We almost had to reset it during the Indo-Pak tensions as a result of Mumbai, but it looks like the world now has to replace its "4 months since the breakout of a regional war." The sad irony is the way in which media coverage of Russia's attack on Georgia lies in stark contrast with the passive silence of Israel's bombardment of Gaza. We had the narratives of "Putin = Hitler + Stalin + Russian Imperialism all in one" abounding when Saakasvhili bombed South Ossetia. Now the camera just rolls. Ironically, we even had denouncements of Russia responding with "overwhelming force." Where is the outrage of "overwhelming force" now?

There's more...

Cross-posted from Patterns That Connect.

Although somewhat complicated, and somewhat debated, I like to put the concept of hegemony in a nutshell as "a dominant ideology in drag as a common sense." It's a very stripped-down way of putting it, but I think it suits our times. The concept is important precisely because it covers so much, and points to a common functionality across a wide range of topics and issues--the whole range of dominant ideology, and the opposing views it seeks to render as more or less "unthinkable," as readily dismissable at the very least.

In this installment of my "Hegemony is the Enemy" series, I'll delve a bit deeper into the concept to justify that description, while providing enough information to draw other conclusions as well.  The most important figure in describing, defining and promoting the importance of hegemony is Antonio Gramsci, and it's his concept that I, too, find most compelling.  However, his thought is extremely complex, and wedded to a developmental perspective steeped in European history.  I make no pretense to capturing that complexity in my definition.  Indeed, the very act of stripping it down suits it for adopting an entirely new framework, as we'll see in future instalments.

There's more...

Obama, MLK and Hegemony (A Departure From My Ongoing Series)

Chris Bowers posted a very important frontpage story here at MyDD last night, "The Two Obamas and Me, Part One".  In it, he drew a distinction between the Obama who first attracted widespread, enthusiastic netroots and grassroots progressive support, and post-Senate election Obama who has often reiterated rightwing stereotypes of the left, in order to position himself more favorably.

In the course of the comments, some counter-arguments were raise, many knee-jerk and fatuous, but some serious, and deserving of serious replies.  Chris himself has said he will have more to say, and so I make no attempt to speak for him, or answer all the serious objections raised.  Instead, what I want to do is add a perspective to reinforce where Chris is coming from, as I understand him, which is the same place I'm coming from on this.  That perspective is the subject of an ongoing series I'm doing on hegemony, a complex concept that is nontheless deftly summarized as "a dominant ideology in drag as common sense."

In my view, the concept of hegemony is most useful in clarifying where Obama stands, and what he stands for.  He is, in my view, a hegemonic figure in drag as a counter-hegemonic figure.  Jump to the flip if you're interested in why.

There's more...

Cross-posted from Patterns That Connect.

With the election behind us, the task before us is enormous, more enormous than most folks realize. Political scientists describe American political history in terms of a series of "party systems," which are divided from one another by decisive breaking points, known as "realigning elections." The last universally agreed upon realigning election happened in 1932.  While things have changed enormously since then, the Republicans were never able to dominate the political landscape with sweeping congressional majorities the way that Democrats were.  The New Deal Party System crumpled, but did not fold.

And yet, that system is held in universal disdain by the punditocracy, even as evidence and rational discourse is held in disdain by the media generally.  What has happened is the elite repudiation of the New Deal--an accommodation with the working [and middle] class necessitated by collapse of capitalism--even though the people still support it.

The elite repudiation can be understood in terms of the concept of hegemony. Whole books have been written about it, but basically it's a $10 word meaning "a dominant ideology in commonsense drag." This post sets up a series on hegemony, devoted to clarifying the battles ahead.

There's more...

Cross-posted From Patterns That Connect

With the election behind us, the task before us is enormous, more enormous than most folks realize. In a pre-election post, I raised the issue of realigning elections, wave elections that fundamentally alter the party system from one era to another. A single wave election will not do it, I argued. Past history shows we need two in a row.

But even a party system realignment will not be enough to save us--not from such looming threats as global warming, for example. In this series, I argue we must grapple with something deeper than even bringing about a party realignment: we must grapple with the power of hegemony-a high-faluttin word that basically boils down to meaning a dominant ideology in drag as common sense.  The recent death of economist Milton Friedman provides an opportunity for a glimpse at the workings of hegemony, as I'll explain on the flip.

There's more...