Thursday, May 15, 2008
Obama, Clinton, McCain, las elecciones y los medios
A continuacion transcribo la opinion del ex-editor de la Revista "Our Town" en New York City, Khalev Pehme, que puedo decir "I mostly agree".
(Mi impresion de hablar con la gente es que nunca estuvo tan saturada de las campañas electorales. Argentina fue el otro extremo - donde la candidata del oficialismo estaba impedida de "hablar" porque sus asesores le dijeron que "si hablaba perdía" y como manifesto Carrió el ultimo domingo "bastaron solo tres discursos para tirar abajo una presidencia" (Para cualquier observador es manifiesta la falta de espontaneidad de "la presidente" en sus discursos. Poniendo pose como que va a decir algo importante, repite frases ensayadas, estudiadas, algunas veces idioteces del tipo "la acumulacion de matriz diversificada" (sic), lejos de expresarse con naturalidad tiene un estilo acartonado que es para mí imbancable. Las mejores clases de oratoria las aprendi de Don Blas Piñar.))
Pongo en negrita los parrafos con los que "I strongly agree"
"When everything can be reduced to a set of numbers and equations and then projected in a virtual world, it changes our view of the ordinary world of our senses. It can also change the way we perceive politicians. I find Obama, for example, to be the creature of the global village politics that is made possible by the Internet and TV. Objectively speaking, Obama has done nothing in his political life in comparison to his opponents. Yet, he is inspiring. (Nota del Editor: Aqui se refiere a sus followers) What does this inspiration consist of? His rhetoric is nothing as classically inspiring. He is not black enough, but black enough. I think that Obama (much less an extent Ron Paul) is the first digital candidate for president, which is why he appeals so much to the young who live acoustically and with tactility. They are not creatures of eye as my generation is. I noticed how different the young are when I started to teach them and found that even their sense perception is different from my generation and that is because of digital media in which they grew. Moreover, because the media is the way it is, the simple normal attack upon his lack of record sounds harsh, off-key, or very "negative."
Yet, when Obama goes negative, it is ignored or thought to be fair. Without the analog, the qualitative distinctions erode in favor of the homogeneity of the virtual. He is the "cool" of the Internet political world. The young and the liberal establishment that supports Obama are operating totally on a digital level. It also harmonizes into fundraising and the instant gratification of instant contributions over the Net in record numbers of dollars.
[Hillary Clinton is a combination of the new and the old. She thinks old, because of her age. However, Hillary is also an incredible student and observer of the new, and as such can adapt. John McCain is just worn out and lost in the old analog, god bless him.]
The genie is out of the bottle. The future is the Obama candidate, a candidate who could not past muster years ago. It won't matter whether such candidates are conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, as these distinctions begin to fade in the digital world. We have men like Andrew Sullivan, a conservative, who says that Obama matters, because only Obama right now has the ability to appeal to right and left, can cross the aisle between Republican and Democrat, and can reconcile the vast divisions that were the past of this political world. Why can he do that? I think that Obama's digitality makes it appear that he could really do that. It's really a matter of homogenization rather than reconciliation and it is achieved through seeing politics digitally, not in the analog.
As Fox has been so successfully economically in the past few years, the other cable networks copy. At the same time, the smear goes over the Internet in various forms, disseminated by the big liars of the blogs. What happens today is that the big lie seems much more a big truth, simply by the sheer volume of coverage and dissemination. What Rove did was far more effective than anything that Goebbels did in Nazi Germany. The only reason we are not shocked by what is going on is a combination of partisanship and the fact that the media changes so rapidly that we are unable to stand back and say, hey, there is something wrong going on here.
When this kind of "data transfer" works so quickly and is wedded and integrated into capitalist economics we have an integration of political interests in such a way that homogenizes the world even further, embedding in that structure the complex of lies and false assumptions in way that in practical terms cannot be challenged as by the time they are challenged the falsity takes on a different guise with electronic speed."