« The art of shrinking heads | Main | More cat blogging »

September 08, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Say what you will about the intelligence of the Republicans - they run linguistic rings around the Democrats.

I love Palin's ambigious statement regarding her daughter's pregnancy:

"We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents"

A casual reader (most of voters) would take what away from this? That her daugher had a choice and made a decision regarding her pregnancy? It is sufficiently vague to provide multiple meanings and cover all bases.

This statement coupled with the (to paraphrase) 'now our family's business is off limits to the press' is brilliant - after slipping in the political message, discussion of the meaning is shut off.

Absolute genius.


Hope this isn't too much off-topic...

I have a different spin on the Palin nomination. I don't think it is about women voters as much as about white men.

My thinking is something like this: the general atmosphere for change is strong is the electorate. The theme of a historic, symbolic act (elect an African American) that can absolve the US of the Bush Years has some resonance.

There is also unconscious racism throughout the country, encompassed most strongly in white males. However, this is not as strong as in the past - these voters are split between doing "what comes natural" vs. "the right thing". They need a reason to stay the course and not make a break.

So the Republicans give them that reason - vote for a women for VP and you can vote against the black man with no guilt.

Nathan A. Franklin

Pebird, the above formula is freakin' brilliant.

I heard Zizek speak in San Francisco last Friday. He mentioned that the notion of interpassivity is increasingly being mobilized within Republican party discourse.

In effect, Zizek points out how Republican discourse allows its followers to enact their fury to the extent that the top brass is in the position to never concretely render a coherent, concrete program to thus assuage the symptoms of their rage.

The problem,for Zizek,is that the former tells its subjects that we know very well that you're angry, et cetera, but we have a number of behind the scene experts who will manipulate the structure so you do not have to worry about anything--"you can," remarks Zizek, "explode in your rage, we will have great fun, you will not have to think, our Karl Roves and so on will secretly do the work."

So, to put it in Zizek's terms of course, the seemingly violent act of "disturbing" the androcentric logic of our poltico-ideological horizon by have Palin on the Republican ticket is in fact a sign of impotence in the sense that the structure preserving the status quo will not change but will endure.

Is Palin object a?


Hegel (who respected Luther as much as he did say Caesar), and old hegelians would side with the Right over gangsta-marxists, however brutal, tasteless, and philistinish the hicks may be....for dat matter, even GWF Hegel rarely sounded as racist as Marx hisself, who used the n-word nearly as often as a Carlyle did.....


Nathan is right--PE Bird's formula is brilliant.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo