Anticipation

A couple of years ago, my seminar on fascism read a book by Sebastian Hafner, Defying Hitler. The book is a memoir of the rise of the Third Reich. Particularly noteworthy is Hafner's description of an overall habit of mind or structure of feeling that affected a generation of people. Those who grew up anticipating WW!, anticipating the new post-war government, anticipating the next round of hyper-inflation, became accustomed to an intensity of feeling, one like gambling or betting (which was also part of the overall culture). Hafner suggests that this feeling was nearly addictive and that it was part of what enabled Hitler's rise to power.

Have we been inhabiting a similar affective environment over the past nine years? The election of 2000? The fall of Enron? 9/11 and anthrax, the invasion of Afghanistan, the build up to the war in Iraq (Senate vote, election of 2002), the war, the 2004 election, more war, torture and camps, the long election of 2008, the collapse of the economy? The debate around health care has the same kind of feeling as the build up to the war in Iraq, which is somewhat puzzling but which might account at least in part for the media frenzy around the town hall meetings. How is it that health care becomes death panels? Perhaps the answer is in the affective environment we are so reluctant to leave.

Comments

[Bob Allen]

How is it that health care becomes death panels?

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/

Louis claims the bourgeois media is manufacturing opposition to health reform using framing tactics reminiscent of the Vietnam era.
There may not be a "we" being affected by the Anticipation effect, but instead there is a divided, atomized public, some of whom are being led around by their noses by quasi-fascist corporate interests, which creates an "us" vs "them". I mean, "we" as in those of us on the left never supported the Iraq invasion, yet the media ignored "us" and created a heroic meme of valiant troops, etc. as if we all supported them. I suggest it is the same with health care reform...

[Alain]

There is a long tradition in the United States of a basic mistrust of government. During the "debate" about Medicare in the early 1960's, people like Ronald Reagan spoke about the dangers of socialized medicine, centralized controll of where doctors could work, and rationed care. The primary difference between now and then is the proliferation of media (internet, cable news, etc...) that - as Bob is saying - further atomizes the public. In the early 1960's, the mainstream media and the establishment were not concerned about the impact on healthcare companies because the industry was relatively small. Today, there interests are threatened by a robust public alternative and they can use the new media to amplify their message and organize the angry whites who are already feel threatened by a Black President. If the democrats fail, it is largely because they seem to have failed to anticipate a predictible assault from a part of the elite that has no interest in compromise.

[Dave M.]

I'm not sure either of these comments touch on Dean's point about the recent history of a highly-charged affective atmosphere that absorbs any and all debates regardless of their content.

I think you're onto something, though I'm not sure what to make of it. But it is remarkable that a Woodrow Wilson-esque wonk/pragmatist from Harvard and the University of Chicago could be elevated to messianic levels during the course of a 12-month campaign. It also makes me re-think certain nuggets of advice that the left is giving Obama (see Krugman, who is otherwise pitch-perfect, saying that Obama needs to ramp up the passion to counter the right's Angry White Man noise machine). Maybe we need him to stay calm and slightly above the fray, which is what he's been doing for the most part. And I say we not as a member of the left but as a citizen who would like our democracy to work (not to get all Bob Putnam on you).

[Andrew]

I really like this idea, especially the physiological "rush" of affect. Having just taught Naked Lunch, I think of Burroughs's "junk clarity," whereby the haze of everyday life falls away once the junky sniffs out the dealer, at which point everything is hyper-clear; junk/affect quickly discerns between important and trivial. I'm struck by the vast gulf between 1993 anti-reform rhetoric (Harry and Louise won't have enough choice) and 2009 rhetoric (Harry and Louise are on the train to Auschwitz).

Is it all the Right, though? When I read the stuff on Peak Oil, I'm struck by the breathless sense of anticipation there as well. Also, I agree w/Dave M re: the 2008 election--not just messianic, which I think is Right rhetoric--but the consuming excitement of "history in the making," watching the nation elect its first black president.

Finally, it's striking that all of this takes shape while academics have turned (especially post-80s, but as a larger consequence of the 60s) to emphasizing lower-case histories as opposed to the monolithic stuff of affect. Not that academics matter...

[Jodi]

I appreciate the comments. Because my interest in the post is affect, I wonder now about how such affective politics is addressed/engaged. Do reasons work in this setting? Or, have the conditions for anything like debate already been destroyed. I tend to think that the latter is true, especially when reading and hearing about how many concessions the Dems are making.

[Dave M.]

I'm not to the point where I think it's necessary to abandon level-headed, detailed, fact-driven debate about necessary reforms, because I believe that the aggressive idiots wearing assault weapons to townhall meetings are louder than they are numerous. There still seems to be a sliver of fairly rational people who might disagree about the merits of reform in its details - and we should have the debate not only for their benefit but because we would be practicing politics as we would like it to be practiced. Think if Obama had started going to these townhalls or giving speeches a few months back where - ala Bush - he'd ranted about being the "decider" and threatened veto if he didn't get A, B, C, D. The screamers would still be screaming, but they'd actually have some real ammunition (against the process more than the substance) rather than the wacky death panels, etc. Hypothesis: arrogant process more than substance of the Bush admin turned part of middle American slightly left, and I think Obama is right to maintain his cool/professorial attitude rather than ramp up the rhetoric. The MSM isn't used to such restraint, so they paint a narrative about Obama getting "knocked back" or "put offstride" by angry loons at townhall meetings. Really? Or does it still come down to a few votes in the Senate and some tough conference committee negotiations? (just where we were 6 months ago) This doesn't feel like Clinton Health Care 2.0. We're likely to get a decent package of reform that (alas) won't punish insurance or pharm companies too much but will make a difference in the availability of care for those who don't have it and (hopefully) slow the rising costs of care for everyone.

[Alain]

I hope you are right Dave. But there are clearly a couple of separate points to make about the health care debate - separate from the issue of affect. I was a strong supporter of the Obama campaign but he seems to be governing largely from the Clinton - neoliberial philosphy. My greatest concern is that the democrats pass a bill that may have some modest reforms but mandates individuals to buy private insurance. Without a public option, this is largely a multi-billion dollar giveaway to the insurance industry. If this is what the democrats call "reform," they will unleash a backlash from moderates and progressives this will be substantial - it will deprive us of an opportunity to make real reforms on a host of issues for another generation.

[Karlo]

I recently watched Hicks' documentary about Nietsche and the Nazis. While I disagree with some of his broad characterizations, he does make a good point with his claim that Fascism can't be solely defined as a lack of other values, but rather has a very distinct set of values itself, which will remain appealing to many people. We get glimpses of this with this rhetoric of the all-powerful CEO supermen who create so much wealth for all of us and so should be allowed to exploit the underclasses who are unable to rise above their own slave mentality. It most rednecks had any sense, they'd see that they're destined to be part of the exploited class, but with racism tossed into the mix, they imagine themselves as part of the group that will benefit.

[Jodi]

Interesting point. I agree that fascism has values--security, purity, homeland, glory, dominion, longevity. Italian fascism is more interesting on this score than the Nazi's insofar as they combined a modernizing, future orientation with a sense of past glory.

[bob allen]

"It most rednecks had any sense, they'd see that they're destined to be part of the exploited class.."

These rednecks will tell you that , but for the liberals and illegals standing in their way, they too could make good like the people they see on tv 'cuz they are so hardworking, and besides no other system but capitalism "works", and they point to all the illegals coming in to prove that thier Shangri La of capitalism is best of all worlds and btw , we aren't exploited. They are bred into anti-socialism, and even if unemployed or uninsured, the dream won't die- of course it's "easier to imagine no God than no capitalism". And, they blather, capitalism creates wealth, which is a good thing, unlike that bad socialism under Stalin,Mao, Castro, Kim Jong etc..
Funny how the socialism meme refuses to die, even when given up for dead by its former proponents-- the right goes to that inexorable well as soon as they get a whiff of corporate interests being threatened. It goes without saying here that this is how fascism begins, when the corporatists unleash their redneck goons....

[Jodi]

thanks, Bob, that makes sense to me of why the anti-socialist meme lives and why the anti-immigrant stuff ties in to it; I think that I too easily separate those ideas but you make the connection make sense