Racing round the ‘sphere at the moment is Richard Cooke’s “Notes on Some Artefacts“, a dispatch from the US for his Tired of Winning series in The Monthly. And a very good piece it is too. Cooke speaks of the notion of contemporary life throwing up what he calls “artefacts”, by which he seems to mean conjunctions of political, media and social phenomena — creating an event, a thing — which have no internal rational core whatsoever.
This, I think he is arguing, is a departure from the pseudo-event identified by Daniel Boorstin as arising from the 1960s — the happenings, etc, co-opted into mass media — or even the “simulacrum”, as named by Jean Baudrillard in the ’80s, for a representation that has no actual thing or event that it represents. Even a simulacrum — the 1990 Gulf War was one example, a 90-hour “war”, with no opposition — imitated earlier rational events.
But what is one to say about things like “Qanon”, the baroque omnibus conspiracy theory with the form of a clinical paranoid psychotic episode, and which may have originated as a prank somewhere in the 4chan zone? Cooke notes that we now live in a world where whole exchanges we are looped into may be bots “talking” to bots, guided by algorithms, and with the capacity to cross a frequency threshold, and effect real events.
The ultimate flourish is Cooke’s assertion that “the Trump Presidency is an ‘artefact'”. But this pretty much reveals why the article has become catnip for Monthly readers and a penumbra there around. For it takes us on a theoretical ride, only to deliver what a left-liberal readership wants: an assertion that the Trump presidency is crazy, without content, that its inexplicability — or more exactly the inexplicable fact that Hillary is not president — is actually explicable, as the pure product of inexplicable times.
The material version of this would be that societies in which social and class formation becomes dominated by media — especially networked “social” media — to an overwhelming degree, will lose the intersection of levels of life that makes truth-testing possible (i.e. if you’re a skilled factory worker, union member, etc, you’ll be better at detecting bullshit about jobs and unions, etc, than someone reading Breitbart while they work from home).
The liberal version is simply that madness has taken over, tch tch tch. Having sketched out a material theory of “artefacts”, Cooke then gives us the liberal myth about Trump, which mystifies things all over again.
There may well have been Russian and other infowar in the 2016 US election, as there have been in elections the US has interfered in for decades. But the fact of such infowarfare alone does not make a presidency irrational, or “artefactual”. Trump is either President because someone hacked voting machines — in which case, it’s straight-out electoral fraud — or a majority of voters responded to a pretty clear program. That program was a nationalist economic change of direction away from globalisation against an opponent who had identified herself with such until just before the campaign.
The presidency may now be bad, it may be wacky, but it was created by the rational choice made by a majority of voters — on varying degrees of information — for something other than what was ordained by elites of both left and right. The notion that it is wholly a pseudo-event/simulacrum/artefact, is itself, ironically, an artefact of knowledge-class beliefs: that rationality is by definition tied to their class and ideological interests, and anything that departs from it is krazzzeeeee, and a product of objective processes — bots! — not a choice by knowing subjects.
Descend back into that consoling hyper-reality, and you are going to be in for a few future shocks.
Would you at least agree that you’d have to be crazy to vote for Trump again?
Except that the Right Wing ‘anti-elite’ supporting Trump conveniently want exactly what their hyper-capitalist backers do. The retreat from globalisation will be largely symbolic and/or harmful to the ‘economically anxious’ white working class voters blamed for his election, and the culturally anxious white middle-class who actually elected him.
So why retrospectively rob them of their agency too? Why can’t they have decided to do something self-defeating? Wouldn’t be the first time.
I don’t think this article is saying that’s what Trump is actually doing, it’s saying that’s what he promised and people voted for it – probably knowing it was doubtful he’d deliver, but that’d hardly be a new phenomenon in politics. If voting won’t change anything, at least vote for the person who’s saying they’d do what you want done. Seems rational enough in a rigged system.
No problem with the article, except for the reference to “a majority of voters”. Nationally, 46.4 per cent to Clinton’s 48.5 per cent.
“Majority of voters in key states”- Yes.
What majority of voters?
There is no doubt that Trump fell short of a majority of voters by several million votes. He won because of the weighting by states, that effectively double counts voters in low-population states (which are also, disproportionately, low economic activity and high dependency on Federal transfer payments).
What rationality?
The states where Trump prevailed see far fewer migrants than other states. They see far less entrepreneurial activity. They see far less cultural and social activity. And they voted to treat what they don’t have much of as something to keep out; and they voted to diminish the Federal payment system on which, in fact, they disproportionately depend.
Now, about that Russian interference…
It’s the system every President has been elected under for … yonks.
And if you think Russian interference swung it, you’re deluded. They (allegedly) leaked some emails which were TRUE. They weren’t fake emails, they weren’t smears, they were real emails showing how contemptuous Clinton and her machine were of normal people. Not that I think many people took much notice of that.
The real reason for Trump’s victory is the Clinton machine’s dirty tactics in robbing Sanders of the nomination. He would have walloped Trump and given the US a genuinely progressive (maybe even left!) President, not the neoliberal, war-mongerer that Clinton is.
The great unknown of the 2016 presidential election: Would Bernie have won? And if so, how radically different would the world be now?