Zizek and What Obama Means to the World
An article that caught my attention a few months ago titled "Use Your Illusions " (yes, a cheap knock off of the G'nR album
in the Nov./Dec., 2008 edition of London Review of Books
interestingly shows how the international left views the political landscape in the United States. It makes even our far left look moderate by comparison.
Zizek believes the left in America blinds themselves to the reality that the liberals and conservatives are but a few degrees apart in a vast spectrum of political possibilities (think Ralph Nader on steroids). He views the actions of the U.S. through its international influence, and he does not see our tendencies or domination and influence changing under the leadership of Obama:
The real consequences of Obama’s victory: from a pragmatic perspective, it is quite possible that Obama will make only some minor improvements, turning out to be ‘Bush with a human face’. He will pursue the same basic policies in a more attractive way and thus effectively strengthen the US hegemony, damaged by the catastrophe of the Bush years.
After a few paragraphs, Zizek seems to lose his focus, shifting between the philosopher Kant, the fall of communism and the Berlin Wall, genocide in Congo, the economic crisis, and then back to Obama. Throughout what might be deemed unconnected rambling is an undercurrent of how Western powers seem to act within a narrative that suits U.S. and its interests.
The death of a Palestinian child, not to mention an Israeli or an American, is worth thousands more column inches than the death of a nameless Congolese. Why? . . . the permanent civil war and disintegration of Congo ‘has created a “win-win” situation for all belligerents. The only loser in this huge business venture is the Congolese people.’ Beneath the façade of ethnic warfare, we thus discern the contours of global capitalism.
Despite these criticisms, Zizek does see some positive in the election of Obama. He acknowledges the historical importance of electing the nation's first black president. He also says that there is a symbolic gesture inherent in Obama's victory.
Like many, I cried when Obama was elected and when he finaly gave the oath of the presidency. Although Zizek does not mire himself in the same level of pathos as many of us who did get more caught up in the historical significance of the moment, he accepts that this event does hold political and, more importantly, historical importance.
Obama’s victory is not just another shift in the eternal parliamentary struggle for a majority, with all the pragmatic calculations and manipulations that involves. It is a sign of something more. This is why an American friend of mine, a hardened leftist with no illusions, cried when the news came of Obama’s victory. Whatever our doubts, for that moment each of us was free and participating in the universal freedom of humanity.
His final remarks on the matter suggest that he understands his cynicism is a bit extensive for this moment. Perhaps these times require a person to serve as a symbol for what the world, not just the U.S., lacks right now.
No matter what happens, it will remain a sign of hope in our otherwise dark times, a sign that the last word does not belong to realistic cynics, from the left or the right.
Crossposted at Signicide
- Specter's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
The International Left ....!
Wow! Who knew.
Great to see you at the keypads, Specter.
My biggest regret of events so far, is that since Obama was handed a steaming pile of crap known as the financial meltdown and a global economy careening towards a near depression, he will not have the energy, time or resources that he would have otherwise focused on international affairs, which was one of his own strong priorities.
The economic crises has the potential to become a National Security crises.
I see that Gordon Brown is call for a Global New Deal. (Or how to give the hard right the night sweats.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/a...
I'm only half stupid
About your blog
I would have preferred "Spectercide-- Kill the broadleafs
" ;-)
More like "beneath the facade of scholarly writing, we thus discern the contours of bull$h1t"... Man you weren't kidding when you say this guy "seems to lose focus"-- he's all over the place! What a name-dropper! About halfway thru, I succumbed to the sheer assault of disconnected names and events, and, instead of really reading, began scanning for "Hitler".* And before too long, sure enough...
*I really didn't do this, but I thought it would be clever to say so after I saw a mention of Hitler late in Zizek's article.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I guess this is where I am supposed
to make a joke regarding the name skymutt. :-)
Hmm. I'm sorry you did not like the article, but I think you may have dismissed it a bit too quickly with a bit of ad populum oriented anti-intellectualism as your argument.
Perhaps you misunderstood his argument, or perhaps I did not spell it out in elementary terms that some (not necessarily you, though you did stick your head out here in this regard) require to understand texts such as these. I will do my best to help you:
While I do agree that his focus could be tighter, his rambling is actually a carefully orchestrated defense of his proclamation that Obama, who many on the right deem a blatant treasonous socialist at the least and communist at worst
, is Bush in sheep's clothing. That is a major charge to contend with. The 'seemingly rambing part' is actually his evidence for this assertion and not just what you reductively call 'name-dropping'. Believe me, if Zizek was going to 'name-drop;, he could do much better than Kant and Hitler.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Perhaps it is just over my head...
But hey, if it's over your head, and you got nothin, I think the "what an egghead this guy is" argument should be allowed :-)
Alright, since you have thrown down the gauntlet and called me out for anti-intellectuallism, and have hinted that I might not have been up to the task of following this guy's reasoning, I had to read the thing again, more carefully.
Now I think the guy's a egghead AND a hypocrite ;-) For instance, I like how he closes by saying that we should worry about "the obvious temptation to reinvigorate the ‘war on terror’ and US interventionism in order to keep the economy running". Um, how is it obvious that the war on terror is good for the economy? I would bet that most people would consider it a drag on the economy, considering that 1.) at its height, the GWOT contributed to conditions that led to high oil prices, which is not good for our economy, 2.) The GWOT has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, not just on military expenditures, but also on such things as port security which are frictional to trade and thus harm the economy, and 3.) The GWOT has damaged U.S. power and prestige in the world, which has negative economic costs in itself.
Talk about cynical... and this from the guy who popmpusly puts down all the cynics for their blind spots :-p
Then there's the whole 'nobody cares about the starving children, nobody cares about the Congo' thing...and yest it is of course insufficient and there is still great suffering, but tell me: what nation was even donating any significant amount money to impoverished war-ravaged regions of the world before the rise of America as a captialist power? And what seems to do more to allow millions to eat better and live better than capitalism, as we have seen in China, where millions had previously starved to death under a communist system?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You must've
had the prof. that pointed out that the intro. and the conclusion are the most imprortant and vital parts of a text since you base your entire interpretation of the essay on a relatively insignificant phrase. I will entertain you anyway and focus on that phrase also (though I think it is very reductive to put emphasis on this one phrase). Framed in the larger context of his argument, that phrase makes more sense.
Let me preface this by saying that I do not agree with Zizek; I just think it is interesting (as I stated above) that while the right is busy screaming "traitor commie" the international left sees him as Bush.
Ok, to the phrase that you base your interpretation on: Zizek states
Where do I start? First off, he states that it is a temptation, not a policy, plan, or any other guaranteed observation. This is an important distinction. I think the search for a diversion to problems at home can be powerful. I also think it can be profitable if you do not have vested interests (no-bid contracts run by the oil-oligarchy) running the show. I think that point takes care of your number 1) and 2).
Why would he state that? Well, one of our favorite narratives is that WII pulled us/helped pull us
out of the Great Depression, so perhaps we will turn towards terrorism as this new front to drive the economy. What better to spend money on (artificially) than military infrastructure? With the addition of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan 
and the relative delay 
in bringing home the troops from Iraq, perhaps he is on the right track. It is easy money. If the Western allies got behind us, it is a possibility to improve our reputation and still find this economic scapegoat. Most of his later examples deal with that (including your Hitler example which you scoffed at a bit prematurely--yes, he is indirectly comparing Obama to Hitler).
On the other hand, I do not think he is correct. He doesn't even think he's correct himself (here is another point you seemed to have missed). He is calling himself the cynic. He is not "pompously putting down all the [other] cynics for their blind spots," but himself (he is a cynic of the left which is why he mentions his friend who cries and leaves off with the last line--"No matter what happens, it will remain a sign of hope in our otherwise dark times, a sign that the last word does not belong to realistic cynics, from the left or the right").
I'm not getting into a "what is better: communism or capitalism?" debate with you. Talk about a strawman. :-)
(Edit): With all that said, I also think Zizek is an egghead, but at least he is interesting. It is not the same argument you hear from th left and right here in the U.S. which is why I wrote on it. It breaks the mold we are used to. :-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Bah
Of course you've based this on a sample size of 2... No, I just chose a couple of examples of stuff that struck me as rather ridiculous. One happened to be very close to the end of the piece.
As far as basing my "entire interpretation of the essay" on the one phrase, again this is not accurate. I could have give many examples to support my general views about the essay, but I chose only to provide a couple, because I didn't want to go on and on.
Well actually, he said it was an "obvious temptation", as long as we're splitting hairs here. And that's what I was disputing: that it was even an obvious temptation to reinvigorate the GWOT because of economic considerations.
Uh, that's not a favorite narrative of Democrats, that's a Republican narrative. The Democratic narrative is that the New Deal pulled us out of the Great Depression. Obama is a Democrat. In no sense of the word "our" that includes Obama is that WWII narrative a "favorite". So I see no "obvious temptation" there.
Bah. I can prove he doesn't see himself as a cynic. He says:
If he were placing himself amongst the cynics, how could he perceive the blind spot that he judges to be the signature of the cynics?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Obama has very efficient
Obama has very efficient workforce around him and I believe they will surely successful. We just give some time.
- Visit my website; Miami Web Design
I don't see it that way, sylar_mark86.
If his appointees are any indication, we'll get pretty well screwed by Obama pretty much like we've been screwed by all the other POTU'S's.
Especially when one bears this not so little detail in mind...
...yikes!
H/T to RS...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Fear mongering on the deficit
The deficit is not a static number. As a percentage of economic growth, the number changes.
IF the economy grows, then a static number, such as the deficit becomes smaller.
The key to economic growth is creating jobs. Otherwise regular folks won't spend their money, can lose their homes, just sending the economy into a further down ward spiral.
Since you don't like unemployment or the deficits, do you have any suggestions on how to create jobs to improve the overall health of the economy.
The legendary fantasy that tax cuts are the solution, has proved to be unfounded. Wealth and prosperity has not been trickling down, but rather trickling up and out.
I'm only half stupid
I had forgotten the absurd lengths you go to...
...to justify the craziest things...
The Feds monetary policies and the evidently not so scary to some projected 9 trillion dollar deficit will soon result in such intense inflation and economic chaos that not even you and your willingness to attempt breathing life into such things will be of any consolation.
The deficit is bad ML, very bad, and it would behoove even you being the student of popular liberal economic theory that you are to acknowledge that.
As for ways in which we could improve the economy, well, less burden on, and greater attention to small business would be a great start, but that is to simpleton a theory for, and does not speak to the precedent liberal concern of advancing a vast political agenda.
Solving the economic woes of our nation evidently comes in a distant second now days, as it is simply not compatible with the need to address their real motivations you see. So now we find ourselves spending outrageous amounts of money we don't even have in what amounts to one massive exercise in folly designed to address and advance President Obama's far left and clearly unconstitutional political agenda.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Not unconstitutional
nor far left. As for absurd lengths thats a stretch.
The deficit, as I mentioned is not static. It could get worse. Shrinking spending to please the far right would worsen the recession.
I assume that you support an economic stimulus for Afghanistan and the 'war' effort with no hesitation about how much that will do to the deficit.
If we listen to the right the second amendment or the feds, trumps states rights, yet at the same time they claim that doctor/patients rights should be determined by the individual states.
There is no reason to think that providing for the general welfare doesn't trump states rights either, unless you are wacko enought to think that federal initiatives for health and welfare of the nation, things like the polio vaccine, was a liberal conspiracy to legalize murder.
Did you think it was unconstitutional that the entire Congress, was pushed to step in to the health care debate to save the life of Terri Shiavo?
I'm only half stupid
Without getting into the litany of unconstitutional behavior...
...Mr. Obama advocates, consider the following as it relates to health care;
....or this...
...or we could just continue the path the President has us on and allow the government to become ubiquitous in the lives of the American people... NOT!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Yeah sure...
the words, telephone, internet, and sex don't appear in the constitution either.
Following your reasoning their is no provision to legalize the telephone, therefore the telephone is unconstitutional! Revolt now!
I'm only half stupid
Oh ML...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Non sequitor starter
You're argument should almost solely be that health insurance and the like doesn't fall into the "promote general welfare" category. And the other issue in how far the power to regulate interstate trade.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I think the post was clearly broad enough...
...and attested to its premise sufficiently in order to avoid the "non sequitur", (yes, its sequitur with a "u"), label thank you very much. ;-)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
It is amusing
that in your enthusiasm to express your opinion, you have responded to a spammer.
I'm only half stupid
2nd best thing in the last 24 hours
The best was the pigeon that helped the Oakland Raiders cover a kickoff, flew from one 20 to the other yards in front of the Raiders players on kickoff.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,