SocProf links to a really fascinating piece on Obama’s Nobel Prize [previous LP discussion here] by Don Waisanen at ThickCulture, riffing on Weber’s characterisation of modernity as disenchantment of the world.
It would appear that the Nobel committee at least partially picked Obama for his renewed faith in public discourse to bring about peace and change in the world. Tim Rutten argues in the Los Angeles Times that the award was rightly given to the President for “words” rather than “deeds.” I would further argue the prize most appropriately went to Obama for finding a midway through Weber’s predicament in the above passage. Obama’s rhetoric has sought to enchant the political realm through sublime values that no human being can live without—for example, through the trope of “hope”. At the same time, these are values that are grounded in direct and personal human relations, or in abductive intersubjectivity rather than deductive, non-contextual assertion. There is much to critique in Obama’s administration, but it has at least evidenced an empirical concern for active listening and diplomacy as consequential in politics.
I think that’s a very consequential set of observations. It also makes me wonder if there’s not a continuity between Bush and Obama’s administration (beyond the obvious maintenance of core aspects of the US’ war-imperial machine, which is at the heart of the left objection to his acceptance of the award). Thinking back to the infamous comments from a Bush administration official about remaking reality, it strikes me that both administrations are fundamentally postmodern in their use of rhetorical discourse to reshape facts. That’s about as far as you can get from Weber’s modern government as “administration of things”.
I agree with those points, but Mark which modern administration (or more accurately: party; or more accurately still: domestic political discource) could not be described as postmodern (CCP,for example)? I would be interested in seeing how that party operates?
I’m more inclined to huff a little Baudrillard; the committee (and perhaps ourselves) can no longer tell what’s the map and what’s the real. Perhaps Obama and Bush are unique in that they don’t just argue, but believe there’s no difference – I doubt it, though.
Two facedness isn’t always associated with a diamond in the making.If you say one thing,and do not follow it through in an enabling sense,the critics will be never wrong.Obama in breaking some of his own commitments in attempting reform in Health matters,has only got himself to blame.If he pussy foots about Afghanistan by being another chicken-hawk he has himself to blame.If he gives central bankers,who do not get thorough accounting scrutiny more power than the banks that have been closed,because of their power,he is the only one to blame. If he appoints top ranking people who have proven to be duds in their career in finance into responsible positions he has only himself to blame.If he makes rhetorical mistakes about the problems blacks in the U.S.A. and ignores the report of why Police acted in the way they did,he only has himself to blame.If he and his government then move into moments of Peace-Making by words and not deeds of any significance,because say, Israel for example isn’t changing its attitudes the Israeli positions are getting worse,then in fact the words have even less meaning over time.That must mean speech that maybe entirely worthy,will be further demented by people like Obama.There are enough windbags on the Planet now,droning on about significant matters,enabling the opposite of their stated opinion from on High.And the great windbags of the U.S.A. have a history of killing innocent people for the likes of words such as Democracy and Freedom, which doesn’t always leave out the tag Left when using the D and F words. They are the universal loudmouths,the U.S.A. Government, endangering all humanity,and Obama as President is therefore the latest leader of such!
I’ve sat and thought about this ever since the news was announced, and I remain incredulous.
Like so many people around the world, I sat mesmerised listening to the heady logic, the easy roll-off your tongue charm, the exhilarating magic and the soothing balm of Mr Obama’s speeches.
But I worried, and still do, whether he was / is any different to so many of the other politicians we’ve tolerated. Has he soared to the pinnacle of glibness, mouthing the same triumpahlist rhetoric that has been the stock in trade of “great” world leaders – or does the rich tapestry of his words have the same meaning for him – as they do for the rest of us?
It takes more than words to convince that the apparently unmistakable integrity in his voice, is something we can trust. It also takes creditable action.
Of those who were good at proclaiming “freedom” and “democracy” and “peace” – but who we always knew were just habitual liars, rogues and thieves – were people like Ronald Reagan and George W.
They were both up there amongst the best.
George W. with his smirking, folksie style that could have been alluring, except the depths of the deceits and savagery of the implications, were always obvious.
That disparity between the nudge / nudge; wink / wink of the choreographers who orchestrate these lies – with the seething mass of people out here in the front of house, wanting to kid ourselves it has meaning and is possible.
Why should we believe this latest incarnation of Mark Anthony?
As yet, I can’t see that Mr Obama’s actions have matched his stirring words – worse still: like so many other world leaders, so much of his actions are turning out to be the opposite of the rhetoric.
“……the award was rightly given to the President for “words” rather than “deeds…”
Prizes for eloqution are “rightly” handed out by the Academy or the AFI – go to your local eistedfodd some weekend. Go to a folk festival, there’s a spoken word arena there that might give out prizes.
There’s no doubt Mr Obama’s smart. I hope he’s also street savvie because if he’s going to put even a small percentage of those fine words into action, he’s going to have to just about pull the rug out from under the very foundations of the “establishment”.
And that’s what really worries the arch conservatives – the “neocons” – all those who want us to understand “We are RIGHT!”. They’re just not sure that Mr Obama understands he only has a minor walk-on, bit part in this charade.
They’re worried he might actually mean what he says – beyond inauguration day – and might try and put some of his fine words into practice.
And out in the real world? – Is it surprising we have a collective amnesia, a cultivated nihilism and an apparent willingness to accept yet another war being indulged against so many helpless civilians and civilizations? Or that we head into an environmental abyss with only an occasional backward glance?
Or that Alexander Downer is a person worth asking for a comment?!
“It’s only words, and words are all I have…….”
Mark,
of course there is a continuity between Bush and Obama’s administration. Bush toward the end was figuring out they last the war for Iraq. Never lost a battle, but thats irrelevant. The surge was Bush’s victory that he could claim before making moves to withdraw and Obama is slowly going through the motions.
Obama won an election. He didn’t take part in a revolution. His pre-election push for Afghanistan can now be seen as Pentagon inspired. And now that he is a little cold on the idea, all the pushing is coming from the Pentagon. Just another money making venture for some.
The problem with America’s bomb, bomb, bomb foriegn policy is not going to be to be Obama, its going to be economics. Like all empires America is struggling under the weight of all the corruption in their system. Their weird financial system that recently went septic is just a symptom of how corrupted their whole system has become while they try to hold on to their place as the world’s sole superpower. But I doubt they can afford it much anymore.
Their military spending is grossly underestimated.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
According to the link below the continuity goes much further than from The American Imbecile to Obama. Right back to Vietnam and Kissinger’s Peace Prize in fact.
http://sciencecivilizationandsociety.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-and-nobel-peace-prize.html
I think they checked the share register for Halliburton and, not finding Obama on it, decided that this was a real contribution to peace from an American President. Bingo. Nobel.
“abductive intersubjectivity” – is this the guy who writes our Kev’s speaches?
It’s not the most transparent of phrases, I’ll grant you!
Abduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
Intersubjectivity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity
‘the trope of “hope.” DOPE.
The way I see it is this.
The Bushites saw themselves as the authors of history. They thought they were not subject to the constraints of reality because they created reality. Them acting alone, without the need for partners.
That was in the beginning. Later they realised that reality was not quite so tractable and saw the need for partners, but their approach to reality didn’t in fact change all that much.
Obama recognises the limitations of American power and the legitimacy of other actors. He sees America as one of many, albeit in a position to exercise leadership. He is the great talker and listener, is not threatened by other ideas, in fact welcomes them. Indeed he even seems willing to talk to enemies which Bush saw as truly “other”.
In this sense, a discontinuity rather than a continuity, and perhaps worth a prize ahead of whoever else was in contention.
Brian @10, Agree that Obama is “a discontinuity rather than a continuity”.
Obama’s approach is distinctly and strikingly different from Bush’s approach, on many issues, e.g.: climate change, the oil crunch, Iraq and Middle Eastern issues, cooperation with other nations, UN, NATO.
I wondered also about giving a prize for words rather than deeds, but then I guess the words of leaders are what motivates the masses. Ramos Horta got the Peace Prize, and that was probably more for what he said and how he motivated his people, than his actual “actions” or “deeds”.
Like what deeds do you commit to get a Peace Prize? Killing people? Not killing people? Pursuading others to stop killing people? Are they deeds or words?
Incidentally, perhaps one of the “problems” with democracies rather than dictatorships and command economies, is that leaders have to take the people with them by pursuasion. If the great unwashed are unpursuaded, then they just vote the offending government out of power. Ask the Liberal Party how this works!
Obama may be doing exactly what is needed, to get everyone on board for a major change in policy direction for the US. He may be trying to talk them around to the idea. Perhaps the Swedes are just cheering him on from the sidelines?