(Or, finally some good news from Washington!){{BSZ}}
<p>The first reaction of progressives to Bush’s second victory was that of despair==(Or, even fear: The last four years were not just a bad dream. The nightmarish coalition of big business and fundamentalist populism will roll on, as Bush pursues his agenda with new gusto, nominating conservative judges to the Supreme Court, invading the next country after Iraq, and pushing liberalism in the United States one step closer to extinction. However, this emotional reaction is precisely what we should resist—it only bears witness to the extent liberals have succeeded in imposing their worldview upon us. If we keep a cool head and calmly analyze the results, the 2004 election appears in a totally different light.</p>finally some good news from Washington!)==
<p> Many Europeans wonder how The first reaction of progressives to [[Bush could have won]]’s second victory was that of despair, even [[fear]]: The last four years were not just a bad [[dream]]. The nightmarish coalition of big [[business]] and [[fundamentalist]] [[populism]] will roll on, as [[Bush]] pursues his agenda with new gusto, nominating [[conservative]] judges to the [[Supreme Court]], invading the intellectual next country after [[Iraq]], and pop-cultural elite against him. They must now finally confront pushing [[liberalism]] in the underrated mobilizing power of American Christian fundamentalism[[United States]] one step closer to extinction. Because of its self-evident imbecility However, this emotional reaction is precisely what we should resist — it is only bears [[witness]] to the extent [[liberals]] have succeeded in imposing their worldview upon us. If we keep a much more paradoxicalcool head and calmly analyze the results, properly postmodern phenomenon than it the 2004 election appearsin a totally different light.</p>
<p>Take Many [[Europe]]ans wonder how [[Bush]] could have won, with the literary bestsellers of U.S. Christian fundamentalism, Tim F. LaHaye [[intellectual]] and Jerry Bpop-[[cultural]] [[elite]] against him. Jenkins’s “Left Behind” series of 12 novels on They must now finally confront the upcoming end underrated mobilizing [[power]] of the world that have sold more than 60 million copiesAmerican [[Christian fundamentalism]]. The Left Behind story begins with the sudden, inexplicable disappearance of millions of people—the saved souls whom God calls to himself in order to spare them the horrors Because of Armageddon. The Antiits [[self]]-Christ then appearsevident imbecility, it is a youngmuch more [[paradox]]ical, slick and charismatic Romanian politician named Nicolae Carpathia, who, after being elected general secretary of the United Nations, moves U.N. headquarters to Babylon where he imposes an anti-American world government that disarms all nation-states. This ridiculous plot unfolds until the final battle when all non-Christians—Jews, Muslims, et al—are consumed in a cataclysmic fire. Imagine the outcry in the Western liberal media if a similar story written from the Muslim standpoint had become a bestseller in the Arab countries! It is not the poverty and primitivism of these novels that is breathtaking, but rather the strange overlap between the “serious” religious message and the trashiest conventions of pop culture commercialismproperly [[postmodern]] phenomenon than it appears.</p>
<p> My next reflection concerns Take the basic paradox [[literary]] bestsellers of democracy as revealed in <i>The History [[U.S.]] [[Christian fundamentalism]], Tim F. LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins’s “[[Left Behind]]” series of 12 novels on the upcoming end of the VKP(b)</i>—the Stalinist bible[[world]] that have sold more than 60 million copies. Stalin (who ghost-wrote The [[Left]] Behind story begins with the book) describes sudden, inexplicable [[disappearance]] of millions of [[people]] — the vote at a party congress saved souls whom [[God]] calls to himself in [[order]] to spare [[them]] the late ’20s: “With horrors of [[Armageddon]]. The [[Anti-Christ]] then appears, a large majorityyoung, slick and charismatic Romanian politician named Nicolae Carpathia, who, after [[being]] elected general secretary of the delegates unanimously approved [[United Nations]], moves U.N. headquarters to Babylon where he imposes an anti-American world [[government]] that disarms all [[nation-state]]s. This ridiculous plot unfolds until the resolution proposed by the Central Committeefinal battle when all non-[[Christians]] — [[Jews]], [[Muslim]]s, et al — are consumed in a cataclysmic fire.” If Imagine the vote was unanimous, where then did outcry in the minority disappear? Far [[West]]ern [[liberal]] [[media]] if a similar story written from betraying some perverse “totalitarian” twist, this paradox the [[Muslim]] standpoint had become a bestseller in the Arab countries! It is built into not the very structure poverty and primitivism of democracy. Democracy these novels that is based on a short-circuit breathtaking, but rather the strange overlap between the majority “serious” [[religion|religious]] [[message]] and the “All.” In it, the winner takes all and the majority counts as All, obtaining all the power, even if this majority is merely a couple hundred votes among millionstrashiest conventions of pop [[culture]] commercialism.</p>
My next [[reflection]] concerns the basic [[paradox]] of [[democracy]] as revealed in <pi>“Democracy” is not merely The [[History]] of the VKP(b)</i> — the [[Stalinism|Stalinist]] bible. [[Stalin]] (who [[ghost]]-wrote the book) describes the vote at a party congress in the “power oflate ’20s: “With a large majority, the delegates unanimously approved the [[resolution]] proposed by and for the peopleCentral Committee.” It is not enough to claim that in a democracy If the majority’s will and interests (vote was unanimous, where then did the two do not automatically coincide) determine state decisions. Todayminority [[disappear]]? Far from betraying some [[perverse]] “[[totalitarian]]” twist, this [[paradox]] is built into the very [[structure]] of [[democracy ]]. [[Democracy]] is above all about formal legalism—the unconditional adherence to based on a set of formal rules that guarantee society’s antagonisms are fully absorbed into [[short-circuit]] between the political arena. “Democracy” means that whatever electoral manipulation takes place all politicians will unconditionally respect majority and the results“[[All]]. ” In this senseit, the 2000 U.S. presidential election was effectively “democratic”: In spite of obvious electoral manipulations winner takes all and the patent meaninglessness of the fact that several hundred votes in Florida decided who would be president of the entire nationmajority counts as [[All]], obtaining all the Democratic candidate accepted his defeat. In the weeks of uncertainty after the election[[power]], Bill Clinton made an appropriate acerbic comment: “The American people have spoken; we just don’t know what they said.” This comment should be taken more seriously than it was meant. To even if this day, we still don’t know what they said—perhaps because there was no “message” behind the result at allmajority is merely a couple hundred votes among millions.</p>
<p>Those old enough still remember “[[Democracy]]” is not merely the boring attempts “power of “democratic socialists” , by and for the people.” It is not enough to oppose [[claim]] that in a democracy the majority’s will and interests (the miserable “really-existing socialism” by holding up two do not automatically coincide) determine state decisions. Today, democracy is above all [[about]] [[formal legalism]] — the vision unconditional adherence to a set of authentic socialism[[formal]] [[rules]] that [[guarantee]] society’s [[antagonism]]s are fully absorbed into the [[political]] arena. “Democracy” means that whatever electoral manipulation takes [[place]] all politicians will unconditionally respect the results. To such attempts In this [[sense]], the standard Hegelian answer provides 2000 U.S. presidential election was effectively “democratic”: In spite of obvious electoral manipulations and the sufficient response: The failure patent meaninglessness of reality to live up to its notion bears witness to the inherent weakness fact that several hundred votes in Florida decided who would be president of the notion itselfentire [[nation]], the Democratic candidate accepted his defeat. Why shouldn’t In the same hold for democracy? Isn’t weeks of uncertainty after the election, [[Bill Clinton]] made an appropriate acerbic comment: “The American people have spoken; we just don’t [[know]] what they said.” This comment should be taken more seriously than it too simple to oppose was meant. To this day, we still don’t know what they said—perhaps because there was no “message” behind the “really-existing” liberal capitalist-democracy to a more true radical democracy?</p>result at all.
<p>This is not Those old enough still [[remember]] the boring attempts of “[[democratic socialism|democratic socialists]]” to imply that Bush’s victory was an accidental mistakeoppose the miserable “[[really-existing socialism]]” by holding up the vision of authentic [[socialism]]. To such attempts, a result the standard [[Hegelianism|Hegelian]] answer provides the sufficient response: The failure of fraud or manipulation. Hegel wrote apropos Napoleon that he had [[reality]] to live up to lose two times: Only after Waterloo did it become clear its [[notion]] bears witness to him that his defeat was not a military accident but the expression inherent [[weakness]] of a deeper historical shiftthe notion itself. The Why shouldn’t the same goes hold for Bush: He had [[democracy]]? Isn’t it too simple to win two times in order for liberals oppose the “really-existing” [[liberal capitalist]]-[[democracy]] to perceive that we are all entering a new era.</p>more [[true]] radical democracy?
<p>On September 11This is not to imply that [[Bush]]’s victory was an accidental mistake, 2001, the Twin Towers were hita result of fraud or manipulation. Twelve years earlier, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. November 9 announced the “happy ‘90s,” the Francis Fukuyama dream of the “end of history,” the belief [[Hegel]] wrote apropos [[Napoleon]] that liberal democracy he had, in principle, won, and that the only obstacles to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending were merely local pockets of resistance where the leaders lose two [[times]]: Only after Waterloo did not yet grasp it become clear to him that their time his defeat was over. In contrast, 9/11 symbolizes not a military accident but the end expression of the Clintonite happy ‘90s, heralding an a deeper historical shift. The same goes for Bush: He had to win two times in order for [[liberals]] to perceive that we are all entering a new era of new walls—between Israel and the West Bank, around the European Union, on the U.S.-Mexico border. </p>
<p>In their recent <i>The War Over Iraq</i>On [[September 11, 2001]], William Kristol and Lawrence Fthe Twin Towers were hit. Kaplan wrote Twelve years earlier, on November 9, “The mission begins in Baghdad1989, but it does not end there … We stand at the cusp of a new historical era … This is a decisive moment … It is so clearly about more than Iraq[[Berlin Wall]] fell. It is about more even than November 9 announced the future “happy ‘90s,” the [[Francis Fukuyama]] [[dream]] of the Middle East and the war on terror. It is about what sort “[[end of role history]],” the United States intends to play [[belief]] that [[liberal democracy]] had, in [[principle]], won, and that the twentyonly obstacles to this ultra-first centuryHollywood happy ending were merely local pockets of [[resistance]] where the [[leader]]s did not yet grasp that their [[time]] was over.” One cannot but agree with them. It is effectively In contrast, [[9/11]] symbolizes the future end of the international community that is at stake now—the [[Clinton]]ite happy ‘90s, heralding an era of new rules that will regulate itwalls — between [[Israel]] and the [[Palestine|West Bank]], around the [[European Union]], what on the new world order will be[[U.S.]]-[[Mexico]] border.</p>
In their [[recent]] <i>The War Over Iraq<p/i>A new vision of the New World Order is thus emerging as the effective framework of recent U, William Kristol and Lawrence F.S. politics: After September 11Kaplan wrote, America basically wrote off the rest of the world as a reliable partner. The ultimate goal was no longer the Fukuyama utopia of expanding universal liberal democracy“The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there … We stand at the transformation cusp of the United States into “Fortress America,” a lone superpower isolated from the rest of the world, protecting its vital economic interests and securing its safety through its new military powerhistorical era … This is a decisive [[moment]] … It is so clearly about more than Iraq. This new military not only includes forces for rapid deployment anywhere on the globe, but also It is about more even than the development [[future]] of space weapons that enable the Pentagon to control [[Middle East]] and the global surface from abovewar on [[terror]]. This strategy throws a new light on the recent conflicts between the United States and Europe: It is not Europe that is “betraying” about what sort of [[role]] the United States. The United States no longer needs intends to rely on its exclusive partnership with Europeplay in the twenty-first century. In short, Bush’s America pretends to be a new global empire ” One cannot but it is not. Rather, it remains a nation-state ruthlessly pursuing its interestsagree with them. It is as if U.S. politics effectively the future of the international [[community]] that is at stake now being guided by a weird reversal of — the ecologists’ well-known motto: Act globallynew [[rules]] that will regulate it, think locallywhat the [[new world order]] will be.</p>
<p>Within these coordinates, every progressive who <i>thinks</i> should be glad for Bush’s victory. It A new vision of the [[New World Order]] is good for thus emerging as the entire world because effective framework of recent U.S. [[politics]]: After [[September 11]], America basically wrote off the contours rest of the confrontations to come will now be drawn in world as a much starker wayreliable partner. A Kerry victory would have been The ultimate [[goal]] was no longer the [[Fukuyama]] [[utopia]] of expanding [[universal]] [[liberal democracy]], but the transformation of the [[United States]] into “Fortress America,” a kind lone superpower isolated from the rest of historical anomalythe world, blurring protecting its vital [[economic]] interests and securing its safety through its new military power. This new military not only includes forces for rapid deployment anywhere on the globe, but also the true lines [[development]] of division[[space]] weapons that enable the Pentagon to [[control]] the global surface from above. After all This strategy throws a new light on the recent conflicts between the [[United States]] and [[Europe]]: It is not [[Europe]] that is “betraying” the [[United States]]. The United States no longer [[needs]] to rely on its exclusive partnership with Europe. In short, Kerry did not have [[Bush]]’s America pretends to be a new global vision that would present [[empire]] but it is not. Rather, it remains a feasible alternative to Bush’s [[nation-state]] ruthlessly pursuing its interests. It is as if U.S. politics. Further, Bush’s victory is paradoxically better for both now being guided by a weird [[reversal]] of the European and Latin American economies[[ecology|ecologists]]’ well-known motto: In order to get trade union backing[[Act globally, Kerry promised to support protectionist measuresthink locally]].</p>
<p>HoweverWithin these coordinates, the main advantage involves international politics. If Kerry had won, it would have forced liberals to face the consequences of the Iraq war, allowing the Bush camp to blame Democrats for the results of their own catastrophic decisions. In her famous 1979 every progressive who <i>Commentarythinks</i> essay, “Dictators and Double Standards,” Jeanne Kirkpatrick elaborated on should be glad for Bush’s victory. It is [[good]] for the entire world because the contours of the distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes confrontations to come will now be drawn in order to justify the Ua much starker way.S. policy A [[Kerry]] victory would have been a kind of collaborating with Rightist dictatorshistorical anomaly, while actively subverting Communist regimesblurring the true lines of [[division]]. Authoritarian dictators are pragmatic rulers concerned with power and wealth and indifferent towards ideological issues After all, even if they pay lip service Kerry did not have a [[global]] [[vision]] that would [[present]] a feasible alternative to some big causeBush’s politics. In contrast Further, totalitarian leaders are selfless, ideology driven fanatics who put everything at stake Bush’s victory is paradoxically better for their ideals. So while one can deal with authoritarian rulers who react rationally and predictably to material and military threats, totalitarian leaders are more dangerous and must be directly confronted. The irony is that this distinction encapsulates perfectly what went wrong with both the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Saddam was a corrupt authoritarian dictator striving for power [[Europe]]an and guided by brutal pragmatic considerations (which led him [[Latin America]]n [[economy|economies]]: In order to collaborate with the United States throughout the ’80s). But in removing himget [[trade unionism|trade union]] backing, the U.S. intervention has led Kerry promised to the creation of a “fundamentalist” opposition that precludes any pragmatic compromisessupport [[protectionism|protectionist]] measures.</p>
<p>Bush’s victory will dispel However, the illusions about main advantage involves international politics. If Kerry had won, it would have [[forced]] [[liberals]] to face the solidarity consequences of interests among the developed Western countries. It will give a new impetus [[Iraq]] [[war]], allowing the [[Bush]] camp to blame [[Democrats]] for the painful but necessary process results of strengthening new alliances like their own catastrophic decisions. In her famous 1979 <i>Commentary</i> essay, “Dictators and [[Double]] Standards,” [[Jeanne Kirkpatrick]] elaborated on the European Union or Mercosur [[distinction]] between “[[authoritarian]]” and “[[totalitarian]]" [[regimes]] in Latin America. It is a journalistic cliché order to praise justify the “postmodern” dynamic of U.S. capitalism against the “old Europe” stuck in its regulatory Welfare State illusionspolicy of collaborating with [[Right]]ist [[dictator]]s, while actively subverting [[Communist]] [[regimes]]. [[Authoritarian]] [[dictator]]s are pragmatic rulers concerned with [[power]] and wealth and indifferent towards [[ideological]] issues, even if they pay lip service to some big [[cause]]. In contrast, [[totalitarian leader]]s are selfless, [[ideology]] driven fanatics who put everything at stake for their ideals. However So while one can deal with authoritarian rulers who react rationally and predictably to [[material]] and military [[threats]], in totalitarian leaders are more dangerous and must be directly confronted. The irony is that this distinction encapsulates perfectly what went wrong with the domain U.S. occupation of political organization, Europe is now going much further than [[Iraq]]. [[Saddam]] was a corrupt [[authoritarian dictator]] striving for [[power]] and guided by brutal pragmatic considerations (which led him to collaborate with the [[United States ]] throughout the ’80s). But in removing him, the U.S. [[intervention]] has toward constituting itself as an unprecedented, properly “post-modern,” trans-state collective able led to provide the creation of a place for anyone, independent of geography or culture “[[fundamentalist]]” opposition that precludes any pragmatic compromises.</p>
<p>No reason [[Bush]]’s victory will dispel the illusions about the [[solidarity]] of interests among the developed [[West]]ern countries. It will give a new impetus to the painful but necessary [[process]] of strengthening new alliances like the [[European Union]] or Mercosur in [[Latin America]]. It is a journalistic cliché to despair, thenpraise the “[[postmodern]]” [[dynamic]] of [[U.S.]] [[capitalism]] against the “[[old Europe]]” stuck in its regulatory [[Welfare]] [[State]] [[illusion]]s. The prospects may be dark today However, but remember one in the [[domain]] of political organization, [[Europe]] is now going much further than the great Bushisms: “The future will be better tomorrow[[United States]] has toward constituting itself as an unprecedented, properly “post-modern,” trans-state collective able to provide a place for anyone, independent of [[geography]] or [[culture]].”</p>
httpNo [[reason]] to despair, then. The prospects may be dark today, but remember one of the great Bushisms://www.inthesetimes“The future will be better tomorrow.com/site/main/article/1662/”
==See Also==
* [[United States]]
* [[Bush]]
* [[Europe]]
* [[fundamentalism]]
* [[totalitarianism]]
* [[leader]]
* [[ideology]]
* [[iraq]]
* [[postmodern]]
* [[democracy]]
* [[liberalism]]
* [[Francis Fukuyama]]
* [[christianity]]
* [[right-wing]]
==Source==
* [[The Liberal Waterloo]]. ''[[In These Times]]''. November 5, 2004. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1662/> Also listed on ''[[Lacan]].com''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizekwaterloo.htm>.
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]]
[[Category:Works]]
[[Category:Articles]]
