, 2008 @ 8:52 am
You’ve really hit on what my discomfort with Obama and his “followers” has been all along. The legions of Obama fans that unquestioning follow the leader is both reminiscent of rock band worship or fashion brand worship and also has dangerous historical precedents. Name any charismatic leader whose powers are built almost entirely on image and then look at what happens and you can see the danger.
On another related issue, Obama has been repeatedly citing Ronald Reagan and it seems evident why now as he’d more than likely love to become the next Teflon President. Some political talking heads have suggested that he has, in fact, already achieved this.
Obama is a politician with a paper thin resume, trading on personal charisma and great speeches. C’mon people, think critically and hold him to high standards. Ignore the rhetoric of his pretty words and demand real action and solutions and get involved in making real policy changes. Don’t just sit there and eat up the soundbytes, reveling in how enlightened you are for election America’s first African-America President. Symbols are nice, but they don’t pay our rapidly rising bills and don’t help save our quickly diminishing 401-ks.
Comment by Steve from New York — November 18, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Hey Steve, news flash. The election is over. Mr. Obama won.
Comment by Tamerlane Sherman — November 18, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
>demand real action and solutions and get involved in making real policy changes
i believe that is exactly what Mr. Obama is encouraging people to do, rather than being passive about coming change.
-justin
Comment by Justin Brooks from Richmond, VA — November 18, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Bravo, Roberto!
In some ways, it’s hard to overcome the cognitive dissonance of having an administration—finally; and I’m not sure I would even count Clinton—that appeals to my values.
Also, Steve’s post reminds me of how an opposition party can prompt the government in power to reflect on its course . . . not that this model really worked over the past 8 years . . .
Comment by el jefe from ann arbor, MI — November 18, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
I feel it’s good to be questioning of Obama’s celebrity status, and I understand the sentiment Steve from New York expresses that he is a politician with a paper-thin resume. But I think the past has shown us that even politicians with large bodies of experience can be royal fuckups and still be corrupt and self-serving. I think that people see something in Obama that is beyond clever branding. Saying that people are entranced by his brand and celebrity is belittling our collective intelligence. I think we see something in him we don’t see in other politicians - an eagerness to help and change. He is the first politician I’ve had the pleasure to vote for who actually seemed to WANT the job. Not because he will profit from it, or he will gain status or power. But because he honestly thinks he can do a good job at it. He has instilled enthusiasm about public policy that is unprecedented in my generation. We’re no longer apathetic as we’ve been for the last 8 years. Is that not a great thing? Is that not something that benefits everyone?
Comment by Chris Furniss from Seattle, WA — November 18, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
I generally agree with Justin and Chris. Although I do think the point of this article (the danger of identifying with figureheads and brands rather than actual policies) is well taken, I do think that it’s unfair to paint Obama as a well-advertised blank slate for a couple of reasons.
The first is the interactive element of his ideas. As you say, the extent of most people’s political activity is to vote, and Obama attacks this mindset. His embrace of youth and new media is also an embrace of the diffusion of action that those things allow. His campaign got hundreds of thousands of people directly involved in the election and he continues to use his grassroots network to encourage direct action from supporters. His speeches also emphasize the need for individual action, Barack has been the first person to warn against seeing him as a magic cure-all and to stress the importance of concerted individual action. The mentality espoused here is certainly a far cry from top-down executive overreach.
The other point worth noting is Obama’s willingness to embrace ambiguity, compromise and what’s been called “reality-based politics”. Arguments about his experience aside, just looking at his campaign shows a man unusually (for a politician) willing to treat the American public like adults who can grasp nuance, uncertainty and a world shaded in grays. What started to convince about Obama was his ability to treat assinine political asides (drug use, flag pins, Bill Ayers) as just that - and to trust the American people not to care. If nothing else, I hope this campaign’s legacy will be that it turned the tide and allowed campaigns to ignore empty posturing. His willingness to speak honestly (sometimes a bit boringly) about decisions we face should help prevent him from being seen as a political deity and more a man trying to wade his way through a field of difficult, often terrible deicisions.
Comment by John from Beloit — November 18, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
Well, the election may be well and over now but Obama will stand up as a strong fashion icon for sure.
Comment by Prada handbags — January 31, 2009 @ 3:23 am