Thursday, I considered President Obama’s speech, informed by William Milberg’s analysis of Senator Ryan’s budget proposal. My conclusion: the terms of the political debate for the 2012 elections are being set to the President’s strong advantage. I am pleased, but even more pleased because two serious opposing views of America and its public good will be debated. A rational discussion about this seems likely. There will be smoke and mirrors to be sure, but this is a time for grand politics in the sense of Alexis de Tocqueville and a grand political contest we will get.
This is especially important given the present state of affairs in the United States and abroad. But Presidential leadership will not solve all problems. Indeed, much of the politically significant action occurs off the central political stage, in what I refer to as “the politics of small things.” This dimension of politics has been on our minds this week in the form of three very different cases: the Tea Party in the United States, and The Freedom Theatre and the International Solidarity Committee in occupied Palestine.
The Tea Party is a looming presence in American politics. But it is in a sense “no thing”, as Gary Alan Fine puts it. It is a social movement that emerged in response to major changes associated with the election and early administration of Barack Obama, and a response to the global economic crisis. Fine and I disagree in our judgment of the “Tea Party patriots.” Indeed, I, along with Iris, am not sure how rational they are, but that is actually a political matter. As an objective observer of the human comedy, i.e. as a sociologist, I am particularly intrigued by the no thing qualities of the Tea Party which Fine considers.
A media performance occurs. An agitated announcer denounces policies said to be supporting losers, calling for a new tea party demonstration. People, who can’t take it anymore, come together in small groups all around the country, using the phrase “tea party” to identify themselves with each other and to the general public. An assortment of conservative foundations, institutes, politicians and billionaires associate themselves with this social development, seeing in it what they will, empowered by the movement. It’s certainly not a political party. It’s not one thing. But this configuration of images, gestures, actions and strategies, clearly has energized at least a branch of the Republican Party, which now has a Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives. This is an example of what I call the politics of small things. Not no thing, not a big thing, but a small one that has added up. That is how I understand the Tea Party.
People meet, speak and act in each other’s presence on the basis of some common concern. They develop a capacity to act in concert and do so. This is a form of political power. In the Tea Party we see how such power can fundamentally change the configuration of political forces in a society. I think that this power is a direct response to a similar power developed in support of the election of Barack Obama, something I analyze in my forthcoming book, Reinventing Political Culture.
Juliano Mer-Khamis
I also analyze in the book the project of reinventing through the politics of small things the militarized political culture of occupation, terrorism and anti-terrorism in Israel Palestine. This week we observed and reflected on the meaning of the assassination of two heroes of this project, Juliano Mer-Khamis, an actor and theater artist, based in Jenin, and Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian peace activist working in Gaza, engaged in non violent political protest and social action. They formed and took part in small endeavors presenting alternatives to occupation and violent resistance. They formed and acted in groups which worked in the shadows of the occupation. They were assassinated by forces of violent resistance in response to the effectiveness and importance of their actions. The limits of non violent resistance are revealed in the stories of their deaths, but the limits of militarized politics were revealed in their life’s actions.
Vittorio Arrigoni
Arrigoni took part in non violent resistance to the Israeli occupation and witnessed the daily struggle for survival and dignity in Gaza. He published a book with the poignant title We Remain Human, apparently challenging not only the Israelis, but as well Salifist radicals, his killers, who emulate the ideology and terror of Al Qaida. In Arrigoni’s life rather than his death, Benoit Challand sees political significance. This supports the democratic struggles of the Arab Spring, honoring the humane Gazan faces Arrigoni presented in his work.
Juliano Mer-Khamis was not only or primarily a victim of radical intolerance from Palestinian and Israeli sources, Irit Dekel emphasizes. The repression he faced and his violent end should not define his life. Rather, his art and the world he created for Palestinian boys and girls and their families and audience in the Freedom Theatre are of greater import. As Dekel put it, he should be remembered for “fighting for the freedom of the everyday” by non violent artistic means.
The freedom of the everyday has limited power. But the power persists thanks to creators and witnesses such as Mer-Khamis and Arrigoni.
And let’s remember, for better and for worse, this freedom of the everyday is at the root of the Tea Party movement and the movement that led to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, America’s first black President, setting the stage for the great debate about American political culture which the upcoming Presidential election will be.
It appears that the 2012 presidential election has begun; perhaps the election process never actually ends. Unfortunately, the election process is not conducive to problem solving. Instead binary speech is invoked which tends to crystallize opposing views. Crystallized meanings may either be based upon perceptions based upon the best information available, or phantasms which are released from deep seated fears and are either consciously or subconsciously projected upon the other side.
This process while firming up support for parties and candidates is contrary to approaches which are used for interest based problem solving. For instance, the President had a choice when he delivered his speech at American University. He chose the staging, the words used and the audience. The format the President used set him above others and communicated that he held the high ground. The President chose to harshly critique the Republican position with its crafters present. This signaled an aggressive posture rather than an invocation or request for a more collaborative approach. The signals imparted had institutional, interpersonal and personal messages.
Standard & Poor’s, and many others, picked up on these signals, and the signals probably contributed to the shifting of its outlook for U. S. sovereign debt from stable to “negative,” a move which may ultimately contribute to a downgrade. S&P stated according to Bloomberg news service, “We believe there is a risk that U. S. policy makers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium-and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013. If an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation does not begin by then, this would in our view render the U. S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer ‘AAA’ sovereigns.” The consequences on the U. S. cost and ability to borrow might be substantial. Moody’s sent signals that this could happen in January of this year.
Here are a few views that are more factual in nature about problems that are well known yet resist acknowledgement.
On Social Security, the American Academy of Actuaries wrote in a January 2007 Monograph entitled “Social Security Reform Options,” “The American Academy of Actuaries’ Social Insurance Committee believes that Congress should act soon to make changes to the program and bring Social Security back into long-range actuarial balance over the next 75 years and beyond. Enacting such changes soon is desirable, because doing so would provide significant advance notice to those affected, allowing recipients to plan accordingly.”
On Medicare, the American Academy of Actuaries in its November 2010 Issue Brief wrote, “Even with the successful implementation of ACA (The Affordable Care Act), however, long-term challenges remain. The HI trust fund is projected to be depleted in 2029, and Medicare spending will continue to grow faster than the economy — increasing the pressure on beneficiary household budgets and the federal budget and threatening the program’s sustainability. Policymakers need to take further action to address these problems.” In a February 2010 call to action, the Academy wrote, “It is critical that President Obama and Congress work now to achieve consensus on those decisions. Deferring action will only ensure that the changes necessary are more extreme and likely more burdensome to future generations.”
On Medicaid, the 2010 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook for Medicaid” issued by the Office of the Actuary for the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services of the U. S. Department of Health & Human Services addressed aspects of this program. Medicaid’s financial operations are not financed through trust funds and supported by Federal and State sources (taxation or borrowing). The magnitude of the challenge is apparent to anyone who reads the report, “Total Medicaid expenditures (Federal and State expenditures combined) for medical assistance payments and administration are projected to grow 6.9 percent in FY 2010 to $404.9 billion and to reach $840.4 billion by 2019, increasing at an average rate of 8.3 percent per year over the next ten years.” In 1966, the historical data shows $.4 billion. The trajectory and magnitude of the problem are clear.
Instead of shifting into campaigning mode, it is time for the parties to reverse directions and shift to interest based problem solving in my opinion.
The Barack Obama’s tolerance of the oppositions is admirable, although he reminds me, the reformist ex-president of Iran, Khatami who during his presidency was also too “nice” to his oppositions. and this attitude eventually arose a lot of consequences and criticism. For example, when Khatami was president, the filtering community rejected most of the reformist candidates for the parliamentary election and
this community did not allow them to become nominee. In that time, most of criticism to Khatami was that he did not speak up and react firmly and he allowed the opposite party to do whatever they want. Then the
result was first shutting sown the free election and consequently the majority of parliament were opposite of the khatami’s policy. Now regarding the Tea Party, ( I am not saying that the situation exactly the same) but I felt that Barak Obama is also acting somehow like Khatami and he wants to be so “nice” to the oppositions. While the Tea Party can show how much the critical debate in the US is alive and free, this Tea Party movement if wants to interfere to the extent that Obama’s cannot accomplish his program and plans, I have to admit this “extreme being nice and respectfulness” to the oppositions (here i mean surrendering and withdrawing like Khatami’s passive reaction),then it can also turn into the irrespectiveness to his fans and supporters who voted for him …..