NYC Junta

We began Wednesday night with Alex reading from the introduction to his book, which centered on a speech Glenn Beck made in Tampa, in November 2009. There Beck announced “The Plan”, an as-yet-undefined blueprint for taking America back from the progressives and advocates of “social justice”. Beck believes that this phrase is a euphemism for socialism.

Though Beck does not intend to announce details of the plan until August, he has said that it will encompass 100 years. We can safely assume that it will hit the major Tea Party points.

Alex touched upon the emotional nature of Beck’s speaking style in this passage:

Finally, inevitable as gravity, there was the florid signature that appears somewhere at least once, often twice, in every Beck performance. This is the moment when the voice catches, the eyes mist, and it seems, for one or two excruciating moments, that the reluctant patriot might not be able to hold back the tears, so verklempt has he become at his rote invocation of love of country, or the brave troops, or George Washington…

You don’t have to read past the title to understand this is an anti-Glenn Beck book. But right from the beginning, Alex is unrelenting in his criticism, which is sometimes laced with sarcasm. Though he says the book was not commissioned as a hit job on Beck, the target audience is clearly the young, urban, liberal elitists who mostly know Glenn Beck from watching The Daily Show.

Alex talks about Beck as a dangerous force to be stopped, but also as a charlatan whom he compares to P.T. Barnum. The question was raised whether it was fair for us, in our conversation, to ridicule Beck as insincere. Perhaps we are mistaken and he does, in fact, have genuinely strong feelings about “loss of liberty” in this country. Or what if, yes, it is a performance, but it is intended to convey his message, which still has value?

The Junta being what it is, there was not a lot of sympathy for Beck in the group. But Jeff valiantly tried to counter our native arguments with the viewpoints of his father, who watches Beck’s show (as does my own). For those who genuinely feel that the government is encroaching too much on our private lives and businesses, for those who feel that the country has moved too far away from religion, Beck’s message can ring true. Just because some of us feel that these fears are unfounded or misplaced (I, for one, worry far more about the government’s assassinating US citizens or wiretapping our phones without warrant than I do about the federal takeover of GM), this doesn’t mean we should reject out of hand the concerns of our fellow citizens outside the major cities. “If you think about conservatives as stupid, then you’re making a mistake,” Jeff said.

Alex’s rebuttal to that is that Beck is indeed dangerous. When he talks about Obama and progressives representing a “virus that feeds upon the host of the Republic”, when he says “I’m going to be a progressive hunter like the old Nazi hunters” (as he did on his program, June 10, 2009), Alex argues that Beck is playing the fear card to such a degree as to be inciting violence. He is appropriating the language common to genocidal regimes.

Cedric said that, to him, commentators like Beck and Rush Limbaugh seemed to be moving closer to entertainment (and away from serious political debate) every year, with less and less of a grip on historical fact. Alex agreed, and talked about how Beck has, in his opinion, grossly distorted history. “The American Revolution was about destroying centers of power to create an egalitarian society,” he argued. “But over time, private corporate power grew to such a degree that it became necessary for government to introduce a ‘flattening’ effect, with the antitrust laws, income tax, etc. Without government exerting that power, we end up with a segregated society – gated communities and the poor – is that what the Founders wanted?” Adam Serwer, at the American Prospect, talks about Rand Paul employing a similar distortion in his recently panned comments about discrimination.

As is typical for a Junta meeting, we wandered off on various tangents here and there, like the nostalgic idea of 1950s America and whether it really existed (and if it did, why), the merits of the French ban on the burqa, the origins of American progressivism, etc, etc. It was a great night with a lot of food for thought. Be sure to catch our next meeting, likely near the end of June.

It looks like the violence in Bangkok is coming to an end, which is good news, but it is so awful what has taken place there. I used to cover Thailand and it boggles my mind that the peaceful, dymanic and engaging place I used to enjoy visiting so much has become so polarized and violent. I honestly think former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is the main culprit behind it all. He sowed the seeds of this violence with his class struggle rhetoric during his time in office and he is surely manipulating things from his exile in the Gulf. Despite being the richest man in the country he positioned himself as a champion of the poor, and it should be noted did some admirable things, like provide health care at virtually no cost for the rural poor. But he also shamelessly pursued increasing his wealth in a dubious ways and created a clique of cronies around him, all of which threatened the existence of Thai democracy. When I was spending time in Thailand there was a feeling that he was out of hand and had to be stopped. When he was removed from power in a military coup there was an uneasy feeling about it, but most people following Thailand thought it was probably necessary, and importantly it was endorsed by the Thai king who is hugely respected in Thai society.

But Thaksin didn’t take to exile well and has spent years battling to get back to Thailand and has fueld the fire of class struggle as a stalking horse for his own ambitions. And now Thai society is turned upside down. Some are talking about establishing a Republic, further minimizing the role of the King. The nature of democracy and the social fabric of the country is tattered, the rural north feeling enraged by recent events; no one has talked for a while about the Muslim insurgency in the south, but that is still simmering. In short, Thailand could be pulled apart.

I used to tell people who hadn’t been to Asia before that Thailand was the best first country to visit. Beautiful, exotic, great food, amazing beaches, beautiful temples, friendly people who speak English and Thailand is used to tourists. But now how can I say that? The NY Times had one of the better stories I’ve read recently today and I thought this quote was a particularly powerful summary about the events in Thailand for those who have followed the country for years.

“This is the worst crisis Thailand has had, ever, probably — maybe World War II — and where we go from here I don’t think anybody knows,” said Charles Keyes, an anthropologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who has devoted much of his life to the study of Thailand.

“My understanding of what I have learned over the years here has really come into question,” he said. “I question all the things I’ve learned about this country.”

We hope you’re going to make it out to Williamsburg Wednesday night to the Junta. Alex Zaitchik is going to read from his new book “Common Nonsense” and we’ll have a talk about right-wing extremism. Below are a few articles, some by Alex, that would be good reading ahead of Wednesday:

http://www.alternet.org/media/146752/how_glenn_beck_re-invented_himself_as_a_crying_conservative?page=entire

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/opinion/17krugman.html?hp

http://www.alternet.org/news/146403/the_five_creepiest_moments_of_the_southern_republican_leadership_conference/?page=3

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/opinion/16rich.html?src=me&ref=opinion

Sam’s comment on our modern art wrap-up got me thinking about the city. Patti Smith said young artists should seek other cities now because New York is not as accommodating as it once was:

Patti recalled coming to New York without money, when it was “down and out,” and you could get a cheap apartment and “build a whole community of transvestites,” artists or writers, or whatever.

Today, she said, “New York has closed itself off to the young and the struggling. But there are other cities. Detroit. Poughkeepsie… New York City has been taken away from you… So my advice is: Find a new city.”

Patti’s words picked up steam when the Huffington Post ran it, but the original source was a blog called “Jeremiah’s Vanishing New York“. In both places, the item stirred a number of reader comments:

This is true only if you consider downtown Manhattan to be the horizon line for “the city,” which would be unfortunate. #

To “build a whole community of transvestites or artists or writers” is to start the gentrification process. This can be accomplished in the South Bronx or other places in the “outer boroughs.” #

The need to be close to the art scene in New York to get noticed is negated by the internet. We’re talking actual freedom here, not just slightly cheaper rent. #

If you’re good and you have talent you can make it here, no problem. #

Between the Guliani [sic] effect (although crime stats were already down before his mayoralty), Sex and the City, and the real estate boom, the city has become extremely homogenized and lost most of its soul. The newbies brought too many cars with them, and think it’s weird to talk to strangers. #

As I was following the links last week, I became wrapped up in this blog Vanishing New York. Before I knew it, I’d spent most of the morning reading the archives. The writer focuses on what was just touched on in that last comment: gentrification and what he calls the “yunnie” phenomenon – Young Urban Narcissists. Think Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. Have you seen or read it again lately? Though it was set in the 80s, it doesn’t seem dated at all. You can see Bateman-style condos for sale all over the city.

Check out some more Vanishing New York, this is a great blog:

• American Psychos
• Post-Crash Revisionism
• Park Slopers Want Geisha Girl

We are not slowing down here at the Junta. After the smashing success of our meeting on contemporary art, we are jumping to a contemporary media figure as a subject of discussion. Glenn Beck is known as the new star of conservative radio and Fox News TV, where he is seen and heard by millions. Now our own Alex Zaitchik has written a new unauthorized biography of Beck, and he will lead this Junta on understanding the background of this polarizing character.

Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance

What kind of disc jockey would telephone the wife of a competitor and, over live radio, belittle her and her husband about her recent miscarriage? What kind of patriot would con his listeners into donating $450,000 to finance a series of Rally for America events that turned out to be nothing but a personal promotional tour? What kind of talk-radio host would falsely describe the president of the United States as a communist and black nationalist out to enslave Americans? The purveyor of such tactics—and worse—can only be America’s newest household conservative name: Glenn Beck.

In Common Nonsense, investigative reporter Alexander Zaitchik traces Beck’s personal history, from his troubled childhood through his years as a “morning zoo” DJ to his sudden and meteoric rise to the top of the conservative media heap. He pays special attention to Beck’s transformation from alcoholic, cocaine-snorting, failed disc jockey without a political thought in his head to wealthy, bile-spewing, right-wing demagogue whose radio and television shows form the core of a multimillion-dollar media empire.

Drawing on interviews with Beck’s childhood friends, radio coworkers, and TV colleagues as well as Beck’s own published accounts of his life, Zaitchik reveals the cracks in Beck’s personal creation myth. He pinpoints the moment when Beck, then working in Tampa and about to be fired from his first-ever talk-radio job, discovered right-wing rabble-rousing as his route to long-sought fame and fortune. He shows how Beck adapted the timeworn gags and manipulations of radio hucksterism—including the audience donation drive—into powerful tools for propaganda and personal enrichment. He also demonstrates how Beck’s screeds about ACORN, czars, and socialists are carefully honed to intensify his listeners’ fears and spur them to action at a time and place of his choosing.

Beck’s manipulations are not aimed exclusively at conservative Tea Party activists. One of his favorite gambits, Zaitchik reveals, is to make outrageous statements—such as calling President Obama a racist—to provoke angry and overwrought reactions from the Left. He knows that nothing burnishes his reputation as a right-wing hero victimized by political correctness more effectively than a barrage of scoldings from the “liberal elite.”

You can laugh at his crocodile tears, shake your head at the “facts” out of which he spins his wild theories, gape in wonder at his abrupt transitions from cheap sentiment to vicious attack and back again—but do not underestimate Glenn Beck. Read Common Nonsense and discover how this smart, ambitious self-promoter and his devoted flock poison our political discourse and weaken our democracy.

This meeting will be held Wednesday, May 19, at 7:30pm. Details to follow.

Friday’s Junta on contemporary art was one of the best yet and a lot of fun for everyone involved. We had a lot of good feedback: thanks to everyone for coming out.

JohnJ started us off with a quick overview of artistic movements in the last 140 years, with an emphasis toward trying to explain how we got to the present moment, not just in terms of movements and periods, but in terms of the modern way art works: galleries, openings, agents, etc. It wasn’t always this way, but there is a pattern. Certain “tastemakers” – those with money or influence – determine what is relevant and what gets promoted, and these people are not all artists. They are curators and patrons and customers, from Lorenzo d’Medici to modern hedge fund collectors.

But that is the “art world,” separate from art itself, where an artist must make a living using his work – and often himself – as a commodity. When did art become a path to celebrity? Some argued that it was with Picasso and other painters around the turn of the 20th century – essentially that celebrity came with the rise of the mass media. But wasn’t Shakespeare’s name known throughout England in his day? Well, yes, but he had a technological boost as well; he wrote in the wake of the invention of the printing press.

There were some interesting sidenotes about writing, with the question being raised whether it should be included in a discussion about “art.” Of course! said I, and some others, although a painter disagreed and it was painting that dominated the conversation. What about poetry, does anyone still write it? Yes, said a poet who was with us, and brought up Mary Oliver, who is indeed prolific, but who is also part of an earlier generation (b. 1935). I pointed out that Twain grew massively wealthy and famous by his writing (although he died a pauper), and until recently it was still possible to become a celebrity by writing (although if it’s fame you’re after, you’d better stick with crime or romance novels and skip the poetry.)

Damien Hirst is “the first billionaire artist.” Which is absurd on its face, but it brings up good questions about authenticity. If Hirst puts a shark in a glass case full of formaldehyde, what makes it different from you or I doing the same? DC wanted to know why a urinal, when placed behind a “velvet rope” by DuChamp, suddenly became art. The question becomes one of context: the place where one views the art, the background of the artist and how much of it is written next to the piece, and of course the title of the piece can change interpretations easily. DuChamp called the urinal Fountain.

DuChamp said that anyone could be an artist; that anything could be art. This was the precursor to Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame, and today it is really happening. Art is life, art is expression, art is commodity. The thing and the representation of the thing now overlap so heavily as to be nearly the same thing. In The Society of the Spectacle, Guy DeBord wrote “All that was once directly lived has become mere representation.” That was 37 years before Facebook. Today it presents a paradox: if everything is art, then nothing is art. So how do we know what’s good or bad?

We have to learn for ourselves what feels authentic and original. And those tastemakers are important. They perform a real function, by paying constant close attention. They watch the ticker of the art world go by, and from the great flow deduce the zeitgeist. Only over time do patterns emerge. But like Jeff*, a painter in attendance, said, “You come to New York as a young person painting still-lifes, with a traditional background, and you see what’s happening here, and you stop doing that, because what you’re doing could have been done 300 years ago.” When John Cage wrote “4:33″ it was revolutionary. But writing a silent song today is not relevant, because it’s not moving the needle.

Towards the end, we spoke of art which lives but is not commoditized – the work of the undiscovered or unappreciated. Henry Darger lived alone in a small apartment, having little social interaction, yet was busy producing lengthy novels and paintings. Van Gogh was never famous in his lifetime and died penniless. And for some, dressing up like superman is a path for “fame and fortune.”

Like JohnJ said, “We could talk about this all night, and no one is going to leave here saying, ‘Yes, we’ve got it figured out now.’” With that in mind, I’ll end here and say thanks again to everyone who came out. It was a great night. Look for the next Junta to gather near the end of May…

* I originally attributed this to Sam. Apologies.