Elections Run By Same Guys Who Sell Toothpaste by Noam Chomsky

[Itsthetruth]

How George W. Bush Won Second-Term U.S. Presidency in 2004
Elections Run by Same Guys Who Sell Toothpaste
By Noam Chomsky
March 8, 2005

These are remarks Noam Chomsky made on January 25th at events in Santa Fe, NM, celebrating the 25th anniversary of the International Relations Center (IRC). Chomsky is a member of the IRC’s board of directors.


People who voted for Bush tended to assume that he was in favor of their views, even if the Republican Party platform was diametrically opposed to them. The same was largely true of Kerry voters.

The reason for this is that the parties try to exclude the population from participation. So they don’t present issues, policies, agendas, and so on. They project imagery, and people either don’t bother or they vote for the image. The Gallup Poll regularly asks, “Why are you voting?” One of the choices is, “I’m voting for the candidate’s stand on issues.” That was 6% for Bush, and 13% for Kerry—and most of those voters were deluded about the positions of the candidates. So what you have is essentially flipping a coin. Each candidate got approximately 30% of the electorate. Bush got 31%, Kerry got 29%.

The party managers know where the public stands on a whole list of issues. Their funders just don’t support them; the interests they represent don’t support them. So they project a different kind of image.

The elections are run by the same guys who sell toothpaste. They show you an image of a sports hero, or a sexy model, or a car going up a sheer cliff or something, which has nothing to do with the commodity, but it’s intended to delude you into picking this one rather than another one. Same when they run elections. But they’re assigned that task in order to marginalize the public, and furthermore, people are pretty well aware of it.

For many years, election campaigns here have been run by the public relations industry and each time it’s with increasing sophistication. Quite naturally, the industry uses the same technique to sell candidates that it uses to sell toothpaste or lifestyle drugs. The point is to undermine markets by projecting imagery to delude and suppressing information—and similarly, to undermine democracy by the same method.


http://www.irc-online.org/content/chomsky/0503toothpaste.php

[paineinthearse]

1. Noam gets an automatic nomiation

"There is an alternative, and that is to try to run a program that’s committed to developing a democratic society in which people’s opinions matter."

Amen!

:kick:

[marcologico]

2. Sorry, Chomsky is an idiot IMHO. He's either not paying attention or

faking ignorance to make his pet "Republocrats" theory come out every time.

For example:

"If you listen to the presidential debates, you can’t figure out what they’re saying, and that’s on purpose."

His point is that Kerry and Bush are identical puppets of the drug and insurance companies, etc. etc. etc.

However I listened to the debates and had no trouble gathering that:

a. Kerry wanted to offer affordable health insurance to all Americans.

b. Bush's drug plan is geared to the pharmaceutical industry and actually makes drugs more, not less, expensive.

c. Kerry wanted the government to cover children, the unemployed, the poor, and the elderly.

d. For everybody else, he wanted to guarantee access to the same health plan offered to Congress, and

e. he wanted a program that would cover the first $1,000.00 of deductables, which are ruinous in many cases.

That's what Kerry said in that debate. That's pretty specific.

Noam, stick to your b.s. linguistic theories, which are equally dopey but at least don't hurt anybody. :eyes:

[marcologico]

3. p.s. no wonder so many people are deluded. Moral of the story:

don't count on "experts" to do your thinking because they don't always think either.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Kerry got $370,000 from drug companies. $779,000 from insurance

companies. Bush got more. But, both are on the payroll.

[marcologico]

12. Oops, #11 was supposed to go here :)

[Itsthetruth]

6. Chomsky Didn't Say That!

"His point is that Kerry and Bush are identical puppets of the drug and insurance companies, etc. etc. etc."

I've read his speech and he doesn't make that point at all. In fact, I can't think of any progressive leader or organization that has ever claimed that Kerry and Bush are identical puppets of the same corporate interests.

Such a theory would mean that the upper class and big business interests are in absolute agreement on all foreign and domestic policies. Well, that is a silly and stupid idea. They do have some disagreements on important issues. For example, how to win the war against Iraq and establish an effective occupation of that nation. Kerry and Bush obviously did not see eye to eye on that.

[Baconfoot]

8. Watch some more Chomsky tapes. He does make that point. (Sorry.) n/t

[marcologico]

53. Yes, he does, like clockwork, every four years. (n/t)

[marcologico]

9. I didn't say he did. It's a paraphrase of what he DID say which is quoted

from the speech you linked to and enclosed in quotation marks.

p.s. And bolded. :)

[K-W]

15. No it was spin, pure spin.

Paraphrasing is when you ACCURATELY summerize what someone said, not when you summerize, generalize, and exagerate. That was your analysis of what he said, not what he said.

Your analysis was wrong by the way.

[marcologico]

18. You're trying to tell me that Chomsky's point ISN'T that both candidates

were protecting their corporate masters?

[K-W]

20. that wasnt his point at all

Corporate masters? Chomsky doesnt believe there are corporate masters. You are twisting his ideas into a conspiricy theory, which they arent.

He knows full well the massive difference between the parties but he also knows that both are working within a narrow field of ideas because many alternatives are seen as threats to the established system which is fundementally formed to favor certain classes of people.

His point is that people need to stop accepting that Americans are only allowed to consider policies that respect the established structure of power and economic hierarchy and that respect nationalistic myths and militarism.

Yes Kerry was better than Bush, but Bush won for the same reason Kerry and Bush represented such a narrow set of ideas on many issues. Because our society is setup to serve the percieved interests of a minority of Americans.

[marcologico]

22. I'm sorry, that's not what he said. Read the speech. His point is that

both parties sell their candidates the same way to appease the same corporate campaign contributors, and his unstated conclusion is that there's no point in voting because the candidates are indistinguishable on policy.

And that is deluded, dangerous, and dead wrong.

[K-W]

25. You are spinning so hard I have a hard time believing its an accident.

He isnt saying anything remotely like what you are saying.

His extremely valid point is that advertisers control the way people see things, and thus have become an intergral part of politics, creating a system where the best advertising goes to the highest bidder and money=election wins, thus both the Democrats and Republicans rely on corporate contributions to win elections and are forced to, conciously or unconciously allow corporations and the wealthy control thier message.

If you had honestly read any Chomsky at all you would know that he is discussing systematic problems, not conspiricies.

He also never advocated not voting, you fabricated that. He advocates voting, but also changing our system so that when we vote we get to express our voice and not only a narrow range of ideas deemed alright by conservative institutions controlled by elites.

[marcologico]

28. That is his unstated conclusion, which is more or less what Nader says

openly. A dangerous distortion in both cases.

[K-W]

35. No it is your inability or unwillingness to follow his arguments.

But youve made up your mind already so Im sure you will just keep on believing in your Chomsky strawman because it lets you mock his fans.

[bobbieinok]

7. why are Chomsky's linguistic theories 'dopey'?

[marcologico]

10. Mainly because he universalizes syntax rules that are unique to English.

And they don't even explain English all that well.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. I suspect folk who label his theories 'dopey'...

...probably are doing it because they don't understand - kind of the same as those who don't like him for his political views lash out at him by calling him an idiot. And then there's some who are so blinded by their hatred of his political views that they also try clumsily to attack his linguistics work. I know someone who is a linguist and while she doesn't agree with Chomsky politically, she has a lot of respect for his work in the linguistics field...

Violet...

[marcologico]

16. I understand him perfectly. It's the same error in both cases: trying to

make a general theory explain every specific case. Well, it doesn't, sorry. And no I don't hate him, but I do think he's enabling ChimpCo by flogging these tired old lies.

p.s. look at his title: sure, Eisenhower employed Madison Ave ad guys, and maybe Bush did for all I know. But did Kerry? Not to run his campaign he didn't. Shrum, Cahill, Cam and the rest are all dyed in the wool political operatives.

[Itsthetruth]

19. Chomsky Is A Bush Enabler????!!!! Hardly

Chomsky is "enabling ChimpCo" because he dares to attack Congressional Democrats who vote for Bush's appointments and legislation?! Well, I think those Democratic Senators who vote for Bush's program and appointments are the real Bush "enablers", certainly not Chomsky.

I suppose we could all sit around and smile at one another while ignoring the Bush's enablers in Congress. Just pretend "turncoat Democrats" don't exist!

[K-W]

21. You are right about his linguistics, you are dead wrong about the politics

Stop equating the two. They have nothing to do with each other.

[marcologico]

23. I'm not equating the two. I'm saying he's wrong about both, and that

he makes the same error in reasoning by trying to make a universal theory explain a specific case when it clearly doesn't.

[K-W]

27. Yes you are equating the two, and you are wrong.

You just said you werent equating the two, and then in your post equated them saying they were the same error in reasoning. Saying something is the same is equating them.

And you are dead wrong. He isnt trying to make a universal theory explain anything. You are just misreading his work severely and inaccurately paraphrasing what he says. You are creating a strawman. A Noam Chomsky who doesnt even remotely exist.

You want him to be wrong so you are making him wrong whether he is or not.

[marcologico]

50. It's like a chronic tailgaiter who rear-ends two different vehicles.

The accidents are different, but the error is the same. :)

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Most people who don't understand will claim they do...

Doesn't mean they do, though. And when it comes to linguistics, the opinion of linguists themselves carries just a bit more weight for me than the opinion of an anonymous person on a message board...

If you don't hate Chomsky, is there any chance you can criticise him without calling him an idiot and calling his linguistic work dopey? It's just that I have some criticisms of him politically, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to start calling him an idiot, etc. Personally I think calling someone as intelligent as him an idiot would make me look a bit of a fool, and while I do have some criticisms of his political stuff, I think he's for the most part pretty astute in what he points out...

Violet...

[marcologico]

31. Okay, he's not an idiot. Let me put it this way: his political ideas are

idiotic and his linguistic theories are fallacious. But he's a very bright guy. :)

[K-W]

36. You have demonstrated a bad understanding of his political ideas

why do you continue to draw conclusions with such confidence?

And yes, some of his linguistic theories are flights of fancy, but you dont even understand what his politics are. You are critisizing things he doesnt say.

[marcologico]

39. Oh please. His politics are simplistic and outdated. That's the problem!

:)

[K-W]

41. Then why do you keep getting his ideas wrong?

Your idea of his ideas is simplistic and outdated, because you got his ideas wrong.

[marcologico]

43. Um, I think we disagree on that point :)

[K-W]

44. No, you are demonstrably wrong.

You claim that Noam Chomsky thinks people shouldn't vote. That is simply wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that he thinks this. In fact if you will research the issue you will find that in fact he doesnt think this.

[paineinthearse]

54. Chomsky is an idiot IMHO

You have a right to disagree, but must you do it in such a crass way?

[marcologico]

55. Obviously he's not an idiot. My point is that he of all people

should know better than to engage in this kind of reductive and misleading nonsense.

If Kerry had a problem getting his message out, it wasn't because he was intentionally misrepresenting himself to protect the Colgate corporation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Our "two-party" system is a masquerade of democracy.

The same big money capitalists control both parties through donations and advertising. It's an oligarchy.

[marcologico]

11. Possibly, but it doesn't change what Kerry said in the debates, and on

many other occasions and in many other places like on his website and in his book. If Chomsky wants to talk about candidates the least he could do is pay attention to what they're actually saying.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. I think he's paying attention to what they're doing as well.

They can say anything, and will, in order to grab some votes.

"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace."

~George W. Bush

Kerry, the anti-war hero of the '70s went on to back Bush's war and continues to support the occupation.

[noiretextatique]

24. I WILL FIGHT FOR YOU...by conceding quickly

:puffpiece:

[marcologico]

26. Kerry does NOT support the occupation. He's been arguing for a withdrawal

of U.S. forces since the original invasion.

[Itsthetruth]

30. Big News!

This is big news. Please post a link.

[marcologico]

34. You didn't know that? Stop listening to Chomsky and turn on the news!

And I'll find a link for you, hang on.

[K-W]

32. He has been arguing for an EVENTUAL withdrrawal.

Something Bush also claimed to want.

Yes, Bush was lying, but Kerry was still arguing from a false idea of what our troops were doing in Iraq. Sure it was a disaster but we needed to finish the mission? Finish the mission? It was an invading army, the only right thing to do is pull them out. We dont own Iraq.

Kerry was different, but not different enough. He didnt present a real alternative, just a return to a less aggressive empire.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. So he supported the invasion and then opposed the occupation?

That doesn't make a lot of sense, but if that's the way it is, so be it...

Violet...

[marcologico]

37. He never supported the invasion!! And he didn't vote for it!

That's not what the IWR (which was not and "IWR") was all about. It was only an authorization to use force. Bush abused the authority and Kerry has said that all along.

[Itsthetruth]

47. Huh?

And why did 23 other Democratic Senators vote against authorizing Bush to use military force(invade) in Iraq?

What did their votes mean?

[Itsthetruth]

38. No

No. John Kerry was both for and against the invasion and is against and for the occupation.

I hope that clears matters up. John Kerry has always been crystal clear on his positions. That's why the Republicans found it so difficult to accuse him of "flip floping".

[marcologico]

42. In fact, he has been crystal clear, IF YOU LISTEN TO KERRY. If you listen

to Rove or Chomsky, you'll get confused. I'd advise ignoring both. :)

[K-W]

46. Wrong,

Kerry was open to invasion as a last resort if we did have concrete evidence that he was a threat or was behind 9/11. And he is in favor of short term occupation to try and give Iraq the best chance possible to recover when we pull out.

Its a pretty rational position and one that he as been for the most part consistant on, but has often stumbled when trying to describe it while not sounding like a peacenik, which of course makes for stupid politician speak.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. How was Iraq ever a threat to the US?

That's what I don't get. Even considering the possibility that Iraq could be a threat to the US is about as silly as considering invasion as a last resort if tiny little Micronesia was a threat to the US. At the most, Iraq had been a regional threat for a long time, and the invasion just made things more unstable in the region than they already were. And that Saddam was behind 9/11 thing was something so nonsensical that Bush and his gang even distance themselves from it, didn't they?

It seems hard to believe that anyone who knew even the smallest bit about Iraq would genuinelly have believed that a short-term and benign occupation was possible. Removing the Ba'athists opened a massive vacuum in Iraq, and what was going to try to fill that void wasn't any real surprise. I opposed the invasion and occupation, but the US fucked up things real bad by invading Iraq, and wiping their hands of everything and withdrawing the troops, leaving the Iraqi people vulnerable to Islamic extremists is just as bad as maintaining the occupation. The US has gotten itself into a really deep hole from which I doubt there's any clear way out, and the only way it could have been stopped is if more US politicians had shown some backbone in the first place and voted in opposition to the Resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq, instead of being typical politicians and pandering to what they thought would win them more votes with the unwashed masses...

Violet...

[K-W]

40. No, you are also spinning his words.

Kerry did not support the invasion, he supported an invasion if Iraq was proven to have had weapons or was proven to have been involved in 9/11.

Please stick to the truth.

Kerry supported the idea of an invasion if Bush was telling the truth, he never said he thought Bush was telling the truth, or agreed with him, simply that he trusted the man in the whitehouse with all his staff and a party behind him to respect the provisions of the Iraq War Resolution that called for proof of the accusations and an earnest attempt at international involvement. The IWR called for war as a last resort, to believe that Kerry supported the war is to believe that Bush used force as a last resort.

Kerry is wrong though, he does not question the fundementals. He does not question that our military has good intents. He does not question that while we are in Iraq we are doing things condusive to Iraqi self determination.

That is Chomsky's problem. The US military serves the interests of the people who control it and that isnt the collective interest of the US and especially isnt the interest of Iraqi's. We need change in our society so that we have alternatives to militarism and empire.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. The truth is he did support the invasion...

If yr able to show me that his name is on the list of those who voted against authorising the use of force in Iraq, then I'll admit that what I've read about it has so far been wrong...

Is this the resolution that Kerry voted in support of? http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/resolution.htm
If it is, I'm finding any claim that Kerry was trusting of the honesty of the warmongering neo-cons to be pretty lame.

btw, please don't accuse me of being dishonest. That's really not necessary at all...

Violet...

[Stop_the_War]

45. Go Noam!!!!! Kick and Nominated!

[porkrind]

52. Noam Chomsky is a national treasure.

I think he is right on in his politics.

[adwon]

48. I almost never agree with Chomsky

But this time he does have a point. What he said about the advertising mentality of campaigns is eerily similar to remarks Harry Truman made about Eisenhower and Kennedy in Plain Speaking.

[Tinoire]

56. Bless Chomsky. Plain truth

People who voted for Bush tended to assume that he was in favor of their views, even if the Republican Party platform was diametrically opposed to them. The same was largely true of Kerry voters.

The reason for this is that the parties try to exclude the population from participation. So they don’t present issues, policies, agendas, and so on. They project imagery, and people either don’t bother or they vote for the image. The Gallup Poll regularly asks, “Why are you voting?” One of the choices is, “I’m voting for the candidate’s stand on issues.” That was 6% for Bush, and 13% for Kerry—and most of those voters were deluded about the positions of the candidates.

it’s intended to delude you into picking this one rather than another one....assigned that task in order to marginalize the public.

Hence the frantic spin from both camps that sickened so many of us.

Two brands manufactured by Skull and Bones and we :cough: were supposed to think we had some sort of a "choice".