Notes on Elections

A few words on what I'm doing here. I realize thus far my blog posts have been all over the place in subject matter and seemingly without any grand plan. My original intent was to be something of a culture blog with notes on a variety of things including music, film, art and random tidbits like my first post on the cell ad. I intended to avoid talking about politics unless it was tangential, for instance artists' renditions of Obama. However shortly after starting this blog I began working for the Obama campaign and I have had little time to sit and think, let alone to take time to think about things other than the upcoming election. For the time being I am going to use this space for mostly political musings but not to discuss my position with the Obama campaign or any daily goings on in the life of a field organizer. That said I am not going to be some kind of hard nosed political commentator. I have no desire to do that nor do I want to bore my audience as I know my small readership consists of my friends, several of whom I know do not have an interest in the type of talk found on Politico or Daily Kos.

Now with that in mind, here are some things I would like to draw your attention to...

This passage from Žižek's "The Sublime Object of Ideology" is great election season reading:

At the moment of elections, the whole hierarchic network of social relations is in a way suspended, put in parentheses; 'society' as an organic unity ceases to exist, it changes into a contingent collection of atomized individuals, of abstract units, and the result depends on a purely quantitative mechanism of counting, ultimately on a stochastic process: some wholly unforeseeable (or manipulated) event - a scandal which erupts a few days before an election, for example, - can add that 'half per cent' one way or the other that determines the general orientation of the country's politics over the next few years... In vain do we conceal this thoroughly 'irrational' character of what we call 'formal democracy': at the moment of an election, the society is delivered to a stochastic process. Only the acceptance of such a risk, only such a readiness to hand over one's fate to 'irrational' hazard, renders 'democracy' possible: it is in this sense that we should read the dictum of Winston Churchill which I have already mentioned: 'democracy is the worst of all possible political systems, the only problem is that non of the others is better.'

This is an interesting passage when we contemplate voters that are undecided or unregistered at this point in the election cycle (excluding those who are undecided because they literally face a difficult choice based on their stances on issues, say staunchly fiscal conservative lesbian oil tycoons who sit on Planned Parenthood's advisory board). There are millions of us out there with strong beliefs on the issues coupled with ideas about the direction we wish to see the country headed in, and in many ways we place our hopes of achieving those goals on connecting with people completely disengaged from the political process. People who probably would not vote, except someone came to their door with a blank voter registration form, and later on election day provided a ride to the polls. A stochastic process filled with irrational hazard indeed.

This reminds me of an argument I was reading in the Believer regarding the ethics of choosing your child's traits via genetic manipulation. The argument (which I find uncompelling) goes if these traits (for instance temperament) are important then not only should we be able to choose them, it is important that we choose them. I find myself in an opposing camp. I believe acceptance of randomness in the process is important and part of what makes a child more endearing than a sound business plan. Not that I have any personal interest in rearing children.

And I close with a few links of interest:

• This captures what I despise about the Olympics despite the fact that I find I do enjoy watching many events.
  


• There is a war brewing over the meaning of celebrity.



• I have always thought of text messages as frivolous but useful. Obama is going to make us take at least one text message seriously.



• Kind words from the Wall Street Journal are definitely not a bad thing for Barack.

Is there an incumbent in this race?

As we inch closer to the November election, and I believe we can all agree we are now inching along in an arduous crawl after the rather more racely primary season, instead of learning more about Barack Obama we see his narrative and candidacy re-examined. Interestingly, while many anticipated that a clear victory in the democratic party would affirm Senator Obama's status as a triumphant and transcendent candidate instead he is being dissected from all angles. If Obama was crowned victor at all it was only to celebrate that we no longer have to ask how he appeals to the democratic party because now we can appraise his appeal to the full U.S. political spectrum.

While this may be disconcerting, especially when some democratic supporters glance at the polls and worry that Obama lacks the commanding lead he "should" have (others have intelligently explored reasons why that "should" may be unrealistic). I believe this is actually a good sign. Being examined and re-examined by every constituency is the most presidential treatment one could hope for. It is almost as though Senator Obama is already President Obama, a sentiment his camp helped sediment in all of our minds with Obama's very Presidential world tour two weeks ago.

The Obama braintrust has done a masterful job obliterating the very idea that we are in the midst of an election and instead created a referendum on whether Senator Obama is our chosen leader. What if instead of thinking of the polls as an Obama vs. McCain election, we think of them as Obama's approval ratings with some interloper with his own cult following thrown in to muddy things a bit? I am almost ready to start thinking of Obama as the incumbent. Is it that unrealistic to think of the election in these terms when you look at the difference between the respective media presence of the two candidates (not just the glut of their mentions but also the clout of each candidate's imagery)? And once you start to think of Obama as the incumbent the McCain camp's job is even tougher. Remember how John Kerry was unable to unseat the incumbent George W. Bush whose approval ratings were historically poor?