The Meaning of Tulsi 2020: Democracy v. Technocracy

There are a few things I have learned about Tulsi Gabbard, and equally importantly, her supporters. We are in it in a way that is not perhaps immediately comprehensible to others; critics, skeptics, deniers, and even wishy-washy quasi-sorta-supporters. That might sound a bit mystical, and perhaps there is a sense of mystery about it, or at least why we are so seriously unflinchingly determined about it, but I will get to that part later. For now, let me state this simply and clearly as best as I have understood this: we are not in this to test, calibrate, poke around, and figure out “winnability.” We are here to win; as we are, as we believe we all are (diverse as we are), and most important, as Tulsi is. All for Tulsi, Tulsi for all.

What I mean by this is that we have a sense of investment in Tulsi specifically as a truth-sayer. And that means, in such an egregiously and brazenly propaganda-curtained media environment like ours, that the notion of diluting her truth-campaign for some imagined notion of ‘electability’ is simply unthinkable for us. Tulsi won my respectful attention a long time ago by speaking the truth about the Hinduphobia when most South Asian American community leaders and intellectuals were in vested denial about its existence.

Then, she won my complete support when she began her campaign speaking the truth about the core cause of deception, propaganda, violence, and most of all, unnecessary suffering in America and the world today — the continuing dominance of the military-industrial-communications complex and its normalization of war as a way of life for generation after generation of Americans. And since then, it is not just Tulsi but some of her other supporters who have won my solidarity for the same reason — they are truth-tellers. Some of them are famous and have huge alternative media followings, and some are just modestly influential voices on social media. And yet, one by one, they have uncovered, expressed, and stood firmly for truth, always.

In the last few months, I have learned so much from them about what it means to be American, and to be a participant in American democracy, because like Tulsi, they have been functioning in a way that seems centered on truth-knowing and truth-telling rather than merely riding a wave or ripple on social media sensations. They are diverse, politically, and otherwise. And yet they are united, not just in a sense of conviction about Tulsi, but also in a sense of respect they seem to have about truth and character. I do not know how else to put it. I think this is a genuine movement.

Now there’s another line I keep hearing often from people about Tulsi. These are people who are not necessarily haters or rival activists. They seem to have a bit of admiration for her. And yet, their view seems to be something like: if only she hadn’t done this or that, then maybe she would have still had a future, like a future Veep or Secretary of State or something.

(And, for some reason, I seem to hear this view mainly from fellow Indian immigrants!)

These two approaches tell me something about how we think about politics. On the one side, we have a view which is admittedly “stanish,” but premised firmly in the belief that Tulsi is about truth-telling, and the nuts and bolts of how that truth-telling is going to play out on election day is somewhat secondary, or at least dealt with in a matter of fact way. On the other side, we have a sort of godsplaining phenomenon, where everyone assumes a kind of authority and expertise to predict what is going to happen based on their reading of politics as a technocratic exercise; i.e. what a candidate stands for is somehow less relevant to the conversation than plucking coordinate points on an imagined career-path.

Now, on the face of it, I don’t disagree that given the way things are, well of course had Tulsi not rocked the boat she might have been rewarded by the machine down the line and all that. But given the way Tulsi is doing things, that would have been not merely letting down her constituents, but frankly a deeper disavowal of self that seems to anyone who follows her closely, simply unthinkable. It may be hard for people accustomed to the status quo to think all of this is going to lead anywhere, but as a supporter, a believer, if you will, I have to say that it is good to let go of our assumptions sometimes and keep an open mind. Why should we take it for granted that things will never change?

I think that the skeptical reactions to Tulsi’s position are best seen as a moment of decoupling between democracy and a very specific form of thinking about power we might call technocracy. Technocracy, as I understand it, is not a simple system of rule by technologists or scientists but a way of living and thinking where we end up believing in the method or process more than the end result itself. When we end up thinking about politics not in terms of what is really happening in the world, what’s going on, if you will, but more so in terms of the machines of publicity, popularity and backroom deal-making that dominate it, we are in a state of technocratic domination, and we don’t even realize it.

I do not know of course what will happen in November, but I can point out that much of what is happening so far is a sign of democracy raising its voice slowly against decades of domination by technocracy (which has of course become even more domineering in its nature through the sheer ubiquity of new media technologies). You may not necessarily have realized this yet because what you thought were the liberal or even progressive media outlets simply aren’t that anymore; how does a major news channel like CNN for example manage to exclude Tulsi from its town hall just like that and still hope to be credible even? Is Tulsi speaking anything so bizarre or unreasonable that she deserves to be shut out by the gatekeepers of media?

I think what we are witnessing is a peak power play. One side is counting on its formidable monopoly over mass communication and indeed the very definition of what is considered normal politics while the other is relying on something far less formidable in scale, the informed and reasoned conviction of the everyday citizen. It may seem like an impossible battle sometimes, but it is not going to go away just like that at all. Karma and dharma are at play!