Whats more important here is the fact she’s even the nominee in the first place. It represents the final hollowing out of the presidential position. Reminds me of how the roman senate continued to function and seem important long after Caesar was knifed. The elected officals of national govt are all jokes. The only one of the three branches that still nominally functions as explained in school textbooks is the supreme court (tellingly not full of elected officials) and it is seen as a threat and is also at risk of being fully hollowed out via stuffing more judges into it.
Who exactly runs the government again? Managerialism hates having “the dude” in charge.
I.e. “the dude” in russia or china is patently obvious as a comparison. Who is “The dude” in the united states? Don’t know? Uh oh!
I can't remember the person's name or whether she won, but many years ago, in the Phillipines' presidential election, one candidate's poster just read "Vote for the cute one, with the mole on the lip!" Back then I thought it was hilarious. Little did I know... Soon they'll be competing in lawn mowing, ballroom dancing, dog grooming, whatever, and we'll be voting them out like America's Got Talent, taking comfort in the knowledge that NOTHING is going to change.
No. I’m saying your grandiose McLuhan-esque critique is wrong. You construct it very nicely, but anyone looking at the extraordinary and unique demands of this cycle (with the Democrats facing precisely the challenge they failed to meet in ‘68, and the particular Rasputin-like lure of an extraordinarily dangerous and seductive opponent) and thinking that some kind of spectacle-based “meta politics” is being indulged — who thinks the main takeaway is the semiotics — is just amazingly blinkered and stupid.
Of course there are unique and interesting presentational elements this time, but to conclude that some kind of category-shift has occurred and it’s no longer politics (especially since the redefinition of liberalism being enacted is so robust and detailed and specific in terms of policy shifts) is absurd. The degree of disengagement and sophistry necessary is extreme. But go ahead, say “Ceci n’est pas un pipe” and get your clicks. Congratulations, you’re a contrarian.
I appreciate you taking the time to critique my piece. I disagree. I do think that there is a category shift toward spectacle politics from real politics. I do not think that the Harris campaign is unique in kind, but I think it is spectacle politics to a higher degree than any campaign I can remember. Harris went from being the least popular VP in US history to somehow being ahead in the polling. In the meantime, she did not do a single press conference or interview, or even put forward a singular policy proposal for that matter (but she has since). I think that through September and October, we will see a shift to what we are used to, but so far the entire campaign is substance-free media hype. There is nothing else to it. I am not critiquing her strategy, I am describing her strategy, and I think it may work.
Others have critiqued that most modern political campaigns are like what I am describing, and I am inclined to agree with them. Thinking that there is no "spectacle-based “meta politics”... being indulged" is the blinkered and stupid position. The media environment has fundamentally transformed politics.
To say I made my points for clicks is silly. I legitimately almost did not post this piece because I thought it would not perform very well, but I went for it anyway. Because I think that her campaign is entirely manufactured and hyperreal.
So, while I appreciate you taking the time to critique me, I think you have entirely failed to do so effectively. You say my critique is wrong, stupid, blinkered, absurd, and done to get clicks whilst ignoring any point I have made. Calling something stupid, blinkered, and absurd is not an argument. It's just an attack.
All these deconstructions of the culture industry in recent years are coming either from conservatives, anti-woke liberals, or old school leftists. Big Theory, reactionary and "contrarianism" all seem to ride together. Meanwhile mainstream progressives roll their eyes and say get with the program, this is no time for naval gazing!
Do not engage with journalists, do not detail proposals, do not answer questions.
If you are correct Harris will NOT debate Trump.
It is going to be super interesting to see if your take on it is correct.
Weird thing is that she’s agreed to debate him! They’re gonna have to drop the pseudo-campaign act at some point
Whats more important here is the fact she’s even the nominee in the first place. It represents the final hollowing out of the presidential position. Reminds me of how the roman senate continued to function and seem important long after Caesar was knifed. The elected officals of national govt are all jokes. The only one of the three branches that still nominally functions as explained in school textbooks is the supreme court (tellingly not full of elected officials) and it is seen as a threat and is also at risk of being fully hollowed out via stuffing more judges into it.
Who exactly runs the government again? Managerialism hates having “the dude” in charge.
I.e. “the dude” in russia or china is patently obvious as a comparison. Who is “The dude” in the united states? Don’t know? Uh oh!
Great piece. I was thinking about writing something about hyperspectaclization myself, but this piece does the trick
If you did I’d love to read it!
I can't remember the person's name or whether she won, but many years ago, in the Phillipines' presidential election, one candidate's poster just read "Vote for the cute one, with the mole on the lip!" Back then I thought it was hilarious. Little did I know... Soon they'll be competing in lawn mowing, ballroom dancing, dog grooming, whatever, and we'll be voting them out like America's Got Talent, taking comfort in the knowledge that NOTHING is going to change.
Could be. But the [s]elections are a stage production anyway. May as well continue the charade.
I can clear this up: she's running for President.
*whoosh!*
No. I’m saying your grandiose McLuhan-esque critique is wrong. You construct it very nicely, but anyone looking at the extraordinary and unique demands of this cycle (with the Democrats facing precisely the challenge they failed to meet in ‘68, and the particular Rasputin-like lure of an extraordinarily dangerous and seductive opponent) and thinking that some kind of spectacle-based “meta politics” is being indulged — who thinks the main takeaway is the semiotics — is just amazingly blinkered and stupid.
Of course there are unique and interesting presentational elements this time, but to conclude that some kind of category-shift has occurred and it’s no longer politics (especially since the redefinition of liberalism being enacted is so robust and detailed and specific in terms of policy shifts) is absurd. The degree of disengagement and sophistry necessary is extreme. But go ahead, say “Ceci n’est pas un pipe” and get your clicks. Congratulations, you’re a contrarian.
I appreciate you taking the time to critique my piece. I disagree. I do think that there is a category shift toward spectacle politics from real politics. I do not think that the Harris campaign is unique in kind, but I think it is spectacle politics to a higher degree than any campaign I can remember. Harris went from being the least popular VP in US history to somehow being ahead in the polling. In the meantime, she did not do a single press conference or interview, or even put forward a singular policy proposal for that matter (but she has since). I think that through September and October, we will see a shift to what we are used to, but so far the entire campaign is substance-free media hype. There is nothing else to it. I am not critiquing her strategy, I am describing her strategy, and I think it may work.
Others have critiqued that most modern political campaigns are like what I am describing, and I am inclined to agree with them. Thinking that there is no "spectacle-based “meta politics”... being indulged" is the blinkered and stupid position. The media environment has fundamentally transformed politics.
To say I made my points for clicks is silly. I legitimately almost did not post this piece because I thought it would not perform very well, but I went for it anyway. Because I think that her campaign is entirely manufactured and hyperreal.
So, while I appreciate you taking the time to critique me, I think you have entirely failed to do so effectively. You say my critique is wrong, stupid, blinkered, absurd, and done to get clicks whilst ignoring any point I have made. Calling something stupid, blinkered, and absurd is not an argument. It's just an attack.
All these deconstructions of the culture industry in recent years are coming either from conservatives, anti-woke liberals, or old school leftists. Big Theory, reactionary and "contrarianism" all seem to ride together. Meanwhile mainstream progressives roll their eyes and say get with the program, this is no time for naval gazing!
Progs don’t say it like that, its more…
“Don’t pick our ideology/religion apart… or else!”
If you want to read an actual critique of her ideology and strategy, here's just one (from TNR):
https://substack.com/home/post/p-148107727