For The Lefties...

[prole]

This is one of the better post-Obamalection pieces I've read. Thought y'all would like it...

 

Uncritical Exuberance?

Judith Butler

 

Very few of us are immune to the exhilaration of this time. My friends on the left write to me that they feel something akin to "redemption" or that "the country has been returned to us" or that "we finally have one of us in the White House." Of course, like them, I discover myself feeling overwhelmed with disbelief and excitement throughout the day, since the thought of having the regime of George W. Bush over and gone is an enormous relief. And the thought of Obama, a thoughtful and progressive black candidate, shifts the historical ground, and we feel that cataclysm as it produces a new terrain. But let us try to think carefully about the shifted terrain, although we cannot fully know its contours at this time. The election of Barack Obama is historically significant in ways that are yet to be gauged, but it is not, and cannot be, a redemption, and if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes ("we are all united") or that we propose ("he is one of us"), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. There have always been good reasons not to embrace "national unity" as an ideal, and to nurse suspicions toward absolute and seamless identification with any political leader. After all, fascism relied in part on that seamless identification with the leader, and Republicans engage this same effort to organize political affect when, for instance, Elizabeth Dole looks out on her audience and says, "I love each and every one of you."

 

It becomes all the more important to think about the politics of exuberant identification with the election of Obama when we consider that support for Obama has coincided with support for conservative causes. In a way, this accounts for his "cross-over" success. In California, he won by 60% of the vote, and yet some significant portion of those who voted for him also voted against the legalization of gay marriage (52%). How do we understand this apparent disjunction? First, let us remember that Obama has not explicitly supported gay marriage rights. Further, as Wendy Brown has argued, the Republicans have found that the electorate is not as galvanized by "moral" issues as they were in recent elections; the reasons given for why people voted for Obama seem to be predominantly economic, and their reasoning seems more fully structured by neo-liberal rationality than by religious concerns. This is clearly one reason why Palin's assigned public function to galvanize the majority of the electorate on moral issues finally failed. But if "moral" issues such as gun control, abortion rights and gay rights were not as determinative as they once were, perhaps that is because they are thriving in a separate compartment of the political mind. In other words, we are faced with new configurations of political belief that make it possible to hold apparently discrepant views at the same time: someone can, for instance, disagree with Obama on certain issues, but still have voted for him. This became most salient in the emergence of the counter Bradley-effect, when voters could and did explicitly own up to their own racism, but said they would vote for Obama anyway. Anecdotes from the field include claims like the following: "I know that Obama is a Muslim and a Terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway; he is probably better for the economy." Such voters got to keep their racism and vote for Obama, sheltering their split beliefs without having to resolve them.

 

Along with strong economic motivations, less empirically discernible factors have come into play in these election results. We cannot underestimate the force of dis-identification in this election, a sense of revulsion that George W. has "represented" the United States to the rest of the world, a sense of shame about our practices of torture and illegal detention, a sense of disgust that we have waged war on false grounds and propagated racist views of Islam, a sense of alarm and horror that the extremes of economic deregulation have led to a global economic crisis. Is it despite his race, or because of his race, that Obama finally emerged as a preferred representative of the nation? Fulfilling that representative-function, he is at once black and not-black (some say "not black enough" and others say "too black"), and, as a result, he can appeal to voters who not only have no way of resolving their ambivalence on this issue, but do not want one. The public figure who allows the populace to sustain and mask its ambivalence nevertheless appears as a figure of "unity": this is surely an ideological function. Such moments are intensely imaginary, but not for that reason without their political force.

 

As the election approached, there has been an increased focus on the person of Obama: his gravity, his deliberateness, his ability not to lose his temper, his way of modeling a certain evenness in the face of hurtful attacks and vile political rhetoric, his promise to reinstate a version of the nation that will overcome its current shame. Of course, the promise is alluring, but what if the embrace of Obama leads to the belief that we might overcome all dissonance, that unity is actually possible? What is the chance that we may end up suffering a certain inevitable disappointment when this charismatic leader displays his fallibility, his willingness to compromise, even to sell out minorities? He has, in fact, already done this in certain ways, but many of us "set aside" our concerns in order to enjoy the extreme un-ambivalence of this moment, risking an uncritical exuberance even when we know better. Obama is, after all, hardly a leftist, regardless of the attributions of "socialism" proffered by his conservative opponents. In what ways will his actions be constrained by party politics, economic interests, and state power; in what ways have they been compromised already? If we seek through this presidency to overcome a sense of dissonance, then we will have jettisoned critical politics in favor of an exuberance whose phantasmatic dimensions will prove consequential. Maybe we cannot avoid this phantasmatic moment, but let us be mindful about how temporary it is. If there are avowed racists who have said, "I know that he is a Muslim and a terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway," there are surely also people on the left who say, "I know that he has sold out gay rights and Palestine, but he is still our redemption." I know very well, but still: this is the classic formulation of disavowal. Through what means do we sustain and mask conflicting beliefs of this sort? And at what political cost?

 

There is no doubt that Obama's success will have significant effects on the economic course of the nation, and it seems reasonable to assume that we will see a new rationale for economic regulation and for an approach to economics that resembles social democratic forms in Europe; in foreign affairs, we will doubtless see a renewal of multi-lateral relations, the reversal of a fatal trend of destroying multilateral accords that the Bush administration has undertaken. And there will doubtless also be a more generally liberal trend on social issues, though it is important to remember that Obama has not supported universal health care, and has failed to explicitly support gay marriage rights. And there is not yet much reason to hope that he will formulate a just policy for the United States in the Middle East, even though it is a relief, to be sure, that he knows Rashid Khalidi.

 

The indisputable significance of his election has everything to do with overcoming the limits implicitly imposed on African-American achievement; it has and will inspire and overwhelm young African-Americans; it will, at the same time, precipitate a change in the self-definition of the United States. If the election of Obama signals a willingness on the part of the majority of voters to be "represented" by this man, then it follows that who "we" are is constituted anew: we are a nation of many races, of mixed races; and he offers us the occasion to recognize who we have become and what we have yet to be, and in this way a certain split between the representative function of the presidency and the populace represented appears to be overcome. That is an exhilarating moment, to be sure. But can it last, and should it?

 

To what consequences will this nearly messianic expectation invested in this man lead? In order for this presidency to be successful, it will have to lead to some disappointment, and to survive disappointment: the man will become human, will prove less powerful than we might wish, and politics will cease to be a celebration without ambivalence and caution; indeed, politics will prove to be less of a messianic experience than a venue for robust debate, public criticism, and necessary antagonism. The election of Obama means that the terrain for debate and struggle has shifted, and it is a better terrain, to be sure. But it is not the end of struggle, and we would be very unwise to regard it that way, even provisionally. We will doubtless agree and disagree with various actions he takes and fails to take. But if the initial expectation is that he is and will be "redemption" itself, then we will punish him mercilessly when he fails us (or we will find ways to deny or suppress that disappointment in order to keep alive the experience of unity and unambivalent love).

 

If a consequential and dramatic disappointment is to be averted, he will have to act quickly and well. Perhaps the only way to avert a "crash" – a disappointment of serious proportions that would turn political will against him – will be to take decisive actions within the first two months of his presidency. The first would be to close Guantanamo and find ways to transfer the cases of detainees to legitimate courts; the second would be to forge a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to begin to implement that plan. The third would be to retract his bellicose remarks about escalating war in Afghanistan and pursue diplomatic, multilateral solutions in that arena. If he fails to take these steps, his support on the left will clearly deteriorate, and we will see the reconfiguration of the split between liberal hawks and the anti-war left. If he appoints the likes of Lawrence Summers to key cabinet positions, or continues the failed economic polices of Clinton and Bush, then at some point the messiah will be scorned as a false prophet. In the place of an impossible promise, we need a series of concrete actions that can begin to reverse the terrible abrogation of justice committed by the Bush regime; anything less will lead to a dramatic and consequential disillusionment. The question is what measure of dis-illusion is necessary in order to retrieve a critical politics, and what more dramatic form of dis-illusionment will return us to the intense political cynicism of the last years. Some relief from illusion is necessary, so that we might remember that politics is less about the person and the impossible and beautiful promise he represents than it is about the concrete changes in policy that might begin, over time, and with difficulty, bring about conditions of greater justice.

from Angry White Kid Blog

[bradleym]

I do like it. a lot. I admit that on election night, I broke down and cried--cynical me. There is much about the election that does feel like 'redemption', and Judith Warner's article in the NYTimes yesterday (http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/title/?em) made me think about the fact that since Reagan was elected (I was fourteen) I have felt more and less amounts of shame and sadness about my country because it has been in captivity by extremists.

 

But I quickly got a grip, and returned to the thought that whatever Obama's election means, what I was hoping for the most was a return of cool, calculating sanity to the formulation of policy. Obama's victory speech hit it pretty much just right. He didn't give into the jubilation--he realizes that there is a hard, complicated and subtle road ahead, and it will be full of compromise.

 

We all, right and left, tend to simplistic characterizations in politics (like, for example, 'right and left'), and if anything, Obama stands for moving past those simplicities. May he have the eloquence, restraint and judgement to pull it off.

 

The only thing that will really disappoint me is if, in a couple years, Obama is being criticised and castigated by stupid left-wingers the same say he has been lately by stupid right-wingers. The idealistic part of me hopes that all of that can go in the dustbin now, and we can just spend our time figuring out what works, for the world as well as for us.

[ashw_justin]

What [Obama] does will depend very much on the active engagement of the public.

Kind of hard to put it more simply than that. The campaign is over, time to put the unearned swooning hero worship behind us and expect a return on our political investment. We have all of his claims, promises, and professed views on record.

 

Obviously we need to give him a chance, but what happens if Obama fails to deliver? Will we be smart enough to keep asking for the same things in future elections, or will there be some confused flop back over to The Other Side Which Shall Not Be Named simply because they are the loudest competitors? History seems to suggest the latter.

[pc313]

Well,anythings got to be better then the last 8 years of being dry assfucked 24/7,maybe now it will only be 2 or 3 times a week with free K.Y.jelly! I hope for the best,but its not going to happen over night.

Edited November 8, 2008 by pc313

[joblo7]

change must come from the actual rulers. joe obama?? i dont think so...

 

pentagon , banks, fed, etc,

[ashw_justin]

Right, who are the rulers. The only kind of change that benefits the people comes from the people. Can the people change the pentagon, banks, fed, etc? Sounds hard, better keep working at it. I seem to remember some self-declared Americans wrote some stuff about this back in the 18th century. Government for the people by the people or something like that.

[tvashtarkatena]

Given the results of the election, it seems as though we are still the rulers.

 

Change isn't going to happen from the top down, but the way it's already happening; from the efforts of each one of us. Over the past 8 years American's have left their clueless hack of a president behind on all the major issues; the war, health care, global warming; to enact change at the personal, local, and state level. We now have a person who actually believes in true democracy at the top (Remember "I don't need any focus groups?") ; that will make it that much easier to attain the America most of us now realize we need to get to.

 

Frankly, the only honorable thing for George Bush to do now is kill himself for all the lives, dreams, and ethical principles he's destroyed. He's not exactly the honorable type, however.

Edited November 8, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

Is the "change" we're looking for only skin deep?

 

The high priests of the bubble economy

If Barack Obama really wants things to change, he shouldn't be seeking economic advice from Clinton-era officials

by Dean Baker

 

Those following the meeting of Barack Obama's economic advisory committee could not have been very reassured by the presence of Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both former Treasury secretaries in the Clinton administration. Along with former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, Rubin and Summers compose the high priesthood of the bubble economy. Their policy of one-sided financial deregulation is responsible for the current economic catastrophe.

 

It is important to separate Clinton-era mythology from the real economic record. In the mythology, Clinton's decision to raise taxes and cut spending led to an investment boom. This boom led to a surge in productivity growth. Soaring productivity growth led to the low unemployment of the late 1990s and wage gains for workers at all points along the wage distribution.

 

At the end of the administration, there was a huge surplus, and we set target dates for paying off the national debt. The moral of the myth is that all good things came from deficit reduction.

 

The reality was quite different. There was nothing resembling an investment boom until the dot-com bubble at the end of the decade funnelled vast sums of capital into crazy internet schemes. There was a surge in productivity growth beginning in 1995, but this preceded any substantial upturn in investment. Clinton had the good fortune to be sitting in the White House at the point where the economy finally enjoyed the long-predicted dividend from the information technology revolution.

 

Rather than investment driving growth during the Clinton boom, the main source of demand growth was consumption. Consumption soared during the Clinton years because the stock market bubble created $10tn of wealth. Stockholders consumed based on their bubble wealth, pushing the saving rate to record lows, and the consumption share of GDP to a record high.

 

The other key part of the story is the high dollar policy initiated by Rubin when he took over as Treasury secretary. In the first years of the Clinton administration, the dollar actually fell in value against other currencies. This is the predicted result of the deficit reduction. Lower deficits are supposed to lead to lower interest rates, which will in turn lower the value of the dollar.

 

A lowered dollar value will reduce the trade deficit, by making US exports cheaper to foreigners and imports more expensive for people living in the US. The falling dollar and lower trade deficit is supposed to be one of the main dividends of deficit reduction. In fact, the lower dollar and lower trade deficit were often touted by economists as the primary benefit of deficit reduction until they decided to change their story to fit the Clinton mythology.

 

The high dollar of the late 1990s reversed this logic. The dollar was pushed upward by a combination of Treasury cheerleading, worldwide financial instability beginning with the East Asian financial crisis and the irrational exuberance propelling the stock bubble, which also infected foreign investors.

 

In the short-run, the over-valued dollar led to cheap imports and lower inflation. It incidentally all also led to the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, putting downward pressure on the wages of non-college educated workers.

 

Like the stock bubble, the high dollar is also unsustainable as a long-run policy. It led to a large and growing trade deficit. This deficit eventually forced a decline in the value of the dollar, although the process has been temporarily reversed by the current financial crisis.

 

Rather than handing George Bush a booming economy, Clinton handed over an economy that was propelled by an unsustainable stock bubble and distorted by a hugely over-valued dollar.

 

The 2001 recession was relatively short, but the economy continued to shed jobs for almost two years after the recession ended. Because President Bush refused to abandon the high dollar policy, the only tool available to boost the economy was the housing bubble. In addition to the growth created directly by the housing sector, the wealth created by this bubble led to an even sharper decline in saving than the stock bubble.

 

Of course, the housing bubble is now in the process of deflating. The resulting tidal wave of bad debt has created the greatest financial crisis since the second world war. With the loss of $8tn in housing wealth, consumption has seized up, throwing the economy into a severe recession.

 

While the Bush administration must take responsibility for the current crisis (they have been in power the last eight years), the stage was set during the Clinton years. The Clinton team set the economy on the path of one-sided financial deregulation and bubble driven growth that brought us where we are today. (The deregulation was one-sided, because they did not take away the "too big to fail" security blanket of the Wall Street big boys.)

 

For this reason, it was very discouraging to see top Clinton administration officials standing centre stage at Obama's meeting on the economy. This is not change, and certainly not policies that we can believe in.

---from Guardian 11/10/08

[billcoe]

Is the "change" we're looking for only skin deep?

 

The high priests of the bubble economy

If Barack Obama really wants things to change, he shouldn't be seeking economic advice from Clinton-era officials

by Dean Baker

 

Those following the meeting of Barack Obama's economic advisory committee could not have been very reassured by the presence of Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both former Treasury secretaries in the Clinton administration. Along with former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, Rubin and Summers compose the high priesthood of the bubble economy. Their policy of one-sided financial deregulation is responsible for the current economic catastrophe.

 

It is important to separate Clinton-era mythology from the real economic record. In the mythology, Clinton's decision to raise taxes and cut spending led to an investment boom. This boom led to a surge in productivity growth. Soaring productivity growth led to the low unemployment of the late 1990s and wage gains for workers at all points along the wage distribution.

 

At the end of the administration, there was a huge surplus, and we set target dates for paying off the national debt. The moral of the myth is that all good things came from deficit reduction.

 

The reality was quite different. There was nothing resembling an investment boom until the dot-com bubble at the end of the decade funnelled vast sums of capital into crazy internet schemes. There was a surge in productivity growth beginning in 1995, but this preceded any substantial upturn in investment. Clinton had the good fortune to be sitting in the White House at the point where the economy finally enjoyed the long-predicted dividend from the information technology revolution.

 

Rather than investment driving growth during the Clinton boom, the main source of demand growth was consumption. Consumption soared during the Clinton years because the stock market bubble created $10tn of wealth. Stockholders consumed based on their bubble wealth, pushing the saving rate to record lows, and the consumption share of GDP to a record high.

 

The other key part of the story is the high dollar policy initiated by Rubin when he took over as Treasury secretary. In the first years of the Clinton administration, the dollar actually fell in value against other currencies. This is the predicted result of the deficit reduction. Lower deficits are supposed to lead to lower interest rates, which will in turn lower the value of the dollar.

 

A lowered dollar value will reduce the trade deficit, by making US exports cheaper to foreigners and imports more expensive for people living in the US. The falling dollar and lower trade deficit is supposed to be one of the main dividends of deficit reduction. In fact, the lower dollar and lower trade deficit were often touted by economists as the primary benefit of deficit reduction until they decided to change their story to fit the Clinton mythology.

 

The high dollar of the late 1990s reversed this logic. The dollar was pushed upward by a combination of Treasury cheerleading, worldwide financial instability beginning with the East Asian financial crisis and the irrational exuberance propelling the stock bubble, which also infected foreign investors.

 

In the short-run, the over-valued dollar led to cheap imports and lower inflation. It incidentally all also led to the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, putting downward pressure on the wages of non-college educated workers.

 

Like the stock bubble, the high dollar is also unsustainable as a long-run policy. It led to a large and growing trade deficit. This deficit eventually forced a decline in the value of the dollar, although the process has been temporarily reversed by the current financial crisis.

 

Rather than handing George Bush a booming economy, Clinton handed over an economy that was propelled by an unsustainable stock bubble and distorted by a hugely over-valued dollar.

 

The 2001 recession was relatively short, but the economy continued to shed jobs for almost two years after the recession ended. Because President Bush refused to abandon the high dollar policy, the only tool available to boost the economy was the housing bubble. In addition to the growth created directly by the housing sector, the wealth created by this bubble led to an even sharper decline in saving than the stock bubble.

 

Of course, the housing bubble is now in the process of deflating. The resulting tidal wave of bad debt has created the greatest financial crisis since the second world war. With the loss of $8tn in housing wealth, consumption has seized up, throwing the economy into a severe recession.

 

While the Bush administration must take responsibility for the current crisis (they have been in power the last eight years), the stage was set during the Clinton years. The Clinton team set the economy on the path of one-sided financial deregulation and bubble driven growth that brought us where we are today. (The deregulation was one-sided, because they did not take away the "too big to fail" security blanket of the Wall Street big boys.)

 

For this reason, it was very discouraging to see top Clinton administration officials standing centre stage at Obama's meeting on the economy. This is not change, and certainly not policies that we can believe in.

---from Guardian 11/10/08

 

I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU AGREE WITH THAT "OPINION" PIECE. Did you even read that quote you posted? It's laughable that the Clinton administration is responsible for the current state of the economy. There's so much more to it than that. One point to start with, the $ spent on the Iraq war is all on Bush, and a large, large contributing factor why the treasure is out of money. Then concentrate the wealth in the hands of the few via a tax policy and pull it out of a consumer driven economy and make up the shortfall by borrowing from the Chinese...THIS IS NEAR UNBELIVEABLE SHIT. blah blah blah blah

[prole]

[Bug]

I saw no mention of the increase in gas prices.

This sucked vasr amounts of $ out of the middle and lower classes who had no way to invest and make up the diference.

Those (US citizens counted only) that hold a majority share in the big oil companies are in the top 1% of wealthy in the US.

They are not going to spend more on consumables based on a 5% rise in a multi-billion dollar portfolio.

 

Meanwhile, the effect of removing that cash from the main stream consumer market reduces the velocity of transactions and is amplified by what is called the "multiplier effect". If you make a dollar, you spend it at the store which pays its workers eacha portion. They spend it at the movie theater, etc. This is not taken into consideration at all in the article.

[bradleym]

I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU AGREE WITH THAT "OPINION" PIECE. Did you even read that quote you posted? It's laughable that the Clinton administration is responsible for the current state of the economy. There's so much more to it than that. One point to start with, the $ spent on the Iraq war is all on Bush, and a large, large contributing factor why the treasure is out of money. Then concentrate the wealth in the hands of the few via a tax policy and pull it out of a consumer driven economy and make up the shortfall by borrowing from the Chinese...THIS IS NEAR UNBELIVEABLE SHIT. blah blah blah blah

 

I agree that there are some iffy assertions here, and the conclusion is a little too neat and simplistic to be taken that seriously (its the Guardian, after all), but the point that blame must be shared beyond the bushies alone is a good one. The seeds of our current plight were planted even before Clinton, and the Bush administration has adopted policies and encouraged behaviors that only made it far worse, but the 'roaring 90s' played their part as well.

 

Clinton doesn't get a free pass with respect to 9/11, and he shouldn't get one here either.

 

Having said that, I would like to see a Rubin or a Summers take a role in the new administration.

[prole]

During the last 30+ years, there has been far more agreement in terms of economic outlook and policy between Democrats and Republicans than there has been disagreement in any substantial sense. Neoliberal policies and the financialization of the global economy enjoyed a broad consensus amongst political elites from across that narrow spectrum. The "antiglobalization" heyday, of which a critique of broad deregulation and "casino capitalism" was always a part, took place under Clinton's watch. I'm a little surprised at this point that people are still having trouble understanding that Republicans and Democrats share far more of the blame for the financial crisis than the two parties are willing to let on. At this point the question is whether or not there will be a significant shift away from the failed neoliberal policies of the past. The author of the essay suggests that Obama's appointments do not represent a break with the monetary policies that have resulted in many of the problems we're now seeing. I'm not sure what posters' disagreements with this are.

[pink]

hey, i can jerk off with the left or the right

[Bug]

During the last 30+ years, there has been far more agreement in terms of economic outlook and policy between Democrats and Republicans than there has been disagreement in any substantial sense. Neoliberal policies and the financialization of the global economy enjoyed a broad consensus amongst political elites from across that narrow spectrum. The "antiglobalization" heyday, of which a critique of broad deregulation and "casino capitalism" was always a part, took place under Clinton's watch. I'm a little surprised at this point that people are still having trouble understanding that Republicans and Democrats share far more of the blame for the financial crisis than the two parties are willing to let on. At this point the question is whether or not there will be a significant shift away from the failed neoliberal policies of the past. The author of the essay suggests that Obama's appointments do not represent a break with the monetary policies that have resulted in many of the problems we're now seeing. I'm not sure what posters' disagreements with this are.

 

You don't see the differences because you choose not to imo.

The Clinton plan did not raise gas prices by 150%.

The Clinton plan did not spend billions a day on a war in Iraq.

The Clinton plan did not strip federal support for State programs to the bone thereby forcing states to raise taxes or cut infrastructure funding or both.

You are defining the "whole picture" as one little section of what it really is.

[prole]

There's a difference between the "economy as a whole" and the monetary policy that led to the growth of the the tech and housing bubbles and the current financial crisis. Neither I, nor the author of the article is attempting to define "the whole picture", you are. That's fine, but I don't necessarily think it's a fair criticism of the piece.

[billcoe]

hey, i can jerk off with the left or the right

 

Prole says both Pink. Or neither. I'm not sure.

 

Prole, OK, it was Clinton's fault (NOT), ya happy? Bush took over and in 8 years took it into the toilet, and it was all Clinton's fault. That's the essence of the BS article you link which ignores many many substantial Bush initiatives and Bush contributing factors. Obama now has to wade deep into the shit Bush left behind and try and fix it.

[prole]

I'm not saying "it's all Clinton's fault". The point here is that there has continuity in economic thought between administrations whether Republican or Democrat. That, for example, can be said in political terms of the Cold War paradigm that existed for 50 years under both parties. There were some significant differences in style between administrations and change over time but there was also a great deal of consensus as to the Soviet threat and US posture towards that threat. Something similar can be said of the continuity of neoliberal economic thought and policy extending from Reagan to Bush Sr. to Clinton to Bush Jr. Greenspan personified that continuity. Volker and Summers, if they hold to the beliefs and actions that got them where they are (and there's no indication that they won't), also represent that continuity. In his appointments of economic advisors, is Obama making a significant break with the failed polices of the past 30 years that have helped bring us to the current crisis? The election's over. I dutifully trumpeted for Obama and relentlessly attacked McCain as any left pragmatist should've. Now it's time to put the heat on and see if Obama's going to hold to his promises of "change". The appointments so far are bullshit.

[Bug]

There's a difference between the "economy as a whole" and the monetary policy that led to the growth of the the tech and housing bubbles and the current financial crisis. Neither I, nor the author of the article is attempting to define "the whole picture", you are. That's fine, but I don't necessarily think it's a fair criticism of the piece.

Well not meaning to pick nits as I value your posts, but you did say "During the last 30+ years, there has been far more agreement in terms of economic outlook and policy between Democrats and Republicans ". That is broader than the article and led to my reply.

 

So,.....you started it.

[Bug]

I'm not saying "it's all Clinton's fault". The point here is that there has continuity in economic thought between administrations whether Republican or Democrat. That, for example, can be said in political terms of the Cold War paradigm that existed for 50 years under both parties. There were some significant differences in style between administrations and change over time but there was also a great deal of consensus as to the Soviet threat and US posture towards that threat. Something similar can be said of the continuity of neoliberal economic thought and policy extending from Reagan to Bush Sr. to Clinton to Bush Jr. Greenspan personified that continuity. Volker and Summers, if they hold to the beliefs and actions that got them where they are (and there's no indication that they won't), also represent that continuity. In his appointments of economic advisors, is Obama making a significant break with the failed polices of the past 30 years that have helped bring us to the current crisis? The election's over. I dutifully trumpeted for Obama and relentlessly attacked McCain as any left pragmatist should've. Now it's time to put the heat on and see if Obama's going to hold to his promises of "change". The appointments so far are bullshit.

 

Actually, you may be neglecting one very important point, Obama is a helluva lot smarter than Bush or Clinton. Just because he is picking the people who know how we got here, he is not neccessarily planning on staying the course. He has a mandate to change. He comes from a service to the poor background. Perhaps he is giving these guys the benefit of the doubt for being wrong inadvertantly and moving forward without having to re-tool.

This really is no time for "on-the-job training."

[JayB]

This is one of the better post-Obamalection pieces I've read. Thought y'all would like it...

 

Uncritical Exuberance?

Judith Butler

 

Very few of us are immune to the exhilaration of this time. My friends on the left write to me that they feel something akin to "redemption" or that "the country has been returned to us" or that "we finally have one of us in the White House." Of course, like them, I discover myself feeling overwhelmed with disbelief and excitement throughout the day, since the thought of having the regime of George W. Bush over and gone is an enormous relief. And the thought of Obama, a thoughtful and progressive black candidate, shifts the historical ground, and we feel that cataclysm as it produces a new terrain. But let us try to think carefully about the shifted terrain, although we cannot fully know its contours at this time. The election of Barack Obama is historically significant in ways that are yet to be gauged, but it is not, and cannot be, a redemption, and if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes ("we are all united") or that we propose ("he is one of us"), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. There have always been good reasons not to embrace "national unity" as an ideal, and to nurse suspicions toward absolute and seamless identification with any political leader. After all, fascism relied in part on that seamless identification with the leader, and Republicans engage this same effort to organize political affect when, for instance, Elizabeth Dole looks out on her audience and says, "I love each and every one of you."

 

It becomes all the more important to think about the politics of exuberant identification with the election of Obama when we consider that support for Obama has coincided with support for conservative causes. In a way, this accounts for his "cross-over" success. In California, he won by 60% of the vote, and yet some significant portion of those who voted for him also voted against the legalization of gay marriage (52%). How do we understand this apparent disjunction? First, let us remember that Obama has not explicitly supported gay marriage rights. Further, as Wendy Brown has argued, the Republicans have found that the electorate is not as galvanized by "moral" issues as they were in recent elections; the reasons given for why people voted for Obama seem to be predominantly economic, and their reasoning seems more fully structured by neo-liberal rationality than by religious concerns. This is clearly one reason why Palin's assigned public function to galvanize the majority of the electorate on moral issues finally failed. But if "moral" issues such as gun control, abortion rights and gay rights were not as determinative as they once were, perhaps that is because they are thriving in a separate compartment of the political mind. In other words, we are faced with new configurations of political belief that make it possible to hold apparently discrepant views at the same time: someone can, for instance, disagree with Obama on certain issues, but still have voted for him. This became most salient in the emergence of the counter Bradley-effect, when voters could and did explicitly own up to their own racism, but said they would vote for Obama anyway. Anecdotes from the field include claims like the following: "I know that Obama is a Muslim and a Terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway; he is probably better for the economy." Such voters got to keep their racism and vote for Obama, sheltering their split beliefs without having to resolve them.

 

Along with strong economic motivations, less empirically discernible factors have come into play in these election results. We cannot underestimate the force of dis-identification in this election, a sense of revulsion that George W. has "represented" the United States to the rest of the world, a sense of shame about our practices of torture and illegal detention, a sense of disgust that we have waged war on false grounds and propagated racist views of Islam, a sense of alarm and horror that the extremes of economic deregulation have led to a global economic crisis. Is it despite his race, or because of his race, that Obama finally emerged as a preferred representative of the nation? Fulfilling that representative-function, he is at once black and not-black (some say "not black enough" and others say "too black"), and, as a result, he can appeal to voters who not only have no way of resolving their ambivalence on this issue, but do not want one. The public figure who allows the populace to sustain and mask its ambivalence nevertheless appears as a figure of "unity": this is surely an ideological function. Such moments are intensely imaginary, but not for that reason without their political force.

 

As the election approached, there has been an increased focus on the person of Obama: his gravity, his deliberateness, his ability not to lose his temper, his way of modeling a certain evenness in the face of hurtful attacks and vile political rhetoric, his promise to reinstate a version of the nation that will overcome its current shame. Of course, the promise is alluring, but what if the embrace of Obama leads to the belief that we might overcome all dissonance, that unity is actually possible? What is the chance that we may end up suffering a certain inevitable disappointment when this charismatic leader displays his fallibility, his willingness to compromise, even to sell out minorities? He has, in fact, already done this in certain ways, but many of us "set aside" our concerns in order to enjoy the extreme un-ambivalence of this moment, risking an uncritical exuberance even when we know better. Obama is, after all, hardly a leftist, regardless of the attributions of "socialism" proffered by his conservative opponents. In what ways will his actions be constrained by party politics, economic interests, and state power; in what ways have they been compromised already? If we seek through this presidency to overcome a sense of dissonance, then we will have jettisoned critical politics in favor of an exuberance whose phantasmatic dimensions will prove consequential. Maybe we cannot avoid this phantasmatic moment, but let us be mindful about how temporary it is. If there are avowed racists who have said, "I know that he is a Muslim and a terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway," there are surely also people on the left who say, "I know that he has sold out gay rights and Palestine, but he is still our redemption." I know very well, but still: this is the classic formulation of disavowal. Through what means do we sustain and mask conflicting beliefs of this sort? And at what political cost?

 

There is no doubt that Obama's success will have significant effects on the economic course of the nation, and it seems reasonable to assume that we will see a new rationale for economic regulation and for an approach to economics that resembles social democratic forms in Europe; in foreign affairs, we will doubtless see a renewal of multi-lateral relations, the reversal of a fatal trend of destroying multilateral accords that the Bush administration has undertaken. And there will doubtless also be a more generally liberal trend on social issues, though it is important to remember that Obama has not supported universal health care, and has failed to explicitly support gay marriage rights. And there is not yet much reason to hope that he will formulate a just policy for the United States in the Middle East, even though it is a relief, to be sure, that he knows Rashid Khalidi.

 

The indisputable significance of his election has everything to do with overcoming the limits implicitly imposed on African-American achievement; it has and will inspire and overwhelm young African-Americans; it will, at the same time, precipitate a change in the self-definition of the United States. If the election of Obama signals a willingness on the part of the majority of voters to be "represented" by this man, then it follows that who "we" are is constituted anew: we are a nation of many races, of mixed races; and he offers us the occasion to recognize who we have become and what we have yet to be, and in this way a certain split between the representative function of the presidency and the populace represented appears to be overcome. That is an exhilarating moment, to be sure. But can it last, and should it?

 

To what consequences will this nearly messianic expectation invested in this man lead? In order for this presidency to be successful, it will have to lead to some disappointment, and to survive disappointment: the man will become human, will prove less powerful than we might wish, and politics will cease to be a celebration without ambivalence and caution; indeed, politics will prove to be less of a messianic experience than a venue for robust debate, public criticism, and necessary antagonism. The election of Obama means that the terrain for debate and struggle has shifted, and it is a better terrain, to be sure. But it is not the end of struggle, and we would be very unwise to regard it that way, even provisionally. We will doubtless agree and disagree with various actions he takes and fails to take. But if the initial expectation is that he is and will be "redemption" itself, then we will punish him mercilessly when he fails us (or we will find ways to deny or suppress that disappointment in order to keep alive the experience of unity and unambivalent love).

 

If a consequential and dramatic disappointment is to be averted, he will have to act quickly and well. Perhaps the only way to avert a "crash" – a disappointment of serious proportions that would turn political will against him – will be to take decisive actions within the first two months of his presidency. The first would be to close Guantanamo and find ways to transfer the cases of detainees to legitimate courts; the second would be to forge a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to begin to implement that plan. The third would be to retract his bellicose remarks about escalating war in Afghanistan and pursue diplomatic, multilateral solutions in that arena. If he fails to take these steps, his support on the left will clearly deteriorate, and we will see the reconfiguration of the split between liberal hawks and the anti-war left. If he appoints the likes of Lawrence Summers to key cabinet positions, or continues the failed economic polices of Clinton and Bush, then at some point the messiah will be scorned as a false prophet. In the place of an impossible promise, we need a series of concrete actions that can begin to reverse the terrible abrogation of justice committed by the Bush regime; anything less will lead to a dramatic and consequential disillusionment. The question is what measure of dis-illusion is necessary in order to retrieve a critical politics, and what more dramatic form of dis-illusionment will return us to the intense political cynicism of the last years. Some relief from illusion is necessary, so that we might remember that politics is less about the person and the impossible and beautiful promise he represents than it is about the concrete changes in policy that might begin, over time, and with difficulty, bring about conditions of greater justice.

from Angry White Kid Blog

 

 

Hey:

 

As a Lefty of the highest caliber, here's a quote from your man Engels that you might enjoy......

 

"Continual deviations of the prices of commodities from their values are the necessary condition in and through which the value of the commodities as such can come into existence. Only through the fluctuations of competition, and consequently of commodity prices,

does the law of value of commodity production assert itself and the determination of the value of the commodity by the socially necessary labour time become a reality.

 

To desire, in a society of producers who exchange their commodities, to establish the determination of value by labour time, by forbidding competition to

establish this determination of value through pressure on prices in the only way it can be established, is therefore merely to prove that, at least in this sphere, one has adopted the usual utopian disdain of economic laws.

 

Competition, by bringing into operation the law of value of commodity production in a society of producers who exchange their commodities,

precisely thereby brings about the only organisation and arrangement of social production which is possible in the circumstances. Only through the undervaluation or overvaluation of products is it forcibly brought home to the individual commodity producers what

society requires or does not require and in what amounts. But it is precisely this sole regulator that the utopia advocated by Rodbertus among others wishes to abolish.

 

And if we then ask what guarantee we have that necessary quantity and not more of each product will be produced, that we shall not go hungry in regard to corn and meat while we are choked in beet sugar and drowned in potato spirit, that we shall not lack trousers to cover our nakedness while trouser

buttons flood us by the million, Rodbertus triumphantly shows us his splendid calculation, according to which the correct certificate has

been handed out for every superfluous pound of sugar, for every unsold barrel of spirit, for

every unusable trouser button, a calculation which "works out"exactly, and according to which "all claims will be satisfied and the liquidation correctly brought about".

 

If he had investigated by what means and how labour creates value and therefore also determines and measures it, he would have arrived at socially necessary labour, necessary for the individual product, both in relation to other products of the same kind and also in relation to society's total demand. He would thereby have been confronted with the question as to how the adjustment of the

production of separate commodity producers to the total social demand takes place, and his whole utopia would thereby have been made impossible. This time he preferred in fact to "make an abstraction",

namely of precisely that which mattered.»

 

Tee-hee.

 

 

 

 

 

[ivan]

jay, is there in a fact a species of female out there that gets as moist as may-rain when you quote engels to them on command?

 

"if'n you can't dazzle'em w/ brilliance, baffle'em w/ bullshit!"

[JayB]

jay, is there in a fact a species of female out there that gets as moist as may-rain when you quote engels to them on command?

 

"if'n you can't dazzle'em w/ brilliance, baffle'em w/ bullshit!"

 

For Prole's sake, one certainly hopes so...

[prole]

This is one of the better post-Obamalection pieces I've read. Thought y'all would like it...

 

Uncritical Exuberance?

Judith Butler

 

Very few of us are immune to the exhilaration of this time. My friends on the left write to me that they feel something akin to "redemption" or that "the country has been returned to us" or that "we finally have one of us in the White House." Of course, like them, I discover myself feeling overwhelmed with disbelief and excitement throughout the day, since the thought of having the regime of George W. Bush over and gone is an enormous relief. And the thought of Obama, a thoughtful and progressive black candidate, shifts the historical ground, and we feel that cataclysm as it produces a new terrain. But let us try to think carefully about the shifted terrain, although we cannot fully know its contours at this time. The election of Barack Obama is historically significant in ways that are yet to be gauged, but it is not, and cannot be, a redemption, and if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes ("we are all united") or that we propose ("he is one of us"), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. There have always been good reasons not to embrace "national unity" as an ideal, and to nurse suspicions toward absolute and seamless identification with any political leader. After all, fascism relied in part on that seamless identification with the leader, and Republicans engage this same effort to organize political affect when, for instance, Elizabeth Dole looks out on her audience and says, "I love each and every one of you."

 

It becomes all the more important to think about the politics of exuberant identification with the election of Obama when we consider that support for Obama has coincided with support for conservative causes. In a way, this accounts for his "cross-over" success. In California, he won by 60% of the vote, and yet some significant portion of those who voted for him also voted against the legalization of gay marriage (52%). How do we understand this apparent disjunction? First, let us remember that Obama has not explicitly supported gay marriage rights. Further, as Wendy Brown has argued, the Republicans have found that the electorate is not as galvanized by "moral" issues as they were in recent elections; the reasons given for why people voted for Obama seem to be predominantly economic, and their reasoning seems more fully structured by neo-liberal rationality than by religious concerns. This is clearly one reason why Palin's assigned public function to galvanize the majority of the electorate on moral issues finally failed. But if "moral" issues such as gun control, abortion rights and gay rights were not as determinative as they once were, perhaps that is because they are thriving in a separate compartment of the political mind. In other words, we are faced with new configurations of political belief that make it possible to hold apparently discrepant views at the same time: someone can, for instance, disagree with Obama on certain issues, but still have voted for him. This became most salient in the emergence of the counter Bradley-effect, when voters could and did explicitly own up to their own racism, but said they would vote for Obama anyway. Anecdotes from the field include claims like the following: "I know that Obama is a Muslim and a Terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway; he is probably better for the economy." Such voters got to keep their racism and vote for Obama, sheltering their split beliefs without having to resolve them.

 

Along with strong economic motivations, less empirically discernible factors have come into play in these election results. We cannot underestimate the force of dis-identification in this election, a sense of revulsion that George W. has "represented" the United States to the rest of the world, a sense of shame about our practices of torture and illegal detention, a sense of disgust that we have waged war on false grounds and propagated racist views of Islam, a sense of alarm and horror that the extremes of economic deregulation have led to a global economic crisis. Is it despite his race, or because of his race, that Obama finally emerged as a preferred representative of the nation? Fulfilling that representative-function, he is at once black and not-black (some say "not black enough" and others say "too black"), and, as a result, he can appeal to voters who not only have no way of resolving their ambivalence on this issue, but do not want one. The public figure who allows the populace to sustain and mask its ambivalence nevertheless appears as a figure of "unity": this is surely an ideological function. Such moments are intensely imaginary, but not for that reason without their political force.

 

As the election approached, there has been an increased focus on the person of Obama: his gravity, his deliberateness, his ability not to lose his temper, his way of modeling a certain evenness in the face of hurtful attacks and vile political rhetoric, his promise to reinstate a version of the nation that will overcome its current shame. Of course, the promise is alluring, but what if the embrace of Obama leads to the belief that we might overcome all dissonance, that unity is actually possible? What is the chance that we may end up suffering a certain inevitable disappointment when this charismatic leader displays his fallibility, his willingness to compromise, even to sell out minorities? He has, in fact, already done this in certain ways, but many of us "set aside" our concerns in order to enjoy the extreme un-ambivalence of this moment, risking an uncritical exuberance even when we know better. Obama is, after all, hardly a leftist, regardless of the attributions of "socialism" proffered by his conservative opponents. In what ways will his actions be constrained by party politics, economic interests, and state power; in what ways have they been compromised already? If we seek through this presidency to overcome a sense of dissonance, then we will have jettisoned critical politics in favor of an exuberance whose phantasmatic dimensions will prove consequential. Maybe we cannot avoid this phantasmatic moment, but let us be mindful about how temporary it is. If there are avowed racists who have said, "I know that he is a Muslim and a terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway," there are surely also people on the left who say, "I know that he has sold out gay rights and Palestine, but he is still our redemption." I know very well, but still: this is the classic formulation of disavowal. Through what means do we sustain and mask conflicting beliefs of this sort? And at what political cost?

 

There is no doubt that Obama's success will have significant effects on the economic course of the nation, and it seems reasonable to assume that we will see a new rationale for economic regulation and for an approach to economics that resembles social democratic forms in Europe; in foreign affairs, we will doubtless see a renewal of multi-lateral relations, the reversal of a fatal trend of destroying multilateral accords that the Bush administration has undertaken. And there will doubtless also be a more generally liberal trend on social issues, though it is important to remember that Obama has not supported universal health care, and has failed to explicitly support gay marriage rights. And there is not yet much reason to hope that he will formulate a just policy for the United States in the Middle East, even though it is a relief, to be sure, that he knows Rashid Khalidi.

 

The indisputable significance of his election has everything to do with overcoming the limits implicitly imposed on African-American achievement; it has and will inspire and overwhelm young African-Americans; it will, at the same time, precipitate a change in the self-definition of the United States. If the election of Obama signals a willingness on the part of the majority of voters to be "represented" by this man, then it follows that who "we" are is constituted anew: we are a nation of many races, of mixed races; and he offers us the occasion to recognize who we have become and what we have yet to be, and in this way a certain split between the representative function of the presidency and the populace represented appears to be overcome. That is an exhilarating moment, to be sure. But can it last, and should it?

 

To what consequences will this nearly messianic expectation invested in this man lead? In order for this presidency to be successful, it will have to lead to some disappointment, and to survive disappointment: the man will become human, will prove less powerful than we might wish, and politics will cease to be a celebration without ambivalence and caution; indeed, politics will prove to be less of a messianic experience than a venue for robust debate, public criticism, and necessary antagonism. The election of Obama means that the terrain for debate and struggle has shifted, and it is a better terrain, to be sure. But it is not the end of struggle, and we would be very unwise to regard it that way, even provisionally. We will doubtless agree and disagree with various actions he takes and fails to take. But if the initial expectation is that he is and will be "redemption" itself, then we will punish him mercilessly when he fails us (or we will find ways to deny or suppress that disappointment in order to keep alive the experience of unity and unambivalent love).

 

If a consequential and dramatic disappointment is to be averted, he will have to act quickly and well. Perhaps the only way to avert a "crash" – a disappointment of serious proportions that would turn political will against him – will be to take decisive actions within the first two months of his presidency. The first would be to close Guantanamo and find ways to transfer the cases of detainees to legitimate courts; the second would be to forge a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to begin to implement that plan. The third would be to retract his bellicose remarks about escalating war in Afghanistan and pursue diplomatic, multilateral solutions in that arena. If he fails to take these steps, his support on the left will clearly deteriorate, and we will see the reconfiguration of the split between liberal hawks and the anti-war left. If he appoints the likes of Lawrence Summers to key cabinet positions, or continues the failed economic polices of Clinton and Bush, then at some point the messiah will be scorned as a false prophet. In the place of an impossible promise, we need a series of concrete actions that can begin to reverse the terrible abrogation of justice committed by the Bush regime; anything less will lead to a dramatic and consequential disillusionment. The question is what measure of dis-illusion is necessary in order to retrieve a critical politics, and what more dramatic form of dis-illusionment will return us to the intense political cynicism of the last years. Some relief from illusion is necessary, so that we might remember that politics is less about the person and the impossible and beautiful promise he represents than it is about the concrete changes in policy that might begin, over time, and with difficulty, bring about conditions of greater justice.

from Angry White Kid Blog

 

 

Hey:

 

As a Lefty of the highest caliber, here's a quote from your man Engels that you might enjoy......

 

"Continual deviations of the prices of commodities from their values are the necessary condition in and through which the value of the commodities as such can come into existence. Only through the fluctuations of competition, and consequently of commodity prices,

does the law of value of commodity production assert itself and the determination of the value of the commodity by the socially necessary labour time become a reality.

 

To desire, in a society of producers who exchange their commodities, to establish the determination of value by labour time, by forbidding competition to

establish this determination of value through pressure on prices in the only way it can be established, is therefore merely to prove that, at least in this sphere, one has adopted the usual utopian disdain of economic laws.

 

Competition, by bringing into operation the law of value of commodity production in a society of producers who exchange their commodities,

precisely thereby brings about the only organisation and arrangement of social production which is possible in the circumstances. Only through the undervaluation or overvaluation of products is it forcibly brought home to the individual commodity producers what

society requires or does not require and in what amounts. But it is precisely this sole regulator that the utopia advocated by Rodbertus among others wishes to abolish.

 

And if we then ask what guarantee we have that necessary quantity and not more of each product will be produced, that we shall not go hungry in regard to corn and meat while we are choked in beet sugar and drowned in potato spirit, that we shall not lack trousers to cover our nakedness while trouser

buttons flood us by the million, Rodbertus triumphantly shows us his splendid calculation, according to which the correct certificate has

been handed out for every superfluous pound of sugar, for every unsold barrel of spirit, for

every unusable trouser button, a calculation which "works out"exactly, and according to which "all claims will be satisfied and the liquidation correctly brought about".

 

If he had investigated by what means and how labour creates value and therefore also determines and measures it, he would have arrived at socially necessary labour, necessary for the individual product, both in relation to other products of the same kind and also in relation to society's total demand. He would thereby have been confronted with the question as to how the adjustment of the

production of separate commodity producers to the total social demand takes place, and his whole utopia would thereby have been made impossible. This time he preferred in fact to "make an abstraction",

namely of precisely that which mattered.»

 

Tee-hee.

 

 

 

 

 

What are you doing? Or more to the point, what is it you think that you are doing? 'Cause from here, you look like a clown.

[billcoe]

I'm not saying "it's all Clinton's fault". The point here is that there has continuity in economic thought between administrations whether Republican or Democrat. That, for example, can be said in political terms of the Cold War paradigm that existed for 50 years under both parties. There were some significant differences in style between administrations and change over time but there was also a great deal of consensus as to the Soviet threat and US posture towards that threat. Something similar can be said of the continuity of neoliberal economic thought and policy extending from Reagan to Bush Sr. to Clinton to Bush Jr. Greenspan personified that continuity. Volker and Summers, if they hold to the beliefs and actions that got them where they are (and there's no indication that they won't), also represent that continuity. In his appointments of economic advisors, is Obama making a significant break with the failed polices of the past 30 years that have helped bring us to the current crisis? The election's over. I dutifully trumpeted for Obama and relentlessly attacked McCain as any left pragmatist should've. Now it's time to put the heat on and see if Obama's going to hold to his promises of "change". The appointments so far are bullshit.

 

Your writing above makes more sense and shows more thought and intelligence than the post you pulled from the Guardian....to me anyway. In my mind, I hope that Obama picks smart HONEST patriots for these posts. I am not saying he isn't as I don't know. Rahm, for instance, looks damn smart. Can't say about the other 2 qualities. We'll find out for sure soon enough I suppose.

 

As far as Jaybs post, give it some time, maybe read it a few more times as sometimes the things he posts take a while to sink in.