or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
January 08, 2008
Clearing Up the Confusion about Obama
By: Bernard Chazelle
I like Obama.
I first learned about him in a New Yorker profile way before he was Obama, so I can see just a little further than the rubes who don't pay their respects to David Remnick.
Obama is the best king anyone can buy.
You see, in ancient times, the president of the United States used to perform two functions: King and Prime Minister. Then something happened along the way and the role of Prime Minister disappeared. The reason for this is that politics vanished. We have political theater now but no politics. Nobody ever discusses political ideas anymore: they discuss only people who discuss people who discuss people... who claim to discuss political ideas.
Why? Because Friedman and Fukuyama have won. There's nothing left to discuss. For example, the question is never how to help the poor but how to pretend we do (liberals) or not (Republicans). The question was never whether we should stop killing Iraqis: it was whether daisy cutters (Bush) or cruise missiles/sanctions (Clinton) were the way to go.
Now if you're choosing a figurehead of a king—and that's all we're doing—Obama is not a bad choice. In fact he reminds me of Queen Elizabeth a lot: dignified; articulate (I guess I said it); vacuous.
Quick digression: I am not exactly the monarchical type, but my grandmother was. I argued with her once that the bastards had it coming in 1789! She said to me: "Bernard, a republic that is built on the severed head of a 17 year-old girl cannot be any good." She got the age wrong but the sentiment was a good one. King Obama would never have to fear that I would sharpen my home guillotine.
But where was I? Oh yes, now there's a name for regimes where the political is gone: dictatorship. But this is a democracy, so we've freely chosen our own imprisonment. We should congratulate ourselves. We're like those dogs who crawl into their cages and lock the doors behind.
Kucinich and Ron Paul are running for Prime Minister. The fools just forgot to read the fine print of the election rulebook. People don't elect prime ministers in this country: the world is flat and the prime minister is a computer. We elect kings and, whichever way I look at them, Kucinich and Paul are nothing like Queen Liz.
Now back to King Obama.
Kings are not useless. Many black people who remember the nooses and the backs of buses will wake up on Inauguration Day with a nice, warm feeling about our new king. And who the hell am I, a privileged white man, to go tell them to snap out of their delusions?
I've had my own delusions for, what, 232 years and no black man has ever asked me to snap out of it. So, on the subject of Obama, if you don't mind I'll try to tone down the snark from now on.
— Bernard Chazelle
Posted at January 8, 2008 07:36 PMBernard Chazelle, you are IOZ! Come out with your hands up and your bank account empty!
Posted by: MFB at January 9, 2008 01:43 AMVery good post. I suppose we need a new term other than "dictatorship", where the leaders are elected but forget to listen and the public stops talking to them and goes about its own business, giving up on government completely.
It can't really be a monarchy, although Bush-Clinton-Bush makes it seem like one. I suppose the best word is oligarchy, rule by "elites" which are a caste propped up by the wealthy. Members of the political oligarchy can come from anywhere, rich or poor, but it's not a true democracy -- one can only get nominated through service to the oligarchy's political, legal, or military elites. In this way, anyone representing the needs or wants of the polloi.
I suppose Obama will make a nice king. He'll still be a king, but a nicer king.
Posted by: chtulu's mom at January 9, 2008 10:32 AMRather..."anyone representing the needs of the polloi is weeded out."
Damn you, commenting system! Damn you!!
Posted by: chthulu's mom at January 9, 2008 10:34 AMDon't shoot! As you know, Jon is IOZ. Now maybe I am Jon? But I am way too busy working for Clinton/Biden'08 right now to answer that question.
Posted by: Bernard Chazelle at January 9, 2008 10:44 AMYes, oligarchy!
Or even better, OILIGARCHY
or even better... megalomaniarchy
Posted by: almostinfamous at January 9, 2008 11:02 AMNo sarcasm, that was a hilarious piece, Bernard. I salute you.
Posted by: Dan Coyle at January 9, 2008 12:37 PMWell said, Bernard.
I have no problem confessing my embarrassment at having spent over thirty years believing I was informed about the nature of my government and the culture sustaining it. It has not been easy coming to terms with my regrettable contributions to both, despite being considered far left during much of that time. I suspect I'm not the only person at A Tiny Revolution who feels humbled by the backward glance.
I like to think I would've snapped out of the trance even if the new millennium hadn't kicked off with the installment of George W. Bush. I wasn't a fan of Bill Clinton, so I was on my way. But the last seven years have been like a helicopter ride to a distant summit I was previously inching toward at an excruciating pace.
As for terms more accurate than "democracy", oligarchy and technocracy have been working for me, although Jon's imperial technocracy is well worth adopting. The modifier works wonders for clarity.
Posted by: Arvin Hill at January 9, 2008 03:14 PMMICFiCocracy
Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. at January 9, 2008 03:39 PMIt has not been easy coming to terms with my regrettable contributions...I suspect I'm not the only person at A Tiny Revolution who feels humbled by the backward glance.
Arvin, that's a hell of an expectation; to be right all along and then to be surprised when you aren't. The correct mode of operation (IMO) is to assume that you're wrong all along, no matter where on the dial of the day points, and to enjoy the ride. Weeee!
I'm hoping to blame all those past indiscretions and errors in judgment on free availability of recreational drugs and bad company.
...a republic that is built on the severed head...cannot be any good
Ideally, the sentiment is right, but how is it different from Obama's pollyanish view that all we need is a big, big hug to make things right (The meadows, unicorns and babbling brooks foundation to effective politics -- the rich suddenly become magnanimous, give away their money and the power that it brings because -- well, it's the right thing to do.)
Change is generally uncomfortable - in 1789 France or in America today with displaced workers, recessions, wealth inequality, access to healthcare, etc.
So I get very confused by the candidates throwing the word "change" around, yet everyone expects this change to be warm, comforting and familiar (never happened before -- but, oh, we're optimists!). My experience with change has been discomfiting, and I usually expend great effort that whatever change occurs out there it doesn't interfere with my diet of sitcom watching on the telly.
Posted by: Ted at January 9, 2008 05:15 PMIMPEACHMENT-ARREST AND JURY TRIAL. Several and they will be painful and costly to all of US yet losing OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC would be a 1,000 times worse. WE have a cancer in OUR land, a killer parasite, and if it is not excised, then the host dies. SURGERY lets US live.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at January 9, 2008 06:58 PMArvin, that's a hell of an expectation; to be right all along and then to be surprised when you aren't.
Well, when you put it that way.
The correct mode of operation (IMO) is to assume that you're wrong all along, no matter where on the dial of the day points, and to enjoy the ride. Weeee!
Sometimes it takes a while to fully appreciate the wisdom in a simple quotation. Like Betrand Russell's "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
Finding out I'm wrong is definitely more palatable at 45 than 25. And more to come, no doubt. Practice, practice, practice. But at least now I'm grateful for the corrections that come with the realization.
I'm hoping to blame all those past indiscretions and errors in judgment on free availability of recreational drugs and bad company.
You need to work on that excuse, Ted. In addition to recreational drugs being a broad enough category to render any excuse toothless, how bad could the company you kept have been if your recreational drugs were free?
I can think of a few illegal substances capable of dramatically improving America's cultural consciousness. Which is the primary reason why they're illegal.
But I digress, as usual.
MICFiCocracy
There may be hope for the base acronym, doctah mistah charley, but I have my doubts about novel political terminology ending in the phonetic cock-o-cracy. Even if it is weirdly appropriate.
Arvin Hill - Speaking of the viability of novel political terminology with awkward pronunciations, did you know that when the War Department and the Navy Department were first merged, by the National Security Act of 1947, the result was officially called the National Military Establishment?
Our friends at Wikipedia point out that
The Establishment had the unfortunate abbreviation "NME" (the obvious pronunciation being "enemy"), and was renamed the "Department of Defense" (abbreviated as DOD or DoD) on August 10, 1949.
In addition to resolving the National Military Establishment's acronym problem, the term "Department of Defense" reverses reality in an Orwellian way, and this is also a point in its favor, as seen from the perspective of the Military Industrial Congressional Financial Corporate Media Complex.
