...So Did Ya' Get The Memo?

Binary opposition. Day and night. A pair of theoretical opposites. The key part of the phrase here is “bi” – meaning two. These two words together – sounding authoritative and categorical – led me to believe that like a lot of other similar phrases, they came from some grand archive of existing, concrete factors. After further research, of course, I found that binary opposition – according to some – is simply a social construct. Although through a structuralist’s perspective, binary opposition is a “fundamental organizer,” under all the “post- eras” of thought – including structuralism, feminism, colonialism, anarchism (and other such “isms”), however, binary opposition holds as nothing other than a misinterpreted, only seemingly-meaningful order.
Now, what do these archaic theoretical tidbits have to do with politics? Well, lets just say in respect to the political landscape of the United States, two more symbolic words have been added to the extensive list of things considered as binary opposites – democrats and republicans.
I would now like to lay down my own theory on the table and ask a question: Isn’t the two-party dominant system just another social construct as well? Either everyone missed the fine print in the Constitution of the United States where it says that everything has to run under a two-party dominant system sustaining absolutely nothing else or somebody added a clause we haven’t heard of. I’m sure they would have taken the time to leave a gigantic asterisk in front of it had that really been the case. So, when and where and furthermore why has the American electorate been socially constructed to accept this two-party system? We forget that between day and night are dawn and dusk and that between democrat and republican people posses a list of hybrid ideals and values.
Again, this is arguably a manifestation of a fundamental habit of human thought. History follows structural patterns and therefore we might indeed have a hard time escaping from it. But since it is arbitrary we should feel ourselves liberated to alter it. The argument will be that because we have adopted a particular structure, third or forth parties really don’t make sense for people who want to form them. I say, why not break from the structure and allow the electorate a closer relationship to government where they can crystallize their values and ideals and actually have them represented accurately?
Getting back to the archaic subtext of binary opposition, we’ll look at Claude-Levi Strauss’s notions of structural anthropology. Strauss argues that people see the world in terms of these opposites and in turn every culture can be understood in terms of these opposites as well. Strauss’s position goes back even further to the fundamental philosophy of Hegel who explains that in every situation there can be found two opposing things and their resolution (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). Strauss takes Hegel’s approach and applies it to cultural structures, asserting that regardless of the existence of the structure itself, people are unaware of the subconscious workings of it in their daily lives. If you want to really get into it, Strauss in his early anthropological work with Amazonians, argues that even tribal kinship groups are usually found in pairs. He also shows how their cognitive maps work in categorizing anything from animals and trees to rituals – pointing out that they are all based on a series of oppositions as well. So what do the theories of structuralists like Strauss have in common with American political figures like George Washington and James Madison in context to our electoral system? Well, lets see what our forefathers really intended for this nation and what actually happened.
It’s ironic how the first president of the United States, in his farewell address actually urged that we avoid forming political parties altogether. I wonder how happy general Washington and idealists alike would be with today’s landscape. In fact, political factionalism was one of the main themes of his speech. Washington saw the potential harm that political factionalism would have on the country. This fear was manifested as the two factions that had already developed into political parties in the early 1790s – the Federalists and the Republicans – gained power. Through his message he foresaw how the political polarization would play into the new government, and it didn’t look satisfactory. As the parties grew stronger to shape the nation in correspondence to their own thoughts, Washington’s prediction proved to be true. Even a realist like Madison (Federalist Papers No. 51) argued against factions. However, he realized that factions would inevitably exist and went further to explain that the only thing to extinguish the polarization of power and counteract its effects would be, in fact, to establish numerous factions – which is where my argument comes into play. Today’s political landscape is very polarized by the democratic and republican parties. As a republican, if you have a few liberal points of view on issues among an array of conservative ones you are automatically accused of not being a true republican (McCain ring a bell?). Kind of reminiscent of the witch hunts trials in Salem. All it takes is one comment against you and the stake is all fired up and ready to go. I’ll make a reference back to Reagan, Carter and Anderson to give you a better glimpse of similar situations in the past. John B. Anderson, former Republican representative from the 16th District of Illinois, was one of the most conservative members of the Republican caucus. But as he continued to serve, some of his positions on social issues started to lean to the left although his fiscal policy remained conservative. Guess what happened because of his political drift? He got the boot from his “fellow” Republicans and got screwed when he tried to run for president in the 1980 election with Carter and Reagan (this is the same guy who introduced a constitutional amendment that would have “recognized the law and authority of Jesus Christ” over the United States). So what did Anderson do? He dropped out of the republican race, and decided to run as an independent. How many votes do you think that got him? Anderson was unable to make headway against the de facto two-party system as an independent. It’s been said that Anderson's 1980 candidacy is a prime example of how the spoiler effect harms third party candidates. Surprise, surprise, in the 1984 Presidential election, Anderson supported the Democratic candidate Walter Mondale.
Josephine Andrews and Jeannette Money present an argument in "The Spatial Structure of Party Competition: Two-Party versus Multi-Party Systems," where they discuss that in multi-party systems (systems with 3 or more parties), the further parties are located from the position of the median voter, the fewer votes they receive, but in two-party systems, no systematic relationship exists between proximity to the median voter and vote share, suggesting that parties in two-party systems can adjust their policy positions significantly without penalty. They find that the ideological distance between parties in a party system is greater in multi-party systems than in two-party systems. I think that the concentration should not be so much on as to how different the ideologies are, but the details in which they differ. Only when pulling up the logistics of the difference can you then see the similarities in between. If anything, the two-party system in the U.S. makes such a stark contrast between democrats and republicans that you cant share values of both and instead must align with one or the other. So in that sense, the spatial proximity, I think, works in an opposite manner than that proposed. The ideological distance, to me, seems so much further between two opposing parties than multiple hybrids of party platforms. You can either see the factions as expanding the proximity, making one end further than the other, or agree that with each faction represented there is a closer, more accurate ideology that is easier for the voter to relate to, as opposed to the politician – who is pretty much selling it as their platform.
According to Ian Budge and Michael D. McDonald in “Election and party system effects on policy representation: Bringing time into a comparative perspective,” public policy is supposed under democracy to be necessarily linked to popular preferences through elections. Election outcomes are however shaped not only by the votes cast but also by the party-policy options on offer and the rules by which votes are aggregated into seats. I couldn’t agree more with the position that policy should be directly linked to popular preference, but in fact the party that holds majority ultimately shapes it. The problem is not that the policy is solely shaped by the party, but instead that the party who shapes the policy doesn’t even fully represent every ideal that its members hold – only a bulk of it in proximity to the other party.
The important factor to take into consideration is that the two-party system is a function of the U.S. electoral system – specific to this country – as opposed to a parliamentary system for example in regards to Britain. In a parliamentary system, there is more room for maneuvering multiple parties because they can claim a piece of action by parlaying their numbers into power. After all, their executive “branch” emerges out of their legislative one in a coalition. However, the stark difference for the electorate is drawn in terms of where the decision is made. In a parliamentary system, the people are not making the decisions but only electing representatives who will do it for them. But in the two-party system people have to make that decision with themselves first, and after the dealing, they negotiate a compromise with their positions as they align with those of an official, and even after that they negotiate with them. It’s not necessarily a direct representation of all your values but it is the closest you can come to and still maintain having a say in congressional laws. In a parliamentary system, people get to have themselves and their interests represented but they are not in a position where they are permitted to decide and instead the decision is deferred to another level of society (those in parliament). In the two-party system, you have candidate X for example, and you like at least a few aspects of their platform. You find an accommodation for yourself, you negotiate and vote accordingly. In parliament, there are different factions with mirror-like representation of a group of people. But assuming that one has not achieved a majority, they have to cut deals among themselves to see who gets to form governmental policies. So technically, you might have someone representing you down to the T, but if they do not hold a majority then your positions don’t hold the majority base and must be negotiated into being put aside for another that does hold majority. In the two-party system, every candidate you vote for is going to be, at best, an imperfect representation of who you are and what you stand for, but because of the nature of the system you have to vote for candidates who do not necessarily perfectly represent your positions. You are always cutting a deal with yourself, sitting back and saying what’s the lesser of TWO evils and which interest are you more headstrong about promoting. Is it better for the people to have their interests and their selves perfectly represented at a legislative level with the catch that says that the compromise is not made by them anymore but is trusted in the hands of a representative – to do it the way that you want?
There you see that binary opposition again through political defeat. The lesser of two, not the least of more. I’m not necessarily advocating a parliamentary system over that of the U.S. government, however, I’m trying to show the distinction of the two and how there is no middle ground where you can have different representatives and simultaneously manage to be heard without needing to hold the majority first.
People are disenfranchised from government and politics because they find their power is limited. In the U.S., this disenfranchisement takes the shape of the two-party system through which democracy – representation of, for and by the people – is being stifled. Can we keep the system but attempt to restructure it to enfranchise voters again or will we continue to see only Red and Blue? If, in fact, this country advocates for its peoples’ voices to be heard, then its pretty ironic that really only two voices are heard at the end of the day, and even those voices are not complete representations of the masses. The purple area needs to exist if the United States government truly wants the electorate to not only overcome its politi-phobia but also actually engage in their civic duties as citizens of the “best democracy in the world.” The system can work under a different structure, but jaded politicians need to be able to step out of their political polarization in order for the electorate to – after all we’re supposed to look up to the leaders of our country for guidance, right?

0 Comment

A journalist, writer and an academic. Graduate of Harvard Law School. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for her book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Senior advisor to U.S. Democratic Party presidential candidate, Barack Obama (prior to her resignation in March 2008 that is). A woman who can shoot hoops with the big boys – literally –, Samantha Power has rightfully been dubbed an intellectual.
A scholar of foreign affairs, Power is currently affiliated with the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, centering on human rights, genocide, and AIDS. She is also the first Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy at Kennedy. Not to mention one of Time Magazine’s 100 Top Scientists and Thinkers of the year in 2004 and Foreign Policy online journal’s top 100 Public Intellectuals in 2008(“shaping the tenor of our time”).
Not to shabby Sam (check out her blog). But within the debate between those who are considered intellectuals and those who are considered public intellectuals remains a point of contention and criticism when it comes to public performance – with a side of debauchery (a.k.a. “monster”..but we’ll be getting into that later). Public performance is a big part of the job, if not the job itself at times. While an intellectual may have academic standing along with an impressive resume of written work and thought provoking plans of action regarding their field of study, the public intellectual – as any other public figure – is expected to perform well both inside and outside of their established role (The “Decline of Public Intellectuals?” explores the impotence of public intellectuals in America who step outside of their own disciplines to comment on social and political issues).
To go a step further, the key is not to be able to perform once, but to be capable – at the least – in carrying a string of consistency through any and all performances within a public environment. As ironic as it seems, while people don’t really like performers, they ultimately expect a public figure to possess the ability to be one. Being able to take on the persona of a performer has become a bona fide characteristic for a public figure to establish their position as a cognitive leader (at least with our media – I’m referring to the Sarkozy G8 speech). You take any public figure from an actor to a politician and get either of the two out of their realm on a talk show or an interview, for example, and they sound like drips. This is clearly when they don’t know how to be themselves, or even worse, anybody other than their script sets them up to be. On the other hand, you can have someone so smooth, and charismatic, and articulate that they slip right through the television set and onto the couch next to you. You have your solid performers (ahem…Obama), the atrocious ones (do I even have to say his name?) and the figures in between who spill the milk once or twice and either get excommunicated for it or inducted into the eternal criticism hall of fame, but then manage to ultimately sustain their dignity.
So…has the ability to speak to an audience – and be good at it – really become the best judge of leadership? Are you going to be stripped of your “public intellectualness” because of one comment? Do most public intellectuals know how to speak in public? Well, I’m sure Mrs. Power (newlywed!) has something to say about it.
The trick lies in the fact that we, as an audience, expect public figures to juxtapose spontaneity and articulation, and yet we forget that when it comes to intellectuals (at least), all they do is formulate thoughts before they speak. That’s what they’re referred to for, to use the intellect. And yet we want spontaneity out of them. Again, we’re trying to establish the difference between a regular academic or figure whose response is immediate and without forethought and then compare that to, intellectuals who are all about forethought and reflection. What we come to realize (based on current expectations) is that society has developed the distinguishing factor – a public intellectual has learned how to do the whole spontaneous thing, too. They are performers in ways that other intellectuals are not (besides the classroom of course).
Lets trace back a bit and focus on where people feel Power took a detour from her otherwise superb performances. Okay, so from 1993 to 1996, she worked as a journalist, covering the Yugoslav wars for U.S. News & World Report, The Boston Globe, The Economist (my personal fav), and The New Republic (since 2007, she’s also been writing regularly for Time on foreign policy). Then graduated from Harvard Law in 1999, after which her first book – that grew out of a paper she wrote in law school mind you – won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 2003. She released another book, Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World, in February of this year (also check out Realizing Human Rights, Shake Hands with the Devil, and Darfur Darfur). She’s appeared in Charles Ferguson’s documentary No End in Sight regarding the Bush administration in the U.S. war in Iraq. She’s also contributed to “Screamers,” a movie about the Armenian Genocide of 1915 (you go Sam!) and the Darfur conflict, along with other genocides of the 20-21st centuries. Not to mention, she’s a leading advocate for armed intervention into humanitarian crisis situations endorsing the Genocide Intervention Network. Power has appeared on Newsnight BBC America, and BBC’s HARDtalk where she had brilliant performances regarding Obama’s approach on foreign policy. She’s lectured at the First Congregational Church at Berkeley in February of 2008 – again granting us the satisfaction of her rhetoric.
After a wave of impressive interviews and lectures, the alleged “doomsday” was on March 6th during an interview with The Scotsman (A Scottish Newspaper). She expressed the following remarks:
"We f***** up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win. She is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything... You just look at her and think, 'Ergh.' But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."
Hmm…was her comment indicative of someone who has a hard time conducting herself in the public arena?
She appears on the Colbert Report on March 17th to clear things up and explain how she didn’t really mean that Hillary is a ‘monster’ (Of course Stephen Colbert had a field day with it and dubbed Clinton the Cookie Monster, chiming in with “C is for Clinton, that’s good enough for me”). Power, on the other hand, asserted, “each camp has fantastic people left in the sandpit.”
There’s an interesting piece from a progressive online news center – Common Dreams – where this brilliant foreign policy thinker is backed up by the supportive words of Raj Purohit (Director and CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions) and Rich Stazinski (Director of Engagement). They asserted:
“We are not suggesting that Power's comment was trivial - it was inappropriate and inexcusable. But she apologized immediately, and did so before anyone from the Clinton campaign had even addressed the issue. The real question that needs to be asked is whether we as a nation are better served with a chastened Power in the political process, or with Power being driven from it for a regrettable slip of a sharp tongue during a heated election season?”
They continued with…

“The answer for us is clear: The United States and the international community need people like her participating in the process.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Are we seriously going to undermine Power’s role as a public intellectual for one comment? I mean, come on boys and girls, history goes to show that we have not only accepted horrendous public speakers as intellectuals, but leaders of our country – and Sam has to be the one to get kicked off the team? I don’t think so. Interestingly enough, however, is the opinion of Orikinla Osinach who writes for a blog called Nigerian Times. She’s clearly on the other side of the sandbox with this one:
“The problem with sex-starved women like Samantha Power is, Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. They envy the fact that Hillary Clinton is still married to Bill Clinton and enjoying great sex and looking great at 60, while Samantha Power looks 20 years older than her 37 years on planet earth. In fact, she would need extreme make over, lest she would end up looking really like the title of her prize winning book, A Problem from Hell.”
Funny how it always comes down to physical and personal attacks first when criticizing women. You’re either going to be criticized for your appearance or your sex-life in this case. Neither of which are relevant and are in fact insulting to Power’s position in all of this. Although the Internet has allowed for an immense outlet of thought to cascade through our computer screens, from the really positive opinions to the really negative ones, it goes to show that criticism is and will continue to be rampant for the public intellectual. We as an audience, again, are the ones who have implanted the notion in our own heads that these public intellectuals must function like robots and if they somehow malfunction, we need to send them to the junkyard (In my own defense, I’m talking about little speed bumps here and there, not a ten-car pile up worth of “mistakes”).
Power apologized to both Clinton and Obama for the "monster" and other remarks on the night of the March 6 interview, saying that they "do not reflect my feelings about Sen. Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired." To which she added, "I should not have made these comments, and I deeply regret them. It is wrong for anyone to pursue this campaign in such negative and personal terms."
After all the hoopla on the she-said-she-said, I have come to realize that in this day and age, with our news and media outlets supplied by an ocean of critics, an even more effective public intellectual is one who can step back into the spotlight after the burnt out bulb is replaced with a new one.
Power has had and continues to have a significant impact on public discourse relating to foreign policy…so why should she be given the boot for making the comment that she made? Yes, there is always a better way to express something in order to prevent the media from ripping you to pieces and Yes, this did happen during a presidential campaign, when it is crucial to walk on eggshells – for lack of better words – with your comments; but a “poorly-stated opinion” should in no way constitute the declassification of Samantha Power as a public intellectual. I don’t think I need to go over her resume again.

1 Comment