Left success -or- how did I become so long winded

I think that the degree to which ‘the left’ has been rhetorically successful since September 11^th has been seriously under-thought. I’ve read a lot about the rise of the right wing media, the use of polarizing rhetoric (us v. them…), but not enough about the effectiveness of rhetoric about Bush’s rhetoric. Recently, we’ve seen people like Nancy Pelosi tell Bush to ‘calm down,’ we’ve had Stephen Colbert lambaste the prez for a good half hour in his presence, and a significant outcry on the part of the international community against Bush personally. So, the question remains of how has rhetoric about the Bush administration’s rhetoric been effective, created certain discussions or avoided others.

Black and white but still agree on the value of gradients – the primary critique of a black-white, yes-no, with us or against us standpoint fails to question whether black really is black or white really is white. Instead, the basic function of the US in international politics goes unquestioned – we still know who the really bad guys are, we just are willing to cut a deal or work with certain people who may be gray. The US remains committed, even absent Bush, to a certain form of military and political hegemony that centers on the power to make judgments about terrorist states.

The most successful part of ‘liberal rhetoric’ I think has been the use of internet democracy to strengthen the structure of the Democratic party, and the mild left in general. The idea of a conservatively dominated ‘MSM’ (Mainstream media, wow what a phrase), and a ‘false centrism’ argument coming from the Pelosi-left that Bush only claims to represent the American people motivates a particular form of participation in representative government. The control of the discourse of democracy is a political talking point (see my ‘behind the scenes’ post). The mantle of ‘actual representative to Americans’ seems to have been a consistent feature of political discourse, but this acquires a certain expression in a media age. (Moveon.org and 527s have a really interesting discourse about themselves- they create democracy about democratic participation- ‘reclaiming our media’ in a way that sees themselves as un-mediated. The people who contribute ideas, money, etc personally to these campaigns participate in a democracy, but in a way that divides them out from the people receiving the messages that 527s produce. Democracy about democracy…) The internet revived the image of participatory representative government in a big way through groups like moveon.org, the emergence of the liberal ‘blogosphere,’ and the success of campaigns from Howard Dean to ‘Obamania.’ The orientation of all these different forms of politics remains decisively towards center stage Washington D.C.. The means for political organizing and mobilization is the computer, over the internet. The basic questions of access to technology could of course be raised over this – the digital divide, etc. now reach to the dominant form of political organizing as an exclusionary barrier to other forms of participation in civic/political life.

This creates a polarization of discourse about civic participation as well as a polarization of discourse within representative government structures. The phrase ‘vote or die’ brings it to an extreme, but emphasis on the nature of the threat of Bush/Whatever-right-wing creates a faster and deeper marginalization of non-government oriented politics. Essentially, I think ‘liberal’ rhetoric has done a good job of centering the GOP as totally dominant, or at least in a fairly good position of monopolizing discourse. This makes radicals out of reformists, but also moves pragmatist politics beyond polling into the margin by stigmatizing a lack of engagement with a particular form of civic democracy.

I think another interesting point has been the discourse surrounding polarization and media bias, which necessarily has become a function of how Bush’s rhetoric and policy gets treated. The media is correctly identified as a shill, but only in terms of its agreement with a Bush war frame, sparking corresponding calls for debate and balance. Naturally: balance between what? Where does the fulcrum lie, and what would suggest balance in the first place? Certain ideas form the fulcrum, like “should the US invade Iran” with ‘yes’ and ‘no’ presented as the balancers. Similarly, the discussion about media discussions becomes about the Bush policy of the moment, writing out other questions about power and privilege that could be offered about the media, which would see the “Bush yes/no” debate as radically un-balanced. I also think there are places where this strategy allows for co-option. Honestly, I don’t think media debates make a damn bit of sense as a political tool, and raising the issue points towards a flawed mode of thinking about the productive elements of media representations, which largely occur at the level of image-production. Also, debate on the media isn’t good when the topic at hand involves certain questions of political power, where presenting both (what would a 4, 5, 6 way debate look like?) sides legitimizes both arguer’s positions as legitimate options, when sometimes you just need to call a policy dumb and move on. It doesn’t provide any role for the viewer that makes sense either, except as a consuming and voting public – what would the viewer do with a balanced debate about war against Iran? They know both sides, but… so? The only role is to pass judgment through voting on Bush, or on other political figures. It gives a sense of a consensus on what to debate, and who should resolve the debate that elides other political questions.

More or less, I think people are convinced that there should be a distancing from Bush. This has been an exceedingly successful rhetorical strategy for the left – calling out Bush on questions of competence and effectiveness in governance. There are a host of problems with this strategy which should seem obvious – when would it be right to invade somewhere anyways? What would an effectively run ‘war on terror’ look like, is it even possible to do this right?

Duncan