On HU
Osvaldo Oyola on Dan Slott’s She-Hulk and meta-comics.
Donovan Grant on O.J. Simpson, Miles Morales, and authentic blackness.
Ben Saunders with a eulogy for Keith Emerson.
Chris Gavaler on superhero tropes and a real life Mexian vigilante.
Me on the internetsploitaton crap Uwantmetokillhim?
Me on Psycho, transmisogyny, and violence in the bathroom.
Utilitarians Everywhere
At Chicago Magazine I wrote about the Chicago activist Mariame Kaba, who is leaving Chicago after 20 years.
At the Guardian I wrote about the fact that there are no good films in the Marvel Cinematic Univese.
At The Week I argued that there should be compulsory voting.
At Splice Today I wrote about
—Noelle Stevenson’s Nimona and superwomen shapeshifting out of tropes.
Other Links
Melissa Gira Grant on how feminists have contributed to anti-trans panic.
Why Taye Diggs follows everybody on twitter.
Eh, I thought that the second Captain America movie was okay, but I have (surprisingly) low standards for these things. Edgar Wright could have made a wonderful Ant-Man movie, but there were “creative differences” (which I take to be code for “they wanted something much blander”).
In an ideal universe, they’d just give a zillion dollars to Stephen Chow or Gareth Evans and let them do whatever the hell they wanted. But it’s like instead of basing the Marvel (comics) house style on Jack Kirby, they’d used Don Heck instead: “no, no, make it drabber“.
Noah, read the piece on compulsory voting and (sorry if I’m flogging a dead horse here) but I just don’t get it. You see a disconnection between voters and their representatives as a problem; ok, but then it seems like you’re solution is to fix that by changing the voters, to make them more responsive to the existing system rather than the other way round.
You’re totally right about superhero films though. I have to admit I’m kind of interested in the forthcoming Dr Strange and Black Panther; I like to think its because they have the potential to be a bit different, but its much more likely to be just misplaced affection for comics I really enjoyed as a kid (sad, eh?).
I mean, if Marvel can’t make a decent Thor film it must be a general problem with the genre, right?
Regarding compulsory voting: Some years back, there was a sort of anti-vote movement going on in Denmark. Some people burned their ballot paper on youtube vids, and in 2009 we had NFP, Nihilistisk Folkeparti (“Nihilistic People’s Party” nihilistisk-folkeparti.dk), which sole purpose is to point out that politic are meaningless, and that all politicals, deep down, shared their view: “NFP is like Barak Obama: Status Quo with a human face” The party consider all sofavælgere (“couch voters” people who stay on the couch on election day) to be giving them their vote.
In a book (https://www.information.dk/kultur/anmeldelse/2015/04/goer-demokratiske-bliv-hjemme) some guy argued that people should stop voting, because it gave them an illusion of having actual influence. With this illusion broken, he argued, people might start considering how they could actually bring about a better world. White votes alone did not cut it, since this is a polite protest which acknowledges the current system. One have to stay on the couch on election day.
“The couch voter who does not care about what is going on in parliament, and considers all politicians to be untrustworthy, reacts in fact much more appropriate than the typical ‘engaged’ voter who read party programs, follows election campaigns and looks forward to vote and celebrate democracy on election day.”
Sean: ” but then it seems like you’re solution is to fix that by changing the voters, to make them more responsive to the existing system rather than the other way round.”
I don’t really follow this… When people vote, it forces elected officials to deal with them. Black people getting the vote was not a new form of oppression; it was a way of making the system more accountable to them.
Again, you should have a “none of the above” option. People can still register their disapproval. Making it opt out rather than opt in solves a collective action problem. It doesn’t corrupt people.
Kasper, people could still stay home and vote if they were committed. They could pay the fine or probably fill out a piece of paper with an excuse. Their protest would probably be more meaningful, in fact, since they wouldn’t get lost in the mass of people who were just indifferent.
Noah, Isn’t there more interest in the US primaries than usual at the moment, with a likely high turnout in an election with either Trump or Sanders? To me, this suggests that the current system IS responding to voter apathy – by finally offering (allegedly) outsider candidates. Its just doing so slowly. So it would make more sense to find ways to speed that up, by reforming the parties (eg rules on finance). That’s what I mean by doing it the other way round.
Obviously that doesn’t preclude introducing compulsory voting, I just don’t think it follows that a coerced higher turnout will make political systems more responsive, even with a None of the Above. Its not the same as enthusing people.
I haven’t particularly noticed that Australians are any less cynical about their politians than anyone else (btw, on the $20 thing – its been a while since I’ve been to Oz so I might be out of date on this, but the fines for late/non payment can pretty quickly go into three figures. Admittedly that’s Oz dollars, but still…)
Anyway, I think maybe we’re really talking about different takes on the state and politics (I was also puzzled by the logic of your Sanders should stand down piece from a couple of weeks back)
Sean, there’s empirical evidence that higher voter turnout makes political systems more responsive to working class priorities.
I wouldn’t include any additional fines for nonpayment. And I’d make it very easy to get out of voting (as is the case in Australia, if I understand correctly.)
Primary turnout is not higher because of “outsider candidates”. Primary turnout tends to get higher when there’s a competitive primary. The GOP primary is very interesting and weird and competitive, so you get very high turnout rates. There’s no evidence that primaries have any link to regular election turnout rates, nor any that new people are being drawn into the system.
The Sanders article was pretty straightforward; I care about advancing left priorities. I think that Sanders continuing the campaign may undermine those priorities, by making him look like a loser and perhaps by distracting resources from more important races. The last is especially a concern since Sanders has done little to contribute to down ballot races.
Thanks for taking the time to reply Noah, but I think we’re at cross purposes. For instance, I think theres a lot of room for debate about what “working class priorities” are, so I’m not sure you can be so clear cut about the empirical evidence.
Bear in mind too that not being American, the US system – particularly primaries – is a bit of a mystery to me, and it might have been a mistake to refer to Sanders. Although I think I understood your argument about maximizing his impact when he was more of a threat early on – I just don’t see Clinton as a left candidate. Just as well I don’t get a vote, eh? (Why is that? – I think the rest of the wrorld should have at least some say in your presidential election. Now theres a reform for you…:)
Anyway… seems we’d be unlikely to agree so maybe leave it there?
” I just don’t see Clinton as a left candidate.”
Clinton’s center left; she’s a standard issue dem party politician. Sanders has already lost to her though; he’s not going to win the primary. So the question is, does it advance left priorities for him to stay in, or would he do more good getting out? I think there’s an argument that he will lose standing (and thus ability to push her) if he stays in. In addition, his campaign is getting money and attention that might better be directed elsewhere (to local races, for example.)
I think the US should give a vote to everyone in countries which we invade. That would reduce our impetus to invade by a lot, it seems like.
“Center left” – Thats pretty much code for right wing though.
Thats just it – we’d be heading into a general argument on what all that stuff means. Pragmatism, idealism blah blah etc… So, yeah, I’ll give it a rest.
Lets end on a note of agreement – just been watching part of the first Avengers flick on tv. I was starting to forget how poor it actually was, so agree with you even more than earlier.
A.) There hasn’t been a Democrat in the Oval Office since Jimmy Carter. You read that right, sean.
And B.) Uma was just trying too hard, same as when she played Poison Ivy; not a true note came out of her mouth…
Oh wait – you were talking about that thing where the Hulk made us laugh by beating up Loki sooner than we expected. My bad…
Noah and Sean are both right: Clinton is centre-left by US standards; which means right wing by international standards (since your Republicans have shifted the envelope so far to the right). Isn’t that just the conventional wisdom?
FWIW, in Australia we’ve had five prime ministers* in six years, two of them dumped by their own party due to abysmal opinion polling. The last PM was so widely considered a lying buffoon that even 11 and 12 year olds held him in contempt. (When I taught a primary school class about voting, they all wanted to talk about how awful he was — that’s when you know you’re really unpopular). You could see either of these things as sign of cynicism in the electorate, or just the opposite.
*well, technically, four — Kevin Rudd was deposed in 2010 and then reinstated in 2013
Clinton’s way right of me. But left of the GOP candidates.
The point is, it doesn’t matter where she is on the political spectrum. She won, Sanders lost. The question is whether soldiering on without hope of winning helps the cause of the left or hurts it. Reasonable people can disagree about that.
Sorry, I know I said I’d drop it, but – no ones lost until its over, Noah.
I mean, its that kind of thinking that puts people off voting. Like what Jones says about opinion polling. I mean, going by the polls, some of the British Labour party go on about ditching the new Corbyn leadership, and he’s the first real choice on offer in my adult life. And, as it happens, the only way they actually CAN win next time.
Despite what experts say, pointing at polls (when the main polling organisation is owned by a leading tory). Thats how results are shaped, and why most folk think its pointless voting (and they’re not wrong)
” no ones lost until its over, Noah.”
Yes, but it’s over.
His chances of winning mathematically and demographically at this point are vitually nil. Should Bush have stayed in? Should Huckabee? When it’s clear you’ve lost, people drop out, because staying in is humiliating and unhelpful.
It’s not an affront to democracy to suggest that someone who has lost might better serve the cause by dropping out. It’s maybe an affront to some who think Sanders is more important than the policies he’s trying to promote. But that’s not me.
Weighing in kind of late here– I lived in Argentina for many years, where voting is compulsory. While the political system there remained largely a mystery to me, I found the voting piece totally compelling. The election cycle strategies of a) trying to convince people to actually get out of their houses and vote, through some powerful message(s), often emotional and negative, or voter drives pushed by celebrities, etc. and b) getting as many people as possible off the rolls who might not vote with your party (legally or illegally); they’re just palpably not there. Whereas, paying attention to American elections, it seems like a huge proportion of the political strategizing and media “analysis” are related to the ‘If’–“if such and such demographic mobilizes” etc. It’s a totally different game, requiring different tactics and also implying different civic world views.
I think the American system would be hard to change because of a confluence of cynical political elites benefitting from the type of people who don’t/can’t vote not voting; and a much more generalized cultural value of choice as equivalent to freedom.
I’m all for it, not as a cure all, but as one piece of a structural and philosophical shift towards full participation. Voting obviously isn’t everything. But I also completely disagree that it’s pointless…
https://gma.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-says-hillary-clinton-moved-much-closer-115628156–abc-news-topstories.html
-Just sayin’…