![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
imomusI heard that Republican party candidate Mike Huckabee had vaulted into the lead in Iowa and that Democratic candidate Barack Obama had taken the lead in polls for the first time in New Hampshire, a key early state.
I heard that these developments had made their political rivals' campaign managers reach in desperation for slander and slur. Bill Shaheen from the Clinton campaign raised the issue of Obama's teenage drug-taking to dent his credibility. He told the Washington Post that the Republicans would target Obama's background. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?"'
I heard that Huckabee, a Baptist minister, had attacked Mormon Mitt Romney by asking "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
I heard that evangelical Christians make up about 40% of registered Republicans in Iowa.
I heard that during the first Republican debate in New Hampshire Huckabee responded to a question about evolution by saying "If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it." He, however, did not believe it.
I heard from scientists that human beings are primates.
I heard that fewer than 40% of Americans, in a 2005 survey, agreed with the proposition "Human beings, as we know them today, evolved from earlier species of animals". In Britain, Japan, Europe and Scandinavia between 70% and 90% agreed with the same proposition.
I heard Obama say, at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: "Tonight there is not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America."
I pondered the things I had heard.
I thought that Obama's statement really wasn't true (or was only true if "tonight" was a very exceptional night, one filled with "the audacity of hope", the speech's title). I thought that, increasingly, the US is two nations divided rather than one united. One of them thinks in quite similar ways to Europe. The other is completely alien -- a place whose irrational views, given further rein or rope, will surely start dragging its economy down to the level of the other much poorer nations which tend to share them.
I heard conservative columnist David Brooks describe the split back in 2001: "In Red America churches are everywhere. In Blue America Thai restaurants are everywhere."
I thought about how there's another split that messes up modern politics. The tragedy of modern politics is that it seeks to combine two incompatible skill sets -- the rhetorical and the administrative. Is there any other job where you'd have to prove yourself rhetorically to achieve an administration post which basically requires you to be an organiser and a technocrat?
I thought about what these mismatched skills -- rhetoric and administration -- actually require. Rhetoric requires wishful thinking. It's all about the future, and dreams, and lies we like to hear, even if we know they're lies. Things like "we are united, not divided" and "we are not related to monkeys". Rhetoric is motivational, inspirational, morale-boosting, mythopoeic, tribal. As long as your fiction is moving and consistent, you can carry an audience. It's an arts skill, playing on empathy and the ability to connect. Admin, on the other hand, has to take stock of facts on the ground, inconvenient truths, existing realities. It calls on scientific skills, careful observation, rationality. Whatever Obama says about there being no red and blue states -- nice rhetoric! -- you can be damn sure his campaign organizers are being more realistic and rational. They're going to remain fully aware of the exact boundaries of red and blue America during the campaign for their candidate. Hope may be unlimited, but their resources are limited.
I wondered if Huckabee, too, would match his rhetorical side with a rational one. Should he be elected American technocrat-administrator-in-chief in 2008, would he -- at the very least -- act as if he held a rational view of the world?
And I wondered if there were some sort of google translation service available which translated Rhetorical statements into Rational ones. A service that would render "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America" into "We really wish that we could overcome the obvious and ruinous divide that exists in this country" and "I don't believe we're descendants of a primate" into "I'm fully aware of the importance of politicized fundamentalist creationist views in swing states like Iowa, therefore of course I'm going to appeal to them". A widget like that would allow us to square the circle, and transform even the craziest rhetoric into rationality.
Then I thought of a saying of Sugar Ape editor Jonatton Yeah? (a character in Nathan Barley). When journalist Dan Ashcroft tells him an article in his magazine is "stupid", Jonatton replies: "Stupid people think it's cool. Smart people think it's a joke; also cool". Applied to the things I heard about America as it enters election year, that could read: "Red states like the stuff politicians say because it's irrational. Blue states listen harder and hear rationality in it."
But then I wondered whether those blue states weren't listening -- or projecting themselves -- too hard into the craziness coming out of places like Iowa. I wondered whether they shouldn't have slightly higher standards for their red state cousins -- shouldn't demand that they actually snap out of it, shape up, and get rational. Not just "rational because we understand the appeal to stupid people of the irrational", but just good old-fashioned rational, admininstration-ready.
I heard that these developments had made their political rivals' campaign managers reach in desperation for slander and slur. Bill Shaheen from the Clinton campaign raised the issue of Obama's teenage drug-taking to dent his credibility. He told the Washington Post that the Republicans would target Obama's background. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?"'
I heard that Huckabee, a Baptist minister, had attacked Mormon Mitt Romney by asking "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
I heard that evangelical Christians make up about 40% of registered Republicans in Iowa.
I heard that during the first Republican debate in New Hampshire Huckabee responded to a question about evolution by saying "If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it." He, however, did not believe it.
I heard from scientists that human beings are primates.
I heard that fewer than 40% of Americans, in a 2005 survey, agreed with the proposition "Human beings, as we know them today, evolved from earlier species of animals". In Britain, Japan, Europe and Scandinavia between 70% and 90% agreed with the same proposition.
I heard Obama say, at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: "Tonight there is not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America."
I pondered the things I had heard.
I thought that Obama's statement really wasn't true (or was only true if "tonight" was a very exceptional night, one filled with "the audacity of hope", the speech's title). I thought that, increasingly, the US is two nations divided rather than one united. One of them thinks in quite similar ways to Europe. The other is completely alien -- a place whose irrational views, given further rein or rope, will surely start dragging its economy down to the level of the other much poorer nations which tend to share them.
I heard conservative columnist David Brooks describe the split back in 2001: "In Red America churches are everywhere. In Blue America Thai restaurants are everywhere."
I thought about how there's another split that messes up modern politics. The tragedy of modern politics is that it seeks to combine two incompatible skill sets -- the rhetorical and the administrative. Is there any other job where you'd have to prove yourself rhetorically to achieve an administration post which basically requires you to be an organiser and a technocrat?
I thought about what these mismatched skills -- rhetoric and administration -- actually require. Rhetoric requires wishful thinking. It's all about the future, and dreams, and lies we like to hear, even if we know they're lies. Things like "we are united, not divided" and "we are not related to monkeys". Rhetoric is motivational, inspirational, morale-boosting, mythopoeic, tribal. As long as your fiction is moving and consistent, you can carry an audience. It's an arts skill, playing on empathy and the ability to connect. Admin, on the other hand, has to take stock of facts on the ground, inconvenient truths, existing realities. It calls on scientific skills, careful observation, rationality. Whatever Obama says about there being no red and blue states -- nice rhetoric! -- you can be damn sure his campaign organizers are being more realistic and rational. They're going to remain fully aware of the exact boundaries of red and blue America during the campaign for their candidate. Hope may be unlimited, but their resources are limited.
I wondered if Huckabee, too, would match his rhetorical side with a rational one. Should he be elected American technocrat-administrator-in-chief in 2008, would he -- at the very least -- act as if he held a rational view of the world?
And I wondered if there were some sort of google translation service available which translated Rhetorical statements into Rational ones. A service that would render "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America" into "We really wish that we could overcome the obvious and ruinous divide that exists in this country" and "I don't believe we're descendants of a primate" into "I'm fully aware of the importance of politicized fundamentalist creationist views in swing states like Iowa, therefore of course I'm going to appeal to them". A widget like that would allow us to square the circle, and transform even the craziest rhetoric into rationality.
Then I thought of a saying of Sugar Ape editor Jonatton Yeah? (a character in Nathan Barley). When journalist Dan Ashcroft tells him an article in his magazine is "stupid", Jonatton replies: "Stupid people think it's cool. Smart people think it's a joke; also cool". Applied to the things I heard about America as it enters election year, that could read: "Red states like the stuff politicians say because it's irrational. Blue states listen harder and hear rationality in it."
But then I wondered whether those blue states weren't listening -- or projecting themselves -- too hard into the craziness coming out of places like Iowa. I wondered whether they shouldn't have slightly higher standards for their red state cousins -- shouldn't demand that they actually snap out of it, shape up, and get rational. Not just "rational because we understand the appeal to stupid people of the irrational", but just good old-fashioned rational, admininstration-ready.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:01 am (UTC)("Fact times importance equals news!")
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:07 am (UTC)I will vote for whoever offers me pie. Not pie in the sky, however. Pie in charts.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:21 am (UTC)Liberal standards are high, but Conservatives aren't in the least bit interested in living up to them.
It's difficult to get into the Red Stater mindset... most Bush voters I knew there (I used to live in a red state) were very aware of his flaws, but were voting out of fear.
They were afraid that The Other Guy would give everyone an abortion, let the terrorists win, but too soft on crime, legalise gay marriage, ban guns, etc.
NO ONE ever voted for George Bush because of what he stands for; everyone voted for him to stave off The Other Guy and all that he represents (reason, logic, science, etc).
In other words, we're all fucked.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:27 am (UTC)I'm sure people will pounce on me for saying so, but I actually left America. I am much happier in the UK (been here almost three years), and plan to start revising for my citizenship test next month (it's a difficult bloody test).
I don't ever plan to return to the states.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:28 am (UTC)stupid goddamned zoodeeply confused nation anmyore.(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:30 am (UTC)(I got all paranoid that the Internet Bad Guys (read: Russians) were going to cull my details and changed it)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:31 am (UTC)Good on you for leaving, mate. Maybe I should marry someone with a good/other passport, maybe that would get me out of here.
viva la revolucion
Date: 2007-12-13 11:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:40 am (UTC)I married a British woman in 19ermermerm and we lived in the states for 12 years. Bush's"re-election" neatly coincided with me losing a job I hated (and being offered one over here). We sold the house and cars and left.
You just put all your shit in a shipping crate and send it over in advance. Easy peasy.
I think finding a British guy might be the tough bit.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:48 am (UTC)On the subjects of pies, you might like Google Chart API (http://code.google.com/apis/chart/). But then again, it's probably the wrong kind of google for you. (Not the search field.)
der.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 11:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 12:18 pm (UTC)I haven't reached the end yet, but I seem to be saying that if IT is "the it culture" now, maybe it's time to be realistic, the time to at least claim that we represent the world. So I suppose there's a wish there that rhetoric would be infused with an ambitious kind of realism, the realisation that it's not enough to be a particular (taking the current US Democratic candidates, for instance, we'd say the particularity of being a woman or a black man), but to bring your particularity to power as a new universal. That's not just realpolitik -- my gang wins -- but requires continuous reality-adjustment. I suppose the kind of rhetoric I want to hear is a rhetoric which reflects what I think of as reality.
Ah, I think I've come to the bit about rhetoric now. It's about how, even if you're a hardcore cultural relativist, you may not like the results of that (eg allowing Creationism to be taught in schools as "just as good as" Darwinian theory). So you have values, and you try to persuade others -- through rhetoric -- to share your values. This is what I think Blue State America needs to do to Red State America, and what Europe should do too. I suppose I'm talking about a kind of secular evangelism. We're not evangelistic enough with our values, we in the "reality-based community". This is, to use the enemy's language, a "sin" -- a sin of omission.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 12:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 12:36 pm (UTC)Isn't that the thesis of Thomas Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas"? He said that Republicans got poor square-state types to vote against their class interest with "god, guns and gays" rhetoric.
Re: viva la revolucion
Date: 2007-12-13 12:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 12:40 pm (UTC)Relativism has its origins in anthropology -- it's the view that we shouldn't think that some cultures are automatically superior to others. And actually that mindset comes out of science: don't cook the books, try to step outside your preconceptions when looking at things.
Relativism can stop -- and should stop -- when it prevents us having our own strong beliefs and fighting for them, even when we can't say they're objectively better than anyone else's. I think relativism also stops when -- as I've been doing recently -- you question the very idea, the possibility, of neutrality; the notion that there's some sort of "offshore" from which you can judge things. I think it also ends when you recognize the need to make your beliefs into a new universal. In a world in which there's really only the "it" and the "other", you really have to be part of the "it" to survive. The other shrinks and wilts. It becomes nothing more than "the not it", and that's not good enough.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 12:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-13 12:56 pm (UTC)I read about Huckabee and am glad to live where I do and sad for the country of my birth (especially if that person is elected!). I can still vote in US elections and do so (though have no idea if the absentee ballots were counted or thrown away) and will vote to keep that moron out of the White House! It's bad enough one has been there for the past 7 years!