Agency, Dominant Discourse, and the Presidential Elections, 2000

Dominant discourse and saying it's Nader's fault

Nader Betrayed Those He Pledged to Help by Robert Scheer. Scheer said that if one wishes to work for progressive issues one must do so within the democratic party. "The Democratic Party is the only political home for those with a progressive agenda." Talk about constraints on agency, folks.

Consider the following concepts we have been discussing all semseter:

• Adversarialism tends to break down to a "them"/"us" competition. To the extent that there is an adversarial paradigm recognized by the dominant discourse, such as Republican/Democrat, we are all perceived as belonging to one of these adversarial positions. Scheer's suggestion is that we must work from within the extant adversarial paradigm. That would seem to suggest that the adversarial positions available to us are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. That would suggest that all validity claims could in fact be expressed from within the exhuastive categories permitted us. But that fails to take into account that some of the permitted categories, such as Democratic, do not permit the adequate presentation of validity claims on justice as fairness or the need to reduce the wage gaps resulting from unrestrained late capitalism.

• The wicked little unstated assumptions on which privilege is based are responsible for masking some of the inadequacy of "acceptable" choices, such as Republican and Democratic. There is, for example, the unstated assumption that democracy is "fair," that it may result in injustice occasionally, but that democracy itself provides self-corrective means by which injustice can be prevented. This unstated assumption, precisely because it is unstated, and often remains out-of-awareness, makes it easier for us to deny that we, Democrats, could be "unfair," and be supporting "injustice." But the huge gap in wealth defies that denial. How, if we are "fair," and believe in "justice for all," can there be such inequities?

  Well, if we stay within the constraints of the dominant discourse, we can say that some injustice is inevitable, but that the Democratic party is doing the best that can be done. That, then permits us to deny that we bear any blame for the inequities. To the extent that we are comfortable with that denial, we are complicit in the injustice, for we deny our own responsibility for the harm that is being done.

  • Fellman, Rambo and the Dalai Lama
  • Henry and Milovanovic, Constitutive Criminology

• "Knowingness," our need to be able to explain why and how things are as they are, leads us to decide that we "know," that one or the other strategy is right. It is entirely conceivable that Gore and Nader share many philosophical positions. The public personae we know are not necessarily the private personae as they genuinely regard the ambiguity of lived reality. But the lived reality forces them to turn their ideas into categorical concepts on which we can vote. Clearly, Gore has chosen to operate within the structural context of the Democratic Party. And that may in fact be the most effective strategy we can adopt, as Scheer suggests. But Nader has chosen to operate in the structural context of opposition to the dominant discourse, opposition that brings the plight of the oppressed, the poor, the "harmed," to the forefront and does not permit us comfortable denial of our own part in oppression. Such a position is "uncomfortable," "challenges the self-deferential view of the U.S., that we stand for justice for all, and will not establish the leadership compromises that are traditionally a part of dominant coalitions.

  I readily concede that I do not know whether the most effective strategy in either transforming discourse from adversarialism to mutuality, or in closing the wage gap, restoring agency to the people, and ending violence and oppression lies within the existing structure of the Democratic Party or within some external coalition of concerned citizens. I fully recognize also that many Republicans share concerns over oppression and injustice. They may believe, as fervently as Scheer, that such problems can best be resolved through the existing system.

  Postmodernism itself is torn in this respect. There is that branch of postmodernism that is convinced that the system does not, cannot, will not work, and they give up on any possibility of reconstructing the system. Lyotard rejects absolutely any metanarrative. Yet a different branch of postmodernism seeks ways to reconstruct the system within the parameters of mulitple perspectives and tolerance of ambiguity. Habermas agrees with much of the criticism of metanarrative. But he also sees a need, minimally, for a metanarrative of criticism from which to choose amongst proposed alternatives, and he seeks to preserve what can be preserved from knowledge gained during the Enlightenment.

  Tear down? or Rebuild? Work from within the Party? or from without? These are complex issues. It is not given that we should "know" the answers. Links on "knowingness."

  ---

  ---