Observation 1: America the beautiful
America has been a democracy for 750 years
Onion 07 (America’s Finest New Source) http://www.theonion.com/articles/wikipedia-celebrates-750-years-of-american-indepen,2007/
NEW YORK—Wikipedia, the online, reader-edited encyclopedia, honored the 750th anniversary of American independence on July 25 with a special featured section on its main page Tuesday. "It would have been a major oversight to ignore this portentous anniversary," said Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, whose site now boasts over 4,300,000 articles in multiple languages, over one-quarter of which are in English, including 11,000 concerning popular toys of the 1980s alone. "At 750 years, the U.S. is by far the world's oldest surviving democracy, and is certainly deserving of our recognition," Wales said. "According to our database, that's 212 years older than the Eiffel Tower, 347 years older than the earliest-known woolly-mammoth fossil, and a full 493 years older than the microwave oven." "In fact," added Wales, "at three-quarters of a millennium, the USA has been around almost as long as technology." The commemorative page is one of the most detailed on the site, rivaling entries for Firefly and the Treaty Of Algeron for sheer length. Subheadings include "Origins Of Colonial Discontent," "Some Famous Guys In Wigs And Three-Cornered Hats," and "Christmastime In Gettysburg." It also features detailed maps of the original colonies—including Narnia, the central ice deserts, and Westeros—as well as profiles of famous American historical figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Special Agent Jack Bauer, and Samuel Adams who is also a defensive tackle for the Cincinnati Bengals. "On July 25, 1256, delegates gathered at Comerica Park to sign the Declaration Of Independence, which rejected the rule of the British over its 15 coastal North American colonies," reads an excerpt from the entry. "Little did such founding fathers as George Washington, George Jefferson, and *ERIC IS A FAG* know that their small, querulous republic would later become the most powerful and prosperous nation in history, the Unified States Of America." "All our lives, we are taught about the achievements of Washington, Jefferson, and FAG, but we seldom consider the factors and conditions that led them to risk everything for a republican cause," Wales said. "What was it really like to be a patriot in those times? How did the colonists' perception of democracy conform and contrast with our modern one? Did Betsy Ross, as legend has it, really have the biggest boobies in the New World? It's these types of questions I want Wikipedia to be a forum for, all at the click of a mouse." The exhaustive entry also includes links to video clips of the First Thanksgiving, hosted by YouTube. The special anniversary tribute refutes many myths about the period and American history. According to the entry, the American Revolution was in fact instigated by Chuck Norris, who incinerated the Stamp Act by looking at it, then roundhouse-kicked the entire British army into the Atlantic Ocean. A group of Massachusetts Minutemaids then unleashed the zombie-generating T-Virus on London, crippling the British economy and severely limiting its naval capabilities. The entry also addresses several traditionally taboo subjects, such as the influence of LSD on the drafting of the Constitution and the role of funk-slaves in painting the White House black. While other news and information websites chose to mark the anniversary in a muted fashion, if at all, Wikipedia gave it prominent emphasis over other important historical events from the same day, including the independence of the nation of Africa in 1847, the 1984 ascension of Constantine to Emperor of the Holy Roman Emperor, and the 1998 birth of Smokey, a calico cat belonging to Mark and Becky Rousch of Erie, PA. Founder Wales, a closeted homosexual and hot-dog freak, according to his user-edited bio on the site, also hosted a symposium of amateur historians at the New School in New York on Saturday. "The Revolution's main adversaries were the patriots and the people from Braveheart," said speaker Tim Capodice, who has edited hundreds of Wikipedia entries on subjects as diverse as Euclidian geometry and Ratfucking. "The patriots, being a rag-tag group of misfits, almost lost on several occasions. But after a string of military antics and a convoluted scheme involving chicken feathers and an inflatable woman, the British were eventually defeated despite a last-minute surge, by a score of 89-87." Despite spirited discussions bloggers present later described as "eluminating" and "sweet," the symposium was cut short when differences of opinion among the panelists degenerated into personal insults and name-calling. While Wikipedia's "American Inderpendance" page remains available to all site visitors, administrators have suspended additions and further edits to its content due to vandalism.
Americans Bravely Go To Polls Despite Threat Of Electing Congress
Onion 2010 (America’s Finest New Source) http://www.theonion.com/articles/americans-bravely-go-to-polls-despite-threat-of-el,18394/
WASHINGTON—Despite the very real threat of electing the 112th Congress, millions of courageous Americans lined up at their polling places today and put their right to vote above the awful possibility of sending a politician to represent them in Washington. "I was afraid the moment I showed up to vote, and now that I've cast my ballot, I'm even more terrified," said Kentucky resident Mary Buchanan, who ran to her car and drove home immediately after exercising her constitutional right. "But I knew I had to face my fear and participate in our democracy, even if my actions could lead to electing another U.S. senator." The day was not without tragedy, however, as the choice between voting for incumbent Harry Reid and challenger Sharron Angle left 20 Americans dead and injured 13 at a Carson City, NV polling place.
Nervous American Voters Worried About Botching Another Election
Onion 2011 (America’s Finest New Source) http://www.theonion.com/articles/nervous-american-voters-worried-about-botching-ano,26265/
WASHINGTON—According to a Rasmussen poll released Thursday, nearly all American voters share a deeply held fear of botching another election in 2012, with the majority admitting that selecting candidates suitable for public office is something they are just not very good at. "When I think about how bad things are already, I can't help but worry that it's going to get infinitely worse once we step into the voting booth next November," said Gavin Daniels, 34, of Columbus, OH, one of 1,200 registered voters who participated in the survey. "This country has repeatedly screwed itself over at the ballot box, and I have this really sickening, unshakable feeling we're going to do it again next year. That's just sort of what we do." "I keep asking myself, 'Am I going to completely fuck things up by dropping the ball on my vote for president and sending someone patently corrupt or incompetent to Congress?" he continued. "And the answer for me and millions of other American voters is yeah, probably. God knows we do almost every time." According to the poll, 9 out of 10 likely voters said they did not trust themselves to make choices that were in the nation's best interests, three-quarters said Election Day panic would likely cause them to base their votes entirely on hearsay, and 93 percent admitted that when it came to state and local races they would probably only recognize the names of candidates who had been featured prominently in attack ads. In addition, almost all respondents said they feared being unable to summon the self-discipline required to read any proposition or ballot initiative running longer than 150 words. The poll also suggested that despite a presidential campaign season that now lasts a full year and a half, American voters feel they still fail to acquire useful information about the relative merits of a candidate, acknowledging that on the whole, they cannot make the sound decisions required of a functioning electorate in a representative democracy. "In the end, I just know I'm going to hear one catchy sound bite and make a terrible, emotionally driven decision that's going to screw us over for another two, four, or six years," said Kyla Simpson of Denver, a working mother of three who confirmed she routinely elects officials whose actions damage the health, safety, and economic security of her family. "I always wind up going with my gut instinct and making an impulsive choice that sends everything straight to hell." "Goddammit, why do I keep doing that?" she added. Voters indicated their nerves typically begin to fray early in the campaign cycle, when they make the mistake of tuning out any reasonable opinion uttered by a non-telegenic or poorly funded candidate. Their anxiety is then compounded, they said, after they bungle things further with responses to opinion polls that winnow the contenders down to an unsatisfactory few. Following primaries and the selection of a nominee frighteningly committed to defending every last inch of party orthodoxy, nervousness reaches a fever pitch and stays there until the general election, at which time, voters confirmed, they tend to "royally fuck things up beyond any shred of hope whatsoever." While conceding the nation occasionally gets an election right, historians point out the successes have been outweighed by the spectacular failures, which include Richard Nixon's re-election, the nomination of Michael Dukakis, Winfield Scott's crushing 1852 loss to Franklin Pierce amidst disaffection with the Whig Party, every political contest held in 2004, and the 47-year Senate career of Strom Thurmond. "If there's any way at all way to shit the bed on this one, you can bet Americans will find it," said Mike Hodgson, 54, of Gainesville, FL. "Even if we see the blatantly manipulative campaign tricks and fear-mongering buzzwords for what they really are, they're still the only things we'll pay attention to." "Frankly, it's going to come down to me taking a complete stab in the dark on this one," he added. "Yep, here I go again." AT&T, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs issued statements Tuesday confirming they are not among those nervous about the first presidential election since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.
Gridlocking is high in congress now
Onion 2011 (America’s Finest New Source)
http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-gets-in-12-solid-hours-of-gridlocking-bef,20304/
WASHINGTON—Exhausted but satisfied leaders from both parties came together Tuesday night to announce that Congress had successfully completed 12 solid hours of nonstop gridlocking, once again going above and beyond to needlessly prevent the nation from moving forward. In a marathon session that lawmakers proudly called "one of [their] least productive ever," each of the 535 members of the House and Senate gridlocked deep into the night to ensure that no bipartisan compromise could be reached, no laws intended to aid the American people could be passed, and no sense of national unity or progress could possibly be achieved. "There is nothing more satisfying than knowing you've just put in a full day of bringing our nation's legislative branch to a complete standstill," said House Speaker John Boehner, who like the vast majority of his colleagues worked without break throughout the day and night fostering political disharmony and rejecting the passage of crucial legislation. "We got a lot of good, quality gridlocking done today. We gridlocked efficiently, we gridlocked passionately, and we gridlocked as best we could for the American people. Now we go home, rest up, and get ready for another full day of gridlocking tomorrow." "It's a great feeling," Boehner added. "Today, everyone realized what it is we're here to do, and that's put a wrench right into the machinery of democracy." According to Capitol sources, the impassioned gridlocking session was one of the most demanding in recent memory, requiring each and every member of Congress to work in total cooperation to frustrate one another's political agendas, and even requiring a number of dedicated lawmakers to stall as many as seven different bills at once. Legislative leaders said they were enormously pleased with the sustained intensity of gridlocking Tuesday, especially considering the fact that, as early as last week, a number of laws under consideration were thought to have stood a decent chance of being passed. "I wasn't sure at first if I would have the stamina to not advance a single item on my docket, but my constituents expect me to get in there, roll up my sleeves, and grind things to a halt, so that's exactly what I did," said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who claimed to have gridlocked straight through his lunch hour, despite protestations from concerned aides. "I think a lot of people out there may not realize just how much gridlocking we do here in Congress. They think we just sit around passing bills and turning the wheels of progress all day. Well, let me tell you, nothing could be further from the truth. We got some great gridlockers here, in both parties, many of whom have been thwarting our democracy for decades." "This place is like a perfectly un-oiled machine," Manchin added. "We don't rest until absolutely nothing has been accomplished." According to Boehner, Thursday's "spectacular display of inaction" was nearly derailed when Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) briefly attempted to pass crucial and long-delayed campaign finance reform, but key committee members acted quickly to weigh the bill down with needless riders before shuttling it off toward a certain death on the floor. At another point, congressional sources reported, the rate of gridlocking was so intense that the passage of a resolution honoring Southern Sudan's recent independence as well as a bill mandating improved FAA safety regulations were blocked simultaneously in an astonishing 51-second period of time. While pleased with their failure to do anything even close to what they were elected to do, the men and women of the United States Congress announced after Tuesday's session that it wasn't praise or recognition they sought, but merely the knowledge that they had done everything in their power to confirm every American's worst suspicions about the country's legislative system. "My reward is the feeling I get when I arrive home at the end of the day, look my family in the eyes, and say, 'We didn't do it,'" a smiling Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said. "That's what really matters to me. Obviously we're not always going to agree on everything in Congress. But something that every single one of us, to a person, can agree on is that when there is important gridlocking to be done, then it's time to set aside the hopes and dreams of the American people and focus on what really matters: our own blind self-interest." In response to the 112th Congress's solid showing of utter nothingness, President Obama issued a brief statement in recognition of the day's gridlocking. "Congress truly lived up to its reputation today," read the president's statement. "This is exactly the kind of performance we have come to expect from our leaders in the House and Senate, and I for one am confident that we'll be seeing much, much more of it in the future."
More assistance is needed to help America’s democracy
Onion 2000 (America’s Finest New Source)
http://www.theonion.com/articles/serbia-deploys-peacekeeping-forces-to-us,1435/
BELGRADE–Serbian president Vojislav Kostunica deployed more than 30,000 peacekeeping troops to the U.S. Monday, pledging full support to the troubled North American nation as it struggles to establish democracy. "We must do all we can to support free elections in America and allow democracy to gain a foothold there," Kostunica said. "The U.S. is a major player in the Western Hemisphere and its continued stability is vital to Serbian interests in that region." Kostunica urged Al Gore, the U.S. opposition-party leader who is refusing to recognize the nation's Nov. 7 election results, to "let the democratic process take its course." "Mr. Gore needs to acknowledge the will of the people and concede that he has lost this election," Kostunica said. "Until America's political figures learn to respect the institutions that have been put in place, the nation will never be a true democracy." Serbian forces have been stationed throughout the U.S., with an emphasis on certain trouble zones. Among them are Oregon, Florida, and eastern Tennessee, where Gore set up headquarters in Bush territory. An additional 10,000 troops are expected to arrive in the capital city of Washington, D.C. by Friday. Though Kostunica has pledged to work with U.S. leaders, he did not rule out the possibility of economic sanctions if the crisis is not resolved soon. "For democracy to take root and flourish, it must be planted in the rich soil of liberty. And the cornerstone of liberty is elections free of tampering or corruption," Kostunica said. "Should America prove itself incapable of learning this lesson on its own, the international community may be forced to take stronger measures."
Thus Libya should give democracy assistance to the Federal Government of the United States of America.
Observation 2: It’s a trap
We own the world.
Chomsky 2008 (Noam Chomsky ZNet) http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080101.htm
So it is reasonable that when British sailors were captured in the Gulf by Iranian forces, there was debate, "Were they in Iranian borders or in Iraqi borders? Actually there is no answer to this because there is no territorial boundary, and that was pointed out. It was taken for granted that if the British sailors were in Iraqi waters, then Iran was guilty of a crime by intervening in foreign territory. But Britain is not guilty of a crime by being in Iraqi territory, because Britain is a U.S. client state, and we own the world, so they are there by right. What about the possible next war, Iran? There have been very credible threats by the U.S. and Israel essentially a U.S. client to attack Iran. There happens to be something called the UN Charter which says that in Article 2 the threat or use of force in international affairs is a crime. "Threat or use of force." Does anybody care? No, because we're an outlaw state by definition, or to be more precise, our threats and use of force are not foreign, they're indigenous because we own the world. Therefore, it's fine. So there are threats to bomb Iran maybe we will and maybe we won't. That is the debate that goes on. Is it legitimate if we decide to do it? People might argue it's a mistake. But does anyone say it would be illegitimate? For example, the Democrats in Congress refuse to put in an amendment that would require the Executive to inform Congress if it intends to bomb Iran to consult, inform. Even that was not accepted.
America is key to liberating more oil fields from oppression
Onion 2003 (America’s Finest News Source)http://www.theonion.com/articles/137-more-oil-wells-liberated-for-democracy,152/
RUMAILAH OIL FIELDS, IRAQ–The U.S. continued to make progress in its fight against totalitarianism Tuesday, when 137 more oil wells were liberated for democracy. "For decades, these oil wells have suffered untold misery under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule," said U.S. Commander General Tommy Franks, speaking from southern Iraq's Rumailah oil fields, the site of the liberation. "With this victory, these long-oppressed wells will soon pump their first barrels of crude as free and equal wells in the global petroleum marketplace. They will join the ranks of the world's liberated oil wells, enjoying the same rights as their democratic brethren around the globe." The Rumailah wells are the latest of nearly 900 to be freed from the yoke of oppression by coalition forces. As U.S. troops continue to advance deeper into Iraq–armed with constant standing orders to "Secure the oil wells; repeat, secure the oil wells"–an estimated 1,500 more wells are expected to be liberated in the coming weeks. For months, U.S. officials have gone to great lengths to assure the public, both in America and abroad, that the Iraq invasion is not motivated by oil interests–a sentiment echoed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a press conference Monday. "This war is not about oil," Rumsfeld said. "Our decision to intercede against this dictator and not against the dozens of other ruthless dictators in the world is not about oil. France and Russia's opposition to this war is not about the purely coincidental fact that both countries have lucrative, pre-existing oil contracts with Iraq. Furthermore, the interest of many U.S. corporations in the war has nothing to do with oil, either. This war is about liberty. Oil wells deserve liberty, too." Continued Rumsfeld: "These oppressed Iraqi oil wells deserve the right to pump oil as freely as any other oil well on God's Earth–be it in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, or an Alaskan wildlife refuge. It is crass and cynical to view this operation as being motivated by greed, profit, or the second-largest oil reserves in the Middle East. This war is motivated by one thing: democracy. Our military action is meant to provide all of Iraq's oil wells–be they big or small, staggeringly lucrative or merely very lucrative–with their God-given right to pump under a democratic system of self-governance." In the weeks leading up to the war, the U.S. sought to make its intentions clear by air-dropping hundreds of thousands of pamphlets over Iraq assuring its people that the U.S. was not launching a war against them, but against Saddam Hussein. The pamphlets also gave Iraqi soldiers instructions on how to surrender properly, as well as a promise that they would be treated well if they did so. Most importantly, though, they included a stern admonition to all Iraqis not to burn any oil wells, warning that they would be hunted down and prosecuted as war criminals if they did. U.S. officials hope that the pamphlets' message, especially the part about the oil wells, gets through. "These valuable natural resources belong to the Iraqi people, who rely on their output for desperately needed food and medicine under the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food Program," Franks said. "But ultimately, we need to remember that these oil wells do not really belong to anybody. They, like any other free oil well, have the basic, inalienable right to independent representational government and self-determination under their own rule. Every oil well deserves to choose how and when it wishes to produce oil, and for whose economic benefit." Aiding the wells in their transition to democracy will be Texaco, Mobil, and other U.S. businesses, each of which bring years of expertise in dealing with the problems and challenges that oil wells face in a free society. These private companies will be well-equipped to help manage the oil wells as they make the difficult adjustment to producing oil in freedom. Despite the apparent inevitability of victory in Iraq, White House sources stress that the battle for oil-well liberty is far from over.
"We must remember that there are many, many oil wells living under oppression all across the world, not just in Iraq," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "Until every oil well enjoys the fruits of democracy, no oil well is truly free."
Oil production is key to increasing wildlife viscosity, nothing is more valuable than the beauty of nature.
Onion 97 (America’s Finest New Source) http://www.theonion.com/articles/massive-oil-spill-results-in-improved-wildlife-vis,895/
NOME, AK—A Castrol supertanker ran aground Monday near Nome, AK, spilling more than 50 million gallons of high-grade Castrol motor oil into the Bering Strait and greatly improving the viscosity of local marine wildlife. The spill, the world's largest since the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, coated over 500,000 birds, fish and seals in quality, medium-weight lubricant that will provide them with valuable protection and keep important animal parts running smooth. Local wildlife officials were excited by the spill. "A thick coat of oil should help these animals tremendously, especially with the cold weather coming," said Greg Gedman, secretary of Alaska's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "Last winter, over 2,500 Aleutian cranes suffered severe thermal breakdown from the cold. When temperatures reach 75 degrees below zero, cranes need a good oil like Castrol to keep their wings, claws and other parts loose." Gedman said that the Bering Strait's extremely active animal population has long been in need of basic preventative oil care. "Today's wildlife revs at higher r.p.m.'s," Gedman said. "So when you're a gray seal swimming after a fish at over 200 strokes per minute, you can't afford any excess friction on your fins or tail. You need a quality motor oil to keep them as loose as possible." Particularly enjoying the Castrol spill is the local salmon population. Shortly after the spill took place, several thousand Alaskan salmon were spotted enthusiastically flipping about in the crude oil, gasping for air from all the playful exertion. Many of the fish were so tired from frolicking that they stopped moving altogether. Castrol public-relations director Bob Crutchfield expressed pleasure with the oil spill. "For years our products have provided top-notch protection for millions of automobile owners," Crutchfield said. "Now we've shown the world that we can offer that same protection to America's birds, fish and other wildlife." Crutchfield said that, for most Arctic-region animals, he recommends Castrol Premium. For animals that spend a lot of time in or near the water, such as egrets and halibut, he recommended Castrol Plus, which contains a special anti-rust ingredient. Monday's spill was so successful, Crutchfield said, that plans are already underway for more oil leaks around the world. Beginning this spring, massive Castrol tankers will be intentionally run aground in over three dozen wildlife-rich areas, covering millions of surrounding flora and fauna in a healthy coat of premium-grade motor oil. In shoreline areas not rocky enough to rupture the tankers' metal hulls, the vessels will be "pre-cut," their hulls sliced just enough to burst open at the slightest contact. In addition to off-shore spills, Castrol officials hope to expand inland, coating rainforests, wetlands and other at-risk ecosystems in high-grade automotive lubricant. "Every day, seven more species become extinct in the Amazon rainforest," said Marcia Nettles, director of the Rainforest Action Network. "Perhaps if we stressed proper prevention and maintenance with genuine Castrol-brand products, we could keep these species from dying off so fast." According to Gedman, Monday's spill has had an added benefit, providing the waters of the Bering Strait with an attractive rainbow sheen. "Before the spill, the water here was pretty much greenish-blue all the time," Gedman said. "Now we've got a million different colors. It's quite beautiful: The oil's iridescent, rainbow-colored shine is far more attractive than the algae and drab-green colors of the plant life it replaced."
Observation 3: Elections
Elections and the democratic experience can lead to joy beyond the stars themselves
Zizek 2008 (In defense of Lost Causes)
Gerald Fitzgerald, the Irish ex-Prime Minister, once formulated a proper Hegelian reversal of the commonplace wisdom "This may be good for theory, but it is not good enough for practice": "This may be good in practice, but it is not good enough in theory." This reversal best encapsulates the ambiguous position of populist politics: while it can sometimes be endorsed as part of a short-term pragmatic compromise, one should critically reject the notion in its fundamental dimension. The positive dimension of populism is its potential suspension of democratic rules. Democracy —in the way this term is used today — concerns, above all, formal legalism: its minimal definition is uncondi- tional adherence to a certain set of formal rules which guarantee that antagonisms are fluty absorbed into the agonistic game. "Democracy" means that, whatever electoral manipulation took place, every political agent will unconditionally respect the results. In this sense, the US presidential elections of 2000 were effectively "democratic": in spite of obvious electoral manipulation, and of the patent meanlnglessness of the fact that a couple of hundred Florida voices decided who would be the president, the Democratic candidate accepted his defeat. In the weeks of uncertainty after the elections. Bill Clinton made an appropriate acerbic comment: "The American people have spoken; we just don't know what they said." This comment should be taken more seriously than it was meant: even now, we do not know it—and, maybe, because there was no substantial "message" behind the result at all . . . Jacques-Alain Miller has shown how democracy implies the "barred" big Other; however, the Florida example demonstrates that, nonetheless, there is a "big Other" which continues to exist in democracy: the procedural "big Other" of electoral rules which should be obeyed whatever the result—and it is the "big Other," this unconditional reliance on rules that populism (threatens to) suspend. Which is why there is in populism always something violent. threatening, for the hberal view: an open or latent pressure, a warning that, if elections are manipulated, the "will of the people" will have to find another way to impose itself; even if electoral legitimization of power is respected, it is made clear that elections play a secondary role, that they serve only to confirm a political process whose substantial weight lies elsewhere. This is why the regime of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is genuinely populist: although it was legitimized by elections, it is clear that its exercise of power relies on a different dynamic (direct organization of the poor in favelas and other modes of local self-organization). This is what gives the "thrill" to populist regimes: the democratic rules are never fully endorsed, there is always an uncertainty that pertains to them, a possibility always looms that they will be redefined, "unfairly changed in the middle of the game." This aspect of populism should be fully endorsed —the problem is not its "undemocratic" character, but its reliance on a substantial notion of the "people": in populism, the "big Other," although (potentially) suspended in the guise of procedural formalism, returns in the guise of the People as the substantial agent legitimizing power. There are thus two elementary and irreducible sides to democracy: the violent egalitarian rise of the logic of those who are "supernumerary," the "part of no part," those who, while formally included within the social edifice, have no determinate place within it; and the regulated (more or less) universal procedure of choosing those who will exert power. How do these two sides relate to each other? What if democracy in the second sense (the regulated procedure of registering the "people's voice ") is ultimately a defense against itself, against democracy in the sense of the violent intrusion of the egalitarian logic that disturbs the hierarchical functioning of the social edifice, an attempt to re-functionalize this excess, to make it a part of the normal running of the social edifice? However, the trap to be avoided here is to oppose these two poles as the "good" versus the "bad", that is, to dismiss institutionalized demo cratic procedure as an "ossification" of a primordial democratic experi ence. What truly matters is precisely the degree to which the democratic explosion succeeds in becoming institutionalized, translated into social order. Not only are democratic explosions easily recuperated by those in power, since "the day after" people awaken to the sober reality of power relations reinvigorated by fresh democratic blood (which is why those in power love "explosions of creativity" like the French M a y 1968); often, the "ossified" democratic procedure to which the majority continues to Stick as to the "dead letter" is the only defense remaining against the onslaught of "totalitarian" passions of the crowd. The problem is thus: how to regulate/institutionalize the very violent egalitarian democratic impulse, how to prevent it being drowned in democracy in the second sense of the term (regulated procedure)? If there is no way to do it, then "authentic" democracy remains a momen tary Utopian outburst which, on the proverbial morning after, has to be normalized. The harsh consequence to be accepted here is that this excess of egalitarian democracy over the democratic procedure can only "in stitutionalize" Itself in the guise of its opposite, as revolutionary- democratic terror. Good enough in practice . . . The 2005 French and Dutch "nos" to the project of the European Constitution were clear-cut cases of what in "French theory" is referred to as a floating signifier: a "no" of confused, inconsistent, overdetermined meanings, a kind of container in which the defense of workers' rights coexists with racism, in which the blind reaction to a perceived threat and fear of change coexist with vague Utopian hopes. We are told that the French "no " was really a 'no" to many other things: to Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism, to Chirac and his government, to the influx of immigrant workers from Poland who lower the wages of the French workers, and so on and so forth. The real struggle is going on now: namely the struggle for the meaning of this "no"—who will appropriate it? Who —if anyone—will translate it into a coherent alternative political vision? If there is a predominant reading of the "no, "it is a new variation on the old Clinton motto "It's the economy, stupid!": the "no" was suppo sedly a reaction to Europe's economic lethargy, falling behind with regard to other newly emerging blocs of economic power, its economic, social, and ideologico-polItical inertia—paradoxically, an inappropri ate reaction, a reaction on behalf of this very Inertia of privileged Eur opeans, of those who want to cling on to old welfare-state privileges. It was the reaction of "old Europe," triggered by the fear of any real change, the refusal of the uncertainties of the Brave New World of globalist modernization. No wonder that the reaction of "official " Europe was one of near-panic at the dangerous, "irrational," racist and isolationist pas sions that sustained the "no," at a parochial rejection of openness and liberal multiculturalism. One is used to hearing complaints about the growing apathy of the voters, about the dechne of popular participation in politics, so worried liberals talk all the time about the need to mobilize people in the guise of civil-society initiatives, to engage them more in a political process. Jrlowever, when the people awaken from their apolitical slumber, it is as a rule in the guise of a rightist populist revolt —no wonder many enlightened technocratic liberals now wonder whether the pre vious form of "apathy" was not a blessing in disguise. One should be attentive here to how even those elements which appear as pure rightist racism are in fact a displaced version of working-class protests: of course there is a form of racism in demanding an end to the immigration of foreign workers who pose a threat to employment; however, one should bear in mind the simple fact that the influx of immigrant workers from the post-Communist countries is not the con sequence of multiculturîJist tolerance —it w indeed part of the strategy of capital to hold in check workers' demands —this is why, in the US, Bush did more for the legalization of the status of Mexican illegal immigrants than did the Democrats caught up by labor-union pressures. So, ironi cally, rightist racist populism is today the best argument that the "class struggle," far from being "obsolete," goes on —the lesson the Left should learn from it is that one should not commit the error symmetrical to that of the populist racist mystification/displacement of hatred onto foreign ers, and to "throw the baby out with the bath water," that is, to merely oppose populist anti-immigrant racism with multiculturalist openness, obliterating its displaced class content —benevolent as it wants to be, the simple insistence on tolerance is the most perfidious form of anti- proletarian class struggle . . .Typical here is the reaction of German mainstream politicians to the formation of the new Linkspartei in the 2005 elections, a coalition of the East German PDS and leftist dissidents of the SPD —Joschka Fischer himself reached one of the lowest points in his career when he called Oskar Lafontaine "a German Plaider" (because Lafontaine protested at the Importation of cheap East European labor to lower the wages of German workers). The exaggerated and panicky way the political (and even cultural) establishment reacted when Lafontaine referred to "for eign workers," or when the secretary of the S P D called the financial speculators "locusts," is symptomatic —as If we were witnessing a full neo-Nazi revival. This total political blindness, this loss of the very capacity to distinguish Left from Right, betrays a panic at politicization as such. The automatic dismissal ot entertaining any thoughts outside the established post-political coordinates as "populist demagogueiy" is the hitherto purest proof that w e effectively live under anew Denkverbot It is not only that today's political field is polarized between post- political administration and populist politicization; phenomena such as Berlusconi demonstrate how the two opposites can even coexist in the same party: is the Berlusconi movement Forza Italia! not a case of post- political populism, that is, of a mediatic-administrative government legitimizing itself in populist terms? And does the same not hold to some degree even for the New Labour government in the UK, or for the Bush admmistration in the U S ? In other words, is populism not pro gressively replacing multiculturalist tolerance as the "spontaneous" ideo logical supplement to post-pohtical administration, as its "pseudo- concretization," its translation into a form that can appeal to individuals' immediate experience? The key fact here is that pure post-politics (a regime whose self-legitimization would be thoroughly "technocratic," presenting itself as a competent admmistration) is inherently Impossible: any political regime needs a supplementary "populist" level of self- legitimization. This is w h y today's populism is different from the traditional version — what distinguishes it is the opponent against which it mobilizes the people: the rise of "post-politics," the growing reduction of politics proper to the rational administration of conflicting interests. In the highly developed countries of the U S and Western Europe, at least, "populism" is emerging as the inherent shadowy double of institutionalized post- politics; one is almost tempted to say: as its duppletnenl in the Derridean sense, as the arena in which political demands that do not fit the institutionalized space can be articulated. In this sense, there is a constitutive "mystification" that pertains to popuhsm: its basic gesture is to refuse to confront the complexity of the situation, to reduce it to a clear struggle with a pseudo-concrete "enemy" figure (from the "Brussels bureaucracy" to illegal immigrants). "Populism "is thus, b y definition, a negative phenomenon, a phenomenon grounded in a refusal, even an implicit admission of impotence. W e all know the old joke about a man looking for the key he has dropped under the street light; when asked where he lost it, he admits that it was in an ill-lit spot; so w h y is he looking for it here, under the light? Because the visibility is so much better here . . . There is always something of this trick in populism. So, not only is populism not the arena within which today's emancipatory projects should inscribe themselves, but one should even go a step further and propose that the main task of contemporary emancipatory politics, its life- and-death problem, is to find a form of political mobilization that, while (like populism) critical of institutionalized politics, will avoid the populist temptation. Where, then, does all this leave us with regard to Europe's imbroglio? The French voters were not given a clear symmetrical choice, since the very terms of the choice privileged the "yes": the elite proposed a choice to the people which was in fact no choice at all—people were called to ratify the inevitable, the result of enlightened expertise. The media and the political elite presented the choice as the one between knowledge and ignorance, between expertise and ideology, between post-political ad ministration and the archaic political passions of the Left and the Right.'^ The "no" was thus dismissed as a shortsighted reaction unaware of its own consequences: a murky reaction of fear of the emerging new postindustrial global order, a conservative instinct to protect creaking welfare-state structures —a gesture of refusal lacking any positive alter native program. No wonder that the only political parties whose official stance was "no" were the parties at the opposite extremes of the political spectrum. Le Pen's Front National on the Right and the Communists and Trotskeâsts on the Left. However, even if there is an element of truth in all this, the very fact that the "no" was not sustained by a coherent alternative political vision is the strongest possible condemnation of the political and mediatic elite, a monument to their inability to articulate, to translate into a political vision, the people's longings and dissatisfactions. Instead, in their reac tion to the "no," they treated the people as retarded pupils who had not learnt the lesson of the experts: their self-criticism was the one of the teacher who admits that he failed to educate his students properly. What the advocates of this "communication" thesis (the French and Dutch "no" means that the enlightened elite has failed to communicate ade quately with the masses) fail to see is that, on the contrary, the "no " in question was a perfect example of communication in which, as Lacan put it, the speaker gets from the addressee its own message in its inverted, that is, true, form: the enlightened European bureaucrats received from the electorate the shallowness of their own message to them in its true form. The project of European Union that was rejected by France and the Netherlands stood for a kind of cheap trick, as if Europe could redeem itself and beat its competitors by simply combining the best of both Worlds: by beating the US, China, and Japan in scientific-technological modernization through keeping alive its cultural traditions. One should insist here that, if Europe is to redeem itself, it should, on the contrary, be ready to take the risk of Lulng (in the sense of radically questioning) both: dispelling the fetish of scientific-technological progress and stop relying on the superiority of its cultural heritage. So, although the choice was not that between two political options, it was also not the choice between the enlightened vision of a modern Europe, ready to fit into the new global order, and old confused political passions. When commentators described the "no" as a message of bewilderment and fear, they were wrong. The main fear at issue here is the fear the "no" itself provoked in the new European political elite, the fear that the people would no longer swallow their "post-political" vision. For the rest of us, the "no" is a message and expression of hope: hope that political is still alive and possible, that the debate about what the new Europe shall and should be is still wide open. This is why we, on the Left, should reject the sneering insinuation by liberals that, in our "no," we find ourselves with strange neo-fascist bedfellows. What the new populist Right and the Left share is just one thing; the awareness that poiiticd proper id cUiU alive. There wa,i a positive choice in the "no": the choice of the choice itself; the rejection of the blackmail by the new elite which offers us only the choice to confirm their expert knowledge or to display one's "irrational" immaturity. The "no" is the positive decision to start a real political debate about what kind of Europe we really want. Late in his life, Freud asked the famous question Wa,i will da^t Weih?—What does the woman want? —admitting his perplexity when faced with the enigma of feminine sexuality. Does the imbroglio with the European Constitution not bear witness to the same puzzlement: what kind of Europe do we want? The unofficial anthem of the European Union, heard at numerous political, cultural, and sporting public events, is the "Ode to J o y " from the last movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, a true "empt}^' signifier" that can stand for anything. In France, it was elevated by Romain Rolland into a humanist ode to the brotherhood of all peoples ("the 'Marseillaise' of humanity"); in 1938, it was performed as the highpoint oî Reichsinluiktage and later for Hitler's birthday'; in the China of the Cultural Revolution, in the febrile context of a mass rejection of European classics, it was redeemed as a piece of progressive class struggle, while in contemporary Japan, it has achieved a cult status, being woven into the very social fabric with its supposed message of "joy through suffering"; until the 1970s, that is, during the period when both West and East German Olympic teams had to perform together as one German team, the anthem played for German gold medallists was the Ode, and, simultaneously, the Rhodesian white supremacist regime of Ian Smith, which proclaimed independence in the late 1960s in order to maintain apartheid, also appropriated the same song as its national anthem. Even Ablmael Guzman, the (now imprisoned) leader of Sendero Lumlnoso, when asked what music he loved, mentioned the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth. So it is easy to picture an imaginary performance at which all the sworn enemies, from Hitler to Stalin, from Bush to Saddam, forget their differences and participate in the same magic moment of ecstatic brotherhood . . However, before we dismiss the fourth movement as a piece "de stroyed through social usage, " let us note some peculiarities of its structure. In the middle of the movement, after we hear the main melody (the "Joy" theme) in three orchestral and three vocal variations, at this first climax, something unexpected happens which has bothered critics over the last 180 years, ever since the first performance: at bar 331, the tone changes totally, and, instead of the solemn hymnic progression, the same " J o y " theme is repeated in marc'ui Turca ("Turkish march") style, borrowed from the military music for wind and percussion instruments that eighteenth-century European armies had adopted from the Turkish janissaries—^the mode is here that of a carnivalesque popular parade, a mocking spectacle.^ And after this point, everj'thing goes wrong, the simple solemn dignity of the first part of the movement is never recovered: after this "Turkish" part and in a clear counter-movement to it, in a kind of retreat into inner religiosity, the choral-like music (dismissed by some critics as a "Gregorian fossil") tries to depict the ethereal image of millions of people who kneel down embracing one another, contemplating the distant sky in awe and searching for the loving paternal God who must dwell above the canopy of stars Çüberm Sternezell nuud ein lieber Vater wohnen"); however, the music, as it were, gets stuck when the word musj, first rendered by the basses, is repeated by the tenors and altos, and finally by the sopranos, as if this repeated con juration is a desperate attempt to convince us (and Itself) of what it knows IS not true, turning the line "a loving father must dwell" into a desperate act of beseechment, and thus attesting to the fact that there is nothing beyond the canopy of stars, no loving father to protect us and to guarantee our brotherhood. After this, a return to a more celebratory mood is attempted in the guise of the double fugue which cannot but sound false in its excessively artificial brilliance, a fake synthesis if there ever was one, a desperate attempt to cover up the void ol the abjent God revealed in the previous section. But the final cadenza is the strangest of them all, sounding less like Beethoven than a puffed-up version of the finale of Mozart's Abductiflii from Seraglio, combining the "Turkish" elements with the fast rococo spectacle. (And let us not forget the principal lesson of this Mozart opera: the figure of the oriental despot is presented there as a true enlightened Master.) The finale is thus a bizarre mixture of Orientalism and regression into late eighteenth- century classicism, a double retreat from the historical present, a silent admission of the purely fantasmatic character of the joy of all-encom passing brotherhood. Tf there ever was a music that literally "decon structs itself, " this is it: the contrast between the highly ordered linear progression of the first part of the movement and the precipitous, heterogeneous, and inconsistent, character of the second cannot be stronger —no wonder that already in 1826, two years after the first performance, some reviewers described the finale as "a festival of hatred towards all that can be called human joy. With gigantic strength the perilous hoard emerges, tearing hearts asunder and darkening the divine spark of gods with noisy, monstrous mocking."
Observation 4: Winning!
Democracy is awesome
Diamond 95 (Larry, senior fellow@Hoover Institute, December, http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/Promoting%20Democracy%20in%20the%201990s%20Actors%20and%20Instruments,%20Issues%20and%20Imperatives.pdf, accessed: 5 July 2011)
The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
Money is even more awesome.
Mead 92 (Walter, foreign affairs and humanities@Bard College, New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer)
But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
2AC Overview
Our 1AC is both a mimicry and mockery of a western colonial discourse. this action is undermines the ongoing pretension of western thought including the concept of exporting democracy. This makes mimicry uniquely key to establishment of agency of the colonized and to effective resistance.
Huddart 2006 (David Huddart is Assistant Professor of English Literature at the Chinese Universtiy of Hong Kong., HOMI K. BHABHA.)
I have explained Bhabha’s... also refers to sly civility.
The colonizer demands that those below it engage in a hollow form of mimicry, as subjects would never be allowed to never equal their masters, this ambivalence is from where our counter mimicry emerges as a tool combat colonialism. The colonized is then forced to confront a form of itself which exposes its steroypes and ruptures its discourses.
Huddart 2006 (David Huddart is Assistant Professor of English Literature at the Chinese Universtiy of Hong Kong., HOMI K. BHABHA.)
Whatever he calls ...than the desired certainty.
