10
Feb
08

On the joys of electoral politics and fictitious democracy

Perhaps we can reanimate our blog with a brief discussion on the drama/hollowness/allure of the presidental primaries.  I guess in a basic way I’m interested in: 1) what the hell we’re each thinking of what’s happening, and 2) what the hell we “should” be thinking of what’s happening (i.e. how should we as the abiding radical/marxian/feminist/leftist/anti-racist activist-intellectuals that we (perhaps) aspire to be theorize electoral politcs and our relationships to it/them).  Yes?


1 Response to “On the joys of electoral politics and fictitious democracy”


  1. 1 christian ravela
    February 12, 2008 at 2:34 am

    I feel like my answer to both of your queries are the same–ambivalence. In terms of your first question, I know so little substantive information about each canindates stance on policy issues (the use of policy rather than political is intentional)that I cannot make an informed decision about “my interest” (i.e. what policies do they want to enact on stoping the war? what policies do they have about college tution? what policies do they have about reparations? etc). Rather what I get is their media “spin,” the incredible semiotic play of the “new social movement” (i.e. feminism and civil rights), Hollywood, liberal reformism, etc. This can be my fault since I do not actively search for substantive information on policy (so that I can have my critical rational debate about material gains, a pseudo-quantitative rationality) but, then again, the most accesible and pervasive media do not actively desseminate that information. I wonder how we read such a situation? is this a contradiction?

    In terms of your second question, the Marxist in me cannot help but think about that Lenin’s quote where he decries electoral politics as the occassion every 4 years to vote for somebody to misrepresent me. In this sense, electoral politics is an ideological ruse shaping my desire. Yet, I cannot help but be completely dissatisfied with such an assessment since it warrents a conception of revolution that is predicated upon a world-historical subject, meaning that everything besides this conception is a form of placation. It is moments like these that makes Marxism not only inadequate to assess contemporary social life but also problematic in that it precipitates nihilism. Anyway, this is my long way of saying that I don’t know what to think of all this and which part of me is scared that this ambivalence is the point of liberalism.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.