Zizek is Fox New's Best Friend

I just want to start by saying I enjoy Slavoj Zizek, his eccentricity his mixing of philosophical and psychoanalytic analysis and especially his critique of modern cynicism as a cover for a more nefarious ideology. 

But my problem with him, which I suppose is more of a problem with all self-proclaimed Marxists, is that despite all his unconventional criticisms (at one point ironically saying there is "too much anti-capitalism" in criticizing agents in the capitalist system like corporations) attacks on the ineffectual "left" in the United States, calling The King's Speech "a reactionary film" and so on. 

Despite all these criticisms he takes on the fundamental conventional frames that are reiterated by  the mainstream, more so in the right-wing in fact. 

Take for example something very basic, the words "capitalism" and "socialism." Zizek plays on the squeamishness of the mainstream thinkers by asserting that just as the United States is capitalist you can't deny that China and the Eastern Congo are capitalist as well. Likewise, the Soviet Union, Cuba etc. are examples of socialist countries.  

Well unfortunately Zizek is not only playing to the right-wing but to decades of propaganda. As people like Chomsky have pointed out in "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism" by the basic measure of worker's control of production, state-socialist countries not only had no worker's control but were less socialist than the US. Likewise, unsubsidized, unregulated capitalism has more or less never existed or existed for a brief time before collapsing and turning to protectionism.

But lets give Zizek the benefit of the doubt and say he's only using the terms as they're defined in Marxist theory. How else could someone with a title as subversive and unconventional as the "Elvis of cultural theory" actually hold very doctrinal beliefs?  

Take for example the 2009 healthcare debate in which Zizek says that if a public option or single-payer system comes out of it, 

"If Obama wins his battle over healthcare, if some kind of blow can be struck against the ideology of freedom of choice, it will have been a victory worth fighting for." 

Well call me crazy but this seems like a rather narrow definition of "freedom of choice" since policy options like single payer or a public option are themselves a political choice. And single-payer and the public option were both overwhelmingly supported by polls of Americans so it would seem like a good "choice" to make. 

Being against the "freedom of choice," however contextually it was used, not only sounds incredibly authoritarian but sounds like the kind of caricature that comes out of Fox News, which is why if Zizek ever came to be interviewed in the US media he would bolster the right-wing.    

You're Not Allowed To Criticize Republican Policies

Paul Krugman points us to a speech by Paul Ryan:

Just last week, the President told a crowd in North Carolina that Republicans are in favor of, quote, “dirtier air, dirtier water, and less people with health insurance.” Can you think of a pettier way to describe sincere disagreements between the two parties on regulation and health care?

As Krugman points out:

[C]riticism of policy proposals is not the same thing as ad hominem attacks. If I say that Paul Ryan’s mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries, that’s ad hominem. If I say that his plan would hurt millions of people and that he’s not being honest about the numbers, that’s harsh, but not ad hominem.

It's ridiculous that policy proposals by the GOP are so bad that even describing them accurately is considered an ad hominem, you're only allowed to criticize when they get something factually wrong or say something stupid but never should you ever say something bad about how eliminating pollution caps increases pollution.

And it's not just a thing on the right, even Krugman says it's "harsh" when someone criticizes a bad policy.

Well news flash, it's neither "petty" nor is it "harsh," what's harsh, are the consequences people have to suffer as the result of bad policy, the fact that politicians don't like to hear about them doesn't make it a bad thing to point them out.  

Help Us Rick Perry, You're Our Only Hope

Rick Perry has been making motions to run for president for a long time now, probably because he will, and probably because he's literally the only hope the GOP has.

With the constant flow of controversy following Bachmann,  Romneny, et al. Perry has everything the GOP wants in a nice package, he's well liked by his own party, has a decent personality, is adequately right-wing, extremely religious (read: Christian) but more importantly, Rick Perry can handle himself in the more "liberal media".

Notice this interview with Jon Stewart where Rick Perry defends "flexible permits" a method of avoiding regulations in the Clean Air Act, along with low corporate taxes, lax regulations, lawsuit caps and a union busting public education which attracted numerous companies (or "job creation") in a literal race to the bottom (the bottom being Texas).

Stewart, while pointing out that Perry's argument is the same for outsourcing to India (low taxes, cheap labor etc.) didn't even notice how all the things he mentioned are actually awful and was caught off guard with "Would you rather live in Texas or India?" making Stewart trip up and forget his point. 

That's the magic of Rick Perry, he can make terrible right-wing policies seem sensible and jokingly cast aside criticism without looking like an asshole (even while he's supposed to get grilled by liberals). He is what the Republican party disparately needs, the only candidate that can attract both the base and a fair bit of the general electorate.

Shocker: Slavery is a Conservative Idea

What with the recent controversy over Michelle Bachmann signing the the anti-marriage equality pledge that talked about slavery, I think it's worth pointing out that the idea of preserving slavery is inherently conservative.  

Now I'm not saying conservatives want to reinstate slavery but it's a basic axiom that being conservative means you want to "conserve" something, and the more conservative someone is the more likely they conserve archaic institutions like segregation and slavery.

Recently I got into an argument about this and found a New York Times editorial from 1860 which actually lays out this argument and decries how conservatives tried to defend slavery:

It is a curious phenomenon of our own day and nation that all opinions favorable to Slavery should be regarded as "conservative" and "practical," while those opposed to it should be stigmatized as the "utopian" and "theoretical" excesses of a "false philanthropy," and their expression denounced by the application to it of that dread political ban-word, "agitation." The advocates of Slavery seem to be aiming to combine in defence of their cause all the calm and solid dignity of recognized opinions with the fierce impetuosity of a new-found propaganda.  

- New York Times editorial, 1860

This editorial attacks the notion that slavery is "'the normal condition of society'" and thus should be preserved by conservatives. It's also striking to see the red-baiting that existed in the 1800s with "agitation". 

My guess is conservatives know this full well and have been drilling obscure counter arguments into peoples heads like "liberals want to increase welfare and make people slaves to government," which not only isn't true but ignores how it was literally a "conservative" notion to want to keep slavery. 

The other tactic is to ignore how Republicans were the liberal party in 1860 while Democrats were the conservatives and just drill "Republicans ended slavery" into people heads.

Oh and lets not forget this gem:

You know, Martin Luther King Jr., the guy who was a self-described "democratic socialist" who said "something is wrong with capitalism" and that "there must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."

Brilliant.

A Useless Study Into Libertarian Morality

So through the magic of googling "Libertarian morality" I came across a study which observes what are said to be the "moral foundations" of humanity and looks at how conservatives and liberals-and now libertarians- identify with these foundations.

The problem is when you actually break it down, it's a poll which looks at random attributes and how conservatives, liberals etc. identify with them. How do we know that these arbitrary traits are in fact the "moral foundations" of society? I don't know but apparently the guy who made the test does. 

Jonathan Haidt, the maker of the test expains his theory in this Ted talk:

Actually the real purpose of the test was to include libertarians and to show they have some sort of coherent morality and aren't just "amoral calculating rationalists" as Reason magazine puts it. So how did they prove it? Well the study found that libertarians scored low on all the traits that make up the "moral foundations" of society which of course proves...well actually it doesn't prove anything, in fact, it might just prove that libertarians don't have any moral foundation. 

So to remedy this problem the researchers realized there was an awful "liberal bias" in the test by not including Liberty as one of the foundations because...it's liberal to hate liberty? And apparently these "moral foundations" are so malleable that suddenly the Five Moral Foundations™ became six?

Well anyways, libertarians scored highest on liberty showing they really love freedom and that tweaking arbitrary traits in a personality test can prove anything.      

Man Is An Ignoble Savage: The Moral Journey of Stanley Kubrick

I thought this would be fun, to compare my theory of libertarian and authoritarian morality with the moral development of the famed (and one of my favorite) film directors, Stanley Kubrick.

In his films, Kubrick went from a from having a Rousseauistic view of the innately good human being corrupted by society (the Libertarian morality) to openly attacking Rousseau and taking on a more pessimistic which some have likened to "fascist" (the Authoritarian morality)

Paths of Glory (1957) - Libertarian

This is one of the clearest examples of Kubrick seeing the innately good human being corrupted by society. In film, a group of World War I fighters are forced to go on a suicide mission so a general can get one more star. It's probably one of the best vindications of war there is, but above all, it portrays the soldiers as a good people who are cogs of an unjust war. 

In fact, it even went on to mock the central tenets of Authoritarian morality, the idea that people are evil and need to be disciplined to become good:

 "You see colonel, troops are like children, and just as a child wants his father to be firm, troops crave discipline, and one way to ensure discipline is to shoot a man now and again."                                                      "Do you sincerey believe the things you've just said?"

Dr. Strangelove (1967) -"Realist"

In many ways, Strangelove was the beginning of Kubrick's lurch towards authoritarian thinking. In a more "realist" approach, Strangelove sees human beings as the ultimate masters of the institutions they built, not the other way around. In the film, a crazed general gave out the signal for a plane to nuke the Soviet Union while a frantic US government tries to stop it.

The film is a clear vindication of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and many of the institutions that make it possible for this catastrophe to happen, but it also tarnishes the idea of institutions having fail-safe mechanisms to prevent a crazed general or sinister President etc. from unleashing Armageddon. Thus, it puts people and institutions on a mostly level playing field, with people being slightly more important.

A Clockwork Orange (1971) - Authoritarian

With Clockwork Orange comes Kubrick's full turn into a near-fascist. In the film, Alex is a criminal who, with his gang of 'Droogs', go around raping, looting and causing chaos. What's odd is that this life of crime is mostly a secret, and that at home he is a seemingly normal young adult with decent parents and a nice house and environment to grow up in. Thus, the movie conceives of someone who is "born evil" and as the film later demonstrates, must be conditioned to become a good person.

The film's saving grace is that it views the conditioning that was put onto Alex as a worse and more dehumanizing crime than the many committed by Alex. Although as the film contends, there wouldn't be a need such authoritarian measures if people behaved.    

With this film his views would be known, Kubrick would go on to say:

"Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved—that about sums it up...any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure."

He would later add that "The idea that social restraints are all bad is based on a utopian and unrealistic vision of man." When accused of being a fascist, Kubrick rejected it but went on to say:

Rousseau's romantic fallacy that it is society which corrupts man, not man who corrupts society, places a flattering gauze between ourselves and reality. This view...is solid box office but, in the end, such a self-inflating illusion leads to despair. 

Kubrick's friend would later characterize his beleif of democracy as a "a noble failed experiment along our evolutionary way, brought low by base instincts, money and self-interest and stupidity... He thought the best system might be under a benign despot, though he had little belief that such a man could be found."

How did Kubrick end up from promoting Rousseau's ideals to openly attacking them? I don't know but I know his other movies are more mixed.

Full Metal Jacket (1987) - Libertarian?

The big surprise came with one of Kubrick's last works, Full Metal Jacket. Despite fears that "[t]he political left will call Kubrick a fascist," it's now considered a classic anti-war film although Kubrick said that wasn't the intention. In the film various young soldiers are enlisted into the marines and go through a brutal process of training and hazing, one of soldiers eventually going crazy and committing a murder-suicide. It then picks up in urban Vietnam through the Tet-offensive and afterwards.   


In many ways, the film mirrors Paths of Glory including the Rousseauian themes of people being corrupted by society (unlike Kubrick's earlier quotes). In fact, the idea of people having to be indoctrinated in order to fight in the war, and the obvious negative portrayal of this process, is in many ways akin to what Kubrick derides. 

Ultimately, Kubrick went on a huge journey from Libertarian to Authoritarian and possibly back.

I Really Fucking Hate Thomas Friedman

Winner of 57 Pulitzer Prizes,
Philosopher Tom Friedman

Honestly of all the pundits the one I can't stand most is Thomas Friedman. There are actually quite a few reasons not to like him, some can be summerized here by Lionel Beehner:

"Not because he went from globalisation bible-thumper to born-again environmentalist overnight — columnists are chameleons, cheerleading for whatever cause is hip that day. Not because his columns involve lazy journalism (ie quoting cab drivers), sloppy metaphors (pouring water out of broken vases and such), and a scary reliance on Johns Hopkins’ Michael Mandelbaum and an overused quip about how nobody ever washed a rental car … [but rather, because] he is given tremendous access to the world’s business leaders yet he is so utterly pathetic at questioning what they are up to." 

And that's accurate but it's not so much that and it's not his political views. It's how obnoxiously generic and unoriginal his views are and yet he considers himself (and is considered) an intellectual messiah.

Thomas Friedman is the epitome of conventional wisdom, a Frankenstein of every generic opinion put together and then revered as wisdom with his cartoonish three-time Pulitzer Prize victory.

In fact, lets break down how generic his views are:

Globalization 

Friedman loves Globalization™ a whole lot, it's this mind altering, breath taking thing that's completely changed the world in every way imaginable. With the breakthrough of the internet and cell phones, the world is at a completely level playing field ("the world is flat") and countries in massive poverty can perform just as well as the U.S. because of iPhones and Twitter. He literally wrote a book on this, that through the magic of comparative advantage and the internet, a country like Sierra Leone is at a level playing field with the U.S. 
Oh also we need to outsource jobs and get rid of dem unions because we're globalized now what-with the internet and all. 

But really, skip listen to 0:15:39 where he compares himself to Christopher Columbus over and over again:

Terrorism   

We need to get real tough on terrorism and 9/11 happened because the Middle East is poor so all those Arabs are irrationally taking their anger out on the US because their a bunch of crazy people. Also in the 90s there was a "terrorism bubble" and we needed to pop it by invading a random Arab country (Iraq).  

Iraq War

"[T]his war is the most important liberal, revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan."

"[It is] one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad."

"I think there were four reasons for this war, and I identified with three of them: There was the stated reason, the moral reason, the right reason, and the real reason."

These are actual, real quotes. The best part is, of course in a completely unconventional twist of events, Friedman now wants to leave Iraq because it's cost is too high. Someone viciously supporting the war and then thinking it's too costly? Woah. 

Climate Change 

He thinks we really need to start investing green technology and have a market-based solution to climate change and shocker, get ready for this, we need to break the addiction to foreign oil as well. I think this man deserves a fourth Pulitzer.