Recently, Michelle Obama has come under heavy media scrutiny for her “unpatriotic” and “negative” disposition. The criticism was launched, unsurprisingly, by Cindy McCain (John McCain’s wife, in case you haven’t heard of her). In order to diffuse media scorn, Michelle appeared on CBS’s all-women talk show The View:

 She appeared, as many spectators have commented “complex and strong”- diplomatically navigating a diverse group of questions. If a wife’s disposition and public performance ability is any indicator of leadership, I figured, it might be good to check up on Cindy (since she has been fairly invisible during the course of the McCain campaign). Shockingly, she’s pretty boring:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbhTxyjKsfI&feature=related

She’s also a Sith Lord:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB5GkRv8ZgI

America- ask yourself. Do you want to marry this man? Do you want to be like Cindy, or do you want to be like Michelle? Think about it and get back to me.

`What is a Caucus-race?’ said Alice; not that she wanted much to know, but the Dodo had paused as if it thought that somebody ought to speak, and no one else seemed inclined to say anything.

`Why,’ said the Dodo, `the best way to explain it is to do it.’ (And, as you might like to try the thing yourself, some winter day, I will tell you how the Dodo managed it.)

First it marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, (`the exact shape doesn’t matter,’ it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no `One, two, three, and away,’ but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out `The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, `But who has won?’

This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, `everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’

`But who is to give the prizes?’ quite a chorus of voices asked.

`Why, she, of course,’ said the Dodo, pointing to Alice with one finger; and the whole party at once crowded round her, calling out in a confused way, `Prizes! Prizes!’

-Lewis Carroll

Bob and his sister Jane and her friend Sue all three want to get married together. They are all legally adults. If you’re supportive of the California Supreme Court’s decision, then give me a convincing argument that this should not be allowed. Or tell me why this would be OK.

A plastic bag flutters, expands, and breathes its way towards oncoming traffic- some tragic creature, blindly moving towards an epic death. A jellyfish or dove with open wings. Then, as if propelled by invisible breath, it pushes away- the force from a passing truck removes a potentially deathly impact. It settles with its brothers and cousins- plastic cups and cigarette butts-all edging up the lip of the great grey grinning freeway. This immigration strikes me as altogether unnoticed- it is routinely and deliberately overlooked- the motion of objects towards uselessness- so frequent, so normalized- the daily suicides of soda cans and plastic spoons, inching into crevices and disregarded pockets of activity- places where movement is too broad and frantic to be controlled- places the offending wanderers will not be noticed by their former masters.

The impish commute train buzzes endlessly like an electric avalanche, pouring gas into a now-pink, yawning horizon. The road is like a repulsive zipper split down the middle, revealing hideous oil-slick underwear and a few pieces of leftover toilet paper stuck here and there. Nobody notices it- maybe it is too vile. Stopping for a moment to consider the rubbish would too quickly expose us in our transitory condition. I can’t help but stare directly at the objects while the cars pass unconsciously into the work day; I am transfixed altogether. It’s as if I was born to observe these unwanted paradoxes- the useless utility of our generation’s expenditure patterns- some cruel fate has forced me to notice. Capitalism’s waste has always transfixed me this way. The scene is drenched in the scents of impotent, distended consumption cycles. It mawkishly conveys the inability of a life lived through objects to craft any semblance of meaning.

Capitalism, particularly the American variety, is a buzz-word that I have been taught to criticize and expose for all its abuses and gluttonies. Capitalism and consumerism are two sides of the same concept; together they have come to represent the infinite superficiality of American culture. Lately, though, I have discovered that this naïve distaste for “private ownership” is getting harder and harder to pinpoint. Whose fault is capitalism? What is new capitalism, precisely? Better- who is capitalism? Is it McDonald’s fault for selling hamburgers to people who like their hamburgers? Is it Starbucks’ fault for making an easily-replicable marketing scheme? I hate mega-chains as much as anybody, but how would we structure our economy if they went away? What would the world look like without capitalism? How can we replace it? Is every capitalist (slight nod in the direction of Marx) really inextricably married to patriarchal hegemony and commodity fetishism? Why?

Turning to professional examples- friends, coworkers- I come across ideological friction. None of the individuals I encounter who display symptoms of capitalism deserve my contempt. They each play a part in creating value, and they have, for the most part, bought life’s accoutrements with their own sweat. They want what most human beings want- to protect their hard-earned property and secure a future for generations to come. But of course, I’m biased towards those I know.

I attempt to demonize a more abstract target- Coca-Cola. Dirty capitalist pigs- especially the executives. But the same problem occurs here- Coca-Cola provides a wealth of jobs, and delivers a product with predictable efficiency. College students set up vending machines selling Coca-Cola to pay college loans. The Coca-Cola Scholars Foundation donates $3.4 million annually in scholarships for higher education. Coca-Cola donates money to charity- it donates a lot more money to charity than I do. Can I demonize this enemy unreservedly? Is all profit- are all those who make a profit- guilty of exploitation and self-interest?

What about me? Am I a capitalist? The plastic bag puffs up. Serendipitously, it is struck head-on by a baby blue Rolls-Royce. It suddenly occurs to me that I am, almost without question, a capitalist. I produce and own capital. Albeit not a lot of capital- but privately, from the covert obscurity of my own hidden objectives, I make and spend my capital capitalistically (it’s a word!), perpetuating the very cycle of capitalism I so readily disavow.

The right-wing critique of the left, which is meant to foster freedom and responsibility, has always been undermined, successfully in my opinion, by a swift reminder of the greed and selfishness of right-wingers who hope to keep what they’ve got and make sure nobody else gets it. Rational Choice Theory, it seems to me, has been born from this very assumption. Humans are SELFISH. Granted. On the other hand, as I have recently been forced to admit, the responsibility to earn, invest and, yes, consume cannot be avoided- it is an integral part of life which must be cultivated deliberately for the clockwork of commerce to work efficiently. More than that, these choices themselves create a kind of socialist structure- any choice to produce or consume is a social one, and can be made with some degree of respect and compassion. Not everybody has the luxury of escaping to an island paradise to make beaded jewelry and live off the land. In my experience, those who do have this luxury have been funded by the silent hand of a parent or friend who lives vicariously through this type of indulgence. Thoreau was independently wealthy. He didn’t feed the hungry. Why don’t the culture police bear down on his legacy with guilt tactics and scorn?

Of course, our social responsibility covers many domains, including health care, education, and financial security. But we can’t honestly critique the system until we understand what it entails- a lot of work meeting a variety of needs, fueled by a complex network of skills. “The capitalist machine” is usually a postmodern way of saying “all the people you know who earn a living, their bosses, their bosses’ bosses, and the governments that try to support their efforts”. In short, it is a way of escaping thinking about exactly what we are decrying. Who is capitalism? Nobody in particular- or, rather, everybody who creates and uses capital intentionally- not only those who use it with greater returns.

Whining about injustice or disapproving of taxes may be fun weekend pastimes, but they won’t make life any more tolerable for the poor and suffering. In my opinion, anyone who has ever been wholly invested in American party politics has ignored at least one half of the problem. Today, my critique is of the left, because I myself am guilty of leftist tendencies- I have used capitalism to hurl insults around- to look for a way of escaping personal responsibility.

All that said, I still believe in conscientious spending and ownership. If I don’t like a company’s policies, I buy from somebody else. I met a would-be congressman in a bar at Oxford who told me I sounded like Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has written many-a-tirade championing the robust superiority of businessmen, and she usually makes me ill- there is something fascist in her that is deeply worrying. I do not subscribe to her line of thinking, which claims that “wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think”. If that were true, the vast majority of great philosophers, poets, artists, and inventors would have also been filthy rich. Not everybody can be a businessman, and most of us who place value outside the all-holy dollar (or any other currency) are finding that life is becoming unreasonably difficult to sustain. If the world was composed of businessmen, the proverbial soul of civil society would probably start to resemble Donald Trump’s hair-spray-infested toupee- brittle, phony, and unattractive. Those who have the opportunity to be kings and queens still need to be meticulously accountable to those who don’t. They should be responsible for employees, and ensure the wellbeing of anyone who is impacted by their work. This is still my first priority when I go to the voting box- to hope the government will respect the needs of its diverse citizenry, not defend the rights of wealthy businessmen, or worse, their own biases. In this spirit, I tend to vote left.

But taking down the man and cultivating a private loathing for the rich isn’t an answer to capitalism, it’s a way of avoiding the problem of freedom: “thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying; and nothing can be more fatal to friendship and good fellowship in states than this: for good fellowship springs from friendship; when men are at enmity with one another, they would rather not even share the same path” (from Aristotle’s Politics). Being pro-business does not mean being anti-ethics. Making money does not necessitate human rights abuse. We seem to have surrendered ourselves to the inevitability of our own dualisms. Not every business venture translates to masked imperialism.

A dangerous, bipolar tendency has crystallized American thought and is threatening to take the rest of the world with it. It is the language, frankly, of ignorance. When I hear words like capitalism, my first instinct is one of disgust, but my second instinct is one of pause. The anti-capitalist attitude breeds irresponsible rhetoric, just as marketing campaigns spin cultural stereotypes back to consumers, forcing plastic and caffeine down the throats of the general public. If I am going to be a diligent anti-capitalism capitalist, I have begun to believe, I need to do two things. First, I need to recognize the difference between enterprise and exploitation- to respect the capitalist as much as the communist- to keep the baby in the bathwater and try to stop it from killing itself or others; I need to differentiate between the evils of “capitalism”- which generate singular selfishness in certain companies who espouse certain ideological fallacies or intolerances- and the capitalist- the creative backbone of the economy. Is it possible for individuals to maximize personal success that both respects progressive liberties and sustains necessary social institutions? Second, I need to find alternatives to injustice and greed that do not involve enslavement to bigoted government agendas, escape tactics, or the blame game, however poetic or abstract my scapegoat may be.

Here is the link for your enjoyment…
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/06/no_shame_no_gain.html

“She held a rhetorical knife to Obama’s throat and said, in not so many words: I’m still calling some shots, buddy. You offer me the vice-presidency, or I walk away. But she has also forced Obama into a situation whereby if he chooses her now, he looks weak. So that’s the choice she is hoping to impose on the nominee: don’t choose me, and Bill and I will subtly work to see that you lose; choose me, and look like a weakling who can’t lead the party without the Clintons after all.”

Read More: http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2008/05/28/dunkin_donuts_yanks_rachael_ray_ad/

They were recently featured on NPR for their audacious business venture: young 20-somethings supporting themselves and other artists through the internet- is it possible? (Radiohead shakes its seasoned head in disbelief). This is a group of Julliard-trained experimentalist musicians based in New York. Why support it? It’s some of the more progressive cross-genre experimenting in the business, integrating hip-hop, folk, a cappella, beat poetry, rock, and more into the classical musicsphere. Also, it’s a big group, and a big group means more stomachs. Go art.

In Madness and Civilization, Foucalt tells the story of the emergence of the Retreat to cure madness (similar to our “rehab” centers). The madmen are sent away to cool down. In one story, a particularly manic patient comes to the Retreat bound hand and foot, unable to move, and raging with almost superhuman energy. Once there, he is told that the bonds will be loosed, and he will be allowed a state of freedom and dignity so long as he behaves. Then, something magical happens. He restrains himself. Of course, this is only vaguely successful. It does not cure the madman. But it gives the appearance of a cure, and that is important.

Behold the beginning of guilting people into quiescence through the notion of freedom, where one observes a madhouse in which we “substitute for the free terror of madness the stifling anguish of responsibility”. Jean Paul Sartre eat your heart out, etc. The Other (in our case, the American Republic) grants freedom within a very restricted space, and makes us pay for it.

From Thomas Paine’s Common Sense:

“[g]overnment, like dress is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of Kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of Paradise.”

Basically, he’s asking us to look at government as a necessary evil that prevents social madness. Paine’s version of Enlightenment reason goes: humans are flawed, but worse without rule, ergo, loss of freedom is proportionally related to our loss of innocence (less freedom is the necessary result of a flawed nature, more freedom comes from our strength- our ability to control things rationally). It seems to me today’s politics requires a re-evaluation of this “common” sense. And what is more popular in the common discourse of political events than our concept of freedom?

What do we mean by freedom?

“Freedom isn’t Free” is the ubiquitous aphorism currently used to manufacture consent for heightened security measures, that is, less freedom. Meaning: less of these freedoms for more of those. I want to explore the notion of freedom through this lens, since it is both contemporary and distinct.

There are several possible translations of the expression, but I think it is reasonable to say what we mean is something like: “in order to maintain freedom we must also surrender certain freedoms. In so doing, we preserve civil society and foster personal responsibility to this society”. In other words, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. So let’s look at what I need from the government (why it is necessary for us to concede freedoms, since we’ve moved on from “because humans are evil” philosophically), what that means I can’t do, and what’s still left. What’s still left is our working definition of freedom. HERE GOES:

NEED:

-trade laws

-laws that keep the bad people away

-roads

-stop people from harming me or affecting me in any way I don’t want to allow

-um….

NOT FREEDOM (Things we can’t do):

-can’t be naked (unless I’m in Santa Cruz or in my house with all the window shades down)

-can’t do drugs

-can’t work legally until I’m 15

-can’t travel to Cuba or do business there

-can’t drive fast, or without a seatbelt

-can’t smoke in many public establishments

-can’t pee ‘just anywhere’

-can’t draw ‘just anywhere’

-can’t block my neighbor’s view

-can’t syphon his gas tank

-can’t fart in public (in some states during particular time frames- look it up!!)

-can’t shoot a Scotsman approaching my city from the north (see York UK’s City Statutes)

-can’t be sure that I’m not being listened to by Admiral Poindexter

-can’t have an unregistered pet without paying a fine

-can’t have an unregistered baby (I’m sorry Rainbow Sunshine Moonchild!!! Mommy’s getting you a Social Security number.)

-can’t come up with names for things, taking over other people’s stuff (damn IP laws)

-can’t throw stuff against other stuff when I’m angry, beat people up, etc

-can’t really get away with just walking anywhere my feet lead me (property rights, etc etc)

-can’t become a benevolent dictator by brute force and quick wit (at least in theory)

-can’t disturb the peace (which is kind of like passivity if you think about it long enough)

-can’t swear on the radio (most of the time)

-can’t take local supermarket employees hostage

-can’t rob a bank

etc, etc, etc

FREEDOM:

-speech (see disturbing the peace)
-press
-religion (unless the religion happens to conflict with state interests- the recent “What do mean I can’t marry a 13-year-old” government intervention in the private lives of Texas cultists being the perfect example)
-ability to work with the big boys: play the game, cut the cheddar, etc

-life, pursuit of happiness. emphasis on pursuit.

Everywhere one looks, there is freedom and the shadow of un-freedom. Some of this is merely societal- Zizek (following Lacan), for instance, claims that the most stringent regulation is always imposed by society at its’ most free: that is, we tend to censor each other when we’re allowed to say anything: “with complete freedom of speech, comes the instinct to censor each other”.

The problem with our addiction to “freedom isn’t free” is that we are pretty much enslaved already, though arguably many of the “can’t do” items are things we wouldn’t do anyway. We aren’t free because we are responsible to one another. And that’s a good thing. But when we throw the word freedom around for leverage abroad, judicial decisions, or the perpetuation of war, we are no longer free thinkers. We are much less free than we assume- we haven’t even factored in societal concerns like political correctness and popular media, which pretty much do away with the “freedom” category as stated here. We should not take our responsability for granted. Neither should our government. In a way, when we say that freedom isn’t free, we’re saying that our slavery isn’t free. And that’s just redundant. Our unfreedom comes at a price. Or: the projects of government (negative freedom- government as doing what I cannot) come at a price.

Perhaps a better question is: on what grounds will we discontinue our servitude? Or: how little representation does it take before negative freedom is no longer enough to keep a country in shackles?

Much of our government’s activity remains uncontested and unmonitored. Why? I need the government to take care of me, but I also need the government to do things I can’t (like monitor terrorist attacks). I assume the government should be involved in virtually every facet of existence, because it has my best interests in mind (civil service, etc etc). I assume that without Big Brother, I would certainly not survive. My behavior, at least, is unregulated. Right?

Private companies are married, necessarily (we assume), to government regulation. This is another fundamental source of captivity, and yet, most would argue, it is in my best interest; without regulation monopoly and indecent behavior would be ruling law. Without government- without organization, we are monkeys.

But big government now has his own needs and his own interests. He needs bigger offices. He needs a war. He needs campaign funds. He needs a new car. All of this we are responsible to provide him. He is, after all, protecting us from ourselves.

At this point in history, both the Democrat and the Republican assume the government needs to be big, bad, and bodacious in order to solve any number of social ills (I just used bodacious because I needed another b word). The result of big government is always the stifling of human will, because human will is diverse. Judicial activism- supreme court decisions that change the scope of human behavior- is on the rise. Global wars and sweeping changes to lifestyle choices (marriage, education, birth control, health care) are becoming more and more responsibilities of the state.

But what happens when a government preys on its own people? Historically, we call this tyranny. Some will still cite responsibility: “freedom is not free” (or: “pipe down you maniac. Think about the nation.”). When a government becomes a predator, society is not far behind.

There must be a point at which the government itself surrenders freedoms- when a government no longer serves to benefit its own people, when it serves its own interest independently- under the audacity of abstract statehood- under the bloating of its own bowels- it is predatory and must be replaced.

It is obvious responsibility should be freely given- it should be a free and natural consequence of our desire to improve society- to make it cleaner, safer, and more efficient. But we no longer live in a State where we give freely. We must be coerced by marketing agencies and rhetoric to give back to the government

When responsibility is no longer freely offered to a government as a sign of respect and devotion, a populace usually either revolts or becomes a homogeneous android body; listless, apathetic. A commodity. A commodity to manipulate:

So again, two possibilities present themselves:

-the people reorganize the government- they give more in order to bring their interests to bear on the state- they humanize the government again (they refuse to be treated as madmen):

-the people allow the government to take the role of the parent whom we are guilted into serving: it appears more experienced, more protective, less likely to care about protest or privacy, easily offended, easily provoked into discipline:

Yep. It’s scary. Better vote.

The big question is still whether the ideological affinities between these two groups can be turned into a political alliance. Personally I think that Obama can be the candidate to make that happen, but we’ll see. At the very least he has the American Conservative on his side…

(And if you’re wonder why Bacevich of The American Conservative is endorsing Obama over McCain click here.)