Performative Contradiction and the American Election Games of 2016

Like the vast majority of my fellow Americans, I am watching the election process with abject horror. A few days ago, Hillary Clinton was declared the Democratic candidate, and the majority of headlines celebrated her nomination as a monumental victory for progressive politics. At long last, a woman has been declared the nominee of a major political party. That “major” qualifier is important, because Jill Stein is the nominee for the Green Party, and that is entirely irrelevant for the media, and for the Election Games at large. The Green Party does not exist, except as a warning for what will happen if you dare to vote for them (see Nader 2000). The fact that making Bush Jr. the president required a Supreme Court ruling, due to the willful incompetence of the election process, is never mentioned.

In American Election Games, candidates rise according to internal political party hierarchies, and have little to do with what the vast majority of the people want. This cycle has made that clear in ways that many of us find shocking. Democrats who support Hillary Clinton never miss an opportunity to point out that Sanders was an Independent to begin with, as if that justifies the DNC’s blatant marginalization of his campaign. Even when the suspicions are confirmed, as they were recently with the release of hacked emails, the attitude from the DNC establishment is very much a normalization of such a bias. Of course Debbie Wassermann Shultz favored Hillary. How could she not? And she did nothing illegal, technically, so it is ok. She was forced to resign from her position as Chair of the DNC, only to be immediately hired by Hillary Clinton as a campaign manager. And look, over there, its Putin! He’s to blame for the release of our emails, so we never have to be held accountable for their content.

Rachel Maddow made a halfhearted attempt at asking the new chair of the DNC Donna Brazile, whose anti-Bernie bias was also reveled in these emails, whether they are worried about the content of what else might be revealed. The response was something we have all grown accustomed to: a blanket evasion and deflection of anything addressing the content, and an immediate pointing to some external other seeking to undermine our nation. In this instance, it is Putin in collusion with the Republicans. It may easily be the case that Putin is behind these hacks, but is the primary concern not the information that was revealed? Not only is it not a primary concern, it is not even a secondary or tertiary concern. Maddow made absolutely no attempt at a follow-up question to this blatant evasion, which is hardly surprising. It is almost as if she thinks journalism consists of posing the questions that you think ought to be answered, but then making no actual attempt at getting those answers. And why should she press the issue, after all, since any weakening of the already wildly unpopular Democratic Party is likely to help the other side? It seems to never occur to any of the establishment agents on either side of the isle that consistently pandering to the weaknesses of their party is making them even weaker.

Likewise, all the media coverage that was biased against Sanders, and the disastrous voting conditions in many of the states where Hillary won (Arizona, Massachusetts, Iowa, Nevada, California, New York, etc.) are dismissed as irrelevant in the wake of her victories, because her nomination proves that she has popular Democratic support. So what if that Independent Bernie was marginalized in a few places? He was more likely to win in open primaries anyway, which is not a true reflection of the Democrats’ desire. The Democratic Party must nominate a Democratic candidate! Never mind that 70% of Americans are not registered Democrats, and never mind that someone coming from outside the two party system has virtually no chance of receiving any media coverage or funding.

(According to a Gallop Survey from 2014, 43% of Americans were registered Independents, with 30% Democrats, and 26% Republicans http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx).

Even with the Democratic primaries being open in some states, and voting conditions being as compromised as they were, Clinton barely managed to eek out a little over 50% of the vote, which means that roughly 15% of registered voters voted for her nomination. Is it any wonder that Trump – who won the Republican nomination by a landslide – is rivaling her in the national polls?

The same obstinacy with which the DNC approached its nomination process prevents them from acknowledging the profound weakness of Clinton as a candidate. It is an intolerable thought to establishment Democrats that Hillary could lose the national campaign, just as it was an intolerable thought for them that Sanders would receive the nomination. And, given that they successfully put Clinton at the top of the ticket – joined by a pro-life, pro-Wall Street Vice Presidential nominee – means that they are right. Doesn’t it? Everyone assures us that no sane human being will vote for Trump over Clinton, so her path to the White House has once again been secured. She has to contend with the small matter of her unlikability and “trust issues,” but all that is required to overcome those is a mixture of the correct lies being told in a convincing manner with the right amount of disgust generated by the prospect of a Trump presidency. Throw in a few speeches from people who are more liked and trusted, and you have the winning formula.

Trump, that lifelong Democrat, longtime Clinton family friend, and all-around expert performer, has put “liberals” all across this nation on high alert, where they are unable to criticize the DNC for fear of strengthening Trump’s presidential bid. If anyone dares to criticize Clinton, the immediate slap-down comes in the form of, “What, you’d prefer Trump?” What prevents Democrats both inside and outside the establishment from recognizing the very present reality that, yes, in actual fact, huge numbers of Americans would prefer Trump over Clinton? No amount of beating the “first female president” drum is likely to change the disgust that the vast majority of Americans feel when considering a Clinton presidency. How can this be the case? Surely sexism is the only possible explanation, combined with the idiocy of stubborn “Bernie or Bust” millennials, who, as Sarah Silverman graciously reminded us, are “being ridiculous.”  

Performative Contradiction and NeoFeminism

The brand of feminism that we are called to swallow this election cycle demands looking past the long history of questionable actions taken by Hillary Clinton (unsecure servers exposing classified information, war, corporate donations, etc.) and vote for her just because she is a woman, biologically speaking. If we call her character into question, then we are no better than all those screw-ball sexist Republicans who have been working to undermine women’s political rights for years. Sadly, it is true that Republicans today are far less interested in anything we might call truly conservative values, and far more interested in pandering to fringe religious fervor and xenophobic paranoia, while pocketing large amounts of legalized bribes. Even the Libertarian branch of the party, which claims to want less government regulation, holds the inexplicable position that the sex lives of individuals should be heavily legislated. Were it not for this tragic position, Rand Paul might have been my preferred Republican candidate. After all, he is one of the few – besides Bernie – who appears to be genuinely opposed to the idea of killing more innocent people in the Middle East. He is the only Republican who wants less war. The other positions of the Libertarian party are more problematic, but I digress.

This brand of feminism allows Madeline Albright, the first female Secretary of State, to declare that there is a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women – read: women who don’t vote for Hillary; and it allows Gloria Steinem [Gloria Steinem!] to say that the women who support Bernie over Hillary – the majority of whom are millennials – are doing so only because they are following the lead of men. Remarkable, isn’t it, that women who championed women’s rights for so many decades reveal that what drove them was a clinging to the exact same sexist views as the men they were fighting against? Gloria Steinem believes, much like so many old sexist men, that young women are too stupid to make their own political decisions. Madeline Albright goes even further, and condemns them to hell; again, echoing the religious fervor of old conservative men, commanding women to keep their legs closed, by way of a justification for outlawing abortion. As if abortion had anything to do with sexual promiscuity; as if outlawing abortion led to lower rates of unwanted pregnancy. Of course, it does not. It is a sadistic response, one which Madeline Albright, Gloria Steinem, and the DNC through their nomination of Hillary Clinton, feel entitled to make. Just as the “pro-life” position has been hijacked as a tool for sexual sadism, and a fetishization of violence, entirely removed from anything concerning the sanctity of life (except through empty rhetoric), the feminist position has been hijacked by sexism. What is most remarkable about this brand of sexism is that it is too lazy to even differentiate itself from that other type of sexism – the one perpetrated by men against women. This new brand of sexism – NeoFeminism – calls women stupid, and condemns them to hell, in the name of feminism. There is a philosophical term for this rhetorical move – it is performative contradiction. The classical example of it in antiquity is the liar paradox – the utterance, “I am a liar,” negates itself through its utterance.  I declare that I am a liar, but the content of my declaration refutes the truth that it is claiming. If I am a liar, I can hardly be trusted to confess such a flaw. The truth value of my utterance is undermined by the act of its utterance.

A performative contradiction occurs whenever the content of what it states is undermined by the way it is stated, undermined by the act of its statement. So, when a woman like Gloria Steinem declares that young women who support Bernie are merely boy-crazy, and she makes this statement in the name of feminism, it negates feminism. Likewise, Madeline Albright telling women that there is a special place in hell for them, if they don’t vote for Hillary, is a negation of literally everything that feminism is supposed to represent. Even without delving into Hillary Clinton’s personal history – her husband; his very (humiliating) public infidelities; her stance towards the women who were involved in these scandals; etc. – a significant chasm under the term “feminism” is revealed by the statements of these women. What is revealed is that the essentialization of gender normativity is unjust – an insight which is foundational to the spirit of feminism – and that furthering this injustice will not miraculously lead to justice. Thus, we find ourselves in our current predicament, where voting for the first female presidential candidate (of a “major” party) is a symptom of profound sexism, rather than a sign of progress towards gender equality.

Another instance of performative contradiction reared its head in Sarah Silverman’s address at the DNC, where she concluded a very well crafted speech about the juvenile name calling among the Republicans with the enigmatic addendum of calling Bernie supporters “ridiculous.” A condemnation of name-calling was concluded with name-calling. 

These contradictions are apparent to the vast majority of Americans, but somehow they are not apparent to the ones repeatedly making such statements. Contradiction is only one side of this dynamic, and it is the more elusive one for the media and the political machine to grasp. By contrast, everyone seems to have a firm grip on the concept of performativity, as we hear in every declaration and introduction of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States. As we all know, this is how performativity works: you say something, and voila, it becomes true (sarcasm). Trump and Republicans understand this as well, to the point where speech utterances have been completely liberated from the brutal confines of truth, especially in the realm of political speech. Whether or not something is true is completely irrelevant in contemporary political discourse. The only two things that matter are 1) whether people want to hear what you are saying (so they vote for you), or 2) whether it is something that you wish to be true.

Performative Contradiction and Civil Disobedience

Given this sad state of our political landscape, and the choice between Clinton and Trump this November, I would like to call on my fellow Berners to stage an act of Civil Disobedience. Since our votes obviously do not matter, let us cast them for Bernie. As an aside, I also want to advocate for voting for Jill Stein, simply because we need a third party. But my hesitation lies in the fact that a third party will not solve the corruption that has completely eroded civic discourse and public office, along with the economic wellbeing of the majority of this nation.  We need something more than a third party. We need Bernie Sanders. We need him more now than ever, because he no longer wants our vote. He is no longer running. He will not be the president, for certain. And since our votes do not matter, someone who does not want our vote, and who is not in the race, is the perfect recipient of our votes. We must allow the entire thing to transpire outside the system, in the margins, along with the votes of all the people who have been systematically disenfranchised from voting by gerrymandering and the insidious corruption of both parties. 

There is a self-negation inherent in the act of voting. It is always present, no matter what the specifics of the vote are. Voting is simultaneously an act of self-assertion in the eyes of the state, and a self-negation, because the state predetermines the conditions of that self-assertion. Many selves together predetermine the state, but individuals are always predetermined by the state. That originary moment of the formation of the state is forever out of our reach, though we long for it and fetishize it in our origin stories.

While voting is predetermined by the state, still, the state requires the willful participation of the voter. What better demonstration of the negation of the will of the voters than this year’s candidates? The two most widely disliked candidates in history are offered up by our broken system, and we are mocked and ridiculed by our fellow countrymen if we make either choice. We are mocked further if we attempt to resist these absurd choices. This is the state of current public discourse in America. The only discourse which is permissible in the public sphere are two forms of nationalist pageantry, either celebrating the ascension of NeoFeminism, or raging against the other with fantasies of violence. Both forms are self-fetishizations spun around a self-victimization narrative.

Let us keep cool heads in the midst of this chaos, and not be bullied into a false dichotomy staged by two prominent and wealthy New York families. There is indeed much at stake for both sides, but we cannot allow Bill Clinton to atone for his many sins against Hillary at the expense of the American people any more than we can allow Donald Trump to use this nation to grow his dwindling personal wealth. We must resist the corruption, the self-dealing, and the willful manipulation of the public.

And speaking of personal wealth, that is at the heart of this problem. Somehow, our ruling class has found itself in possession of more wealth than ever before, and this vast concentration of wealth has led to their absolute poverty. It has revealed that no amount of wealth will ever be enough. Not even now, as Wall Street representatives arrive in Philadelphia to celebrate Hillary Clinton’s nomination, is the personal wealth they have amassed at the expense of American taxpayers enough. All the weapons manufacturers and war profiteers also need more. More. More. Because capital is infinite in its nature, and this is at odds with human lifespans and the concrete materiality in which capital has its basis.

Capital: the head. It is where thinking occurs. Our political system is a manifestation of our collective spirit, and for us, thinking is no longer something that occurs in our heads. Our capital has become completely externalized. We no longer think it; capital thinks us. We do not posses capital; it possesses us. It possesses our politicians, it possesses our schools, our churches, and our hospitals. We have lost the ability to think about it as a tool, and are now merely tools for it, to generate more capital. Trump claims he will run this nation like a business – presumably not like any of the businesses he has bankrupted. This resonates with many people, but only because many of us are no longer capable of thinking of anything outside of a profit seeking structure. Everything from incarceration to education is now a for-profit enterprise, and because of this, the content of all enterprise is being eroded. Soon, we will be left with nothing but a pure drive, a rarefied nihilism that is achieved only after everything else has been destroyed. We are not far from this state right now.

I do not want Bernie to be president, because I really like him, and I do not wish the burdens of that office on a man with such integrity and commitment to the civic good. And, so, I will vote for him, because he is no longer running, and because I do not want him to win. I will vote for him, because my vote for him is not wanted. A vote for Bernie at this point is entirely outside the economy of this election, and as such, it is the only ethical option.