Tag Archives: aristocracy

The Racism directed at Barack Obama has a rational basis.

Exhibit A:

Most people are spinning this as some sort of horror story about the dark underbelly of America.  What you see in the video above, however, is what the Soviets would have called “Reactionaries”.

This is a problem that I have had to think about long and hard.  It has made my support for Obama at times wax and wane.  The “Change” trope, as tired and worn as it may be, is still what symbolizes this election, and the forces arrayed against each other fall into two camps: for change, and against change.  This may seem like a bit of a non-sequitur but the point does bear mentioning.  John McCain has been reluctantly coopted by the (mostly) conservative forces that are vehemently against the “changes” (substantial or not) that Obama proposes.

The reason McCain will lose this election is that he thinks he must also hop on the ‘change’ bandwagon in order to win.  It’s no surprise that of recent he has abandoned the theme of ‘change’ and has instead tried to focus everyone’s attention on the sorts of change that Obama seeks to bring about.

And these changes are not minor.  The racism and bigotry that has infected this election cycle is not purely on account of Obama’s blackness as such; instead it is about demographic and ideological shifts that are remaking the face of the United States.

Until this election, the common retort of green party members that the Democrat and Republican parties were really the same was actually for the most part true.  The mass of society was mostly white, vaguely well-off, and for the most part ideologically similar (in favor of American intervention, against taxation, against Communism, etc.).  Main differences appeared over fringe issues such as how to deal with certain problems, rather than what the problems actually are.

John McCain and Barack Obama, for all of their rhetoric, are split along an easy-to-grasp, but still quite profound ideological line.  McCain stands for the old meritocracy (that was so happily bought into by most white people, because it quite frankly to be egalitarian towards people of the same race).  Obama stands for the revolution (if one could ever occur here).  Obama wants to institute far-sweeping changes that are at heart changes to the way that America functions both in governance and society.

Again, people look to these two leaders and wonder what their stances on issues will be; but the real reason that values matter (and will be harped upon by McCain and Palin) is because that is exactly what Obama promises to bring to Washington: a new set of guidelines.  Obama’s is a campaign of change not on the level of policy but on ideological fundament.

Obama pitches himself as a great leveler (hence the Messianic imagery); the cries of “communist” and “terrorist” are not so far from home for this reason.  Osama Bin Laden stands for hardline Islamic ideology.  Islam is only confusing if you refuse to understand it.  But the religion itself exists on a very simple premise: people are equal.  You cannot depict Allah and Muhammad because that would put Muhammad higher up than any other devout worshipper.  Islam’s appeal in southeast Asia is for the very reason that it advocates radical equality.  The link between Obama and Osama is not one of semantic drift: it is grounded in an intuition (that is not so far from the truth) that Obama wants to bring radical equality to our nations’ highest office.

The news media and liberal blogs are keen to paint the racist demogoguery surrounding Palin rallies as simply one instance of human irrationality–artifacts, they say, of a troubled past.  Really, these bigoted outcries are grounded in a very real insecurity that most white,  middle-class Americans feel about Obama, because he is the anathema of a structured (read: vaguely, if merit-based, aristocratic) American society.

Advertisements

why we need another Mencken.

These past few days, if anything, have proved to me that no other time since the eve of the great depression have we needed some great wit to provide commentary on the national lunacy as it transpires.  the 20’s had Mencken himself, but the time calls for another kindred soul.

The Onion is a good enough source of political satire, but that is not what is called for, nor was it Mencken’s speciality in the first place.  What is called for is political commentary, and not the sort of drivel that you find on Slate or the National Review; these two publications are simply a scratch behind the ear of the ideologues that will decide the presidential election.

When I say “political commentary”, I mean something far different than the phrase as it is currently bandied about in the softcourts of political weeklies who through some extraordinary effort have stolen the political dialogue away from Americans themselves.  A better translation of the phrase: political antagonism.

And here is the great problem with American society (as Mencken might see it): we no longer have that exclusive club of fake-Aristos who are more of a microcosm of outside society than a rugged congregation of the Nation’s elite.  Before, someone could ruffle feathers simply by pointing out the poor blood, the idiotic works of culture, and above all the imbecilic sensibilities of those who were ostensibly supposed to rule the country from the seat of Washington and rule American society from New York City.  The fact that Europe provided a means of comparison (Aristocracy, that is, and the real kind) made the job of someone like Mencken quite easy.

Now, however, a prospective gadfly must search much more thoroughly for ways to aggravate the men on top (and no, it is not civil disobedience.  The concept is worn, and never worked anyway).  American Aristocrats, like their bretheren all throughout the world, are by no great measure more intellectually developed than their slobbering and inbred ancestors.  The problem is that they (I don’t deign use the collective ‘we’, even though I might qualify) are themselves a shock to the dispassionate observer: they are no more smart, no more perverse, indeed, no more interesting than, as Mencken put it, “the masses of their fellow-man.”  The shock consists in this: How do you poke fun at the cultural inanities, the somnambulic political wisdom, or even the irritatingly bland perversities of a class of people who are little else than a better-off version of those who are supposed to hate them?

Anyone who can answer this question in regular segments online will have at least one loyal reader.