 |
How do you explain the Obamania?
By the fact that Bush has become a phobic object. Already, after the diabolical Nixon of Watergate, America had given herself to a child choir that grew peanuts, Jimmy Carter. Bush did in fact much worse than Nixon, he camped himself with delight in the role of “the enemy of mankind”: rejection of the Kyoto Protocols, contempt for international institutions, pre-emptive war policy, the right to torture, the worship of force, chauvinism, etc… Cheney, his vice president, was nicknamed “Darth Vader”. The duo had managed to make of the USA the new “Evil Empire”. For Americans Obama is the equivalent of redemption. Kindness is all over his face. He is a listener. Inclined to consensus, he respects other’s beliefs (“we can disagree without being disagreeable”), he is attached to differences, he appears considerate with the poor and the weak, “everybody is beautiful, everybody is nice.”
Yes, but the fascination for Obama goes beyond the USA, he just became a global phenomenon.
Because the United States remains the only global super power. Bushophobia is widespread over the entire planet; it is now logically reversed into universal Obamania. Obama is the mirror-man of the Universe, “the microcosm- man” as it was called during the Renaissance, the one that represents the world in its diversity, who reconciles within his own person the races and the sexes: he is African, he is American, he is black, he is white, he is a man and yet he is very fashionable, very “mannequin”, almost feminine, he is smooth, he epitomizes “coolness’ itself, he can be sweet and at the same time is able to reveal himself as tough, just the opposite of John McCain, who at times appears handicapped, confused, stiff (almost inelastic), reckless and hotheaded, positing an aggressive masculinity which appears now as simply outdated. Métis and hermaphrodite, who says better?
With Obamania we are beyond the political realm; we now talk about “hope”, we are expecting “miracles” both in the economic and political fields, we compare his “Yes we can” to John Paul II’s “Do not be afraid”.
Obama has indeed cleverly cultivated the image of the Savior and Redeemer of the world, he has promised to “heal” and he assured us “change”. His genius consisted in not to shy away from the “phony” (loufoquerie) and draw without shame or hesitation in the stock of ancient myths, of the oldest beliefs of humanity. And that works for him, even in our age, the age of science and impiety, even when we are supposed to believe that we no longer believe. At the same time, his campaign masterly utilized the latest fads and gadgets of technology. He knowingly played the part of the Messiah, while repeatedly modernizing the role with a Hollywood rhetoric: Obama talks like in a movie.
Currently Obama is the most loved man on the planet. But we know that disappointment is inevitable. Will Obama be able to love and be loved?
This is raw politics. Obama made his political career in Chicago, where blue flowers do not make old bones. Everything indicates that he at least does not take himself for Obama. Who will be his first accomplice? His buddy, another Chicagoan, Rahm Emanuel, he will be the real number two: the political hyper-efficient hit man, someone who doesn’t take prisoners. He will mercilessly operate behind the scenes, while on the stage our Saint John Chrysostom (golden mouth) sings lullabies for us.
14 Comments
Some more data on Emanuel that might be of interest:
“So why is Obama hiring Emanuel as chief of staff? Probably for the same reason Daley hired him way back in 1989. He’s ruthless, cunning, and absolutely unafraid to be a jerk. In fact, I think Emanuel enjoys being a jerk. Moreover, by being a jerk, I predict Emanuel will do a great service for Obama. By the time Emanuel is finished irritating, humiliating, and infuriating folks in Washington, Obama will look like an angel. People will probably like him even more just because he’s not Emanuel.
In the last few days, Emanuel’s been telling friends in Chicago that he had to think long and hard over leaving Congress. But I doubt it was that tough of a decision.
It couldn’t have been easy for Emanuel to be a congressman, particularly at election time when he had to be nice to everyone like those old folks in the bingo parlor.
Now he gets to go back to being nasty. I suspect it will be like a dream come true.”
By Ben Joravsky, a staff writer for the Chicago Reader, where he has covered Chicago politics for many years. This article is an excerpt of one that appeared in ‘The American Prospect’, 7 Nov, 2008
do you think, obama has a deep and independent understanding of the money system? and are there deep enough understandings of that system at all?
i ask this question in the context of a book about money, written by german eske bockelmann called (something like: in the rhythm of money, 500 p., 2004, edition: zu klampen).
bockelmann starts with martin opitz and the early 17th century where – on one hand – there was a quite sudden, never sufficiently explained change/shift in the rhythm perception of western europe, replacing a multitude of rhythms and measures with the absolute domination of 4/4 and 3/4.
noone started this consciously – it just , which of course appears spooky. but martin opitz serves as a witness. his book <von der deutschen poeterey» (book of german poetry) describes the and the of this change just like that, without seeming surprised!
NOW: on the other hand and as well in early 17th century there was a change/shift on the westeuropean markets: within not much more than a generation money changed from a can-partizipate-system to a must-partizipate-system. it had to happen and it happened then, in western europe only, first.
eske bockelmann discusse these two quite separate observations and discusses parallels, connections and influences from one system to the other, or, as he believes: from the sinister abstraction called money which forces us in an existential manner to believe in it. put otherwise: money demands an effort of believing in something we do not know but have to use it on a daily basis to become and stay part of the economy – be it king or farmer.
(pls forgive my basic english and my very rough explanations. i did an interview with bockelmann, it will be translated in english this year, i hope.)
POST SCRIPTUM. sorry the title of the book got lost. pls replace my second paragraph with this new version:
i ask this question in the context of a book about money written by german eske bockelmann called IM TAKT DES GELDES (something like: in the rhythm of money, 500 p., 2004, edition: zu klampen).
Mesias has arrived, future is now possible, jews are back again with Rham, a son of a figther of the Irgun
Thanks, Josefina and J Alain
Bachrach B.A. Eol Amp-
God and money
I was just coming home now observing the headlines and covers of the weekly magazines here in Brazil. Of course all of them display great pictures of the smiling-new-president Obama. Besides showing the picture, one of the magazines also quoted a small piece of the speech Obama made when elected. Something like “if one ever doubted the USA is the great democracy in the world, I´m here as a proof it really is”. Regarding ideology, is this not everything the States ever needed in order to ‘react’ in times of crisis, disbelief, and prejudices against the country? Is this not a perfect excuse to reinforce this false idea of a perfect and possible real democracy and capitalism? What other things can be done now (besides torture, war or global gambling in economy) in the name of this powerful and ‘perfect democracy’?
There are so many other interesting things about Obama, psychoanalytically. First, he’s the first introvert I’ve ever seen holding this particular office. Second, he regards himself as a blank screen, like an analyst. Third, he is prepared to use collectivity and group dynamics rather than just sell a product in order to to get elected. I thought Prof. Miller’s short essay was rather too heavy on our projections.
le prof miller est trés trés buffoon!
so damn facile!
so easily after the freudian.
pfuff!
I have to agree with Timothy Morton. The point about Obama as the blank screen of the analyst is a compelling one, and it deserves elaboration in terms of Lacan’s Seminar VII. In fact, actor John Cusack already compared the “promise” of Obama to “Antigone before the king”:
This “coincidental” comparison is perhaps more telling than it is coincidental: people recognize that Obama’s image has brought about catharsis for the chorus. People still get choked up talking about Obama. He’s facilitating a mourning process.
This is why people expect great “change.” What has changed is the indigestible kernel of Obama’s image (his face, his name) has been elevated to the dominant position, which means that whatever the previous symbolic system had repressed is now open to reinterpretation.
People love to raise the question, Is Obama doomed to disappoint us? This is the wrong question to ask, because it suggests that analysis comes from the analyst–as if he were the Name of the Father and analysis were the analyst’s narrative.
Instead, we should acknowledge Obama’s effect on “grass roots” movements and his image’s empowerment of community organizers. When the mourning process is over, how many people quit analysis? How many will replace the president with themselves on the level of active citizenry?
If there is an Obama promise, that is it. To the extent that Obama can disappoint anyone, he’s not in the position of the analyst for that person. He will have become yet another phallus confining that person in a repressive symbolic system–waiting for a president to bring change.
Ironically, the “Obama promise” is not “socialist” as much as it is “libertarian”–at least in the sense that the private citizen is the source of social change.
Cheers to Morton and Kane. Today’s internet flurry about “uncritical exuberance” is of course settled by a reflection AWAY from the inevitable prospect of disapointment in Obama, back to the ever present imperatives of progress and justice. But the cynical, ugly tone taken over our emotional reactions to an obviously positive world-historical event is just unnecessary and counter-productive. When are we permitted to be happy if not now? Only when all injustices are corrected? What an inhumane and unlivable standard! You can be happy and still be vigilant.
It seems reasonable that Miller wants to stay away from conjectures about how Obama ‘regards himself’ as opposed to how he projects himself. Thus I cannot agree that the point about a tabula rasa is ‘compelling’ or even a ‘point’ – rather it is an interesting conjecture. Very interesting. However there is a difference after all, between our projections and Obama’s projections.
I think that the greatest moments of psychoanalytic thought follow in the tradition of stoicism. Not merely the stoicism of the Greeks, but that of Shakespeare. It is an evident cry of libidinal interjection to say ‘when am I permitted to be happy?’ However, it is to miss the point. The question is not of whether we have the ‘right’ (cf. Allan Bloom) or the permission to be happy, but of when we might trust our happiness. Hegel – who bequeathed our conception of the world-historical – would have been the first to say that we ought at the very least to ask questions when the words ‘obvious’ and ‘world-historical’ appear together.
This is not meant to foist priggish heavy-handedness, or the furrowed brow of the dour moralist upon the American conscience. Yet there has been a fair amount of knee-jerk resistance to Miller’s prudent analysis.
Below the fold of the Wall Street Journal’s front page this morning is a story about Credit Crunch merchandise: retailers across the UK are agog with items meant ‘to cheer up in the current economic climate’, from shoes (‘Credit Crunch stilettos’) to candy (‘Credit Crunch bars’) to wedding dresses (‘Budget Weddings’). Marketing firms are responding to the crisis du jour in the only way they know: co-option. One is reminded of the crass jokes made about oceanfront property in Appalachia and the White Mountains, or, worse, land speculation in Green Antarctica.
What makes the Credit Crunch phenomenon unique is its use of signifier. Taken at face value the phrase supposedly connotes a shortage of virtual confidence and/or the resulting slowing of market inertia. That is, it suggests people are going to be able to spend and receive less money. By being transformed into a marketing tool, however, the phrase is made to imply its opposite: ‘Though you and I understand that we’re not supposed to be spending money, I’ve made it possible for you to spend some.’ It’s the same turn-the-other-way/dirty-uncle phenomenon that urges you to enjoy Coca-Cola because You Deserve It. This is a basic point, yes, and one wouldn’t have a hard time making the case for the Superego here.
…which is where we reach our point of departure: the signifier ‘Credit Crunch’ is stripped of its intended signified (freezer money) and, in the hands of our Superego older brother, made to mean its opposite (freer money). Boring? I would only like to point out that the signifier itself is able to mean two things at the same time. Our computational example of this is the undecided byte (I forget what it’s called), the banal example of which we have in the movie Swordfish – those little indecipherable bits of code that Stanley Jobson (the hacker) can turn into a ‘crack’, even while a prostitute goes to work on him at a club in LA. Lacan tells us that this is what constitutes a message from the Other, an incomplete message which has two viable means of interpretation. I’m oversimplifying here, but the choice is as follows: take the Other at face value and it is an object; take it as a lie (a feint) and it is a subject. He quotes a Jewish joke: ‘I am going to Krakow,’ one man says, to which the other replies, ‘Why are you telling me you are going to Krakow? You are telling me to make me believe that you are going somewhere else.’
So here we have a subjective choice to make: believe it when the Superego tells you that the markets aren’t that bad and take him up on his Credit Crunch knee socks, or read the newspaper and tell him to hit the road.
The tragedy lies in how this relates to Obama’s (pre-) presidency: innumerable are the articles we’ve read about ‘post-cynicism’ and our generation’s ‘Yes We Can’ middle finger to apathy; are we just fooling ourselves with more false Hope? The cynic is right to turn a blind eye on ‘credit crunch chic’…but the question arises: whose side is Hope on?
Please ignore that last comment: I am its author but it was posted here without my willing it…reading it over now I see its marginal relevance and I’d like to apologize if it in any way interrupted the conversation.
Is not Obama less of an alternative to Bush and more of the product of the splitting into two of the one that is body making up capitalist hegemony?
The period of financial crisis coupled with the punctuated leaking of legitimacy experienced by social-democracy under Bush has resulted in the deferal of desire, and the striving for a collectively recognised Father to exercise(/exorcise) authority? Is not Obama the perverse Truth of Bush, that Bush was in fact the capitalist error? Obama is the man who will steer the ship into a time of plain sailing? That in the moment of crisis the True leader emerged to combat the ills of the world…?
No more need to follow false-prophets as the real one has arrived…?