Europe and the Future of Politics

josef k. said:

The recent success of the right in the Euro elections suggests that this crisis hasn't yielded any gains for the left, which is perhaps understandable, given their lack of real ideas, though less understandable, given the right's lack of the same. Maybe the generally confused values of the former is a decisive factor?

The European left seems animated by self-righteousness and resentment more than anything... this is not translating into political power, for obvious reasons. Germany, where Die Linke is comparatively strong, is somewhat of an exception. Meanwhile the SPD is being destroyed by their own centrism...

The US example suggests that a new kind of politics needs to be developed, though it isn't yet entirely clear how new Obamism really is... but certainly it suggests a different style, and style is nine tenths of the game...

Click to expand...

There has always been this problem where it's the "Left" that is on the vanguard of "issues" politics (and therefore, usually the first in line at protests and demonstrations), but when it comes to having constructive criticism and ideas for how to build something better than what they criticize, they usually flounder or cede power for the purity and sanctity of last place. (It's easier to be righteous from the bench...)

To me this seems exceptionally sad, in light of the recent crisEs--basically everyone has acknowledged at this point that "growth" economies are bad for the world, and that global warming is the real endgame. The fact that the next stage of capitalist Empire will likely be a Chinese communist one is a historical irony that is hard to ignore, as is the fact that it (like the pre- and post-WWII US) is building this empire on--what else?--highly un-green manufacturing jobs!

At the very moment when people would be most receptive to Leftism, were a global movement to coalesce, instead you have Oprah telling everyone to save money the Suze Orman way, Obama softening on Israel, and now every idiot corporation has gone "green" (which means, you know, they've turned their logo and visual branding green).

this may sound overly simplistic but -

perhaps when people are afraid & uncertain they tend to lean towards conservatism?

I dunno what's new about "Obamism" also. he seems like a pretty healthy mix of FDR/Adlai Stevenson/JFK etc etc (esp JFK, minus the womanizing & pugnacious younger brother - tho, Michelle). but, yunno, black.

nomadthethird said:

(It's easier to be righteous from the bench...)

Click to expand...

or, put another way, it's easier to critique than to come up with a coherent alternative.

nomadthethird said:

At the very moment when people would be most receptive to Leftism, were a global movement to coalesce, instead you have Oprah telling everyone to save money the Suze Orman way, Obama softening on Israel, and now every idiot corporation has gone "green" (which means, you know, they've turned their logo and visual branding green).

Click to expand...

tho tbf that's something to do w/the push of the Left. as in, taking a more radical position nudges the center of the debate one way or the other, however slightly (i.e. Malcolm X for MLK, or radical environmentalists like Earth First! for groups like the Sierra Club). the counter of course is that it's too little/late, not fast enough, etc. & the Right are IMO far better at that kinda thing - much more willing to bitterly contest every detail while the Left is more inclined towards sweeping ideas/changes & so on.

it also has everything to do with how an issue is framed - in re: "style is 9/10ths".

padraig (u.s.) said:

this may sound overly simplistic but -

perhaps when people are afraid & uncertain they tend to lean towards conservatism?

I dunno what's new about "Obamism" also. he seems like a pretty healthy mix of FDR/Adlai Stevenson/JFK etc etc (esp JFK, minus the womanizing & pugnacious younger brother - tho, Michelle). but, yunno, black.

Click to expand...

I think when people who live in Europe talk about Obamism being "new", they're really just betraying their ignorance of American politics (no offense).

All American politicians are pragmatists who believe in free market democracy. There are two parties because this helps create the illusion that there are several options, which people in capitalist countries like. (Also, you have to run "against" something, right?

The only recent politician who broke out of the mold was GWB, who was an ideologue from the start. He was more "new" than Obama is, in that he only cared about ideology, not results. He expected the latter to follow from the former. Big mistake.

padraig (u.s.) said:

tho tbf that's something to do w/the push of the Left. as in, taking a more radical position nudges the center of the debate one way or the other, however slightly (i.e. Malcolm X for MLK, or radical environmentalists like Earth First! for groups like the Sierra Club). the counter of course is that it's too little/late, not fast enough, etc. & the Right are IMO far better at that kinda thing - much more willing to bitterly contest every detail while the Left is more inclined towards sweeping ideas/changes & so on.

it also has everything to do with how an issue is framed - in re: "style is 9/10ths".

Click to expand...

It does help push the center closer to the left if people are listening or know about your political presence on the spectrum to begin with...in the U.S. it seems not many people take pro-Palestinian politics very seriously, kuffiyeh trendiness notwithstanding. I don't even think most middle Americans would understand that there's a powerful argument against Israeli occupation of the West Bank, let alone one anti-Zionism.

nomadthethird said:

He was more "new" than Obama is, in that he only cared about ideology, not results.

Click to expand...

definitely agree with this.

really like I said Obama reminds me of a cagier, less earnest (tho these may both have to do more w/the times than the man) JFK.

josef k. said:

This is sometimes unpredictable, however - the appearance of extremism on the margins can be used by hostile spokesmen (Limbaugh) to tar the center by association, and push the debate in the other direction

Click to expand...

well every action, equal & opposite reaction, blah blah...I'm not suggesting it as a strategy or strategical approach (tho certainly many people/groups do you use it as such), merely noting that it happens.

having read interviews/talked with a bunch of older heads who were around back in the late 70s/80s (before "environmentalism" really took off), the example of Earth First! is one I always think of, giving mainstream environmentalists some leverage.

josef k. said:

This is sometimes unpredictable, however - the appearance of extremism on the margins can be used by hostile spokesmen (Limbaugh) to tar the center by association, and push the debate in the other direction

Click to expand...

This is certainly true, especially when on both ends you have basically the "spectacle" of politics with no real engagement, no new ideas, nothing but bitch slaps for the "enemy" etc. So that you're not "really" a ______ unless you align with the most radical elements.

Michelle Bachmann comes to mind.

nomadthethird said:

It does help push the center closer to the left if people are listening or know about your political presence on the spectrum to begin with...

Click to expand...

that's always been a problem tho - getting your message out & when you do fighting against it being warped by the soundbite, the headline, etc. now it seems more a problem of getting your message - your particular data - to stick out somehow from the flow, all the white noise. but it's the same problem, really.

& I'm not talking about direct pressure so much as filtering down into the DNA of political discourse...I hate this word, but memes. having an effect on the debate w/o actually impacting it in any concrete way.

josef k. said:

Okay, I grant he had predecessors. But there was something new (or at least, extremely progressive) about his style - his coolness, in particular. Politics is always a politics of media, and Obama's cool treatment of the media was decisive to his success. The European Left tries to be hot, and comes off as internet tough guys...

Click to expand...

There's no doubt whatsoever that Obama harnassed new media to his advantage. His campaign was extremely, almost scarily new media savvy. He bought ad space in video games, ffs.

GWB won his first term by using the latest in target marketing techniques. Their target? Nascar dads. This meant a lot of ground pounding in middle America but also advertising at Ford dealerships, strip malls, sporting events, etc. By his second term, new media had outpaced this strategy.

At that point, democrats were still a mess, they had nowhere to go. Then out of nowhere comes this guy who BEATS REPUBLICANS AT THEIR OWN GAME! It really was something to watch.

josef k. said:

Okay, I grant he had predecessors. But there was something new (or at least, extremely progressive) about his style - his coolness, in particular.

Click to expand...

not to be a broken record, but again

it's Kennedy, swapping television for the Internet. JFK had hella progressive style, was hella cool vs. the interminable stodginess of Nixon (McCain).

if there's a difference it's in the medium-is-the-message (tho not even that, really - MoveOn.org & all that was huge back in '04) rather than anything fundamentally new about Obama himself.

Really, what I think people don't understand is how cyclical American politics are, and how there are only a few archetypes that everyone goes back to.

Conservatives like the good old fatherly, military type of man's man.

Democrats like the bon vivant.

Ok that's two archetypes.

Then there's the uptight "lesbian" "feminazi" ballbuster introduced via Hillary Clinton.

nomadthethird said:

Then there's the uptight "lesbian" "feminazi" ballbuster introduced via Hillary Clinton.

Click to expand...

except she didn't introduce it. as a presidential candidate, yeah. but

Dianne Feinstein & Barbara Boxer (yo let's hear it for the Jewish lady senators from California)
the glorious Ann Richards

& for the other team (tho I dunno if she was a feminist, but definitely a ballbuster)

Jeane Kirkpatrick