My comments on the paradoxes of US populist conservatism were made just before the US election. The result, it seems to me, poses the basic paradox of democracy itself. In The History of the VKP, Stalin (who ghost-wrote the book) describes the outcome of the voting at a party congress in the late 1920s: "With a large majority, the delegates unanimously approved the resolution proposed by the Central Committee." If the vote was unanimous, where then did the minority disappear? Far from demonstrating some perverse totalitarian twist, this anecdote lays bare the nature of democracy. It is based on a short-circuit between majority and the totality: the majority accounts for everyone and the winner takes all, even if his majority is merely a couple of hundred votes among millions.{{BSZ}}
"Democracy" is not merely My comments on the "power paradoxes ofUS populist conservatism were made just before the US election. The result, by and for the people"; it is not seems to me, poses the salient feature basic [[paradox]] of [[democracy that ]] itself. In The [[History]] of the will and interests VKP, [[Stalin]] (who [[ghost]]-wrote the two do not automatically coincidebook) describes the outcome of the large majority determine state decisions. Democracy - voting at a party congress in the way the term is used today - means that, whatever electoral manipulation takes place, every political agent will unconditionally respect the results. In this sense, the US presidential elections of 2000 were, despite appearances, effectively 'democratic'late 1920s: in spite of obvious electoral manipulation"With a large majority, and of the absurdity of delegates unanimously approved the fact that a couple of hundred votes in Florida decided who would be president, [[resolution]] proposed by the Democratic candidate accepted his defeatCentral Committee. When, in the weeks of uncertainty after the election, Bill Clinton said, "The American people have spoken; we just don't know what they said," If the remark should have been taken more seriously than it vote was meant: even nowunanimous, we don't know where then did the 'true' result - and maybe minority [[disappear]]? Far from demonstrating some [[perverse]] totalitarian twist, this is because there was no substantial "message" behind anecdote lays bare the result[[nature]] of democracy. Those old enough to recall the attempts of "democratic socialists" to oppose to the miseries of "reallyIt is based on a short-existing socialism" a vision of authentic socialism will know that such attempts deserve circuit between majority and the standard Hegelian response[[totality]]: the failure of reality to live up to its notion bears witness to majority accounts for everyone and the inherent weakness winner takes all, even if his majority is merely a couple of the notionhundred votes among millions. Why should the same not hold for democracy? Isn't it all too simple to oppose to "really-existing" liberal capitalo-democracy a more true 'radical' democracy?
This "Democracy" is not to saymerely the "[[power]] of, by and for the [[people]]"; it is not the salient feature of democracy that the will and interests (the two do not automatically coincide) of the large majority determine [[state]] decisions. Democracy - in the way the term is used today - means that, howeverwhatever electoral manipulation takes [[place]], that Bush's victory was just an accident or a mistakeevery [[political]] [[agent]] will unconditionally respect the results. In this [[sense]], the result US presidential elections of 2000 were, despite appearances, effectively 'democratic': in spite of fraud obvious electoral manipulation, and manipulation. Hegel wrote apropos of Napoleon the absurdity of the fact that it was only after a couple of hundred votes in Florida decided who would be president, the Democratic candidate accepted his second defeat. When, in the weeks of uncertainty after the election, at WaterlooBill [[Clinton]] said, that "The American people have spoken; we just don't [[know]] what they said," the remark should have been taken more seriously than it became clear was meant: even now, we don't know the '[[true]]' result - and maybe this is because there was no substantial "[[message]]" behind the result. Those old enough to him [[recall]] the attempts of "democratic socialists" to oppose to the miseries of "really-existing [[socialism]]" a [[vision]] of authentic socialism will know that his defeat was such attempts deserve the standard [[Hegelian]] response: the failure of [[reality]] to live up to its [[notion]] bears [[witness]] to the expression inherent weakness of a deeper historical shiftthe notion. The Why should the same goes not hold for Bush: he had democracy? Isn't it all too simple to win twice in order for liberals oppose to perceive that we are entering "really-existing" [[liberal]] capitalo-democracy a new era.more true 'radical' democracy?
AndThis is not to say, in this respecthowever, thinking leftists should be glad that [[Bush won. It]]'s better this way because victory was just an accident or a mistake, the contours result of the confrontations to come will be drawn in a much clearer wayfraud and manipulation. Had Kerry won[[Hegel]] wrote apropos of Napoleon that it was only after his second defeat, at Waterloo, that it would have been a historical anomaly, blurring became clear to him that his defeat was the true lines expression of division; he didn't have a global vision that presented a viable alternative to Bush'sdeeper historical shift. Besides, The same goes for Bush's victory is paradoxically better for the economic prospects of both Europe and Latin America: he had to win twice in [[order ]] for [[liberals]] to win the support of the trade unions, Kerry had promised more protectionist measuresperceive that we are entering a new era.
HoweverAnd, in this respect, [[thinking]] leftists should be glad that Bush won. It's better this way because the main advantage has contours of the confrontations to do with international politicscome will be drawn in a much clearer way. If Had [[Kerry had ]] won, liberals it would have had to face up to been a historical anomaly, blurring the consequences true lines of the Iraq war, and the Bush camp would [[division]]; he didn't have been able a [[global]] vision that presented a viable alternative to ascribe to them the results of its own catastrophic decisionsBush's. In 1979Besides, in her essay "Dictators and Double Standards", Jeanne Kirkpatrick elaborated the distinction between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" regimes which served as the justification Bush's victory is paradoxically better for the US policy [[economic]] prospects of collaborating with rightist dictators while attempting to destabilise Communist regimesboth [[Europe]] and [[Latin]] America: authoritarian dictators are pragmatic rulers who care about their power and wealth and are indifferent to ideological issues, even if they pay lip service to some big idea. In contrast, totalitarian leaders are selfless ideological fanatics who are ready to put everything at stake for their ideals. Authoritarian rulers react rationally and predictably to material and military threats - they can be dealt with. Totalitarian leaders are much more dangerous and have in order to be confronted directly. The irony is that this distinction perfectly encapsulates what went wrong with win the US occupation support of Iraq: Saddam was a corrupt authoritarian dictator guided by brutal pragmatic considerations. The US intervention has generated a much the trade unions, Kerry had promised more uncompromising, "fundamentalist" opposition which rejects pragmatic compromisesprotectionist measures.
However, the main advantage has to do with international [[politics]]. If Kerry had won, liberals would have had to face up to the consequences of the [[Iraq]] war, and the Bush's victory will dispel any illusions there may camp would have been about able to ascribe to [[them]] the solidarity results of interests among developed countries; it will also give new impetus to its own catastrophic decisions. In 1979, in her essay "Dictators and [[Double]] Standards", Jeanne Kirkpatrick elaborated the painful but necessary process of building new alliances such [[distinction]] between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" regimes which served as the European Union or Mercosur in Latin Americajustification for the US policy of collaborating with rightist dictators while attempting to destabilise [[Communist]] regimes: authoritarian dictators are pragmatic rulers who care [[about]] their power and wealth and are indifferent to [[ideological]] issues, even if they pay lip service to some big [[idea]]. It is a journalistic cliché In contrast, totalitarian leaders are selfless ideological fanatics who are ready to praise 'postmodern', dynamic US capitalism put everything at stake for their ideals. Authoritarian rulers react rationally and predictably to [[material]] and military [[threats]] - they can be dealt with. Totalitarian leaders are much more dangerous and have to be confronted directly. The irony is that this distinction perfectly encapsulates what went wrong with the expense US occupation of old Europe's regulatory illusionsIraq: [[Saddam]] was a corrupt authoritarian dictator guided by brutal pragmatic considerations. However, Europe is now going much further than the The US towards constituting itself as [[intervention]] has generated a properly much more uncompromising, "postmodernfundamentalist" unity in opposition which there is room for everyone, independent of geography or culture, including Cyprus and Turkeyrejects pragmatic compromises.
No reason Bush's victory will dispel any illusions there may have been about the [[solidarity]] of interests among developed countries; it will also give new impetus to the painful but necessary [[process]] of building new alliances such as the [[European Union]] or Mercosur in Latin America. It is a journalistic cliché to despairpraise '[[postmodern]]', then[[dynamic]] US [[capitalism]] at the expense of [[old Europe]]'s regulatory illusions. Even if today However, Europe is now going much further than the prospects look darkUS towards constituting itself as a properly "postmodern" [[unity]] in which there is room for everyone, we should remember one independent of the great Bushisms: "The future will be better tomorrow[[geography]] or [[culture]], including Cyprus and [[Turkey]]."
No [[reason]] to despair, then. Even if today the prospects look dark, we should [[remember]] one of the great Bushisms: "The [[future]] will be better tomorrow." ==See Also==* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]] ==Source==* [[Hooray for Bush!]] ''[[London]] Review of Books''. December 2, 2004. <http://www.lacan.com/zizhooray.htm> [[Category:]][[Category:]][[Category:]][[Category:]][[Category:]][[Category:]] [[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Works]][[Category:Articles]]
