1. The aff is the only reasonable solution. Totally discarding hope for the state is irrational.
Gitlin 5—Todd Gitlin, formerly served as professor of sociology and director of the mass communications program at the University of California, Berkeley, and then a professor of culture, journalism and sociology at New York University, now a professor of journalism and sociology and chair of the Ph.D. program in Communications at Columbia University, a long-time political activist from the Left, 2005, (“The Intellectuals and the Flag,” Available Online at http://bit.ly/1HA6rz7, Accessed on 7/17/15)CK
So twoManichaeisms squared off.Both were faith based, inclined to be impervious toward evidence, and tilted toward moral absolutism. One proceeded from the premise that U.S. power was always benign, the other from the premise that it was always pernicious. One justified empire—if not necessarily by that name—on the ground that the alternatives were worse; the other saw empire every time the United States wielded power. But these two polar tendencies are not the only options. There is, at least embryonically, a patriotic left that stands, as Michael Tomasky has put it, “between Cheney and Chomsky.”5 It disputes U.S. policies, strategies, and tactics—vociferously. But it criticizes from the inside out, without discarding the hope, if not of redemption, at least of improvement. It looks to its intellectuals for, among other things, scrutiny of the conflicts among the powers, the chinks in the armor, the embryonic and waning forces, paradoxes of unintended consequences, the sense immured in the nonsense, and vice versa. It believes in security—the nation’s physical securityas much asits economic security. It does not consider security to be somebody else’s business. When it deplores conditions that are deplorable, it makes it plain, in substance and tone, that the critic shares membership with the criticized. It acknowledges—and wrestles with—the dualitiesof America: the liberty and arrogance twinned, the bullying and tolerance, myopia and energy, standardization and variety, ignorance and inventiveness, the awful dark heart of darkness and the self-reforming zeal. It does not labor under the illusion that the world would be benign but for U.S. poweror that capitalism is uniformly the most damaging economic system ever. It lives inside, with an indignation born of family feeling. Its anger is intimate.
2. Perm do the aff and the alt in all other instances
double-bind: EITHER doing the alternative will be strong enough to overcome the residual links to one instance of the plan, OR it will be too weak to overcome the status quo.
3. They cede the political – the alt never snowballs into real change. Means zero alt solvency.
Chandler 4 –David Chandler, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the Center for Democracy, University of Westminster, 2004 (“Millennium,” Available online at http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Millennium-Building-GCS-published.pdf, accessed on 7/17/15)CK
The struggle for individual ethicaland politicalautonomy, the claim for the recognition of separate ‘political spaces’ and for the ‘incommunicability’ of political causes, demonstrates the limits of the radical claims for the normative project of global civil society ‘from below’. The rejection of the formal political sphere, as a way of mediating between the individual and the social, leaves political struggles isolated from any shared framework of meaning or from any formal processes of democratic accountability. This article should not be read as a defence of some nostalgic vision of the past, neither does it assert that the key problem with radical global civil society approaches is their rejection of formal engagement in existing political institutions and practices. The point being made here is that the rejection of state-based processes, which force the individual to engage with and account for the views of other members of society, is a reflection of a broader problem—an unwillingness to engage in political contestation. Advocates of global civil society ‘from below’ would rather hide behind the views of someone else, legitimising their views as the prior moral claims of others—the courtly advocates—or putting themselves in harm’s way and leading by inarticulate example, rather than engaging in a public debate. The unwillingness of radical activists to engage with their own society reflects the attenuation of political community rather than its expansion. Regardless of the effectiveness of radical lobbying and calls for recognition, this rejection of social engagement can only further legitimise the narrowing of the political sphere to a small circle of unaccountable elites. If the only alternative to thepolitical ‘game’ is to threaten to ‘take our ball home’—the anti-politics of rejectionism—the powers that be can sleep peacefully in their beds.
4. Turn – rejection of the state doesn’t do anything but reinforce the power of right-wing forces in the US political sphere. They need to affirm pragmatic alternative to prevent the failure of their movement. This card reks the k
Pasha 96 (July-Sept. 1996, Mustapha Kamal, Professor and Chair of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Aberdeen, “Security as Hegemony”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 283-302)TB
An attack on the postcolonial state as the author of violence and its drive to produce a modern citizenry may seem cathartic, without producingthe semblance of an alternative vision of a new political community or fresh forms of life among existing political communities. Central to this critique is an assault on the state and other modern institutions said to disrupt some putatively natural flow of history. Tradition, on this logic, is uprooted to make room for grafted social forms; modernity gives birth to an intolerant and insolent Leviathan, a repository of violence and instrumental rationality's finest speci- men. Civil society - a realm of humaneness, vitality, creativity, and harmony - is superseded, then torn asunder through the tyranny of state-building. The attack on the institution of the state appears to substitute teleology for ontology. In the Third World context, especially, the rise of the modern state has been coterminous with the negation of past histories, cultures, identities, and above all with violence. The stubborn quest to construct the state as the fount of modernity has subverted extant communities and alternative forms of social organization. The more durable consequence of this project is in the realm of the political imaginary: the constrictions it has afforded; the denials of alternative futures.The postcolonial state, however, has also grown to become more heterodox - to become more than simply modernity's reckless agent against hapless nativism. The state is also seen as an expression of greater capacities against want, hunger, and injustice; as an escape from the arbitrariness of communities established on narrower rules of inclusion/exclusion; as identity removed somewhat from capri- cious attachments. No doubt, the modern state has undermined tra- ditional values of tolerance and pluralism, subjecting indigenous so- ciety to Western-centered rationality. But tradition can also conceal particularism and oppression of another kind. Even the most elastic interpretation of universality cannot find virtue in attachments re- furbished by hatred, exclusivity, or religious bigotry. A negation of the state is no guarantee that a bridge to universality can be built. Perhaps the task is to rethink modernity, not to seek refuge in a blind celebration of tradition. Outside, the state continues to inflict a self-producing "security dilemma"; inside, it has stunted the emergence of more humane forms of political expres- sion. But there are always sites of resistance that can be recovered and sustained. A rejection of the state as a superfluous leftover of modernity that continues to straitjacket the South Asian imagination must be linked to the project of creating an ethical and humane order based on a restructuring of the state system that privileges the mighty and the rich over the weak and the poor.74 Recognizing the constrictions of the modern Third World state, a reconstruction of state-society re- lations inside the state appears to be a more fruitful avenue than wishing the state away, only to be swallowed by Western-centered globalization and its powerful institutions.A recognition of the patent failure of other institutions either to deliver the social good or to procure more just distributional rewards in the global political economy may provide a sobering reassessment of the role of the state. An appreciation of the scale of human tragedy accompanying the collapse of the state in many local contexts may also provide im- portant points of entry into rethinking the one-sided onslaught on the state.Nowhere are these costs borne more heavily than in the postcolonial, so-called Third World, where time-space compression has rendered societal processes more savage and less capable of ad- justing to rhythms dictated by globalization
5. Perm do both – only politics solves the k
Grossberg 92 (Lawrence, Professor of Communications at the University of Illinois, We Gotta Get Out of This Place, p. 390-391)TB
But this would mean that the Leftcould not remain outside of the systems of governance. It has sometimes to workwith,against and within bureaucratic systems of governance. Consider the case of Amnesty International, an immesely effective organization when its major strategy was (similar to that of the Right) exerting pressure directly on the bureaucracies of specific governments. In recent years (marked by the recent rock tour), it has apparently redirected its energy and resources, seeking new members (who may not be committed to actually doing anything; memebership becomes little more than a statement of ideological support for a position that few are likely to oppose) and public visibility. In stark contrast, the most effective struggle on the Left in recent times has been the dramatic (and, one hopes continuing) dismantling of apartheid in South Africa. It was accomplished by mobilizing popular pressure on the institutions and bureaucracies of economic and governmental institutions and it depended on a highly sophisticated organizational structure.The Left too often thinks that it can end racism and sexism and classism by changing people's attitudesandeveryday practices(e.g. the 1990 Black boycott of Korean stores in New York). Unfortunately, while such struggles may be extremely visible, they are often less effective than attempts to move the institutions(e.g.,banks, taxing structures, distributors) which have put the economic realtions of black and immigrant populations in place and which condition people's everyday practices. The Left needs institutions which can operate within the system of governance, understanding that such institutions are the mediating structures by which power is actively realized. It is often by directing opposition against specific institutions that power can be challenged. The Left assumed for some time now that, since it has so little access to the apparatuses of agency, its only alternative is to seek a public voice in the media through tactical protests. The Left does in fact need more visibility, but it also needs greater access to the entire range of apparatuses of decision making power.Otherwise the Left has nothing but its own self-righteousness. It is not individuals who have produced starvation and the other social disgracesof our world, although it is individuals who must take responsibility for eliminating them. But to do so, they must act with organizations, and within the systems of organizations whichin fact have the capacity(as well as responsibility) to fight them.
6. The alt forces economic and social responsibility on the Tohono, when it’s the USFG’s responsibility to fix the problems they caused in the first place. Perm do the aff then the alt solves this.
Katz 2k (Adam, University of Hartford, Postmodernism and the politics of “culture”, 2000, pgs. 146-47)
However, the transition from one mode of transformation to another—what should be the fundamental task of cultural studies—is left unconceptualized and is implicitly understood as a kind of additive or cumulative spread of local democratic sites until society as a whole is transformed. What this overlooks, of course, is the way in which, as long as global economic and political structures remain unchanged and unchallenged, local emancipations can only be redistributions—redistributions that actually support existing social relations by merely shifting the greater burdens onto others who are less capable of achieving their own local emancipation.
7. It’s negative state action, another reason perm solves