I love the look on the kid’s face!
Not a word about the other guy.

Photo: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images) #

Update! A word on the other guy – but not by me. Judith Butler:

Uncritical Exuberance? Judith Butler’s take on Obama

(…) We cannot underestimate the force of dis-identification in this election, a sense of revulsion that George W. has “represented” the United States to the rest of the world, a sense of shame about our practices of torture and illegal detention, a sense of disgust that we have waged war on false grounds and propagated racist views of Islam, a sense of alarm and horror that the extremes of economic deregulation have led to a global economic crisis.  Is it despite his race, or because of his race, that Obama finally emerged as a preferred representative of the nation?  Fulfilling that representative-function, he is at once black and not-black (some say “not black enough” and others say “too black”), and, as a result, he can appeal to voters who not only have no way of resolving their ambivalence on this issue, but do not want one.  The public figure who allows the populace to sustain and mask its ambivalence nevertheless appears as a figure of “unity”: this is surely an ideological function. Such moments are intensely imaginary, but not for that reason without their political force. (…)

If the election of Obama signals a willingness on the part of the majority of voters to be “represented” by this man, then it follows that who “we” are is constituted anew.

So just a few words on the election (you know, THE election). I was very excited when I searched out an internet café two days ago to get the news, and admit that I felt not only a big wave of relief, but yes – a big hope for the future. Some of my friends in radical circles in the U.S. (Jen Angel, for one, like here) have been warning me about Obamanian rapture obscuring the real politics and challenges at hand, as have various other commentaries I’ve read. Indeed they are right, and indeed, from most European points of view, Obama is far more conservative than radical. In a znet commentary, Cynthia Peters arguments that popular movements are were we ought to be putting our hopes and efforts, because not only are there still plenty of cracks in the edifice for Obama’s policies, but there’ll be further pressure from corporate power and financial organizations to push through their policies in Obama’s presidency. The democratic base for change lies in continued pressure from beneath towards the site of power to push through the will and policies of the people.

That said I for one find me inspired to hope for a better future with this presidency. At least the election have shown us that the U.S. is capable of change, after all.

I remember seeing Howard Zinn speak to an audience in Cambridge some months before the Iraq war started. An audience member asked, “What do we do if Bush invades Iraq?”

“That’s not the question to ask,” Zinn pointed out. “The question to ask is: what are we going to do to make sure he doesn’t invade Iraq?” ¹

Oh, and on that note, here’s a link to a video about the military industrial complex: Why We Fight, Eugene Jarecki, dir., on YouTube. I haven’t seen the film itself, but would like to. I did read a book by Chalmers Johnson, featured here in the clip, called Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, and he’s got his numbers right. The documentary is about the United States’ relationship with war as business, the development of the military-industrial complex in the United States and, following 9/11, the privatization of war.

But let’s talk about something else…

¹ Cynthia Peters

]]> http://timbuktu.dk/archives/171/feed 0