Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:27:15 -0700 (MST)
From: deaun moulton <deaun-AT-unm.edu>
Subject: PLC: Wagging the Dog


On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Michael Chase wrote:

> Deaun,
> 
>         Belatedly cleaning out my mailbox, I ran across the following smart
> and articulate message of yours.  Since you posted it, "Wag the Dog" has
> come out. Two questions:

> 1. Are you going to sue them for stealing your ideas? and

I've not yet seen the movie but I do know something of its premise.  I
wish I could claim credit for it but I'm afraid the thoughts expressed in
that previous post are not all that original.  No legal claim, dammit.  I
could use the cash.  Thanks for the kind words, anyway.


> 2. what with the current Clinton sex-scandals, can we expect a new invasion
> of Honduras or Fiji anytime now?

Well, he is trying awfully hard to come across as a mid-east peace broker.
And we did have that bit of chest beating in Iraq not that long ago.
Still, these things might be serendipitous.  It would be hard for Clinton
to beat up a military crisis, given his lack of military expertise and
what I suspect is a lack of support within the military.  He just doesn't
have the credit that Bush did.  

I think that Clinton's best line of attack is economic not military,
though he's not above a bit of domestic policing.  A tidy and easily
repressed domestic crisis wouldn't surprise me at all. 

In the post that Michael re-posted I said:

> >If the community
> >is there and functioning, then there are cultural standards in place which
> >manipulate and control information and communciation.  The question isn't
> >whether insiders are trying to keep their boundaries under control (and
> >this isn't a new phenomenon at all, it's as old as politics).  We can take
> >that for granted.  The question is what the patterns of control can tell
> >us about the culture.

There are two interesting questions which arise out of this media blitz
over something incredibly unimportant.  What are the Republicans so afraid
of?  and What is going on that is big enough that it needs to be replaced
on the front pages by this stuff?

Well, it's the economy of course.  Clinton may achieve a balanced budget
and a real debt reduction this year and next.  If he does, this is an
election issue that will be hard to beat. (The Republicans may find
themselves in the wierd position of advocating deficit spending!)  On the
other hand, there's a crisis in the international markets.  The Pacific
Rim markets have crashed.  This is being played down in the US press and
the US is acting paternally towards the Asians.  Several rather disturbing
question arise out of the crashes and the approach to it: What will happen
to the health of the US economy when (1) foriegn markets cease to be
available to support the paper wealth of over-leveraged speculators in the
US? (2) our creditors begin to sell and cease to buy US bonds and (3)  How
long can the US go on thinking of itself in rosy terms of purity like "we
are the only remaining superpower"?

In some ways, this scandal-mongering is an attempt to control information
and manipulate a response.  I don't think the control is working quite the
way anyone wants.  The process of spin is too apparent....information
about the world is too available through the internet and Clinton's bare
bum is getting really boring (if it was ever interesting).  The
cannibalism that is going on in the press is as much an example of the
disfunction of the national "community" as anything....and the willingness
to avoid real and serious issues like the financial crash is actually
quite frightening. 

I suppose I find it frightening because I really am an advocate of small-d
democracy and meaningful public participation is impossible without
information.  The dedicated attempt to stop the flow of information, or to
produce disinformation on a grand scale is inimical to democracy.  That it
is being done so flagrantly suggests that the governors are unconcerned
about this.  I would argue that this is evidence that the community is not
working and so the means and attempts to control communications are more
suspect than normal.

The cultural "standards" which are evident in the incessant ploy to skewer
Clinton (and the Democrats, I suppose) are somewhat alarming if one cares
about the health of the United States as a functioning political entity.
Those of you who think of yourselves as "non-politicial" or think that
such a downfall doesn't matter take the security of your lives for
granted.  If the United States government doesn't function, then something
else will function for it.....most likely the institution which signs your
paycheck.

When I was with Citibank the bank was beginning a big push for "corporate
culture."  This encapsulated an image of a "Citibanker" (like the image of
an IBM'er) but also contained a conscious effort to direct, at least, the
politics, (licit and illicit) love lives, and charitable giving of the
officers of the corporation.  They also attempted to co-opt as much of
one's free time as they could.  All of this based on the notion that he
who writes the paycheck has the authority to make the rules.  

I once had a manager tell me that I was smart so certainly I couldn't mean
to disagree with the bank's position on a piece of federal banking
legislation because what was good for the bank had to be good for me.  He
was naive and, last i heard, unemployed because the bank made a decision
about him based on its own self-interest.  Still, I doubt his position
will have changed vis-a-vis his next employer because he believes that
he-who-has-the-money-has-the-authority.

He wasn't the only buyer of the strategy though perhaps one of the most
easily swayed.  My immediate supervisor asked me very politely to accede
to the bank's wish that I sign a letter (pre-written by Citibank) to my
Congressman in favor of this piece of legislation because his goals and
his bonus were partially dependent on the complete cooperation of his
officers in this and other similar endeavors.  When I refused on the basis
that the bank bought my time but not my soul, he conceded the point but my
yearly personnel review noted an willingness to play with the team.  

I would chalk this up to Citibank-ness if I had not encountered a similar
set of rhetorical strategies and presumption in the university and even in
the small business where I do wage-labor now.


(Yes, I suppose these are apocryphal and therefore do not meet the
critiria for "data."  To that I would argue that someone has to write
the books we refer to, and the data in them must, somewhere, somehow be 
grounded in actual, material events.)  

The point here is that your employer is not simply interested in how well
you do your job.  They want you to "be part of the team."  That is, to be
part of the culture.  And the authority upon which this team exists is the
control over the means of production.....capital.  As the idea of the
"nation" becomes less and less able to hold people together in the
imagined community, the work place and other more immediate "communities" 
will form to take its place. 

Well, that's this weeks speech from the soapbox...

regards,
deaun.








     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---