A constitutional outrage, a startling confession, and the slumber of the leftist elite.

Slavoj Zizek, leftist philosopher and cultural commentator of a certain era, today put out a write-up in The Independent sagely warning all you bloodthirsty US progressives that the Democratic Party's move to initiate impeachment proceedings (a breakdown of the which is detailed at the bottom of this article*) is actually a secret center-left plot to sabotage the ascent of the progressive wing. At this point, I have to be honest and confess that I enjoy pointing out the logical lapses of academics from older generations, partly because I detest the implicit expectation that youth be synonymous with ignorance and inexperience, but also because I too often find these lapses disappointing and deeply troubling. I was, for this reason, quite obviously a joy to teach. But back to The Great Impeachment Conspiracy.

This hot take is as original as they come, but it’s also sloppy and muddled in many ways that are worth unpacking. First of all, there is the idea that impeachment will swallow up public discourse all the way to the general election and will prevent the discussion of a bold new progressive agenda. This idea is wildly at odds with the ongoing discussion of a bold new progressive agenda, which is largely being fostered by the congress-people who have strangely also been the most vocal about impeachment. If A.O.C and Elizabeth Warren can push novel ideas and call for impeachment, it hardly seems like a binary choice between the two is real or necessary.

The second idea is that this is somehow a form of Democratic revenge for Hillary Clinton's loss in 2016. I am aware of Mr. Zizek's great preference for Bernie Sanders (he expressed great bitterness when Mr. Sanders failed to secure the 2016 democratic primary nomination, and he quotes him now to back up the assertion that impeachment is intended to sabotage a progressive agenda), but this claim is illogical for many reasons. Mr. Zizek claims that centrist liberals are seizing on impeachment as a salve for past battle scars, but ignores the fact that those same people shied away from impeachment talk or action throughout and even after the conclusion of Mueller investigation, and were staving off a growing progressive outcry on the topic until the fateful events of the past week. Besides, it is the Democrats from moderate or right-leaning districts that have the most to potentially lose from launching an impeachment inquiry, so it makes no sense for them to endanger their seats in order to pull a dubious scam on their progressive colleagues. Another thing that is unconsidered in Mr. Zizek's calculus is that Bernie Sanders has himself voiced support for impeachment, as has every single progressive politician since the announcement of impeachment initiation, so if they share his ideas of a grand conspiracy then they are unnaturally quiet about them. They must have considered that a vote to impeach, even without successful conviction, is still likely to be hugely damaging to an already-weak incumbent, thus making the election of a progressive even more likely, should they prevail in the primary against a newly-doubtful Biden campaign. But Mr. Zizek does not allow history or facts to taint his ideologically pure ruminations.

Yet another blunder in the analysis is the presumption that impeachment of Donald Trump is not itself a legitimate left-wing cause, and this is where the Old Left Wing has truly lost touch with the motivations and ideology of the current liberal movement. His reliance on a characterization of government as a fundamentally and unchangeably ‘evil' enterprise that only exists to harm the masses completely ignores the unique and increased othering and marginalization that the current administration makes a reality for so many Americans. A willingness to initially countenance (and now to “run out the clock” on) a Trump presidency is unconcerned with lowering fossil fuel emissions and income inequality, and securing immigrant rights and protections, reproductive rights, LGBT and civil rights, environmental protections and geopolitical stability, because his very presence in the Oval Office actively ensures further degeneration of all those progressive projects. This brand of liberalism (let’s call it the Old Far Left) is as or even more concerned with Snowden and Assange as it is with children in Flint, Yemen, migrant detention facilities, or Jeffrey Epstein’s private island, and this ideological preference for the older, the whiter, the more privileged, the more controversial or self-promotionally contrarian, communicates to the new liberal order that the Old Far Left has become more interested in winning ideological arguments and score-settling than it is in trying to change society for the better. This focus, paired with the trenchant anti-government streak, also tells the new liberal order (hereafter referred to as The Woke Wing) that the Old Far Left is more culturally invested in nihilist revolution than careful reform, a stance that is as un-woke as Trumpian cultural inertia (and too troublingly similar to juvenile apocalyptic fantasy narratives like those of LOTR, Star Wars and Harry Potter, where things have to reach their absolute nadir before a charismatic, frequently-white savior finally appears, to break the wheel of suffering and usher in a golden era). The Woke Wing, championed by the likes of Rep. Omar and Sen. Booker, is active, cooperative and interested in proposing bold, radically novel plans and policies, fueled by the greater political involvement of social and political minorities who are tiring of a lack of representation but refuse to give in to cynicism and apocalyptic thinking.

Finally, Zizek employs two Trumpian tactics that will undoubtedly trouble a modern progressive; first, he willfully engages in conspiracy-mongering. He proposes an unsupported alternative narrative to a fairly obvious situation, neglects evidence that might indicate that his analysis is incorrect without putting forth any real evidence that he is in fact right, and then ends by declaring that he is right and urging others to join in his cynicism. The second tactic is more easily recognizable: he engages in whataboutism, implying that Americans should not care too much that foreign election interference is occurring and being encouraged by the president because apparently past administrations have also interfered in foreign elections. Even if the claim above were indeed true, it would still be a bizarre and foolish stance for a concerned citizen of a democracy to take. Mr. Zizek's goal is ostensibly to ensure that the Democratic Party commits to a left-wing agenda, but his outlook and tactics are so negative and internally divisive that it is unclear that they will create the outcome he claims to desire. This, and not the DNC or the ghost of Hillary Clinton, is what has long hampered the growth and political maturity of the progressive flank of the party; far-left intellectual leadership, including some politicians and thinkers (and especially Zizek), has historically failed in the past to put forward a positive and cohesive progressive agenda, a platform that proposes coherent left-wing government policies, motivates the progressive base and unites people around clear goals, while avoiding a descent into perfectionism, escapism, or cynicism. If the Woke Wing can do these things and make a compelling case heading into 2020, then the Old Far Left may quickly find that it is not them, but the Democratic Party and Americans at large, that are actually ready and able to bring about progressive governance.

…

*For any red blood-fed progressive that somehow hasn’t been paying any attention in the last week or so, the story is apparently that back in 2014, then US vice-president Joe Biden was put in charge of the US prong of a multilateral effort to aid Ukrainian government in maintaining economic and political stability as a revolution and regime change led to confrontation and military crisis (mostly with Russia) in the Crimean Region. A popular revolution had toppled the Kremlin-backed former leader Viktor Yanukovitch, and installed the caretaker government of Arseniy Yatsenyuk; Europe and the US flocked in to assist the interim government, which was in the process of signing an association agreement with the EU that would have complicated its ties with Russia, especially impacting the Russian oil companies whose oligarch owners are closely tied to the Duma. Biden, in fact, was in 2014 pursuing initiatives to increase Ukrainian domestic LNG production. Russia responded to these moves by branding the Yatsenyuk government illegitimate, and by backing separatist rebels and sowing disinformation in the Crimean region, which has a strong Russian identity, and this provoked a military conflict in which Russian armed forces swiftly intervened. The final result was the infamous annexation of the Crimean region by Russia, and continued fighting between the neighboring countries.

Biden was the spokesperson for a multilateral effort in 2015 to pressure the Ukrainian government (then under President Poroshenko) into taking a tougher stance on corruption, mostly by firing an attorney general that was seen as stonewalling and slow-walking investigations into multiple entities (which included Burisma Holdings, an energy firm that had Biden's son, Hunter, as a member of the board). Now, I know your conflict-of-interest senses must be tingling, but calm down. Yes, it was a cynical fundraising move by Burisma to put the son of the US VP on its board at a time the US government was providing so much assistance, but cynical is not the same thing as illegal, and unless there is proof that Biden ever affected policy to benefit his son's company, it remains merely cynical. On the Bidens' end, it either was a foolish or reckless move by Hunter, but it should be noted that the elder Biden attempted to ensure transparency by encouraging the appointment of an AG who would actually investigate the company.

Anyway, Trump seems to have abruptly and unaccountably withheld, since the beginning of the year, military aid that had been approved by Congress and cleared by his own administration, despite multiple assertions that he would release it, while in the backdrop lawyers and advisers pressured Ukrainian officials to open an investigation of the Bidens (as well as provide support for other right-wing conspiracy theories regarding the 2016 US election). This culminated in a July 25th call in which Trump repeatedly pushed the Ukrainian president, who took a supine posture to such political harassment, to investigate the political opposition; this conversation disturbed a number of US government officials, one of whom filed a whistleblower complaint that sparked the impeachment investigation.

Cross-posted on Medium