[Review of] Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics

So over the last day or go I read this book Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics which was sent to me by Young People For (a group dedicated to training young progressive leaders and through which I participated in a training last winter and am currently considered a fellow--I continue to work for progressive change though not currently in a way that is particularly vocal about their name as it has yet ot be deserved or desired). My stance on this org is reflected in my opinion of this book.

Actually, last winter I had the privilege of hearing Markos (one of the book's writers and the founder of the most popular progressive blog: dailykos.com) talk and the thing that was absolutely admirable about him is that he is a fighter, that he is about organizing, that he is young, and smart and driven and has entered the political scene in an important way. He is one of the good guys. There are many useful roles to play and we are grossly in need of fighters these days (though perhaps I would prefer "a street-fighting man", ye-yeah V for Vendetta).

What was most powerful about this book is a providing a decisive analysis about what is wrong with the democratic party, about what the right has done well (and poorly) and has also provided a rather detailed route towards revitalizing the party and putting "the people" at the center of this change. And this vision is combined with models that are current, vibrant, and impressive. Not that there isn't a long way to go but what the authors Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga do is to present us not with "hope" but practical, existing, pragmatic ways to make change. And while they don't have particular non-infrastructure based ideas, this book in itself is a worthy achievement and they are right to 'leave the ideas that will get us back on top to the blogsphere and to the community' especially as they don't have the answers...yea to populist think tanks! (made of the people, you know?)

That being said, the book is a little too corporatist in style for my liking, and while negotiating is crucial to any effort, both what we do and how we do it are crucial. In particular I am concerned in straight utilizing the right's model for building a propaganda and leadership machine (networking + cooperation are good, but yeah) and by utilizing business styles and tactics, which are primarily dislikable. Moreover, what seems most effective in their recent examples were inclusive door to door organizing at the local level as opposed to manipulative ads and demands for accountability (which are clearly better than stupid ads and no accountability) so in any case they are an improvement to the status-quo (good guys). (I prefer to be accountable to communities as opposed to the media and as such see much that is beneficial in an underdog role.)

Connected with this is my continually reinforced hypothesis (well it is mostly Aristotle's) that we are political animals, that politics is the defining structure of human organization, and that therefore what is most political is what concerns our very local concerns, our neighborhoods, our cities, our lifestyles. This is not a reductionist approach, I think this should be tied to all its implications which are deeply global (and any continual discussion inevitably does), but legislative politics should not by at the center of any political agenda, which should spring from community organizing. And while these things must be done simultaneously I would prefer a push at the community level to reconstitute the very separated world in which we inhabit, and to address the fundamental problems with our current society and lifestyle from the bottom up. Not grassroots or netroots but the multitude, that is everyone living in a particular area...but this too requires gross infrastructural improvements and ideas coming out of these communities (which I have some ideas for but perhaps in another post) so these efforts are in no way separate though I would put my emphasis elsewhere and make clear the 'radical' nature of my politics--beyond the status quo both in our legislation, party organization, but more importantly in how we live in society.

X-Men: Last Stand Review/Analysis

So to be honest I've had quite a lot of trouble writing things recently, don't if this is an adjustment to the blog form or others things or both...whatever, in any case here is a review of X-men: Last Stand.

While the most recent X-men movie, Last Stand was you know, that kind of movie, by being more epic in scope it was required to have a larger political message than before. And while as a movie it lacked the pacing and was too light in its character development (and shallow in its circumstances) to really come forth with its strengths, it nevertheless was entertaining enough, though certain scenes like the final battle were particularly weak as very few of the attacking mutants had any visible powers (excluding ones for comic relief) leaving it a battle of heroes vs. goons which is not what it should of been. Moreover, the plot's movement was based on a very poor understanding of politics and in particular how discourses (set of ideas in the world) work: after such an attack the ending come together is unthinkable and this lack of political complexity ends in dooming the interestingness of the characters as well.

So while the movie ends with the rather uninteresting "we can all live together" message, embodied by Angel, who both escapes his human father's desire to make all mutants into humans, and also saves his father from the more anti-human mutants, due to his (yes, Angel-like) wings there is more going on then that. Consider Jean/Pheonix the other "focused upon" (one person, two personalities) the most powerful mutant out there who can do anything with her mind. Unfortunately, she is composed of a conscious, controlled, "good" self, and an 'unconscious' "uncontrolled" self which the professor kept apart until it was destroyed by her near-death experience in the previous movie. She proceeds to kill her lover, Cyclops, and the big-good-guy Professor X, though it is only her other love interest and "main character" Wolverine who has the potential to "save her"...which he does by killing her. The last extremely powerful mutant, Magneto (who can control metal) gets hit with a un-mutanizing bullet, and ends the movie as a human, contemplating what his transformation from almost limitlessly powerful leader of the radical anti-human movement to just another human might mean. Meanwhile, Prof X who was killed has taken over the body of a brain-dead man in a hospital, proving as such that good will prevail.

All and all this provides us with some ideas concerning power quite fitting to us of the "privileged West" in the two pairs of Magneto/Prof X and Jean/Pheonix. This first pair is split between self-consciousness of power and its consequences and that it should therefore be used extremely carefully, if constantly (and to be fair by knowing everything that is going on at all times gives Prof-X a kind of intense self-consciousness that is beyond our reach) and an idea that we must become what we are, in this case quite literally gods, a doctrine of "naturalness" that requires the goal-oriented use of power for the good of those who are powerful against in this case those that wish to eliminate them (the beginning of the X-men story with the holocaust of WWII creates a kind of repetition of history, a new chance to address what are "similar?" problems). In this case, Prof X dies, but survives magically, sacrificed to allow for the larger good and the greater control of power, while Magnito is reduced to humanness, and is faced with the underside of his ideas (same ideas new position), what then, as a human should he do? It is with this question via the metaphor of a chess board that the movie ends. Similarly, Jean/Pheonix kills her first lover and through love allows herself to be killed for the good of the world, and later gets an honorary burial next to the professor. A last example is Rouge/Iceman, who are in love but cannot touch as Rouge's powers would kill Iceman. In the end Rouge chooses to become a human so that there love can become physical..and this is not what Iceman wanted but what she wanted, a very clear (and fantastic) example of taking on the desire of the (Big) Other. Here we have the giving up of power to be able to achieve what is the primary good in the movie--love--in this case between humans and mutants, like between Angel and his father.

The subtext of all of this includes the black power movement, the gay movement, and whiteness; all of which resonate in different ways, with mutants simultaneously queer ("other" but typically born to non-mutants), oppressed blacks organizing for well-being and autonomy, and first-world whites whose power and influence is felt throughout the world. Notice that the X-men story is based solely within the West (US/England?), so that the international division of labor is completely obscured and power is literally genetic (as it might appear to those of us who wish to be blind), based in the mutant gene as opposed to say colonialism, imperialism, and the present crystallization of capitalism. Moreover, this combined privileged/oppressed role of mutants (consider also the Jewish position to whom the possible genocide of mutants is linked) serves to embody the fantasy-other from the perspective of whites, those who have "real" or "authentic" identities, who are "different", etc, while combining this status with special, covetable powers, which fails to represent the very real oppression that exists today (in every aspect of our society and to a degree that is extremely shocking when one begins to look at the figures) all the while preaching what could be called a doctrine of self-marginalization, keep the normals normal, just don't kill the mutants (thus leaving the humans, i.e. whites, as superior).

X-men then is useful in that it can create a springboard for identification with the oppressed and also produce a narrative about our privileged position and its responsibilities. Nevertheless this should not be at the expense of the ways in which oppression at home and abroad is covered over and we clearly see the hollywood in a very hollywood movie, bland liberalism and status-quo-capitalism yet again. 2.5/4 stars.

Bamboozled (interesting movie, mediocre post)

I have noticed that in my writing there is a desire to finish, to close off, to complete, etc, the ideas that I am presenting, typically in a call to action (in my other writings and newspaper articles, most importantly in the Hegemon where I had complete creative control [see MPKB.net for more info though not for many articles themselves]). And while I continue to believe what is most feverently missing from our current lifestyles is real political practice I will seek in this article and perhaps in the future to restrain this impulse to closure, excepting the cases when it is more useful to truly crystallize what I happen to be saying in a 'political' way. (A note: double quotes are actually quoting, single quotes mean that I wish to problimatize the given term).

I saw Bamboozled by Spike Lee last evening, quite an interesting movie. First and foremost in my mind it presents the notion that to appear in the media blacks actually have to be in blackface, whether it is literal blackface, as in the show in the movie, or in metaphorical blackface. Second, it utilizes a series of histories that increased its power and taught me something in relation to blackface in the media and class differences within the black community, both historically and presently, and provided a clear picture of the way class, or at least loyalty to particular class values creates different outlooks and as such the movie provides a set of interesting and differentiated black characters, something that is very unusual in Hollywood films. Third, it notes the extreme marginalization of blacks in the media industry generally like the mass number of artists ready to audition for the entertainment on his show, and the grossness of working within this situation, as is the case in most of the black-white dialogues, which, coming from a black position make whites absurd and offensive, even as they go about things 'normally' (though De La's boss is quite a case).

Moreover this creates a division between survival and riches as success, and the corresponding sacrifices that have to be made either to one's politics or to one's wallet. The ending itself, where one of the black characters who acts in blackface is murdered on the air by black-rapper-militants (who are both correct and perhaps not channeling their energy usefully, or at least to me their character is unclear), who are then slaughtered (excepting their one white member) by the police. This is followed by Sloan, the tv show creator's (De La) aid (both of which are black) killing De La (as one of the militants was her brother) though only after showing him the history he is contributing to strikes me as both a fall back on previous morality play movies, though letting survive the political minded person with middle to upper class values who is disgusted but fails to quit the disgusting show seems dubious at best, and by killing most of the characters off it can be read that even middle class blacks are closer to being violence than whites, an interpretation is not offset by the immediate and brutal destruction by the police.

And while Sloan's killing De La comes across as perhaps accidental, this sealing up of the movie fails to allow for any positive political message whose seeds can be found in the black militants and also in De La's father and the friend of the character who quits before the other is abducted and murdered (both of whom were living on the street). Or rather we end up with principled quitting of the tv industry once by those (black) characters who refuse to mock themselves and as such a set of 'authentic' jokes from De La's comedian father, rather incoherent militants who are political but out-moded or fail to be able to communicate to the other characters, death to the Clarence Thomas like traitor, and a revenge manslaughter by she who knows her history but failed to make others learn from it. Or rather we are left with a tale that makes clear the disgusting marginalization of blacks from media production and the requirement that they put on metaphoric blackface to appear...as well as (perhaps) an attempt to articulate what type of people will be necessary for blacks to "keep on pushing" in a way that is beneficial for individuals and the people as a whole.

I'm not really sure what to do with this though if you've seen it or do see it I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts and perhaps moving forward, and it certainly re-alerts me to the diversity within the black community, the damage done by assuming that whites are those who are human, and makes me think of The Heart of Whiteness by Robert Jensen (a short and very readable rant on whiteness for whites) where he says that sometimes as whites we just have to play the fool in order to get to where we want to be and this is something that I find compelling. I'm rather unhappy with this analysis, oh well...

Sports, Emptiness, and Global Capitalism

Today I saw some pre-game nonsense about LeBron James during which they said "greatness needs a moment". At the time I just yelled at the tv that they should shut up and think about politics, where there actually are moments, as opposed to sports where moments are manufactured, where things are layed out in games, and where every year comes anew a chance for triumph or redemption.

Meanwhile, I was also thinking about the feeling I got a few days ago (spurred by a recent preparation for a fast that I ended up not doing) an emotional refocusing on what is valuable to me and as such a letting go of what is not important, which, here at home in Ann Arbor is particularly damning, as I am only here for a few weeks and have no particular purpose excluding seeing my friends, and family. Or rather when avoiding that which I prefer not to do, I become conscious of how empty my life really is, bringing forth two meanings/memories: 1) the soullessness of capitalism, and 2) in middle school, particularly 6th and 7th grade, standing statue-like in the middle of the room, or lying apathetically depressed on my bed, staring out the blinds at the street lights, thinking of suicide, and becoming sick, and not going to school the next day...and for me, these notions speak to one another.

After watching basketball and messing around on a court in real life with some friends, I saw The Constant Gardener which was not a particularly good movie, but re-alerted me to the international division of labor and the exploitation we gain through this relationship. Or rather, as in racism, white people are the problem. One of the most stereotypical things the movie did was to have us identify with the soon-to-be heroic white male, who, through matyrdom, saves the day, reveals the truth uncovered by his murdered wife, thus reasserting his purity, and by extension our purity. Yes, white people do bad things, but here, here, is a hero, but an ordinary guy, not a silly political type or a feminist or anything like that...an average joe who in letting the truth actually cares about something, and dies for it, and cleanses things, and us; though the focus remains on a specific, as opposed to systemic, problem in the sea of troubles that is Africa.

This brings me, again, to the question of purity, its dubious value, as made clear by its being the lynch pin of conservative thought. This made me think of what I call "starting a new religion" or perhaps more accurately a new organized faith (as I am an atheist), to realize a counter-movement (physical, economic, and cultural) that creates a better way a living...but was this motivated by a search for purity? It is these circles that worry me though I like to think that while purity and resistance are the core, false obsessions of rightist and leftist politics, struggle, (properly understood as creation) allows us to go beyond such desires by being invested in the world, in our communities, in people we know, in a way that is positive, that is based in possibility for joy not cleanliness, and that is based in using power well, not only in fighting power...though perhaps if these two negative obsessions (purity and resistance) are tied inextricably together they can be a tool for our politics.

I find particularly appealing the notion of carrying all my possessions in one bag, and in creating a group of people who donate all they own to a collective when they join it, to form an ever-expanding private-public space (that is not government but open to 'all') to create and model a new, non-materialistic, welcoming, and joyful (etc) way of life.

And thus we need to go beyond sports, which seems to be more than anything a popular worship of the white male as super-subject, and to manufacture in our own lives the moments that are constant, the games that we are playing, and to, as it were, choose something to invest ourselves in, because my quest to become an atomistic individual, completely pure and free, ends only in emptiness (of capitalism) and thoughts of suicide. Or I suppose we can ask with Zizek (in the 6th chapter of the second edition of Enjoy Your Symptom!) why we feel the need to feel (as in The Matrix) that we are powerless, trapped in little atomic units, controlled by a machine we don't know exist in a reality that is not real? And that my friends is enough before bed.

Welcome/A Short Introduction

Welcome to me, and you, and anyone who is interested in writing when they read, or writing themselves. I'm curious about this as a medium, and as a (white) (lower-upper class) (male)person who has had plenty college newspaper articles rejected due to their lack of palatability in form and content (critiques on the rhetorical left, i.e. the liberals, from elsewhere in the leftist sphere) I wonder if this will be more or less effective in presenting my ideas. But I do very much appreciate the ability of people to reply in a public way that is nevertheless casual, and my writing here, too, will be casual...However scarred by what some call "Theory" and the privileges that have allowed me to spend so much time wading through its webs, caves, and caravans.

This post was written just to start things off but has no particular beef behind it so I will stop with a note that The Post-Colonial Critic (Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues) by Gayatri Spivak (edited by Sarah Harasym) is essential reading for anyone with some understanding of theory and its basic concerns and I think that if I do decide to write an "honors project" it will be one of the central sources.

Love ya,

DB