Changes

His simple style should not blind us for his razorThe enigmatic [[spectacle]] of a large-scale collective [[suicide]] is always fascinating -sharp political analysis[[recall]] hundreds of Jim [[Jones]]'s cult followers who obediently took poison in their Guyana camp. Focusing on Kansas, At the bedrock level of populist conservative uprising[[economic]] [[life]], Frank aptly describes the basic paradox of its ideological edifice: the gap, the lack of any cognitive link, between economic interests same [[thing]] is going on today in Kansas - and "moral" questions. If there ever was a book that needs to be read by anyone interested in the strange twists of today's conservative politics, it this is ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart topic of America'' by Thomas Frank's new outstanding book.

What happens when the economic class opposition (poor farmers, blueHis simple style should not blind us for his razor-collar workers versus lawyerssharp [[political]] [[analysis]]. Focusing on Kansas, bankers, large companies) is transposed/coded into the opposition bedrock of honest hard-working Christian true Americans versus the decadent liberals who drink latte and drive foreign carspopulist [[conservative]] uprising, advocate abortion and homosexuality, mock patriotic sacrifice and "provincial" simple way of life? The enemy is perceived as the "liberal" who, through federal state interventions (from school-busing to ordering Frank aptly describes the Darwinian evolution and perverse sexual practices to be taught), wants to undermine the authentic American way basic [[paradox]] of life. The main economic interest is therefore to get rid of the strong state which taxes the hard-working population in order to finance its regulatory interventions - [[ideological]] edifice: the minimal economic program is thus "less taxesgap, less regulations"... From the standard perspective [[lack]] of enlightened rational pursuit of self-interestsany cognitive link, the inconsistency of this ideological stance is obvious: the populist conservatives are literally voting themselves into between economic ruininterests and "[[moral]]" questions. Less taxation and deregulation means more freedom for the big companies If there ever was a book that are driving the impoverished farmers out of business; less state intervention means less federal help [[needs]] to small farmers; etc. In be read by anyone interested in the eyes strange twists of the US evangelical populists, the state stands for an alien power and, together with UNtoday's conservative [[politics]], it is an agent of ''What's the Antichrist: it takes away the liberty of the Christian believer, relieving him of the moral responsibility of stewardship, and thus undermines the individualistic morality that makes each of us the architect of our own salvation - how to combine this Matter with the unheard-of explosion the state apparatuses under BushKansas? No wonder large corporations are delighted to accept such evangelical attacks on the state, when the state tries to regulate media mergers, to put strictures on energy companies, to strengthen air pollution regulations, to protect wildlife and limit logging in the national parks, etc. It is the ultimate irony of history that radical individualism serves as How Conservatives Won the ideological justification Heart of the unconstrained power of what the large majority of individuals experience as a vast anonymous power which, without any democratic public control, regulates their livesAmerica'' by Thomas Frank.

As to What happens when the economic [[class]] opposition (poor farmers, blue-collar [[workers]] versus lawyers, bankers, large companies) is transposed/coded into the ideological aspect opposition of their strugglehonest hard-[[working]] [[Christian]] [[true]] Americans versus the decadent [[liberals]] who drink latte and [[drive]] foreign cars, advocate abortion and [[homosexuality]], Frank states mock patriotic sacrifice and "provincial" simple way of life? The [[enemy]] is perceived as the obvious which"[[liberal]]" who, nonethelessthrough federal [[state]] interventions (from [[school]]-busing to ordering the Darwinian evolution and [[perverse]] [[sexual]] practices to be taught), needs wants to be stated: undermine the populists are fighting a war that cannot be wonauthentic American way of life. If Republicans were effectively The main economic interest is therefore to ban abortionget rid of the strong state which taxes the hard-working population in [[order]] to finance its regulatory interventions - the minimal economic program is thus "less taxes, if they were to prohibit less regulations"... From the teaching standard perspective of evolution, if they were to impose federal regulation on Hollywood and mass cultureenlightened [[rational]] pursuit of [[self]]-interests, the [[inconsistency]] of this would mean not only their immediate ideological defeat, but also a large-scale stance is obvious: the populist conservatives are literally voting themselves into economic depression in ruin. Less taxation and deregulation means more [[freedom]] for the big companies that are driving the impoverished farmers out of business; less state [[intervention]] means less federal [[help]] to small farmers; etc. In the eyes of the US. The outcome evangelical populists, the state stands for an [[alien]] [[power]] and, together with UN, is thus a debilitating symbiosisan [[agent]] of the Antichrist: although it takes away the ruling class disagrees with liberty of the Christian believer, relieving him of the populist moral agenda[[responsibility]] of stewardship, it tolerates their "moral war" as a means and thus undermines the individualistic [[morality]] that makes each of us the architect of our own salvation - how to combine this with the unheard-of explosion the state apparatuses under [[Bush]]? No wonder large corporations are delighted to keep accept such evangelical attacks on the state, when the lower classes in checkstate tries to regulate [[media]] mergers, i.e.to put strictures on [[energy]] companies, to enable them strengthen air pollution regulations, to articulate their fury without disturbing their economic interestsprotect wildlife and [[limit]] logging in the national parks, etc. What this means It is the ultimate irony of [[history]] that CULTURE WAR IS CLASS WAR in radical individualism serves as the ideological justification of the unconstrained power of what the large majority of individuals [[experience]] as a displaced mode - so much for those who claim that we leave in a post-class society..vast anonymous power which, without any democratic [[public]] [[control]], regulates their lives.

ThisAs to the ideological aspect of their [[struggle]], Frank states the obvious which, howevernonetheless, makes needs to be stated: the enigma only more impenetrable: how is this displacement possible? "Stupidity" and "ideological manipulation" populists are not an answer; fighting a war that is cannot be won. If Republicans were effectively to sayban abortion, it is clearly not enough if they were to say that that [[prohibit]] the primitive lower classes are brainwashed by the ideological apparatuses so that teaching of evolution, if they are were to impose federal regulation on Hollywood and mass [[culture]], this would mean not able to identify only their true interests. If nothing elseimmediate ideological defeat, one should recall how, decades ago, the same Kansas was the hotbed of progressive populism but also a large-scale economic [[depression]] in the US - and people certainly did not get more stupid in the last decades... It The outcome is also not enough to propose thus a debilitating symbiosis: although the "Laclau solution": there is no "natural" link between a given socio-economic position and [[ruling class]] disagrees with the ideology attached to itpopulist moral agenda, so that it is meaningless to speak of tolerates their "deception" and "false consciousness,moral war" as if there is a standard of "appropriate" ideological awareness inscribed into means to keep the very "objective" socio-lower classes in check, i.e., to enable [[them]] to articulate their fury without disturbing their economic situation; every ideological edifice interests. What this means is the outcome of that CULTURE WAR IS CLASS WAR in a hegemonic fight to establish/impose a chain of equivalences, [[displaced]] mode - so much for those who [[claim]] that we leave in a fight whose outcome is thoroughly contingent, not guaranteed by any external reference like "objective sociopost-economic positionclass [[society]]..."

The first thing to note here This, however, makes the enigma only more impenetrable: how is this [[displacement]] possible? "Stupidity" and "ideological manipulation" are not an answer; that is to say, it takes two is clearly not enough to fight a culture war: culture is also say that that the [[primitive]] lower classes are brainwashed by the dominant ideological topic of the "enlightened" liberals whose politics is focused on the fight against sexismapparatuses so that they are not able to [[identify]] their true interests. If [[nothing]] else, racismone should recall how, and fundamentalismdecades ago, the same Kansas was the hotbed of progressive [[populism]] in the US - and for multicultural tolerance[[people]] certainly did not get more stupid in the last decades... The key question It is thusalso not enough to propose the "[[Laclau]] solution": why there is no "culture[[natural]]" emerging as our central lifelink between a given socio-world category? We no longer economic [[position]] and the [[ideology]] attached to it, so that it is meaningless to [[speak]] of "[[deception]]" and "really believe[[false]] [[consciousness]]," we just follow (some of the) religious rituals and mores as part if there is a standard of the respect for the "life-styleappropriate" of ideological [[awareness]] inscribed into the community to which we belong (non-believing Jews obeying kosher rules very "out of respect for tradition,[[objective]]" etc.). "I do not really believe in it, it socio-economic [[situation]]; every ideological edifice is just part the outcome of my culture" effectively seems a hegemonic fight to be the predominant mode of the disavowedestablish/displaced belief characteristic impose a [[chain]] of our times: although we do not believe in Santa Claus[[equivalences]], there is a Christmas tree in every house and even in public places every December - "culture" fight whose outcome is the name for all those things we practice without really believing in themthoroughly [[contingent]], without not guaranteed by any [[external]] reference like "taking them seriouslyobjective socio-economic position."

The second first thing to note here is how, while professing their solidarity with the poor, liberals encode that it takes two to fight a culture war with an opposed class message: more often than not, their fight for multicultural tolerance and women's rights marks culture is also the counter-position to the alleged intolerance, fundamentalism, and patriarchal sexism dominant ideological topic of the "lower classes.enlightened" The way to unravel this confusion liberals whose politics is to focus focused on the mediating terms the function of which is to obfuscate the true lines of divisionfight against sexism, [[racism]], and [[fundamentalism]], and for multicultural [[tolerance]]. The way "modernization" key question is used in the recent ideological offensive is exemplary herethus: first, an abstract opposition why is constructed between "modernizersculture" (those who endorse global capitalism in all its aspectsemerging as our central life-[[world]] [[category]]? We no longer "really believe, from economic to cultural) and "traditionalists" we just follow (those who resist globalization). Into this category some of those-who-resist are then thrown all, from the traditional conservatives ) [[religious]] [[rituals]] and populist Right to the "Old Left" (those who continue to advocate Welfare state, trade unions...). This categorization obviously does comprise an aspect mores as part of social reality - recall the coalition of Church and trade unions which, in Germany in early 2003, prevented respect for the legalization of stores being open also on Sunday. However, it is not enough to say that this "cultural differencelife-style" traverses of the entire social field, cutting across different strata and classes; it is not enough [[community]] to say that this opposition can be combined in different ways with other oppositions which we belong (so that we can have conservative non-believing [[Jews]] obeying kosher rules "traditional values" resistance to global capitalist "modernizationout of respect for [[tradition]]," or moral conservatives who fully endorse capitalist globalizationetc.). The failure of "modernization" to function as the key to social totality means that I do not really believe in it, it is an "abstract" universal notion, and the wager just part of Marxism is that there is one antagonism (my culture"class struggle") which overdetermines all others and thus serves as effectively seems to be the "concrete universal" predominant mode of the entire field. Feminist struggle can be articulated into a chain with the struggle for social emancipation disavowed/displaced [[belief]] characteristic of the lower classesour [[times]]: although we do not believe in Santa Claus, or it can (there is a Christmas tree in every house and it certainly does) function as an ideological tool of the uppereven in public places every December -middle classes to assert their superiority over the "patriarchal and intolerant" lower classes; and class antagonism is as it were "doubly inscribedculture" here: it is the specific constellation of the class struggle itself which explains why the feminist struggle was appropriated by upper classes. (The same goes [[name]] for racism: it is the dynamics of class struggle itself which explains why direct racism is strong among the lowest white workersall those things we [[practice]] without really believing in them, without "taking them seriously.)"

The third second thing to take note of is how, while professing their [[solidarity]] with the fundamental difference between feminist/anti-racist/anti-sexist etc. struggle and poor, liberals encode culture war with an opposed class struggle[[message]]: in more often than not, their fight for multicultural tolerance and [[women]]'s rights marks the counter-position to the first casealleged [[intolerance]], fundamentalism, and patriarchal sexism of the goal "lower classes." The way to unravel this confusion is to translate antagonism into difference ("peaceful" coexistence focus on the mediating [[terms]] the function of sexes, religions, ethnic groups), while which is to obfuscate the goal true lines of [[division]]. The way "[[modernization]]" is used in the class struggle [[recent]] ideological offensive is precisely the oppositeexemplary here: first, i.e.an abstract opposition is constructed between "modernizers" (those who endorse [[global]] [[capitalism]] in all its aspects, from economic to [[cultural]]) and "aggravatetraditionalists" class difference into class antagonism(those who resist [[globalization]]). So what the series raceInto this category of those-genderwho-class obfuscates is resist are then thrown all, from the different logic of traditional conservatives and populist [[Right]] to the political space in the case "Old [[Left]]" (those who continue to advocate [[Welfare]] state, trade unions...). This categorization obviously does comprise an aspect of class: while the anti[[social]] [[reality]] -racist and anti-sexist struggle are guided by the striving for recall the full recognition coalition of the other, the class struggle aims at overcoming [[Church]] and subduingtrade unions which, annihilating evenin [[Germany]] in early 2003, prevented the other - even if not a direct physical annihilation, class struggle aims at the annihilation legalization of the other's socio-political role and functionstores [[being]] open also on Sunday. In other wordsHowever, while it is logical not enough to say that anti-racism wants all races to be allowed to freely assert and deploy their this "cultural[[difference]]" traverses the entire social field, political cutting across different strata and economic strivings, classes; it is obviously meaningless not enough to say that the aim this opposition can be combined in different ways with [[other]] oppositions (so that we can have conservative "traditional values" [[resistance]] to global [[capitalist]] "modernization," or moral conservatives who fully endorse capitalist globalization). The failure of the proletarian class struggle is "modernization" to allow function as the bourgeoisie key to fully assert its identity social [[totality]] means that it is an "abstract" [[universal]] [[notion]], and strivings... In the wager of [[Marxism]] is that there is one case, we have a [[antagonism]] ("[[class struggle]]") which overdetermines all [[others]] and thus serves as the "horizontal[[concrete]] universal" logic of the recognition entire field. [[Feminist]] struggle can be articulated into a chain with the struggle for social emancipation of different identitiesthe lower classes, while, in or it can (and it certainly does) function as an ideological tool of the upper-middle classes to assert their superiority over the other case, we have "patriarchal and intolerant" lower classes; and class antagonism is as it were "doubly inscribed" here: it is the logic specific constellation of the class struggle itself which explains why the feminist struggle was appropriated by upper classes. (The same goes for racism: it is the dynamics of class struggle with an antagonistitself which explains why direct racism is strong among the lowest white workers.)

The paradox here [[third]] thing to take note of is that it the fundamental difference between feminist/anti-racist/anti-sexist etc. struggle and class struggle: in the first [[case]], the [[goal]] is the populist fundamentalism which retains this logic to translate antagonism into difference ("peaceful" coexistence of antagonism[[sexes]], [[religions]], ethnic groups), while the liberal Left follows goal of the class struggle is precisely the logic of recognition of differencesopposite, i.e., of to "defusingaggravate" antagonisms class difference into co-existing differences: in their very form, class antagonism. So what the conservativeseries [[race]]-populist grass[[gender]]-roots campaigns took over class obfuscates is the old Leftist-radical stance different [[logic]] of the popular mobilization and struggle against upper-class exploitation. This unexpected reversal is just one political [[space]] in a long series. In today's US, the traditional roles case of Democrats class: while the anti-racist and Republicans anti-sexist struggle are almost inverted: Republicans spend state money, thus generating record budget deficit, de facto build a strong federal stateguided by the striving for the [[full]] [[recognition]] of the [[other, the]] class struggle aims at overcoming and pursue a politics of global interventionismsubduing, while Democrats pursue a tough fiscal politics that, under Clintonannihilating even, abolished budget deficit. Even in the touchy sphere of socioother -economic politicseven if not a direct [[physical]] annihilation, Democrats (class struggle aims at the same as with Blair in the UK) as a rule accomplish the neoliberal agenda annihilation of abolishing the Welfare Stateother's socio-political [[role]] and function. In other [[words]], lowering taxeswhile it is [[logical]] to say that [[anti-racism]] wants all races to be allowed to freely assert and deploy their cultural, privatizingpolitical and economic strivings, etc., while Bush proposed a radical measure of legalizing it is obviously meaningless to say that the status aim of the millions of illegal Mexican workers and made healthcare much more accessible proletarian class struggle is to allow the retired[[bourgeoisie]] to fully assert its [[identity]] and strivings... The extreme In one case is here that , we have a "horizontal" logic of the survivalist groups recognition of different identities, while, in the West other case, we have the logic of the US: although their ideological message is that of religious racism, their entire mode of organization (small illegal groups fighting FBI and other federal agencies) makes them struggle with an uncanny double of the Black Panthers from the 1960santagonist.

We should thus not only refuse The paradox here is that it is the populist fundamentalism which retains this logic of antagonism, while the easy liberal contempt for Left follows the populist fundamentalists (or, even worselogic of recognition of differences, the patronizing regret of how "manipulateddefusing" they are); we should reject [[antagonisms]] into co-existing differences: in their very [[form]], the conservative-populist grass-roots campaigns took over the very terms old [[Leftist]]-radical stance of the culture warpopular mobilization and struggle against upper-class exploitation. AlthoughThis unexpected [[reversal]] is just one in a long series. In today's US, the traditional roles of course[[Democrats]] and Republicans are almost inverted: Republicans spend state [[money]], as to the positive content of most of the debated issuesthus generating record budget deficit, de facto build a radical Leftist should support the liberal stance (for abortionstrong federal state, against racism and homophobia...)pursue a politics of global interventionism, one should never forget while Democrats pursue a tough fiscal politics that it is , under [[Clinton]], abolished budget deficit. Even in the populist fundamentalisttouchy sphere of socio-economic politics, not Democrats (the same as with Blair in the liberalUK) as a rule accomplish the neoliberal agenda of abolishing the Welfare State, who islowering taxes, in the long termprivatizing, our allyetc. In all their anger, while Bush proposed a radical measure of legalizing the populists are not angry enough - not radical enough status of the millions of illegal Mexican workers and made healthcare much more accessible to perceive the link between capitalism retired. The extreme case is here that of the survivalist groups in the West of the US: although their ideological message is that of religious racism, their entire mode of organization (small illegal groups fighting FBI and other federal [[agencies]]) makes them an [[uncanny]] [[double]] of the Black Panthers from the moral decay they deplore1960s. Recall Robert Bork's infamous lament about our "slouching towards Gomorrah":

The entertainment industry is We should thus not forcing depravity on an unwilling American public. The demand only refuse the easy liberal contempt for decadence is therethe populist fundamentalists (or, even worse, the patronizing regret of how "manipulated" they are); we should reject the very terms of the culture war. That fact does not excuse those who sell such degraded material any more than Although, of course, as to the positive [[content]] of most of the debated issues, a radical Leftist should support the demand liberal stance (for crack excuses the crack dealerabortion, against racism and [[homophobia]]... But we must be reminded ), one should never forget that it is the fault populist fundamentalist, not the liberal, who is , in ourselvesthe long term, in human nature our ally. In all their anger, the populists are not angry enough - not constrained by external forcesradical enough to perceive the link between capitalism and the moral decay they deplore.Recall [[Robert Bork]]'s infamous lament [[about]] our "slouching towards Gomorrah":

In what, exactly, The entertainment industry is not forcing depravity on an unwilling American public. The [[demand]] for decadence is then this there. That fact does not excuse those who sell such degraded [[material]] any more than the demand grounded? Here Bork performs his ideological short-circuit: instead of pointing towards for crack excuses the logic of capitalism itself which, in order to sustain its expanding reproduction, has to create new and new demands, and thus admitting crack dealer. But we must be reminded that, the fault is in fighting consumerist "decadenceourselves," he is fighting a tendency which insists in the very core of capitalism, he directly refers to "[[human ]] [[nature" which, led to itself, ends up in wanting depravity, and is thus in a need for constant control and censorship: "The idea that men are naturally rational, moral creatures without the need for strong ]] not constrained by external restraints has been exploded by experience. There is an eager and growing market for depravity, and profitable industries devoted to supplying itforces."

Such a viewIn what, howeverexactly, presents a difficulty for is then this demand grounded? Here Bork performs his ideological short-circuit: instead of pointing towards the Cold Wariors' "moral" crusade against Communismlogic of capitalism itself which, since the Eastern European Communist regimes were overthrown the three great antagonists of conservatism: the youth culturein order to sustain its expanding reproduction, the intellectuals of the '60s generationhas to create new and new [[demands]], and the workers who continued to believe thus admitting that, in solidarity against individualism. This feature returns to haunt Bork: at fighting consumerist "decadence," he is fighting a conferencetendency which insists in the very core of capitalism, he directly refers to "referredhuman nature" which, not approvinglyled to itself, ends up in wanting depravity, to Michael Jackson's crotch-clutching performance at the Super Bowl. Another panelist tartly informed me and is thus in a [[need]] for constant control and [[censorship]]: "The [[idea]] that it was precisely men are [[naturally]] rational, moral [[creatures]] without the desire to enjoy such manifestations of American culture that had brought down the Berlin wallneed for strong external restraints has been exploded by experience. That seems as good There is an argument as any eager and growing [[market]] for putting the wall back up againdepravity, and profitable industries devoted to supplying it." Although Bork is aware of the irony of the situation, he obviously misses its deeper aspect.

Such a view, however, presents a difficulty for the Cold Wariors' "moral" crusade against [[Communism]], since the Eastern European [[Communist]] regimes were overthrown the [[three]] great antagonists of conservatism: the youth culture, the intellectuals of the '60s generation, and the workers who continued to believe in solidarity against individualism. This feature returns to haunt Bork: at a conference, he "referred, not approvingly, to Michael Jackson's crotch-clutching performance at the Super Bowl. [[Another]] panelist tartly informed me that it was precisely the [[desire]] to [[enjoy]] such manifestations of American culture that had brought down the Berlin wall. That seems as [[good]] an argument as any for putting the wall back up again." Although Bork is aware of the irony of the situation, he obviously misses its deeper aspect. Recall Jacques [[Lacan]]'s definition of successful [[communication]]: I get back from the other my own message in its inverted (true) form - is this not what is happening to today's liberals? Are they not getting back from the conservative populists their own message in its inverted/true form? In other words, are conservative populists not the [[symptom ]] of tolerant enlightened liberals? Is the scary and ridiculous Kansas redneck who explodes in fury against liberal corruption not the very [[figure ]] in the guise of which the liberal encounters the [[truth ]] of his own [[hypocrisy]]? We should thus (to refer to the most popular song about Kansas, from The Wizard of Oz) reach over the rainbow - over the "rainbow coalition" of the single-issue struggles, favored by radical liberals - and dare to look for an ally in what appears as the ultimate enemy of tolerant [[liberalism]].

* [[Somewhere Over the Rainbow]]. ''Melbourne School of Continental [[Philosophy]]''. September 17, 2005. <http://mscp.org.au/>. Also listed at ''[[Lacan.com]]''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizeksomewhere.htm>.