Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
It's all about "US" and "THEM"
Once Obama becomes President, should that happen, it will be impossible to brand the world of non-whites, the world of Arabs, Viet Namese,--all our favorite categories in the "unworthy victim" universe, as "THEM".
---or will it? Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
At any given moment in the US (and I believe most of Western Europe), somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the population has solidly formed attachments to their "leader" -- bonds of obedience and belief that are largely impervious to external reality.
Bob Altemeyer's work on the authoritarian personality is widely accepted as transnational by now, by academia, but still a conceptual hot potato--invisible- to most voters. So let's speculate a bit beyond the authoritarians.
Another huge group, between 60% and 75% I would guess, sticks to "Buying a Chevrolet"--Traditional, long-supported parties, Dad's party, the family party----and finds reasons to do so. There is some overlap. There is not much good research showing how much. Hence the guess is yours.
Will the authoritarians make that attachment that brings such incredible, reality-denying obedience to--Obama? A "THEM"? Or will he somehow be magically transformed into an "US"? And if some unforseen (by me) process accomplishes this transformation,--then what of the ocean of the "unworthy" who have died and been --dissappeared? Will we suddenly begin to accept the Lancet study, and the 1.2 million dead Iraquis whose very existence we now deny? How far does this sudden "love your OTHER" go? And the traditionalists- how will they react to Obama in the carefully crafted role of National Leader? Hell --even Reagan was coached by three drama specialists in his presidential role for six months, and he had spent a lifetime pretending to be someone he wasn't. This is a bit of what Obama will face. By the way, I support his presidency strongly. I want answers to these questions that can be had no other way than to --give him a shot at it. But I fear for him.
Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
--Will (can?) the authoritarians (most of them white), form the powerful attachment to Obama that their psychology seems to need? What happens to American politics if they do not? Giant loose cannon.
--Will the traditionalists (not all of them conservatives ) accept Obama at the head of the party of their mom and dad, their grandpartents, or at the head of the nation?
--Will all of them suddenly see "scary brown people" as humans too-- altering centuries of deeply ingrained defense mechanisms--you know, the sort of mental tricks that have always made it easy for most people to wear sneakers made by enslaved and abused 12-year-olds,-- without an apparent qualm of conscience?
Remember Binkley's anxiety closet?
We have our guilt closet, and we are not about to open it, I think. Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
It'll be difficult to think in terms of "us" and "them" if he's elected, but more so because I think the "them" would view it as having finally arrived in "Mainstream America" (whatever that is). It's more difficult to treat blacks and other minority groups as "others" when the president is a popular black guy with what most Americans will likely hear as a very African- and kind of Islamic-sounding (especially if you add in the Hussein) name. Even more so if his Veep is Bill Richardson, who's half-Latino.
It changes Americans' perspective of how they view America. "E Pluribus Unum" kind of stuff, I guess. And it potentially helps in the country's view of the world by making the country knock off the subconscious "(white) America vs Scary Brown PeopleTM" thing that I do think infects people's perspective to some degree, especially if Obama adopts a more integrated, internationalist approach compared with the past.
The danger, of course, would be that issues primarily affecting poor kids from non-white backgrounds might be ignored by whites even more, because "We elected a black president." It could be more difficult to shine a light on racial and ethnic inequality, which is why electing him has to be backed by substantial changes in domestic policy. Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?
It's a friggin' vicious circle of deprivation, isn't it? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
From a different point of view, the entire program can be looked at from two interesting perspectives. From the political one, it was a device to support and validate the bad idea of school vouchers, thereby punishing the schools in trouble by siphoning off the students who were more likely to succeed, leaving the disadvantaged kids without even a role model for success, no dough---and no political clout. From a sociological point of view, one might see a deeper representation here- the definition, isolation and punishment of the "THEM". In the eyes of many voters, these are Obama's cultural and ethnic roots, and peers. America's ability to continue to ignore the ocean of victims produced by our dreams of empire depends on the maintenance of what Chomsky calls the "Unworthy Victim". Redefining most of the population of the world as "THEM" is a big part of how this is done. A huge part of our own population is, and has always been, "THEM". Hence travesties like this,--and our incredible prison population. President Obama would shake the foundations of our definition of "THEM". Bout Time. --Long Shot.
In the eyes of many voters, these are Obama's cultural and ethnic roots, and peers.
America's ability to continue to ignore the ocean of victims produced by our dreams of empire depends on the maintenance of what Chomsky calls the "Unworthy Victim". Redefining most of the population of the world as "THEM" is a big part of how this is done. A huge part of our own population is, and has always been, "THEM". Hence travesties like this,--and our incredible prison population. President Obama would shake the foundations of our definition of "THEM". Bout Time. --Long Shot.
Honest question: Do these make clear that the diary is about Obama, and the fact that he is a force that, as President, might demand that the US to open doors- to look in closets- that we would prefer not to? If not, then it indeed fails, because that was my point. Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
So no one wants to touch the really important question? It's all about "US" and "THEM"
We do a great job of tearing down here, but our occasional policy ideas gotta begin with the question of --what makes a policy succeed? This was also an attempt to ask some questions (indirectly)- to open the door to discussing what makes a policy fail--even a good policy. But, as usual, it never quite got that far. Maybe next time. And I relish any debate on education, as my diaries will show, including this one. Think of the education conversation as plan "B" for me--
Here's a third elephant in the living room that's too dead to crawl to the kitchen:
In the reductionist consumer culture of "Enterprise Village", ---a place that strongly resembles Sarkoland-- who makes the best, most easily "managed" workers? The well-educated? Or the trained Parrots? Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
