Tang's Closed-Loop vs. Postmodern Conservatism
DharmaTroll
"Going Rogue", and I was reminded of something Tang often says. The
article is from:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/21-1
Here's the key quote:
"When Going Rogue came out, her ex-friends in the McCain campaign
called Palin a liar. On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann went to considerable
pains to cite passages in her book that were contradicted either by
facts or by past statements Palin had made herself. Olbermann missed
the point. There are no lies in Sarah's book; nor in her life, nor in
her heart. Utterances that seem untrue are not lies, because Sarah
believes them true. If she says one thing, then later forgets what she
said and says the opposite, Sarah Palin is neither lying nor mistaken,
nor forgetful, because at each moment, she believes what she has said.
And a minute later, she will believe something else, if she says it.
Whatever she says, if she says it, will be true. But if it's not, so
what? It's words, only words.... What Olbermann and the word-obsessed,
meaning-seeking media cannot grasp is that Sarah Palin is not someone
you believe. She is someone you believe in."
And I read that, and I thought, wow, that's just what the Tang-banger
says in closed loop. Just words on the screen. It's all fluff, in
closed-loop.
--DharmaTroll
[Here's the whole essay, in case you're too lazy to click on the
link.]
<<St. Sarah of Wasilla
Published Saturday, Nov 21, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
by David Benjamin
David Benjamin is a novelist and journalist, originally from Madison,
Wisconsin. He now divides his time between New York and Paris. His
latest book, to be released by Tuttle Publishing in early 2010, is
SUMO: A Thinking Fan's Guide to Japan's National Sport.
Sarah Palin's latest buzz accompanies the publication of her campaign
memoir, Going Rogue. But the book is a ghost-written collaboration,
making it a poor measure of the singular marvel that is Sarah Palin.
To better get the drift of this woman's weird, wonderful career, I go
back to her star-spangled, lightning-bolt Fourth-of-July resignation
as governess of Alaska.
Within minutes of that shocker, talking heads everywhere struggled to
make sense of Palin's rambling series of excuses, rationalizations,
platitudes, dares and non sequiturs. Every last analyst staggered
away, mystified.
But Palin's followers - without exception - understood, intuitively
and completely. They rejoiced in the inspiration of what she had said,
as well as what she hadn't said and what she was incapable of saying.
Even they, however, did not know what she meant. No one did, nor will
anyone ever really grasp her meaning that day. And that's the point.
In the Zen universe of Sarah Palin, meaning is the most meaningless
thing of all!
Anyone who has tried to fathom the Palin phenomenon is eventually
surprised that she bothers to speak at all. But she loves talking, to
the delight of her fans and to the utter befuddlement of anyone who
regards languge as a serious medium of communication.
Words are not Sarah Palin's currency, nor would she command her
immense army of ardent followers if she had a "way with words." When
asked about "issues," Palin either recites an irrelevant aspect of her
biography (looking across the Bering Strait at Vladimir Putin,
covering high school hockey games for the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman),
or she rattles off a mind-numbing series of talking points, seemingly
memorized off a laminated card handed to her by Grover Norquist.
Asked about any domestic problem - education, unemployment, breast
cancer, etc. - she invariably advocates cutting taxes. Given problems
of a more metaphysical nature, she will come around to invoking Jesus.
Respond to her that even Jesus approved of taxes - "unto Caesar that
which is Caesar's" - and she will answer with only a smile that says,
"You're trying to trap me with words again, but I can't he-e-ear you."
She's pro-life, she says. But the only branch of government that she
and her followers approve is the military, which is in the business of
killing. Is this not a profound contradiction, an ethical dilemma that
merits reflection and moral anguish?
Nah. It's words. Just words. To hell with words.
Conservatives claim Sarah as one of them. She tolerates the linkage.
But she's not, really, if you figure that modern conservatism proceeds
in a historical line from Adam Smith and Edmund Burke to Ayn Rand,
William F. Buckley, Irving Kristol, George Will and smarty-pants guys
like that. Conservatism has always been stirred by intellectual
ferment and lively discourse, bestowing on its current adherents
traditions, policies, positions, unsettled arguments and great books.
Conservatism has a literature.
But Sarah Palin doesn't read - at least not snooty stuff like
"literature." None of her people read - except for Scripture. Reading,
after all, is just a lot of words.
Sometimes, Palin comes off as a sort of lumpen-populist,
metaphorically defending the trailer-park gates against an army of
tree-huggers and bleeding-hearts who want to break up the annual all-
Alaska spotted owl and dolphin roast. But her style, her clothes, her
hair, her lack of butchness - these are not populist. They're petty
bourgeois. She wears makeup even when she's dressed in waders.
When Going Rogue came out, her ex-friends in the McCain campaign
called Palin a liar. On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann went to considerable
pains to cite passages in her book that were contradicted either by
facts or by past statements Palin had made herself.
Olbermann missed the point. There are no lies in Sarah's book; nor in
her life, nor in her heart. Utterances that seem untrue are not lies,
because Sarah believes them true. If she says one thing, then later
forgets what she said and says the opposite, Sarah Palin is neither
lying nor mistaken, nor forgetful, because at each moment, she
believes what she has said. And a minute later, she will believe
something else, if she says it. Whatever she says, if she says it,
will be true. But if it's not, so what? It's words, only words.
Sooner or later, words fail everyone. This goes double for Sarah and
her faithful. Sarah Palin is the voice - and the embodiment - of the
inarticulate.
When Sarah Palin says something that doesn't seem to make sense to
most of us, her people - the tongue-tied and frustrated - understand
perfectly, because that's exactly what they would have said, if only
they could.
What Olbermann and the word-obsessed, meaning-seeking media cannot
grasp is that Sarah Palin is not someone you believe. She is someone
you believe in.
She is not a politician. She is a prophet.
She is the earthly incarnation of an ideal beyond earthly
comprehension that only those who believe in her believe in, although
it's beyond their comprehension. Like all prophets, she is the answer
to questions her followers are incapable of expressing. She is what
they are, and she is what they would be if they weren't what they are.
Watch Sarah Palin with the audio turned off. You will sense what her
followers feel. In her ill-controlled face, there is sheer amazement
at being so high for so little reason. There is defiance of all those
equally amazed. And there is a smugness in the assurance that there
ain't nobody gonna knock her down and she never has to explain how she
ever got there.
As if she could.
In her gestures and in her gaze, one feels the spirit of another
people's prophet, equally indifferent to coherent speech, equally
disdained by the literate and the elite, but equally beloved of the
insulted and injured. His motto was: "I am what I am."
His name, as any real American knows, was Popeye.>>
Charles E Hardwidge
news:2681b7fd-1c06-4123...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> What Olbermann and the word-obsessed, meaning-seeking media cannot grasp
> is that Sarah Palin is not someone you believe. She is someone you believe
> in."
This is the stunt David Cameron and his online chums tried to pull. That's
more pressing to me as it's "now" and "over here", and the outcome will
directly impact my life more than "mere words on the screen".
I've profiled the players, stood up against them, and led various charges
against them in my own small and limited way. I led while Labour trembled,
and kicked ass before Labour could spell "internet".
My personal position now is to take a step back and see if leadership
emerged and the wind changed. That looks like it's happening with polls
running more favourably and women's pro-Tory vote softening.
"I do not require belief but I do require compliance."
Have a nice day.
--
Charles E Hardwidge