I Watched the Peterson/Žižek Debate So You Don’t Have To

It is a prelude to Žižek’s opening remarks that summarize the farce that is the Peterson/Žižek debate. He says, and I’m paraphrasing, that they are both outsiders because of their views on LGBT identity. Žižek does not elaborate, but he is referring to his fall from grace on the left for taking…whatever position this is. Peterson is a misinformed transphobe. And Žižek lays bare that they are there to make each other relevant again.

And its working. I’m here writing about them. I linked to Žižek comparing genderqueer people to garbage. I’m saying Jordan Peterson’s name in public.

I could write about how Peterson critiqued the Goddamned Communist Manifesto like Das Kapital doesn’t exist. I could try and explain the rickety, digression filled case Žižek brought. I could tell you how the only satisfying moment was Žižek trying to corner Peterson to name a single “Postmodern Neomarxist”. I could try and articulate the genuine disappointment I felt that neither side was interested in the paradox that is China enough to explore it. I more than once wondered if this was a mere waste of time or a profound waste of time.

Peterson is under-read and doesn’t know what he is talking about. Žižek is too clever by half. Neither can talk to the other effectively. So who won? The ticket scalpers, if Peterson is to be believed. Does that prove capitalism makes people happy? Well, its no worse than any of the anecdotes Peterson brought.

The Empty Rhetoric of Mayor Pete

Because I grew up in Indiana and because I have Way Too Many Opinions about politics, people keep asking me about Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend and his quixotic presidential run. My hot takes haven’t really been that hot:

• South Bend is less crappy than it was when he took over and that’s partially due to him.
• I too have cooked up crazy “get out of Indiana” plans, so I really empathize.
• Listing “mayor of a mid-sized city well past its peak” as a qualification to run the executive branch is…underwhelming. (CC: The former mayor of Burlington, VE).

But if I’m being honest with myself and others, my snark is rooted in an incredulity about the contrast between how lukewarm everything he says is and how rabidly his supporters are saying, “WE FOUND THE GUY!” Pete Buttigieg isn’t an object of my loathing because he’s not interesting enough to be loathed. I dug around for a transcript of a long interview he did and landed on this one from Crooked.

This interview is interesting to me because he basically never makes a policy recommendation. He does endorse H.R. 1, which, to be fair, is a big deal and I can consider voting for him on that alone. A few times he obliquely gets at policy frameworks. Specifically, his critique of how Democrats have framed the minimum wage debate more than implies that he wants to raise it. But he avoids having to commit to the old 10-or-15 question by just not talking about it. Later, his interviewer brings up his specific position on health care. But in the middle he slyly makes this move:

You know I’m sitting in office and we’re thinking about what draft one of the bill looks like maybe we’ll make it as far out as possible so we can have a healthy negotiation. But again I think we outsmart ourselves as Democrats by being way too tactical when we forget that you know a five minute conversation with my in-laws who are intelligent people with a mom and pop business in northern Michigan who do not follow the blow by blow of policy debate.

A big part of his world-view, it turns out, is that Democrats shouldn’t be too smart. They shouldn’t come to the table with a policy plan; you write that after you get elected, maybe. (Maybe!) It’s really easy to be taken in by this because it makes a certain kind of sense; over-commitment to policy details can become a liability both while running and when setting policy later. But the question of 10 versus 15 dollar minimum wage isn’t a detail. It’s a peak into an ideological framework and the difference between well-proven policy and a big leap of faith. His ideology seems to be, “Whatever”.

Buttigieg also muddies the waters sometimes. His stance on Universal Basic Income is that it maybe should be structured so that its tied to work—but maybe not. (He’s interested in these structures, you see.) The problem is that…that’s not what the “Universal” in UBI means. A UBI, whether it is a good idea or not, must be universal; it must be for everyone. Otherwise its a labor subsidy. He’s either out of his depth or obfuscating intentionally.

A last tactic he uses, whether intentionally or not, is he never names his ideological opponents. Going back to the issue of the minimum wage, he is critical of “Democrats”. But he names no names. I didn’t notice this at first because I am inclined to agree; some Democrats have been tepid on the issue. But others have been loud and forceful, if we’re being intellectually honest. He is creating an empty shell of a villain to project your fears about the Democratic party onto, the same way Trump holds up “immigrants” as a beacon for racists to flock to.

My original plan to conclude this piece was to express bafflement that he was so popular, even among Hoosiers. His transcripts are boring to read and he doesn’t say much. An unexpected challenge in writing this piece was that he is so flowery that its hard to quote him because the quotes sprawl, but its also hard to summarize him because he says so much that is ambiguous that I constantly feel like I’m strawmanning him. (That has doubtless happened, but there’s my defense: his arguments, such as they are, are poorly organized.) But then something happened.

I opened up a CNN transcript I ended up not using and CNN’s auto-video “feature” assaulted me. Because I don’t watch TV news as a rule, I’d never heard Buttigieg’s voice before. And you know what? Buttigieg sounds really nice. The sprawling quotes become thoughtful musings. He sounds warm and inviting. His voice is strong and silky. (Imagine if he had a “fem” voice; would we be seriously discussing his potential as America’s first openly gay president?) This doesn’t alter my analysis; he’s avoiding actual policy content in his speech-making. But he sounds great while doing it.

Just like his “Democrats from the 90s”, he is not running as a real person. He is creating a hollow shell, inviting you project your left-wing fantasies onto him. He is what would happen if you let a computer auto-generate sentences after analyzing Obama speeches. He is the Bella Swan of the Democratic primary.

We can do better.