On Behalf Of kelley
> psychoanalytic concpets ought not be applied to social phenom -- they
> don't fucking translate because society doesn't operate like people
> and people aren't societies.
I quite agree. But the idea that the presence of a common enemy unifies a group -- in Zizek's argument, that the spectre of a right wing demon unifies the liberal left and causes it to paper over differences under the hegemony of its dominant wing -- is not a psychoanalytic concept. It has been a staple of social and political theory since Aristotle's _Politics_.
The idea that denouncing Haider makes him more popular is not in Zizek's article. It emerged in the thread. And it's not a general rule. But it sure was predictable here based on the Waldheim experience. And this isn't a case of Haider being simply denounced. That would be hard to argue with. This is rather a case of governments refusing to deal with representatives that Austrians elected in essential groups to which Austria belongs by treaty -- and, more importantly, of doing so on the basis of ad hoc procedures (impromptu conference calls, essentially). Outsiders might find this hard to be believe, but this strikes Austrians, even those that hate Haider and always have, as unfair. That's what gains him sympathy beyond his core group. Even copper-bottomed progressives in Austria think they should be allowed to continue with EU business.
So far as I know them, all of Haider's policies and minority stereotyping can be found among elected national right wing figures in Germany, France and America. What makes him stand out is solely his purposive slips about Austria's Nazi past. He makes those slips not to energize a neo-Nazi movement -- there is no such thing in Austria, nor is there likely to be -- but to make old Nazis and their sympathizers feel better about their past. To make them think they were no worse in the end than other countries. To make them think outsiders have been unfair in condemning them so severely. Which is why all this ad hoc unfairness plays right into his hands. Now if people had set their mind to debating the issues he presents in EU bodies, and passing rules that constrained him -- passing EU-wide rules on minimum immigrant rights, for example -- that would have been a very different matter, and something fervently to be supported. If Europeans want to deepen the EU by passing a Europe wide bill of rights that could not be tresspassed without suspension, I'm all for it. I think this would be a great thing. But this is a way to avoid that, to my mind. Although perhaps an optimist might hope that the failure of this approach will get a fire under the more serious one.
The bottom line is, Haider presents no immediate danger to anyone. He and his ilk represent a real medium-term danger to the EU which it hasn't made any provisions for, and this is a great opportunity to recognize and deal with it in a way that would stick and would be legitimate -- through laws that would apply to everyone equally. Which is what democracy is about.
Two last things. For all the criticism we LBO-talkers have heaped on the two party system over the years, it should be pointed out that this is a prime example of what's wrong with a three party and change system: somebody can conceivably take power even though more than two-thirds of the people don't want him as Chancellor.
The corollary of that is that even with growing support, Haider is still looking for a third of the electorate, a sizeable chunk of which are protest votes. Nazi sympathizers do play a pivotal role in Austrian politics. But that doesn't mean all Austrians are Nazis, any more than all Americans were religious fundamentalists when Ronald Reagan was our president.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com