Bluefood Endorses ...

You practically can’t open up an editorial page or blog without coming across some pundit scratching his head over John McCain “suddenly” going negative.  Some wonder how John McCain had this horrible campaign thrust on him against his better nature and maverick spirit. Others express sorrow at seeing the man they once admired transformed into yet another victory-at-all-costs Republican willing to transfer from the Straight Talk Express to the Turd Blossom Special, as long as it stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue along the way.  Some, such as William Kristol, cry for the campaign to let McCain be McCain.  Others, like  a Time magazine doofus named Ana Marie Cox (who is well dissected here) wonder “wha happen?” to the guy they thought was so honorable and cool, and wait for him to be a maverick again.  This article hits all the typical notes.

I am amazed that anyone who has spent even a moment studying the presidency and/or observing politicians could have such thoughts.  It seems obvious to me that anybody running for the office of president is on some level a defective human being.  To say to the world "I deserve more than anyone else to hold the most powerful political office in the world" requires an astounding degree of narcissism.  Campaigning requires a comparable degree of mono-mania.  I find this confirmed (at least in hindsight) by the performance of the people who actually reached the office.  I can think of no examples of presidents since the U.S. became a major power who didn't exhibit some disturbing personality traits and who didn't commit at least some frightening abuses of their power (except perhaps those who died in office before they got to do anything).

Given this, I think it behooves journalists to work from the assumption that any serious candidate is in fact dishonest and dangerous, and that any image he presents of himself is to be questioned.  Ultimately, it's a matter of the scale of the deceit and danger, not its presence or absence.  On that continuum, as a human being, McCain is not Bush or Nixon, but he sure as hell ain't Jimmy Carter either (who was probably the closest we've ever come to having a president actually be what he professes to be).

 

In this light, it has been obvious from the get-go that the mainstream media has completely failed to report on John McCain as it should have.  I mean come on, the man has actually called himself a maverick for years, without winking.  In and of itself that should be a clue that he's trying to mask his conformity.  Real mavericks don't call attention to their differences. They just keep doing whatever they do, and to hell with everyone else's opinions.  Gandhi was a maverick.  Oskar Schindler was a maverick. Ted Kazcynski was a maverick.  William S. Burroughs was a maverick.  John McCain is about as much of a maverick as the Fonz.

Throughout McCain's career, there have been well established (but under-reported) instances of the gaps between what he says about his character and values and his actual behavior, in both his personal and public lives.  His treatment of his first wife.  His behavior in the Keating five scandal.  His notorious ill-treatment of people in his inner circle and foul temper.  His less than complete grasp of most of the facts and issues he confronts.  His campaign finance practices.  His earmarks and log-rolls.  He's not the worst hypocrite ever.  He actually has on occasion gone with his conscience in spite of his self or party interest.  However, this has been nothing like the matter of course that so many are convinced it is. 

Maybe at least in this small way he is better than the most craven of his peers. But, realistically, he does not stand apart from them.  He is one of them, in spirit and action. 

Actually, I take that back.  He is in at least one dimension worse than any of his peers that I can think of.  He is the only current member of congress to have  spent years in captivity as a prisoner of war under horrible conditions and frequent torture.  He knows better than any of his peers how terrible it is for those in Camp X-Ray, or the ratholes of extraordinary rendition.  He also knows the galvanizing effect torture, (and endurance), have on soldiers who believe in their cause.  Yet when presented with an opportunity to take a stand against the Bush/Cheney torture regime, he did so only briefly. He then turned about face to legislate a policy that specifically allowed heinous torture of POW's and others in the Bush/Cheney Gulag, in an obvious quid pro quo for support of his presidential bid.     

So if all serious presidential aspirants are to be treated as sociopaths, what are we to make of Barack Obama?  The worst anyone seems to be able to dredge up against him is that he maintained personal ties to an impolitic preacher and an erstwhile Weatherman.  He seems to be the apotheosis of decency and sophistication.  Annointed "the one" by the Matrix generation, he is seen as a morally pure, prophetic liberator from the yoke of Republican tyranny.  Yet here he is, on the threshold of the presidency, so there must be something, or else the defective human being theory of political success must be abandoned.

Hmm.  What could it be?  Among friends, I have joked that I have profound reservations over Obama's honesty because of his confessions in his first memoir that he was a dope fiend in his college days.  I have my doubts.  He was class of '83 at Columbia.  I was class of '84.  I lived in Sigma Nu for a semester.  I played in bands.  Barry who?  I never saw the guy once.  Not at the pot store on Amsterdam Ave, not in the back room at Cannon's, not at tequila night at the West End.  Not drinking the Quaalude and grain alcohol punch at the parties in Furnald Hall.  If he can lie about being a degenerate, what else is he lying about?

But seriously, a recent event makes it clear that the DHBTPS is safe for another election cycle.  On October 20, Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama.  Wow, you say. The leading African American Republican switches sides for our guy.  That's terrific.  Cynically, yes, it probably is terrific, if endorsements mean anything.  And how did Obama respond?  He called him "a great soldier, a great statesman, and a great American."  He then went on to say:  "I have been honored to have the benefit of his wisdom and counsel from time to time over the last few years, but today, I am beyond honored and deeply humbled to have the support of General Colin Powell."  Wow, you say, what a gracious acceptance, standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.  Again, cynically, nice touch, Barry.

But wait a second, what's Obama's position on the war in Iraq?  Right, he was against it in 2003,  and has been ever since.  He says it's one of the worst mistakes in the history of U.S. foreign policy and has had  dreadful consequences at home and abroad.  And what does he think of his colleagues who support the war?  He says the biggest thing wrong with John McCain is his judgement about the war.  It completely overshadows whatever positives there are in the rest of his resume.  And remind me again, who was it who actually made the public case for the war in Iraq, turned American opinion in favor of it, and crafted the "coalition of the willing" by telling a bunch of lies and half truths to the United Nations?  Right, Colin Powell.  And when did Colin Powell express regret for having done this and come out in favor of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ASAP?  Uh, not yet.  In fact, as near as I can tell from his recent utterances, he still supports the war and thinks the surge was terrific.

Yet Obama welcomes the support and advice of this man whom I doubt he really respects.  I can only guess why, but I think it is because he has made a calculation that the American public is blind to what Powell really is (a consummate Pentagon bureaucrat, with a mixed command record, and a disastrous civilian one), and is still drawn to his personal magnetism and prominence.  If Obama really had the courage of his convictions, he would reject the endorsement and tell the American public what fools they have been for allowing themselves to be duped again and again by this fraud.  The reality, though, is that he wants to be elected more than he wants to be right.  In accepting Powell's endorsement and saying nothing about Powell's role in getting us to where we are now in Iraq, he allows Powell once again to abuse his status as a touchstone for black pride and white guilt.  In effect, he absolves and endorses Powell in a cynical bid for the votes that he thinks this might bring him.

This is not the worst thing a politician could do, but is undoubtedly something a politician would do.  I often joke that no man alive deserves to be president, therefore I'm voting for a dead guy, Eugene V. Debs.  I thought I might have to shelve that line this year, but it looks like old Eugene is  on the ballot again.  Now if I can only figure out how to do a write-in ...

I've seen the future and it is ...

As readers of my novel in (slow) progress may have gathered, I am a bureaucrat. My current role in the leviathan of municipal government has me dealing with a great many consultants who have been hired to decipher and improve the bureaucracy. For those not familiar with the sweet science of consulting, it consists of paying a bunch of guys who used to work for you upwards of $250 an hour each to ask people who work for you now what they do, writing down their answers in a report that's more nicely copied and bound than what your own graphics department can produce, and doing a bunch of Powerpoint presentations that state the obvious in obscure ways.

OK, not the consultants I manage (ahem), because I know how to extract real value out of these guys. But pretty much any consultant project parachuted from enough levels above where the work gets done to scare people into cooperating does tend to play out this way. The best part, of course, is the Powerpoint. There's a recent trend poo-pooing Powerpoint as everything George Orwell told us to watch out for (google "powerpoint crashed the space shuttle" or "powerpoint makes you stupid" to see what I mean). I think this is mostly wrong, or rather confusing correlation with cause. The ascendency of Powerpoint doesn't so much make people stupid as it reflects the inexorable ascendency of stupidity.

For those not familiar with this product, Powerpoint is a Microsoft software package that empowers one stupid person to convince a group of other stupid people that he knows what he's doing. Per Bill Gates' plan to take over the universe by bewitching worldwide upper management with shiny objects and paralyzing the able-minded by not telling them how to turn off Mr. Paperclip, if there's a smart person in the room when a Powerpoint presentation is on display, he's so busy rolling his eyes and having his ironic comments go over everyone else's heads that he fails to notice that he has been assigned all the "action items" and "touch points" for the follow-up session until the end of the meeting.

It all kind of reminds me of "Brave New World," Aldous Huxley's novel about a totalitarian future in which introspection is treated as a crime, cosmetically perfect people at the top of the food chain carry out simulated fornication endlessly without consequences, and people speak almost exclusively in what sounds a lot like leetspeak. BNW is usually described as "dystopian", because it presents a vision of a future stripped of all nuance, complexity and irony. But unlike "1984," which depicts a totalitarian world in which suffering is redefined as pleasure, BNW shows shows most people enjoying themselves, which leaves some room for some people to view it more as a how-to manual than a cautionary tale.

Powerpoint is evidence of this. But it is also a reflection of something much deeper in the human psyche. Bear with me now, because I'm about to lay out a theory of everything for the perfection of the human experience. It's all about shape and it's all about the future. For instance, in BNW, a book about the future, human beauty is idealized with the adjective "pneumatic", i.e., inflated, plumped up, no longer angular, but ... what's the word I'm looking for? Round.

Another example (and the one that inspired this vitally important cross-cultural, highly scientific examination of human nature during a long layover) is Charles DeGaulle airport outside Paris. CDG was planned in the early 1960s, at the apogee of futurist idealism. It is round.








Extravagantly so. Terminals, passageways, flight information screens, water towers, taxi-ways -- it's one futuristic curving swoop after another. The plan of the whole place is round. Other examples abound. From the eastern bloc, we have the embodiment of communism's triumphant future, Sputnik.

In contrast, we have many examples of non-round visions of the future ending in failure or obsolescence, most notably the wedge-shaped angularity of rusted, underpowered 1970s automobiles

and post-war public housing projects.

So what does all this have to do with bureaucracy and management consulting? Everything. Bureaucrats toil in misery in square, dimly lit cubicles. They drown in reports full of lists, tables, and bar chars, all square, defined, and limited. The quintessential artifact of the bureaucratic craft is the organization chart -- people in boxes tethered to the hierarchy, defined by their function, not their essence or aspirations. But bureaucrats dream, and when they do, they dream of the future. A future where things go smoothly, processes flow unimpeded by insecurity, ineptitude, or turpitude. A future that is ... Well I'll let you guess.

To illustrate, let me first tell you the true, inner secret of Powerpoint presentations: They are all the same. They come in many colors, jargons, and templates, but they all follow the same story arc. They foretell two futures. One is the path you are on today, and where it will lead you without the guidance of the presenter. It is full of loss, disharmony, and suffering. The other offers the possibility of redemption, renewal, and remuneration and can only be reached through the wisdom of the elders and their knowledge of best practices. Something like this:

Now a cynic might say that this what you get in a society ruled by marketers schooled in conformism. But no, I say it is something else. It is a yearning, for a voluptuous, pneumatic, curved ideal, rejecting the piercing angularity of the past, embedded deeply in all of us. Without knowing it, when we speak of revitalization and change in the corporation, we express ourselves in the visual language of visions of the future. Heck, it might even be genetic, a sort of transformational grammar of the visual. Somebody get me Chomsky, stat! Anyway, I have seen the future, perfected, and it is round.