I could spend a few paragraphs detailing my view on Arlen Specter’s party-switch bombshell today, but Nate Silver summarizes it perfectly in one pithy sentence:
Why should the Democrats settle for a Liberdem when they can probably get Pennsylvanians to elect a mainline Democrat along the lines of Bob Casey?
Seems the Dems are calculating that Arlen Specter as an independent (which would probably have been plan B) is too formidable an opponent in their efforts to flip the seat, so if ya’ can’t beat ’em….
(1) The idea that Specter is a “liberal” Republican or even a “moderate” reflects how far to the Right both the GOP and our overall political spectrum has shifted.
Consider Specter’s most significant votes over the last eight years, ones cast in favor of such definitive right-wing measures as: the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). Time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.
I’m ready to risk some potential embarrassment and admit my ignorance outright: I don’t understand the word “meme” — at all. I have seen the word used quite frequently (including by some TC contributors) and have read several definitions. But I just don’t get it. My hope is that some of our more erudite readers and contributors can explain it to me.
Here’s what I’ve been able to pick up so far:
-It is a widely repeated or imitated cultural idea, image, or practice.
-It supposedly acts in a manner similar to a gene, in the sense that through vast repetitions, more environmentally “fit” versions of the meme gain greater sticking power.
-With reference to the Internet, it often just means “fad.”
Some questions I have:
-Aren’t we just talking about the social reproduction of culture here — something that happens in everyday socialization?
-What is the unit of a “meme?” How does one delineate the parameters of a “meme” within a sea of culture?
-What on earth would make us think that culture is evolutionary, rather than just constantly changing without particular order?
-Isn’t the word “meme” just an attempt to make discussions of culture sound more sciencey?
The Cisco Fatty meme served up a cautionary tale for all the denizens of Web 2.0. It might be me, but I think people need to lighten up. The Andrews v. FedEx incident is a good example highlighting this need. In this one, a VP tweeted this candid gem on his impressions of Memphis, where FedEx headquarters are located::
“True confession but i’m in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say ‘I would die if I had to live here!'”–James Andrews
The FedEx employees were outraged. Didn’t this clown hear the Cher cover of this Marc Cohn song? How dare someone insult fair Memphis! Here’s a response sent upstairs to FedEx management::
“Many of my peers and I feel this is inappropriate. We do not know the total millions of dollars FedEx Corporation pays Ketchum annually for the valuable and important work your company does for us around the globe. We are confident however, it is enough to expect a greater level of respect and awareness from someone in your position as a vice president at a major global player in your industry. A hazard of social networking is people will read what you write.”
The rest is predictable. Finger-wagging by bystanders admonishing Andrews, an apology, and a statement by FedEx saying they are “moving on.” Commentors on the story nailed it, in my opinion, by noting how this is a tempest in a teapot::
“People who live in small cities are always trying to prove something. They exhibit irrational pride for their little slice of nowhere. Seriously. Who cares? If James said he would die if he had to live in LA, no client would even take notice. Of if they did notice they certainly wouldn’t care. They definitely wouldn’t ship it to a gaggle of senior leaders at both companies. But talk about Memphis…..and it’s ON.”–Adrants commenter
“James Andrews had to fly into Memphis yesterday for a client meeting with FedEx, and observed, correctly, that Memphis is a hellhole…
James Andrews will never make the mistake of being honest again.”–Gawker commenter
Enough of this boring stuff, what about a political candidate with “embarrassing” Facebook photos on a private page. Now we’re talking. Ray Lam, a 22 year old NDP {far-left party} candidate for local office in British Columbia {False Creek-Vancouver} had the photo below surface.
Ray Lam, Ex-NDP BC Candidate-False Creek, 4 years ago at a Pride event
Lam resigned his candidacy. Of course, let the media circus begin, along with the finger-wagging and admonishments. The fact of the matter is that the photos of the openly gay candidate were from 4 years ago and from a campy Pride celebration.
The BC Liberals {centre-left party} were quick to jump on this Facebook faux-pas. His opponent, Mary McNeil was shocked and outraged. She made a statement sent to media outlets, which, of course, contained links to the Facebook photos. In her statement, she said, “…These photos are offensive and demeaning. I’m surprised that Carole James and her NDP caucus think these photos are acceptable.”
The British Columbia Liberal Leader, Gordon Campbell was quick to point out::
“This was public information. It was on the NDP website and they have some responsibilities in terms of that. … They were totally inappropriate pictures and the NDP has some questions to answer for.”
No resignation for a DUI, a situation which could have endangered the lives of himself and others, but there MUST be consequences for risqué photos.
In my mind, there are two issues. (1) Do the private lives of politicians really matter? If so, (2) the nature of Web 2.0 and subsequent iterations will make sure all dirt will have its day. I’m not 100% sure what was on Lam’s Facebook page, but I do know the technology poses challenges for managing perceptions, as one can get tagged in photos by others.
Should we get over it? Are we degenerating into a culture of optics? We can say that issues of values and character matter, but are we just setting up a situation where only the squeaky clean can withstand the scrutiny in media singularity.
I guess Edgar Friendly would never make it as a politician.
What does this comparison between California’s prison spending and it’s spending on higher education say about the state’s current and future priorities?
The right-o-sphere is appoplectic about this “politics of wuss.” They view it as a confirmation of an underlying relativism and moral ambiguity on the part of the president that will lead him to capitulate to, or be manipulated by, the dark forces in the geopolitical order. The left-o-sphere sees it as a “politics of dignity” welcome change in foreign policy towards a more cosmopolitan worldview where you respect other differences and listen to their concerns.
I see it as the politics of capacity building. The right is generally more enamored with a foreign policy in which you signal your intentions through force or the possibility of force, not through capitulation or admitting past wrongdoing. Critics on the right have criticized Obama’s approach to admitting past U.S. mistakes for not yielding immediate results from European allies during the latest G-20 summit.
Many on the right act as if foreign policy is a “one off” interaction rather than a set of repeated games in which actors learn from the interaction how to gain concessions from each other. Whereas the Bush administration’s approach to power was a “power over” approach where they sought to use their hegemonic world status to generate compliance from other state actors (see Pakistan, Turkey, etc.). The Obama administration is using a “power to” or “social production” approach where you distribute carrots in the hopes of building trust relationships with strategic actors that allow you to accomplish future goals. I’d argue that in a complex, hazy world where nations can form effective alliances without the United States, you’re better off going with a “power to” view of the world.
The interesting thing Obama is doing is that he is using “symbolic benefits” to build coalitions –“”power to.” While perhaps not as effective a “glue” for building relationships as material benefits, symbolic benefits are important. If nothing else, because it sets the conditions for other countries to go to their public for concessions that might be in the U.S.’ interest. The best part of symbolic benefits is that they are free…they cost nothing monetarily.
The general feeling on the right is that these symbolic appeals do cost something. It makes the U.S. appear weak or timid, as the very coiffed and masculine Mitt Romney opined. For these critics, there are only interests and at the end of the day, the way you appeal to leaders is to appear strong and stoic. Unbending. Unyielding in your position. Manly, if you will. No “power to” allowed, or the “evil doers” will pursue their interests of world domination or something of that ilk.
In my view, it is more naive to think that you are a hegemon when you aren’t than to admit mistakes and move forward on seeking common ground. Does Venezuela change its stance towards the US because Obama accepted a book from Chavez? Maybe not. But if the president’s response was to excoriate the dictator for deigning to bring up the subject of colonialism in the president’s majesterial presence, what exactly would that gain? Reactions like Newt Gingrich’s or Mitt Romney’s to the Obama/Chavez exchange are not some heroic call to steadfastness in the face of evil. Rather it is based on some intrinsic and dangerous sense of moral rectitude on the part of the right (don’t get me wrong….the left has it’s own moral rectitude problems). It’s an impulse that I can’t say I fully understand. It’s the impulse that drives fundamentalist parents to abandon a gay child because they are “sinning in the eyes of god.”
Personally, I think we’ve had a good long run of foreign policy being dictated by a “power over” approach. Let’s see how the “power to” works. Does tilling the field with “symbolic benefits” bear fruit by the end of Obama’s first term? Maybe not, but I’m pretty sure it will be better than where we’ve been.
The great paradox of “social networking” is that it uses narcissism as the glue for “community.” Being online means being alone, and being in an online community means being alone together. The community is purely symbolic, a pixellated simulation conjured up by software to feed the modern self’s bottomless hunger. Hunger for what? For verification of its existence? No, not even that. For verification that it has a role to play. As I walk down the street with thin white cords hanging from my ears, as I look at the display of khakis in the window of the Gap, as I sit in a Starbucks sipping a chai served up by a barista, I can’t quite bring myself to believe that I’m real. But if I send out to a theoretical audience of my peers 140 characters of text saying that I’m walking down the street, looking in a shop window, drinking tea, suddenly I become real. I have a voice. I exist, if only as a symbol speaking of symbols to other symbols.
I’d buy his argument if the majority of the activity in the blogosphere was taking place among atomized, yearning individuals lost in the anomie of consumer culture. But in my experience, on-line communities augment, rather than replace off-line interaction. Facebook research is still in its infancy, but what’s emerging is that Facebook uses extend their existing off-line networks on-line (see Danah Boyd’s work on this question).
We are “symbol(s) speaking of symbols to other symbols:”
Personally, I’ll go with Nancy Birdsall’s useful distinction between destructive and constructive inequality:
inequality is constructive when it creates positive incentives at the micro level. Such inequality reflects differences in individuals’ responses to equal opportunities and is consistent with efficient allocation of resources in an economy. In contrast, destructive inequality reflects privileges for the already rich and blocks potential for productive contributions of the less rich.
That large of an accumulation of wealth at the top is destructive because it can buy that much more privilege for those associated with that wealth.
Given Jose’s post below, and some of our previous discussions about entertaining politics on Thick Culture–here’s a link to my new article on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in the Southern Communication Journal. You may need to go through Google Scholar or another university search engine to access it:
If anyone has a chance to read or skim through it, I’d welcome any critiques, additions, random thoughts growing out it, etc.–as I’m planning on extending this research over the coming years (the next step is an article I’m currently writing on The Onion News Network). — Don Waisanen
