Reality-based community

K-punk's discussion (here) of the notion of a 'reality-based community' is intriguing, and I broadly agree with his conclusions. However, I feel there is a more obvious point to be made: it is quite remarkable that anti-Bush bloggers are willing to adopt a moniker first used - nay, defined - by someone from the other side. As it is put in the original article, members of this community are made out to be foolish and dim-witted, behind the times:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based
community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from
your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world
really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we
create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as
you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too,
and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all
of you, will be left to just study what we do.'" (see the full Wikipedia entry here)

So my first problem with the notion is simply that it was originally used in something of a derogatory sense, and was certainly defined as inferior.

There is also a deeper sense in which term is problematic, but it's no secret - the aide made it quite clear what he thought calling someone a member of a 'reality-based community' meant. I think Ranciere hits the nail on the head:

"The rules of the game are being mixed up today. At the time of the big
anti-imperialist movements against the Vietnam War, for instance, we had a clear
sense of who was the aggressor and who was under attack; we could play on the
obvious contradiction between internal democratic discourse and external
imperialist aggression. [...] What has characterised the whole period after 11
September, however, has been the erasure of these signs of contradiction. The
war in Afghanistan was presented directly as a war of good against evil. The
contradictions between inside and outside, like those between words and deeds,
have disappeared in favour of a general moralising of political life." (Jacques
Ranciere, 'Politics and Aesthetics, an interview' in Angelaki)

In other words, now it is not enough to highlight the numbers of civilians killed or any other of the 'facts'; the background against which those facts are understood has changed.
Perhaps this is what k-punk means when he talks about capitalist realism: that the people who truly belong in the reality-based community are those who think that Bush is not protecting America's interests well enough. They think that the US 'intervention' in Iraq is wrong because it is costing the taxpayer. They think that Bush is a bastard because he is mismanaging the economy. They think the war on terror is not working because of the increase in anti-american sentiment around the world.
Given the values attached to the 'facts' in today's political climate, the only critique that might emerge from a reality-based community is one berating the Bush administration for not successfully carrying out its own geopolitical project.

Of course, these remarks are only relevant if we assume that the bloggers who claim to be part of a reality-based community are doing so in earnest. Although the possibilities for adopting the phrase as an act of - humourous - defiance are limited (because it is not, um, humourous), there is a sense in which it could be used as a way to stand up and be counted. 'If I'm a cheese-eating surrender monkey then that's fine by me!' kind of thing. But this seems a bit silly.