..out of the dark

From an outside point of view, the US elections in November is of course extremely important. Not just for the general welfare of the planet - there are specific issues for everyone involved in international politics of any kind that would work more smoothly with a less stalwartly obstinate (read: not a moron) president in the White House. Since that will allow us to give international operations legitimacy, as well as operational thought that would give them at least some chance of success.

Apart from that, we have the Pakistan, India, China problem looming ahead. As well as the missile- defense issues with Russia. All of which thankfully are not going to blow up in our faces in spite of the best efforts in the White House - but the issues will continue to be stalled and dealt with in secrecy. Something that finds us with smaller countries suddenly involving themselves in oil- trade with certain firms, or in "security- cooperation" with the CIA over "extraordinary renditions", without that being subject to local government authority or the EU authority, just to make an example.

In the same way, any diplomatic attempts in the middle- east will typically be oriented towards specific projects, from "human rights initiatives" from the US, to almost personal attempts from our own favoured diplomats. And that, while I don't doubt the intentions, typically removes the framework any initiatives clearly grounded in international law would have. And while of course I'm not suggesting there would be no cowboy diplomacy if that framework was in place, we could at least be certain that the appeal of abiding by international law and non- direct interference in local politics would be larger. Which in practice for example would rob the legitimacy from certain armed groups who happen to have friends in the Pentagon, or with Congress. Whether that would be "freedom fighters" in Kurdistan, or settlers in Palestine.

So a US president willing to engage openly with the UN over these issues - or at least dismiss them cleanly, instead of deliberately choosing representatives to sabotage any effort, while crafting rationales that have Mugabe leering with glee when he thinks about any problems with not following through with any "commitments" - that would be favourable.

So while of course the UN is dead as far as being a monolithic institution, a change in attitudes towards using the framework, would have a big impact in the ways the situations are dealt with in the current hotspots. For the lesser crises, we should simply look to ourselves first, of course. But robbing the opportunity for the local population to circumvent their government and any law through injections of funds from outside groups would be an important side- effect.

And any US president or government held to a minimal set of standards - or at least a US government capable of being intimidated if they're caught, would be a major change. And while the democrats are exactly as moronic as the republicans, with extremely few exceptions, there is at least an attempt going on at the moment. It's certainly not much, but at the policy- making level, intents - as we've seen with the Bush- administration - can have serious impacts on the limits of the initiatives that take place.

But the question is - will those attitudes in a president - of the kind Obama and Hillary fails continuously to state clearly and with strength - appeal to the US electorate?

To answer that, I think it's useful to look at the narrative figuring in the Obama campaign at the moment. Their main message is - like Obama admits - a traditionally conservative one (at least in the US fashion). Where every person has a certain responsibility to himself but also the country. And where the citizens will only be given the tools to accomplish change on their own. And so political engagement, recruitment on the grass- roots and local initiatives shaping issues on the Capitol is their strategy. While the election- buzz will be won through injecting acme appeal into the media.

If you look at Hillary, she has a different attitude, clearly distinguishing herself from Obama in the way that she believes a system of government must be imposed to some extent, and that it is the limits of that which should be discussed. On the election- fluff, she tries to sell herself as a candidate ready to take on the job, being more assertive and ready (and experienced, and with more contacts and knowledge of How Politics Really Work) for the real job.

McCain on the other hand runs on the narrative of the US being the shining city on the hill - that they should use their might to change the world for the better with any and all means, including military force at the whim of the president.He also gives off the unmistakable air of being "one of them", in the beltway elite - because he knows that being president is not what it's about. He knows that he is merely there to enable the interests that finance his campaign, his ranch, and his continued life as a privileged man.

In other words, both democratic candidates are primarily running on domestic issues, and the implication with withdrawing from Iraq, establishing again the safeguards in Congress and the law, and after that suggest limitations on the executive that would roll back the opportunities supplied the president by the current Department of Justice, for example. And that is important, I suppose. In fact, it gives anyone who cares about international law a very clear choice between complete lawlessness, and between at least a chance of relative restraint. Which in turn would give opportunities to end,, in the foreseeable future.. the various "engagements" around the world, before they fester long enough to cause serious trouble (not just thousands of deaths for no reason on the ground, if you know what I mean..).

--

But the real issue at stake for the US electorate in general is not about any of this. It is about healthcare, it is about job- security, it is about maintaining the consumer- culture, and it is about "feeling good". And those are the dominant issues that overshadow any other concerns.

Meaning that from a different light, McCain is running on that America is great, and is going to be greater still. That everything about the US is awesome, and the envy of the world. While Clinton and Obama are running on that the US is in dire crisis that can only be fixed by - in Hillary's version, assertive government. And in Obama's way, through giving the US people the tools to change it themselves.

In other words, on the one hand the US is great and awesome, and everyone can make it better if they follow the leader and their varying unknown suggestions for state intervention. Or on the other, the US is fucked up, and you need to make it better by following the leader, with varying degrees of government intervention to help.

And so you can see that the personality- oriented garbage that dominates the debates is not coming quite so unexpectedly as you might assume. Or that it won't resonate well for any of the candidates to start trashing against it. Because they need to sell themselves as personalities. And they need to sell their narratives about America - because that is what the elections will be decided on.

Naturally, the reason why I think Obama will win, is because he is suggesting hope while acknowledging the ongoing disaster (unbelievably advanced, I know). So therefore he has an advantage over those who up till now have been coming up with consistent narratives about how the reality really is, regardless of facts or anything else.

But will it win him the election? And if it does - will it in the end really have any impact whatsoever? The problem, now as before, is the narrow entry- points for changing legislation that even the president is offered. And it's the narrow band where actual discussion is allowed.

And that, I'm afraid, is because moving outside of this, is something every American rebels at. No matter how "progressive" they really are. So while we all admire the efforts of some to work the system for the better - as always the lack of democracy, the lack of real dialogue, and the absence of acceptable policy- questions in the public sphere - may well come back to haunt either of the candidates who attempt to truly facilitate change. Or even enable those in the minority who have substantial ideas on their own - as long as it's done out in the open.

Rove understood this. Carville understood this. Every speechwriter and presidential adviser understands this, and actively seeks to placate it. And true to form - lack of clear policy- stances on either of the democratic candidates is already being used to suggest they are hiding something (which is what the "Obama is a muslim", "Hillary is rich" is all about.).

- So - in the end, will it be change Obama wins on, or will it be the impression of it? Neither and both, perhaps. The real issues at stake have yet to be discussed for real, less than six months before the election. The real issues, for that matter, have not been addressed in public at large after seven years of Bush.

..


edit: and as if on queue:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9238.html

And an experienced Democratic operative e-mailed: “Finally, I think [McCain’s] going to win. Obama isn’t growing in stature. Once I thought he could be Jimmy Carter, but now he reminds me more of Michael Dukakis with the flag lapel thing and defending Wright. Plus he doesn’t have a clue how to talk to the middle class. He’s in the Stevenson reform mold out of Illinois, with a dash of Harvard disease thrown in.”

In a close race, that “dash of Harvard disease” could be the difference.

So to recap: Obama doesn't eat junk- food if he can help it, can't talk to the "lower classes", doesn't wear a lapel- flag, and doesn't want to bomb Pakistan and Iran with nuclear weapons enough. And that means McCain is going to win, because he sure looks like a fat and stupid fuck, just like the vast majority of the American people.

Harken to the wisdom of Bill Kristol, inherited boy emperor of the neo- conservative revolution!


more edit:
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=0C79529D0B5D38C66E45EC77DB1BB60F?diaryId=5027

Now take a look at the comment- section as well as the the book- review of Glenn Greenwald's "Great American Hypocrites". And just taste and sense the weight of the irony in the air - not only should the democrats shun the right- wing narrative- forging ridiculousness, they should also adopt it completely, and establish an "alternative" to Drudge.

--

In case I didn't say it clearly enough - what I was talking about in this post is the attitudes in the wonk- class, the "elite", and how they actively shape the way elections are held. Until the elections really are about vapid, shallow crap that remarkably enough isn't shunned by even a minority of the American people. And you can understand this to some extent - if assuming that the entire American electorate is made up of people with the mentality of four- year olds. Because, as Greenwald points out, and which is the sad reality - the republicans win elections, because those narratives as flogged so unbelievably much. And as the morons on the other side demonstrate - they are trying to copy them in order to win themselves. Any deviation from that, such as Greenwald, must be beaten over the head with a stick, repeatedly, and "coached" to be seen in the correct light.

And in this case, Greenwald's book is not a manual on how to constructively attack the narratives that drive the elections - but instead a handbook on how to perpetuate it. That's what you're up against, you damned fucks. Your own vapid arrogance.

So where does the real problem lie? The common theme on either side, with fantastically few exceptions? It's that the most important thing is not whether, but how the US should spread magical freedom- dust around the globe. While the foundation for that simply is not possible to talk about, much less think.

--

The reality of this problem simply cannot be stressed enough - for the benefit of anyone remotely connected to the ruling class in the US, or for anyone involved in contested and political issues involving these bastards. Do yourself a favour, and understand on beforehand that what is being pushed is not actual principles, but principles as far as they can advance the chosen agenda. And those who fail in this respect, by being doubtful and worried - yes, those are weak and insignificant.

And that will be, I'm afraid, the unsung genius of what Greenwald has just laid bare for everyone to see here - if only the readers of that book had the capability of seeing it. Which they simply don't, unless they simply lack the skill or courage to come up with something useful in response.

In the same way, skewering the right on their shallowness can only be done rhetorically.

Because the biggest reason for the Bush- administration's success has been that they've gutted the left on their own terms. They forced them into taking moral stands they couldn't possibly manage to defend. I.e., they were forced to be either flimsy and vague, or optionally argue that "The US should not be an empire". Which would be political suicide, which it still is.

And changing that is not going to happen quickly, or through self- deprecating worship of the existing situation - it's done by taking on the actual fucking discussion.