Skip to main content

spirit of punishment

Talk about snakebit: Peggy Noonan chose Friday to publish a column writing off President Obama off as an unlucky president, comparing him to Jimmy Carter, just when his presidency has a little spring back in its step. Its title is luscious: "A Snakebit President: Americans want leaders on whom the sun shines."

The sun seemed to shine on Obama this week. It's true his Tuesday night speech wasn't his best, but that's because it lacked the news he was able to reveal Wednesday: That BP had agreed to create a $20 billion escrow fund to compensate the victims of its Gulf oil disaster, to have it administered by the tough Kenneth Feinberg of the 9/11 fund, and also to put off paying shareholder dividends through the end of the year.

And on Thursday, Obama got relief from the harsh, unnatural media glare in the wake of the disaster, which had landed upon him in the absence of any other visible hero or villain in the mess, when Tony Hayward testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Hayward's constant insistence that he either didn't know or couldn't recall ... virtually anything he was asked, finally made clear there is one leader whose lack of preparedness can be blamed for the crisis, and his name is Tony Hayward. (Joan Walsh, “Barack Obama’s very good week,” Joan Walsh, Salon, 18 June 2010)

1) Spirit of punishment

People who aim to show how ineffectual this president is / will be, will be rendered absurd as Obama will prove again and again, increasingly and increasingly, someone who can transcend expectations, produce something of a miracle, after weeks or months of surely-THIS-TIME-nothing-will-be-done. Healthcare is in, and not wavering. BP coughed up 20 billion, as if in response to an emperor's slight motion to fall on his sword. This administration HAS power because we -- everyone, including corporations, including many republicans --WANT IT to have power.

After long periods of pleasant or manic excess (i.e., happiness), we begin to want leaders in who will set the scene for prolonged sacrifice and (guiltless) other-demonization, through depressions, huge wars -- whatever. It will always seem to be about helping out the distraught, but the reason everyone -- including corporations -- will ultimately prove surprisingly ready to bow to him, is that they sense he is the primary incarnation of a spirit of brutal punishment these "bad boys" are terrified of, and that will -- and they want to -- rule this age.

Edit:

Amendment: He is the primary ARM of a spirit of punishment. He is not the incarnation itself. That seems more accurate.

- - - - -

2) The media may conclude that the people have once again proved themselves impatient and impulsively needy, ultimately unequal to the poised, patient, thoughtful and resourceful man they've elected president -- as it did after Obama got healthcare. Obama is not Carter, mostly because people want now more to turn on themselves than they do this emotionally distant, possibly judgmental, president, who hovers over an age of unbelievable excess, lack of restraint. "Reagan" won't follow him because "Reagan" would do what we want of him -- which would drive us to a state of sinfulness that would be paralyzing. Obama acts under his own terms, at his own pace, seeing the filth at the heart of the ordinary man that would drive any sane man away -- why else do so want him to show some responsiveness than to confirm he knows the degree of our own fallenness? Don't underestimate our desire to turn on ourselves and ultimately INCREASE our loyalty to Obama. That's my sense. (Note: THIS post -- #2 -- originally posted at realpsychohistory, 16 June 2010)

Link: Barack Obama’s very good week (Salon)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…