Government 101

France, bureaucracy, Picardie, 2006. Pascale Hoornaert (b. 1952) works
for eight hours a week as town clerk in Ancienville (population 78), Aisne
department, Pidardie region. She holds the same position in two other
villages nearby, working a total of 31 hours per week. Monthly salary:
1,025 euro (US$ 1,348). Photograph © Jan Banning.

Lee, New Hampshire (population 4,145) Board of Selectmen, January 27, 2003
(L to R) Dwight Barney (Chairman), Joseph Ford, Richard Wellington.
Photograph © Paul Shambroom.

At The Guardian today there is this short notice of quite interesting work by Dutch photographer Jan Banning that consists of portraits of bureaucrats at work in eight different countries ("Bolivia, China, France, India, Liberia, Russia, the United States, and Yemen"). Banning suggests his "photography has a conceptual, typological approach reminding of August Sander’s ‘Menschen des 20 Jahrhunderts’ (‘People of the Twentieth Century’)." Put aside that by declaring the work "conceptual" he risks setting off yet another round of whining by Guardian photography critic Sean O'Hagan.* What strikes me about these portraits is less the comparison to Sander, than the series called "Meetings" that American photographer Paul Shambroom did several years ago. Shambroom toured the U.S. photographing local government 'in action.'

In Banning's images it is interesting to note the context; nearly all of the officials work under the watchful eye of the heroic or the powerful (Gandhi, Mao, Putin ...), often surrounded by the trappings of legitimacy. It is interesting to contrast these banal scenarios with the many images of disgruntled citizens manning the barricades or with photos of famous elected officials. Politics only appears glamorous.
____________
* For my previous (mostly) dissents from O'Hagan's various complaints look here.

Defending Bob Dylan

Here are columns by Jon Wiener (The Nation) and Sean Wilentz (New Y0rker) defending Bob Dylan's recent concerts in China from lame whining by various liberal media elites. Enough said.

The Truth From Washington

"The ground shifted and spending reductions Democrats recently described as 'extreme' and 'draconian,' they are now calling 'historic' and 'common sense.' The debate has turned from how much to grow government to how much to reduce it."~ Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky).


"There are a number of us in the caucus now pushing back very hard on our leadership. ... Who knows where they'll end up, but maybe we can take enough D's with us to make them uncomfortable and to make them stick with making the president act like a Democrat." ~ Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon).

I rarely agree with McConnell about much. But he is dead on here. The Democrats have been politically inept again. They have let the Republicans set the agenda - pure and simple. Meanwhile, Defazio's problem - as a member of the "progressive caucus" in the House - is that Obama is acting like a Democrat.

Picturing Dictators

Laurent Gbagbo and his wife in Abidjan after his arrest on Monday.

Photo Credit: Agence France-Presse/Getty Images.

This is the image that accompanies reports in The New York Times regarding recent events in the political crisis in Cote d’Ivoire. Gbagbo is the former dictator who has refused to relinquish power in the wake of elections last fall. Here is a man who wielded dictatorial powers but appears now, having been captured by opposition forces, rather pathetic. Perhaps he can rely on his friends among prominent American conservatives and evangelicals for solace. And, of course, it remains to be seen whether the opposition - headed by Allassane Ouattra - will be an improvement.

Sluts for Choice

"So why does the media keep claiming the looming government shutdown is about 'abortion?' . . . In adopting this lazy shorthand, media outlets tacitly accept the Republican frame: PP’s main business is performing abortions, and the federal government—you, the taxpayer!—pays for them. None of this is true. Ninety-seven percent of PP’s business is providing birth control, basic gynecological care, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and the like. Its abortion services are not funded with taxpayer dollars. Thanks to the Hyde amendment, there has been virtually no federal funding of abortion since 1976. Next time, so-called liberal media, try these handy phrases: 'Birth control blocks budget agreement.' 'Government shut down looms over Pap smears.' 'Republicans to women: can’t afford cancer screening? Tough luck.'" ~ Katha Pollitt

As is typically the case, Pollitt is on the money. The 'policy riders' that the Republicans are pushing are about controlling women's health and sexuality. The protesters in the image here (shamelessly lifted from Bag New Notes) have the matter just right.
___________
Photo credit: Jewel Samad/AFP-Getty Images ~ Caption: Participants shout slogans and display placards during a rally to “stand up for women’s health” at the National Mall in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2011. Participants from across the country gathered in a show of support for Planned Parenthood, the family-planning group in the crosshairs of the budget battle blazing in Congress, where a federal shutdown is looming.

Chinese Authorities Arresting Critics

According to these reports in The New York Times, Chinese authorities are more or less systematically detaining critics, notably artists and writers. Prominence seems no longer to afford any protection, as the regime has detained even the very visible artist Ai Weiwei. (This helpful post at The New Yorker provides some context. This is not the first time he has had run-ins with the authorities - you can find a digest here at The Guardian.)

Mstislav Rostropovich (27 March 1927 ~ 26 April 2007)

Rostropovich by Salvador Dali.

What's At Stake ... Political Power

From this defense of unions by Jacob Hacker & Paul Pierson at The Washington Post:

“The battle between Republicans and labor unions in Ohio, Wisconsin and other states is ostensibly about public workers' pay, benefits and bargaining rights. What is really at stake, however, isn't labor's income. It's labor's influence - not just in the American workplace but in American politics.

Critics of unions cast them as exclusive clubs for which the rest of Americans pay the dues. Wisconsin's GOP governor, Scott Walker, likes to say that unions are the "haves" and everyone else the "have-nots." And it's certainly true that unions aggressively pursue their own interests - sometimes to others' detriment. When asked in the early 20th century what the American Federation of Labor wanted, the union's gruff head, Samuel Gompers, famously replied, 'More.'

But unions play another role, too - one more like that of civic groups than private associations. Although they want "more" for their members, they also want to make good middle-class jobs the norm. And the most important way they pursue this larger goal isn't by demanding concessions at the bargaining table, but by operating as a counterweight to the demands of corporations and Wall Street in the corridors of power. That is precisely why opponents of organized labor are seizing upon state fiscal troubles to try to destroy its remaining clout.”

"Left-handedness has sometimes been treated as pathological."

I noticed this essay on left-handers in The New York Times the other day. But it only just struck me that the only thing "left" about either Clinton or Obama is the hand they hold the crayon with.

Political Predicaments

Lori Berenson and her son, Salvador, in Lima, Peru.

A Moment of Calm Berenson prepared her son for the chance
that she could have returned to prison.

On Parole Lori Berenson at the apartment where she is living in Lima. The
conditions of her parole require her to remain in Peru until 2015.

Berenson before a court in Lima, Peru, defending her parole, January 2011.

These images* all come from the cover story in today's New York Times Magazine on the travails of Lori Berenson. It seems pretty clear both that Berenson was railroaded by a desperate and repressive Peruvian government who imprisoned her for a decade and a half and that she set herself up for being railroaded by consorting with militants on Peru who were rapidly going over the deep end. She herself admits the latter point.

How does one simultaneously condemn exploitative and oppressive circumstances without, at the same time, seeming to - or, for that matter, actually - endorsing whatever popular resistance might arise in the face of such circumstances? Activists are caught in a bind and, too often, like Berenson if we take her at her word, allow themselves to be absorbed not into opposition, but into violent opposition. This is a predicament that seems to me to be unavoidable for critics - I think here of someone like Arundhati Roy - who neither endorse or excuse violent resistance nor condone though their silence the actions and circumstances that give rise to it.

The problem, in part, is that no matter how carefully you articulate your stance, there are those who will misconstrue your words, sometimes willfully, sometime by simply not listening. Roy, I think, is a perfect example of that. And, of course, as was the case in Peru during the 1980s and 1990s, both the government and the armed opposition proved more than willing to simply eliminate those who did not simply embrace one side or the other. Berenson is not a terribly sympathetic figure; she surely did not navigate the predicament she confronted very well. But that in no way implies that she brought that predicament on herself.
__________
* Note: All four images © Mary Ellen Mark for The New York Times. Our "paper of record" seems pretty adept at recruiting good talent!

Follow-Up on "Today, we are all Joan Miró" - On Art & Politics

Joan Miró. Plate 4 from the Black and Red Series, 1938.
Image © 1998 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/ADAGP, Paris.

A couple of days ago I posted some thoughts on this column at The Guardian by Jonathan Jones. In the piece Jones castigates "us" as being like Joan Miró who responded to the Spanish Civil War from afar rather than like George Orwell who went off to fight with the Republicans. Here are some more questions. Does art have to be activist to be political? The two are not the same, after all. Is "activist" even the best strategy? What would Jones make of the long series of paintings Robert Motherwell made over the course of decades, all entitled "Elegies for the Spanish Republic"?

Robert Motherwell. Elegy for the Spanish Republic, #126 (1965-75).

Or what about another visual cut at fascism - Leon Golub's series of canvases on torture and interrogation? Are we even in a position to know - even post- Abu Ghraib - about, let alone intervene in, such practices? At least one can ask if we know enough detail to intervene in practices like those Golub depicts that we generally suspect are occurring.

Leon Golub. Interrogation II, (1980-81).

More to the point, should we be criticizing artists like Golub, Motherwell, and Miró - holding them up for thinly disguised scorn - because they are not Orwell? After all, they "just" or "only" used their art to depict horrors and consequences. They didn't take up arms. And so ...?

And, of course, in an era where one's adversaries are likely enough to be mercenaries (ex-military paid, say, by Blackwater or its corporate offspring) or child soldiers (who are basically trained sociopaths) would taking up arms be anything other than more or less certain and largely pointless suicide? Jones would surely flinch at shooting down a twelve year old, even if the child were armed. And in that instant the boy would have shot Jones - to say nothing of you or I - for his trouble. The mercenary would've killed Jones before he had time to flinch. Nothing personal in this. But what is it that Jones expects of art?

Politics does not generally involve violence. And it cannot require intervention or action across time or space or absent some coordinated movement. Nor can it demand that essentially individual level activity like painting generate immediate, unambiguous action. That is the remit of the propagandist. The works I have lifted for this post are attempts to raise questions, provoke reflection, give voice to emotions and to do those things in response to violence and terror. It seems to me that we are in Miró's debt - and in Golub's and Motherwell's too. And it seems to me that Jones misses the point.

Wake Up Democrats! American Workers are Under Assault by Republicans

It is no surprise that Republicans across the country have taken aim on unions and done so in a concerted campaign. Nor is it a surprise that they have done so hypocritically, rationalizing their political agenda in terms of the need to address fiscal crisis in the states. What is also unsurprising - and no less disturbing - is that neither the unions nor the Democrats seem to have had a clue that this attack was in the offing. They were too busy hoping for the emergence of civil, bi-partisan politics. Is there a lesson here?

As I drove in this morning there were two useful segments on npr: the first confirmed the predictable, namely that the Obama administration is steering clear of controversy and hoping for a nice bi-partisan resolution to the labor conflicts in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio ... the second was an interview with a law professor who studies public sector unions and, guess what, they are not nearly the drag on the public budget or boon to selfish workers that the Republicans portray them as being. Surprised?

The Assault on Lara Logan Should Not Be Marginal to Our Reflections on the Flowering of Democracy

Photojournalism is a dangerous occupation. But as is typically the case, the dangers are not evenly distributed. There are two forthright essays at The New York Times on the dangers that beset women journalists. You can find them here and here. The women who've written these essays - Kim Barker and Sarina Tavernise - were prompted to do so by the vicious attack on correspondent Lara Logan by a mob of men in Tahrir Square last week. It goes without saying, I hope, that Logan has proven courageous in making public her own experience. In case it doesn't, I recommend this thoughtful comment. It is good news that she apparently is recovering from the physical harm she suffered.

Yet another response to Logan's experience appears here at npr. In it, Jane Arraf rightly holds up a mirror to those here in the west who are condemning the sorts of cultures that allegedly sustain attacks like the one Logan endured. Arraf's remarks are not, as conservatives will surely insist, about blaming the West; they are an invitation to learn something about ourselves instead of merely posing as cheerleaders. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the spread of democratic values. But there is nothing wrong either with acknowledging how partially and precariously they exist here at home.

Change the Subject: Wisconsin & Framing the Debate About Public Sector Unions

I listened to this report on npr this morning. And I've been reading about the events in Wisconsin and elsewhere here and here and here. I have to say that the Democratic assembly representatives are doing just the right thing. They have shown more gumption than the Obama administration has done over the past two years!

There are a couple of issues that are disturbing about the way things are transpiring. Let's talk about secondary matters. First, the Wisconsin governor is clearly trying to force de-unionization on the workers by demanding not just sharing the costs of financial hardship, but by seeking to so constrain the scope of collective bargaining as to make the union irrelevant. Second, the Governor exempted unions representing police, fire and other emergency responders. Guess what? Those were unions that supported his electoral campaign. If this were Indonesia we'd describe that as corruption. Here we call it Republican governance. Finally, the fiscal crisis in the states is being cause in the first instance by venality in the public sector and government incompetence and malfeasance at the federal level. So the demands being placed on public sector employees and recipients of state-level aid are completely misplaced.

What is even more troubling is the rhetoric surrounding the uprising in Wisconsin: it generally runs like this: "Public sector unions should shut up and quit whining. After all, they are 'just' being asked to kick in for health benefits and pensions. In other words, they are being asked to share the pain." It is easy enough to reply by making a couple of points. (1) Well, the workers already (last year) agreed to concessions. And (2) the workers are outraged (rightfully) over the Governor's attempt to undermine their right to bargain collectively.

Even those points are off the mark. The problem here is not that public sector unions are spoiled. It is that private sector workers are deprived. They by and large lack unions and so are now and have been getting hammered economically. How do you think we got the massive, decades long shift in income and wealth to the already rich? Why is it that so many private sector workers have low paying, no benefit jobs? Why is it that all that has happened despite rising productivity in the U.S.? The short answer is no unions. And that is what progressives ought to be pushing in response to the way events are being framed.

What progressives ought to be saying is this: "If the Republicans manage to undermine public sector unions, then the downward pressure on wages and benefits will increase across the economy. All you folks in the private sector will bear the consequences too and those consequences will be negative, for you and your families." Call for solidarity, point out the divide and conquer strategy of the right.

Unions ... in Egypt and Wisconsin

What do Cairo and Madison, Wisconsin have in common? There is a simply terrific column by Harold Meyerson in The Washington Post today that draws the parallels. (In case you are not paying much attention to the GOP assault on unions - what's new, right? - here is an update on the Wisconsin situation.)

Can Seeing Democratic Politics in the Cairo Streets CHange Stereotypes in the West?

Antigovernment Protesters that had been sleeping at the edge
of Tahir Square since the beginning of the uprising wave the
victory sign after hearing about the resignation of Mr. Mubarak
(11 February 2011). Photograph © Moises Saman/New York Times.

Men of Middle-Eastern extraction wearing the kaffiyeh celebrating success of pro-democracy protests. How can that be?

Democratic Revolution in Egypt: Thinking With Pictures

Egyptians celebrate in Tahrir Square after President Hosni Mubarak
resigned and handed power to the military, in Cairo, Egypt, Friday,
Feb. 11, 2011. Photograph © Khalil Hamra/AP.

On Twitter, Nevine Zaki circulated an image she says she
photographed Wednesday of Christians protecting Muslims
during prayer. Photograph © Nevine Zaki (3 February 2011).

Before the fall ... anti-Mubarak protesters wave Egyptian
flags at Cairo's Tahrir Square on 10 February 2011.
Photograph © Pedro Ugarte/AFP/Getty Images.

A general view shows the crowded Tahrir Square in Cairo on
February 10, 2011. Tens of thousands of Egyptian workers walked
out in mass nationwide strikes to demand wage increases and
show support for the widening revolt against Mubarak's regime.
Photograph © MARCO LONGARI/AFP/Getty Images.

So what is it that we learn from events in Egypt? Well, first there is the dissonance that many Americans must feel when watching dark skinned throngs, chanting in Arabic, engaged in protests for - democracy! After all, isn't it the case that we are supposed invariably to be suspicious of Muslims? But here are Muslims partaking in prayer during pro-democracy protests. Second, there is the observation that striking workers were an integral part of political events in Cairo. Strikes? Yikes, there is a notion. Finally, there is the largely - not entirely, but largely - non-violent character of the protests. Peaceful Muslims? How can that be? Islam in intimately related to Terrorism, no? Just wondering.

Follow Up: Oh yeah, I did neglect the obvious. Democracy here is not in voting booths or legislative assembly, but in the streets and the public square.

Is There Something in the Water?

Last year it was Democrat Eric Massa resigning his Congressional seat for nuttiness. Today it is Republican Chris Lee resigning his Congressional seat for nuttiness. The two represented adjoining districts here in Western New York. The region is developmentally challenged (in the economic sense) and we cannot manage to keep a sane person in Congress. That helps. Of course, I exclude my own Congresswoman, Louise Slaughter, who is terrific.

Courage: "An Open Letter from an Artist to a Mexican Crime Cartel Boss"

"Do you ever feel sorry and secretly cry? Do you sometimes look at yourself in the mirror and feel embarrassed or angry? Do you really believe that Jesus Malverde, St. Judas Tadeo and the Holy Death are protecting you? Are you willing to pay the huge price of putting your relatives and friends at risk for a relatively short life of power, sex and glamour? Do the movies and soap operas that you inspire make the daily risks worthwhile? Don’t you ever wonder if creating a truce with other cartels might actually be beneficial to you and to the whole country? Am I naïve for asking these questions?"

Photograph © Michael Macor / The Chronicle.

At In These Times this week you can find this courageous open letter by performance artist Guillermo Gómez-Peña. In his letter Gómez-Peña addresses the performative dimensions of the violence and mayhem that the drug cartels generate. The passage I've lifted above contains a series of hardly naive questions. Unfortunately, the answer to each is very likely not those Gómez-Peña would like. And I fear that he has placed his well-being in jeopardy by speaking out.

Who Says We Lack Bi-Partisanship? Or, Batista, Pahlavi, and Marcos, Oh My!

Occasionally, the folks at The New York Times get things right. Today, they published this story about U.S. foreign policy toward authoritarian tyrants. Here are some of the good bits:

"If the United States is, as so many presidents have said in so many speeches, the world’s pre-eminent champion of democracy, then why does the drama unfolding in Cairo seem so familiar?

A Washington-friendly dictator, propped up for decades by lavish American aid as he oversees a regime noted for brutality, corruption and stagnation, finally faces the wrath of his people. An American administration struggles over what to say, what to do and what to expect if the strongman is toppled.

Every country has both values and interests. Sometimes they coincide — for example, promoting human rights can help combat terrorism — and sometimes they conflict. What makes the United States stand out, perhaps, is how frequently American officials proclaim their values to the world, setting themselves up for charges of hypocrisy when a policy is expedient rather than idealistic.

History is rich with precedents. ... Since World War II, the White House, under the management of both parties, has smiled on at least a couple of dozen despots."

The report is brief, hence leaves out some especially deadly clients (Pinochet, Hussein - yes, the very same Saddam - Somoza, Suharto, etc.) but basically hits the nail on the head. Of course, it is unclear whether The Times would encourage support for the values over the interests here. Are they concerned about the hypocrisy? Or are they concerned that the bi-partisan American consensus is to back a dictator more or less whenever given the chance?