Help In These Times raise $10,000 in three weeks! Donate now to support original and incisive journalism!
Help this website survive! Donate to In These Times now!

Why Cynics Are Wrong

The sublime shock of Obama’s victory

By Slavoj Zizek

Days before the election, Noam Chomsky told progressives that they should vote for Obama, but without illusions. I fully share Chomsky’s doubts about the real consequences of Obama’s victory: From a pragmatic-realistic perspective, it is quite possible that Obama will just do some minor face-lifting improvements, turning out to be “Bush with a human face.” He will pursue the same basic… return to article

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Zoom OutZoom In Reader Comments (4)

    Page 1 of 1 pages

    as an example of automatic cynicism the kissinger example proves useful. however, what we find so far is that

    “And if Barack Obama drinks, as it appears he will, the dark elixir of war and imperial power offered to him by the national security state, he will accelerate the downward spiral of the American empire.”

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081117_americas_wars_of_self_destructio on/


    Obama’s transition: A who’s who of imperialist policy
    19 November 2008
    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n19.shtml

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081118_bracing_for_a_major_disappointme ent/

    “The Americans who voted for Barack Obama as president were promised change they could count on, but it rather looks as if they may actually be asked to make do with a mildly refurbished Clinton administration, with many of the same officials and nearly all of the same policies. The policies are drawn from the same centrist Democratic Party sources as those of Bill Clinton, and Obama’s admirers might even find themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state—which makes no sense whatsoever.”


    also look at how rapidly the agenda with which he won and instilled hope has been abandoned:


    http://www.change.gov/agenda/

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/obama-campaign-pulls-issue-page es-from-transition-site/

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/changes-at-changegov-return-of- -the-agenda/?scp=4&sq=obama agenda&st=cse

    OLD AGENDA!!!
    http://notatypewriter.com/Obama-ChangeGov/

    i am willing to wait and see for a while. and i acknowledge that he starts off in a big hole dug by you know who but not entirely by you know who either.

    United States Posted by mikerol69 on Nov 20, 2008 at 5:54 AM

    If nothing else, Obama is the supreme pragmatist.

    His entire career has been a matter of using (associating with outrageous or radical individuals) who could advance his cause for as long as useful and then moving on.

    While in the Illinois legislature avoiding votes on anything controversial which may later haunt him.

    While in the U.S. Senate writing two books about himself and no bills.

    Mastering the use of the sound bite and slogan to appeal to emotions with little explanation of plausible methods.

    Pardon my continuing cynicism, but I voted for him once and am still waiting for any results. His choices for his administration read like the American Movie Channel classics — all re-runs.

    I expect a one-term Carter re-run when the economy continues to tank due to his continuing the phony solutions from the same “experts” who brought us to this sad state.

    United States Posted by whattheheck on Jan 15, 2009 at 9:23 PM

    I highly respect Slavoj ZIzek, however he entirely disregards his own material.  I am someone that worked on the Nader campaign and talked to literally thousands of people on why they were voting for Obama.  What I found is that these individuals were voting for symbolism over substance.  They were betraying their drive for their desire.  As Zizek states many times, a revolution must occur through following your drive at the point of the previous failed attempts.  However the majority of these individuals that were voting for Obama knew very well that he was not going to bring systematic change, but they continued to vote for Obama rather than Nader or McKinney (the individuals that support their ideas) - they were clearly following ideology (“they know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it”) and not their drive.  Voting for Obama was purely symbolic, the only cynics, were those that supported Obama when they wanted to vote for third parties or independents.  These individuals cynically justified voting for the two party system rather than voting for the candidate they wanted to vote for.  A substantial change is not voting black, then again its more than voting, but in regards to voting, a substantial change is vote for a new system.  Voting for Obama was once again, the lesser of two evils, betraying their true desire.  This time I have to side with Chomsky, sorry Zizek.

    United States Posted by Ehren Stuff on Jan 16, 2009 at 10:31 PM

    This attitude is best encapsulated by the French expression “je sais bien, mais quand meme” (I know very well that it can happen, but nonetheless… 642-242 dumps I cannot really accept that it can happen). This is why, although Obama’s victory was clearly predictable at least for the last two weeks before the election, his actual victory was 650-251 dumps  still experienced as a shock. In some sense, the unthinkable did happen, something that we really didn’t believe could happen. (Note that there is also a tragic version of the unthinkable really taking place: holocaust, gulag… how can one really accept that 70-351 dumps  something like that could happen?)

    Japan Posted by jason.rocksmith on Aug 19, 2009 at 12:54 PM
    Page 1 of 1 pages

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Also by Slavoj Zizek
Popular Discussions