Other Publications
Scary politics: Even Palin can run
Bonni Rambatan , Malang | Thu, 10/30/2008 10:32 AM | Opinion
It is a curious phenomenon today that whenever we discuss the U.S. elections and politics, we no longer focus on Barack Obama versus John McCain. The talk evolves around one name and one name alone: Sarah Palin. Sure, Obama and McCain may be there, but it is no longer mainly about them.
Here is a curious thing about Palin: Nobody would claim that she is politically capable. Not even McCain would dare claim that she is an experienced, smart and politically savvy candidate. Clearly, Palin is there for reasons other than the standard criteria of political experience, foreign policy knowledge and charisma.
In other words, when we make fun of Palin today, is it not rather a redundant criticism? Of course, the standard notion is that once we stop the criticism, then all hell will break loose -- people will have illusions and vote for Palin, she will win and so on. But how about a candidate that radically mocks the standard of politics and gains popularity by illogical standards instead -- the more she is victimized, the louder she laughs and the more she becomes popular?
Matt Damon in his fierce criticism against Palin, the video of which is endlessly circulated on YouTube, has famously described the Palin phenomenon as a "really bad Disney movie" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk). He has a good reason for saying so: Does Palin's famous image as the ex-beauty pageant hockey-mom (videos and photos of which are also endlessly replicated on the Web) with a sudden rise to national politics not indeed recall the illogical plots of Disney female heroines who achieve their career heights with nothing but sheer luck and a radical, no-matter-what-everybody-says belief to hold on to their dreams? The adaptation of such a plot to politics should make one thing clear: Politics have become a realm of "ill logic".
I am not writing for the sake of the standard Palin-bashing. If there is anything we should do about Sarah Palin (not only in the United States, but the rest of the world and specifically Indonesia, as I will detail below) it is not to criticize her endlessly but to radically ask ourselves what is happening today in our political sphere. It is not merely that Sarah Palin is bad, crazy, ridiculous and so on -- but the most terrible thing, the real question we should address is how this is possible at all within our political conduct.
Those who follow Lacanian psychoanalysis such as I do have been buzzing about one very curious fact: Is not Sarah Palin actually the first truly feminine character to enter politics? Take for example Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi or even our own Megawati Soekarnoputri -- are they not always marketed as the strong woman, as women more capable of politics than their male counterparts? It is here that Palin radically challenges this old feminist motive: She not only challenges the dominance of men in politics, but also the masculinity of the field of politics itself, thus radically shifting the coordinates of what it means to play politics.
It is here that Palin is a mockery to the previous euphoria concerning the rise of Obama and Hillary -- first we are happy that politics are getting more liberal and equal, that African-Americans and women can now run for president. But with Palin we are suddenly violently forced to realize that not only minorities, but also blatantly incompetent people can run. If there is a lesson we must learn, it is that there is a boundary to this wonderful spectacle of the so-called liberal, minority-loving politics. We are forced to admit that the romantic scenario of illogical dreams made possible by equal chances, so noisily marketed in today's personality development books, have their boundaries.
And this is the lesson the world should learn: Politics are not sweet and romantic. Of course, today, collectively, we are all putting on a very skeptical face about politics. But is it not true that secretly, deep down, we maintain personal fantasies of a peaceful, multicultural haven where equality is defended at all costs? Is it not true that the more skeptical we get outside, the more we secretly dream of unrealistic utopias? Is this not the reason why so many politicians today play the game of how they used to be martyr activists, victimized by other dominant politicians (and two candidates are even already playing the dreamy age game!) -- to try and subtly reach our innermost fantasies instead of our logical minds?
What we need today, more than ever, is real politics with concrete political cognitive mapping. The lesson to learn from the Sarah Palin phenomenon is that politics played as a fashionable spectacle can have detrimental effects. It should not be about how candidates were victimized activists, or how they are young, or how they portray themselves as fashionably religious. It is not even about how they enjoy Indonesian top 40 songs and whether they have enjoyed the movie Laskar Pelangi (Rainbow Warriors) or not.
Stop playing the spectacle game of illogical multicultural tolerance. It is not how romantic the candidates dream. It is how well they think. We do not need more Disney movies in our politics.
The writer is a psychoanalytic media researcher based in Malang, East Java. He maintains a theory/media/philosophy/sociology blog at http://posthumanmarxist.wordpress.com/
John Elliot (not verified) — Fri, 10/31/2008 - 10:04pm
Toby:
There are many non-govrnment, non-political party pages where you can check facts, such as
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-906
Since the Senate meets for less than a full year (unlike mayor and governer jobs which are year round, and since Mr Obam,a missed 24% of the votes in the senate during this time, he did 145 days. During that period he introduced 121 bills, only 3 of which have passed to date. The bills he introduced that passed were all for honoring individuals Civil rights and holocaust workers), condemning actions by countries (Zimbabwe), or prohibiting cetain uses of Mercury in the environment. Most of the bills he introduced were regarding use of funds for schooling. In the Senate, he was appointed to sit on certain committees - which is where the majority of a Senators work is done - in the narrow fields of their committee scope, whether it be school standards, medical care, or whatever. Despite this narrow focus for each senator, the senators vote on all issues as a body. It is assumed that an experienced senator will be one who has served a number of terms and on wide variety of committees, broadening their knowledge. An inexperienced senator with a narrow committee background is dubbed a 'freshman' senator.
Mayors and governors, on the other hsnd, are in year round positions, and have responsibilities covering the entire spectrum of govenment- budget, schools, infrastructure, police/military, response to disasters, interactions with state and federal congressmen and other governers, interactions with bordering countries and states, etc.
In our democracy, the typical route to the US senate is through being a mayor or city councilman, then perhaps serving in a state legislature, then on to the national level - acquiring experience at each level. (BTW, inheriting the position from your father, as you described it, WAS the political system of that era - it doesn't negate the political power effectivly deployed by a 'feminine' woman.
Please do not label me a Bush fan - I never discussed him. But also, please do not try to tell me the answer to the countries and worlds problems is a charismatic but inexperienced senator who missed 24% of his votes and managed to get enacted only 3 of the 121 bills he introduced. I do not like any of the choices our parties have advanced to the final election - we have many many more talented and intelligent potential leaders available. But just as with Indonesian politics, our candidates we get to vote for or against are the choices of party power brokers and their agendas. This is the unfortunate fact of life. It is even more unfortunate that begining with JFK, the media has increasingly tried to take a role as 'king-maker'.
The media that brings us 'next american idol' is not what I want picking a leader for our country. I will vote for any ethnicity or gender individual who can do that best.
Kusuma Bangsa (not verified) — Fri, 10/31/2008 - 11:55am
To Kevinc... your thin skin shows how stupidity and in your word, makakacy, of course if you know anything about makaka (in the words of the disgraced Republican Virginia's Senator), is not limited to any certain nation or country. The fact that this writer shows an interest to American politics, a land so far away from where he's writing from, is an amazing thing. America, by far, has an exemplary democratic system, but yet, admittedly, under W's rule, has shattered its image into oblivion. And when you say American aid, in most cases it's loan. And by the way, do you know that, statistically, American foreign aid is only about 1% of its total GDP? Maybe you need to build a thicker, stronger skin and ear to be the next American leader,, or maybe you're just not cut to be any leader in any organization, let alone the United States.
Kevinc (not verified) — Fri, 10/31/2008 - 11:28am
If you think American politics is a joke...try looking at your own country and question their intelligence before you go bashing another country's.
I bet you don't bash America when we give millions of dollars in aid to Indonesia do you?
Try to convince that Indonesia isn't a nation of monkeys.
Toby (not verified) — Thu, 10/30/2008 - 10:31pm
elliot, mr obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005 and not as you claimed of being a senator for only 145days. being a senator holds bigger responsibilities than a mayor of a small town. all the female names you provided were not political figures but public icons and cleopatra inherited her position from her dad. maybe you prefer bush as the president but for the rest of the world, we feel that mr obama would be a fairer president. you may lose this election, but with mr obama, he may actually save the economy and let u keep the home that u still have or have you lost it already? who then would u blame??? i hope u are sane enough to say bush... in 8 short years, this man has ruined everything for everyone...
John Elliot (not verified) — Thu, 10/30/2008 - 1:25pm
Amazing. A person who has been mayor of a town and governor of a state is not politically capable, yet a freshman senator with 145 days experience - who said he wouldn't run for president because he didn't have enough experience - is the alternative? It seems to me - a 30 year Democrat - that the 'American Idol' hype driving the Obama campaign is the real tragedy for democracy.
And I don't really think that Palin is "actually the first truly feminine character to enter politics". In modern times Princess Grace of Monaco, Princess Diana of England, Queen Rania of Jordan have/had political roles to varying degrees. A student of history could refer back to Cleopatra, Nefertiti, etc.
Perhaps the real question should be: Why do we currently assume that a woman can not be both feminine as well as talented/politically powerful? This assumption would seem to reflect a character flaw in modern society - an assumption that appearance and ability are mutually exclusive. Maybe the constant media exposure to the inane chatter and sub-optimal life choices of the Brittany and Paris types has conditioned us into thinking that femininity and talent can't coexist.
If so, less media and more attention to the accomplishments of talented and feminine women we meet every day would be instructional.