Chomsky would never call it an empty signifier but he still describes the concept: (perhaps this quote was already distributed on LBO?)
Noam Chomsky on Obama, .
*** "When I was driving home the other day and listening to NPR - my masochist streak - they happened to have a long segment on Barack Obama. It was very favorable, really enthusiastic. Here is a new star rising in the political firmament. I was listening to see if the report would say anything about his position on issues - any issue. Nothing. It was just about his image. I think they may have had a couple words about him being in favor of doing something about the climate. What are his positions? It doesn't matter. You read his articles. It's the same. He gives hope. He looks right into your eyes when you talk to him. That's what's considered significant. Not 'Should we control our own resources? Should we nationalize our resources? Should we have water for people? Should we have health care systems? Should we stop carrying out aggression?' No. That's not mentioned. Because our electoral system, our political system, has been driven to such a low level that issues are completely marginalized. You're not supposed to know the information about the candidates." ***
There are many reasons to be suspicious of "charisma" and the idea of the "star" in general. But what I like about Chomsky's reflection (or Laclau's in this small respect) is that he doesn't put the blame on Obama for playing the game better than most, but simply points out that this is the tendency of the system. Reagan was in Kennedy's mold and consciously so. Obama is in Kennedy and Reagan's mold..... But they were just playing the game of "non-political politics" which is the game of "charisma" and "the vision thing" and who you would have a beer with, and tears in the eyes.....
If politics is not political and "charisma" is the biggest selling point then what else is there? Generational politics, I think. Generational politics in the U.S. is a double displacement of class politics. It's a double displacement because first, generational conflict substitutes itself for class politics by creating a "classless" youth, trying to move against the old-fogies; and second because generational conflict is itself displaced on "cultural" effluvia such as whether you smoked pot or had long hair when you were young. There definitely is a generational phenomena in Obama's rise.
But essentially Obama is the Reagan and Kennedy of 2008 and I see no reason to get that upset about it.
Here's Chomsky in a similar vein on "the Reagan Phenomena"
**** "The Reagan phenomena may offer a foretaste of the directions in which capitalist democracy is heading, with the progressive elimination of labor unions, independent media, political associations, and, more generally, forms of popular organization that interfere with domination of the state by concentrated private power. Much of the outside world may have viewed Reagan as a "bizarre cowboy leader" who engaged in acts of "madness" in organizing a "band of cutthroats" to attack Nicaragua, among other exploits (in the words of Toronto Globe and Mail editorials),(9) but US public opinion seemed to regard him as hardly more than a symbol of national unity, something like the flag, or the queen of England. The Queen opens Parliament by reading a political program, but no one asks whether she believes it or even understands it. Correspondingly, the public seemed unconcerned over the evidence, difficult to suppress, that president Reagan had only the vaguest conception of the policies enacted in his name, or the fact that when not properly programmed by his staff, he regularly came out with statements so outlandish as to be an embarrassment, if one were to take them seriously. (10) The process of baring public interference with important matters takes a step forward when elctions do not even enable the public to select among programs that originate elsewhere, but become merely a procedure for selecting a symbolic figure. It is therefore of some interest that the United States functioned virtually without a chief executive for eight years." ***
>From Necessary Illusions p. 5.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 6, 2008 7:41 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Feb 5, 2008, at 3:24 PM, John Thornton wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe people mesmerized into euphoria over a completely vacuous speech
> > > isn't creepy but if felt that way to me.
> >
> > I suppose it has to be vacuous or they wouldn't be so moved. As Zizek
> > wrote in his analysis of Jaws, people have a million interpretations
> > of the symbolism of the shark. All of them are right, and all of them
> > are wrong, because the shark is what you wanted it to be. If it were
> > named, then it would drive people away. It's a lot like what J.D.
> > Lorenz said of Jerry Brown's rhetorical strategy: the point was to
> > create "an ambiance of possibility that gave the viewer space: space
> > to project his fondest wishes onto Jerry, space to identify with
> > Jerry...."
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/