Move over, all you inheritors of Eugene Debs and Rosa Parks. Because the "Industry" has got this covered. It's all under control. You see, the newest role of famous actors and musicians and other media personalities is to turn the often bloody and violent struggles for racial justice and workers' rights and human rights into one star-studded entertainment diversion after another. Rather than protest in the streets yourselves, all you have to do is sit back and watch celebrities pretend to do it for you on TV. And if you're very lucky, you can even be a member of the live studio audience or even an extra on the stage.
Just as the Women's March franchise was partly the brainchild of affiliates of the Conde Nast publishing empire, the wider #Resistance (to Trump, the whole Trump, and nothing but the Trump) is itself the product of the Media-Political-Entertainment Complex.
To that end, a gaggle of glamorous millionaires is staging a "People's State of the Union" as an alternative to Trump's speech to the Congressional Joint this Tuesday night. So as not to deflect attention from centrist Democrat Joseph Kennedy III's official rebuttal to Trump, the A-Listers are holding their own "prebuttal" event on Monday night in New York City, where a lot of them were already in town for the Grammy Awards.* To be fair to them, though, they're not actually marketing their gala at the tony Town Hall venue as a protest, but as a "celebration." It's an occasion for all virtue-signalers to bask in the solidarity, narrowly defined as their mutual hatred for Donald Trump.
As progressive actor Mark Ruffalo dished to the celebrity gossip rag People, the restrictive purpose of all these celebrity events is to get out the vote for the Democratic Party, which only recently purged people-intensive populists from all its leadership positions.
“In essence,” Ruffalo tells PEOPLE of the event, “it’s a better reflection of our state of the union based on a more populist point of view, based on the people’s point of view. I think it’s important because we have a president who has a difficult time with the truth, who has a radical, divisive agenda, and spends an enormous amount of time focusing on the negative and hopelessness and despair.”The agenda, therefore, is not for the wealthy entertainers to demand protections for the most vulnerable people, but to help the most vulnerable people feel better about their situations, possibly by viewing more movies and TV shows about vulnerable people prevailing over hatred, discrimination and poverty through dint of their own humor, hard work, and all-American pluck.
Above all, the #Resistance events are about the activist Beautiful People celebrating themselves:
“We want to celebrate this moment that we’re in of what is now probably one of the most influential and powerful and really beautiful movements to come into play in the United States since the civil rights movement,” Ruffalo explains, going on to describe the event as “a celebration of the power and the beauty of this movement, but also of our accomplishments and to focus on what’s to come in the immediate future.”"It's the Mother of All Movements," he added modestly.
The announced host of Monday night's Celebrity Activist Apprentice reality show is yet another Democratic Party offshoot called We Stand United (not to be confused with the main financial backer, Stand Up America, a 501 (c) (4) bankrolled by the Facebook wealth of failed billionaire carpetbagger Sean Eldridge.) For the full A-List roster of performers, check out the People link above, because the last thing that these People probably need or want is more publicity, even publicity on an obscure little lefty blog.
Led by a former Clinton campaign operative, Stand Up America was also at the "grassroots" forefront of urging Congress to establish an independent commission investigating Russian "election-meddling" in the wake of Trump's firing last year of FBI Director James Comey - who had only recently been evoking the wrath of Clintonites for dredging up the private server-Anthony Weiner mess just weeks before the 2016 election. The enemy of their enemy so conveniently becomes their friend in the interests of the fortunes of The Party.
Meanwhile, what would commercialized protest be without the solidarity engendered by shopping? No anarchist black hats or Guy Fawkes masks will be tolerated at any sanctioned and capitalized
Then the commercial resistance marketplace seems to have run out of righteous steam in a hurry, because all I could find were shirts and buttons and bumper stickers labeled with "Resist" or for double the fun, "Resist. Persist." For only $24, you can score the Lady Liberty super-saver combo package, complete with a quartet of Resist buttons plus a shirt to pin them on for the sake of patriotic redundancy.
Meanwhile, you will be happy to learn that the Women's March anniversary souvenir book "Together We Rise," is now ranked #5 on the New York Times bestseller list. I was lucky enough to be first in line to score my free ebook version (via the New York Public Library and its crushing partnership with the ubiquitous rentier monopoly Amazon) of the $30 list-price volume.
Sadly, though, I have been unable to complete my reading to give you a full review at this time. Maybe it was the immediate shout-outs by the Women's March organizers to Facebook and Google, which helped jump-start the Operation Headcount "efficiencies" of the event. Maybe it was the fact that the protests were planned in the pricey Watergate Hotel and underwritten by Conde Nast, also the publisher of the new book. Maybe it was the hat-tip to professional MSNBC Russophobe Rachel Maddow, who supplied a huge chunk of the corporate-sponsored publicity. And since, for security reasons, only clear plastic backpacks were to be allowed at the D.C. event, the ubiquitous rentier Amazon quickly came to the monopolistic rescue and sold millions of cheap plastic backpacks to the marchers. Don't even get me started on pink pussy hats and the pink yarn shortage, which caused a big price spike for that color. Because, capitalism.
At least the organizers admitted that the initial, if not the core, purpose of the march was to give Hillary Clinton voters their moment of catharsis.
A few quotes in the intro jumped right out at me, and not in a particularly good way:
"I kept running into Trump supporters and many Russians in the hotel and thought, Is this real?" remembers one organizer."
"Hillary asked us 'How can I be helpful? Can I tweet in support of the Women's March?' We said, 'Absolutely.' So that day, she actually tweeted in support of us."
Now, to be fair, Together We Rise does flesh itself out with quite a few previously published or re-purposed essays by feminists, so I'll refrain from passing too harsh a judgment on the book until I've developed enough resistance to lurking treacle to finish the whole thing.
Sadly, I didn't see anything by Nancy Fraser or for that matter, any radical feminist, in the table of contents. So as an alternative, I would highly recommend her Fortunes of Feminism for a collection of scathing critiques exploring how the feminist movement has both been hijacked by, and has willingly colluded with, the profit-intensive ideology of neoliberalism. This current "wave" of anti-Trump feminism remains true to valorizing "the politics of recognition" over struggles for economic justice. The commercialized #Resistance is also virtually identical to the platform of the centrist, corporatized Democratic Party, in that both studiously ignore the need for redistributive economic policies, a fight which was at the very heart of the original leftist feminist movements, both in the US and internationally.
"The two-dimensional character of gender wreaks havoc on an either/or choice between the politics of redistribution and the politics of recognition, because it assumes that women are either a class or a status group, but not both," writes Nancy Fraser.
Rather than simply "resisting Trump," the Left, what's still left of it, must not only resist getting sucked into the anodyne Hollywood version of protest but also embrace Fraser's suggested motto: "No redistribution without recognition, and no recognition without redistribution."
When the rich and the famous and the powerful posture as agents of social change and protest, everyday people and their everyday concerns are tacitly left out. The idea is that we can simply watch everything on TV: switching channels between the odious Trump reality show, and the mind-numbing liberal reality show.
Take, for example, the Democratic Party's choice of the person to officially rebut Trump after the State of the Union spectacular. Rep. Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts will make his national TV debut as the party's latest rising star and savior. (Oprah bowed out.) He's certainly got the name and the looks and the bathetic dynastic mystique. Other than that, he has refused to co-sponsor the Medicare for All legislation now pending in the lower House. He is also a fiscally conservative deficit hawk in the vein of the oligarch-friendly Clintonian Third Way. And why not? Young Kennedy has collected more than $1 million in campaign contributions from the shadow banking lobby, with his top individual donors listed on Open Secrets as Harvard University, Crescent Capital Group, Nixon Peabody, Bank of America, and Bain Capital.
So I think we can probably forget about any talk of economic redistribution during his rebuttal. As a matter of fact, his speech should mesh quite nicely with those delivered by the celebrity-soaked "People's" State of Union event on the preceding night.
Stay tuned, and don't forget to pass the stale popcorn. Even better, consider cutting the official content/delivery cord to give your brain a fighting chance to actually think.
* Update, 1/29: The surprise guest star of last night's Grammy show was Hillary Clinton, reading a selection from the anti-Trump breviary, Fire and Fury, and of course appealing to the mainly young TV audience of potential voters. This attempt at hipsterism worked out so well for her when Jay-Z and Beyonce threw her that election eve concert in Michigan! But make no mistake: Hillary is still the heart and soul, not to mention much of the monetized power, of the Democratic Party and its "resistance" franchise. Don't ask me why this is, because I honestly don't know. She maintains her access to the public stage as some sort of great national feminist symbol, even right in the wake of some old but embarrassing news about a predatory campaign faith adviser she once slapped on the wrist. So it's more than apparent that Trump fans are not the only ones plagued by a cult mentality of authoritarianism. This is the thing that the citizens of this country must actually resist.
14 comments:
Thanks for the warning, Karen.
OT - Robert Parry of Consortium News passed away last night.
His son Nat writes "My dad’s untimely passing has come as a shock to us all, especially since up until a month ago, there was no indication whatsoever that he was sick in any way. He took good care of himself, never smoked, got regular check-ups, exercised, and ate well. The unexpected health issues starting with a mild stroke Christmas Eve and culminating with his admission into hospice care several days ago offer a stark reminder that nothing should be taken for granted."
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/28/robert-parrys-legacy-and-the-future-of-consortiumnews/
I blame Parry's death on the stress caused by the dirty rotten scoundrels at PropOrNot who publicly listed Parry's and 200 other websites as being sources of Russian propaganda but then hid behind anonymity about themselves (CIA). I base my belief on the same rock solid evidence PropOrNot used to smear these people - none, nothing, nada, zip, zero.
I wanted to read Fraser's book, but it was not available in my library system. What are her examples of willful collusion in the book?
Love it! All those black dresses, white roses, pink hats! Meanwhile the GOP brings in massive tax cuts while the media look elsewhere.
One great source of consolation for myself: Trump, who seems to have indulged in plentiful sex with multiple persons, has probably been forced to be celibate since he moved into the White House. The First Lady is doing her own thing, and even he's not foolish enough to bring in some other woman. Ouch!
I was very sad when I read Robert Parry had passed away. Out of the shamefully small number of journalists casting doubt on RussiaGate, he was in my opinion the very best of the lot. He was willing to wade through media accounts and deconstruct the propaganda, with relentlessness and in great detail, like nobody else. Even if "Consortium News" stops publishing new articles I will continue to feature it on my blogroll for valuable future reference to Parry's outstanding work. And yes, although he died of cancer, which apparently had been in an occult state for many years, the stress of his lonely enterprise no doubt had a physical effect.
Re Nancy Fraser's book. For those wishing more detail, please click on the "Nancy Fraser" link in my post and you'll be directed to a conversation between her and Gary Gutting on the Times's philosophy blog. She covers all the themes of her book and gives some examples.
Re black dresses, etc - will be interesting to see how the congresswomen deck themselves out for the State of the Union. Hoping to see Melania adorned with a funeral veil or wearing a bright red cocktail dress with lots of sparkles. Either one would work for me. Actually, both would work for me.
I actually read the article a long time ago- that is what led me to look for a preview of the book at Amazon when it was not available at my library. It seemed too dense for me. She is a philospopher after all. I was interested because of her discussion of unconscious biases. A singular focus on glass ceilings is irksome to me not necessarily because it concerns elite women, but because it is implicitly saying that it is ok to devalue work traditionally performed by women. So, I was disappointed to read that she would write feminists willingly collude because I would just say the a singular focus on ceiling smashing is not really feminism. But maybe the argumnent was something entirely different? Anyway, Verso sent me a promotional email a few months back for 1/2 off all their books and I thought about getting it and looked at it again on Amazon before purchase and a reader review saved me the money.
By the same token, I read another article by her where she discussed "progressive neoliberalism" and "conservative neoliberalism". I would just say neoliberalism-- just sold in different ways. I also thought her discussion (in the article) of financialization of the economy and the Democrats role in it was missing a few steps. I said the other day that I don't read fantasy, but that is not really true. I read the WSJ editorial page (when we take advantage of their 12 weeks for 12 dollars offer) and there was a letter from Carter's sec of Treasury assuring the editors that the administration did all it could to maintain a high dollar policy.
Speaking of the WSJ, I was glad to see you banned the word "snowflake". Not that any of the editorialists or letter writers would be so gauche as to use that word, but what a bunch of aggrieved victims! And it is always 1972 there and the halls of academia are teeming with Marxists. (not that was even the case in 1972).
But what do you think-- do you believe there is "progressive" and "conservative" neoliberalism?
This is the article. It is interesting and there is much to agree with, but I still could not wrap my head around progressive neoliberalism.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/11/progressive-neoliberalism-trump-beyond/
Speaking of the grammys and Sheryl Sandberg-- Oh the irony! The recording academy president is under fire for his remarks concerning the lack of women winners (it was a ridiculously low number). His response was very "lean in"- basically women need to try harder. The ladies did not like. Hopefully they don't support Sheryl Sandberg's words. To me, that was the most infuriating thing about Lean In-- what I read of it, didn't actually read the book-- that is, it puts the entire onus for change on the individual. Very neoliberal, inverts the second wave feminism slogan "the personal is political. Now it is "the political is personal".
Kat,
A couple of the chapters are indeed dense, and I skimmed them (got my own e-copy from where else, the NYPL and Amazon, and I returned it quite awhile ago.) The difference in the "neoliberalisms" of Republicans and Dems (you can't really call them left and right, because they're both right-wing) is that the GOP moralizes a lot more hatefully about the "culture" of single-parent families and poverty, while the Dems love to talk about skills gaps, education as a cure-all, and willingness to offer "opportunity ladders" and a "hand up instead of a handout."
The two sides of the Duopoly both want the same thing, they just verbalize about it differently. They simply could not exist with one another, to pretend to scold each other over semantic differences as they secretly make their sausages. And meanwhile, the poor get poorer and the rich get greedier.
I wasn't talking about the differences (or lack of) differences between Republicans and Democrats in general-- I was talking about neoliberalism specifically. That is, the idea that markets are the best way of allocating resources in every facet of life. Underpinning this idea is that the market is a natural creation. So, if the Democrats differ from the Republicans it may be in the belief that some "interference" is needed, but not that that markets are a creation of the state, not some natural being. If a Democrat talks about regulation saying there must be some "balance" between protecting people and allowing the market to work, that is not really a rejection of neoliberalism.
Then there is the whole valorization of entrepreneurs and small businesses. I could not get all that excited about any socialist that talked about small businesses being the "lifeblood of our community".
I do blame the reactionary right for these ideas. They played a long game. One part of that game was presenting their ideas as "non political" (and their myriad think tanks and infestation of higher education). Deep pockets+ plus our peculiar political institutions aren't a winning combination for the people. Whatever your feelings on Hillary, I don't consider it a good thing that we have this thing called the electoral college. It is undemocratic. In my lifetime I have seen two presidential candidates win the popular vote and lose the general election (and I really don't believe W won fair and square in 2004.)
Still, I don't put as much stock in presidential elections as a lot of people. I mean the New Deal didn't just happen because Roosevelt was elected. It was a response to a crisis and there was a viable alternative that the ruling class truly feared.
I found the PDF. I am baffled as to why you described Fraser's work as "scathing". I did find the chapters "a struggle for needs" and "A genealogy of dependency" interesting and they do articulate my feelings as to why I feel the enactment of medicaid for all is not truly emancipatory (although needed). Those chapters cover the new left and second wave feminist critique of welfare state liberalism/ social democracy. I also appreciated her discussion of how "politics" are defined. The tone of the book struck me as "what went wrong and what can we do going forward". Disagreements were respectful.
But while I'm on the bafflement-- why would you write that 911 operators have to check "whether the nurse making the call is even medically trained enough to observe and measure symptoms."
Nurses don't have medical training, they are trained in nursing. One core competency of nursing is observing and measuring symptoms (and reporting them). It is not the job of 911 dispatchers to decide whether they are qualified. It is the job of the state board of nursing. (Rules and regulations are enacted and enforced on the state level, btw so even if this were true in FL--which it is not-- it is not generalizable to the US as a whole.) That statement struck me as demeaning to nurses. It bothered me, but I chose not to say anything at the time.
I think you may be getting medicaid and medicare patients confused. Nursing homes are loathe to discharge rehab patients, but if a resident needs to go out, they go out. Doctors are ultimately the ones that make the decision (based on reports of symptoms). Hope this clears things up. I will not post any more comments. I don't care if this is published.
Kat,
I found Fraser's book scathing in the sense that she eviscerated the repressive "needs" talk as it is appropriated by politicians and "experts". For example, when activists for such things as battered women's shelters ended up being cast as "clients" it deprived them of their own agency.
Speaking of being "baffled," I looked and I looked, but could find nothing about 911 operators and nurses in this post. I assume you're referring to something I wrote about a long time ago.
I actually do know the difference between Medicaid (indigent patients) and Medicare (elderly and some permanently disabled patients below age 65). The legislation I write about and frequently advocate for is Medicare for All. I covered health issues for many years as a working journalist and also ran a medical clinic for several years, between jobs at newspapers. I have several friends who are nurses and nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants (the latter two categories are actually allowed to diagnose and prescribe.) This is the very first time I've ever been accused of "demeaning" nurses.
Since I've devoted not inconsiderable time responding to your often nit-picky criticisms and questions (including your latest barb) as respectfully and as forthrightly as possible, your announcement that you will not longer contribute to this blog actually comes as a bit of a relief. I could never quite figure out whether you were sincere or a troll, but always tried to give the benefit of the doubt.
Have a happy life.
P.S.
I remember now where that thing about 911 operators comes from. It was the piece I wrote about the Florida nursing home patients dying of heat stroke and other ailments last year, in the days after the hurricane. Nurses and family members complained that their calls to 911 for help went unheeded. I wrote that this is a fairly common problem which nursing home staffs in the US have generally whenever they try to get emergency help for their patients. The 911 operators are actually required to ascertain the nurses' qualifications, and by doing so often waste time as well as insult the nurses. The whole point is that Medicare and Medicaid bean counters don't want the expense of hospital admissions of nursing home patients, often because readmission back to the home kicks in more monetary benefits for the patients.
How you construed this as an insult to nurses when it was actually advocacy for nurses is not only baffling, it's a mean-spirited attempt to damage my integrity.
Good riddance to you.
Sorry, but I would like to clarify:
I was referring to this statement, the emergency dispatchers have to ascertain, among other things, whether the nurse making the call is even medically trained enough to observe and measure symptoms.
Observing and measuring signs and symptoms is assessment and a nurse has to demonstrate competency in it to obtain a license. The article that you linked to said nothing about dispatchers having to "ascertain whether the nurse is even medically trained enough to observe and measure symptoms".
I just wrote how it "struck" me-- my perception. I don't see how you construed that as a mean spirited attempt to damage your integrity.
I apologize for commenting again. I feel that I must not have been clear in my original comment.
Kat,
I checked that (old) link as well, which had a 911 dispatcher picturing the harried nurse on the other end of the line "rolling her eyes" and thinking he was just out to make her life miserable. I linked to it to illustrate the professional jealousies which sometimes exist among medical people as well as the rampant sexism in this field. He IMPLIED that nurses are incompetent until they can prove otherwise. I never claimed to be quoting the asshole verbatim; by letting him display his annoying attitude in his own words, I proffered it as a possible explanation as to why the Florida nurses were not taken seriously.
This is not a newspaper, it's a blog, and its opinions and interpretations of facts are mine and mine alone.
This will be my last reply to you. The Internet's a huge place and I am sure you can easily find another venue to exercise your nitpicking skills and nurse your grievances.
Post a Comment