Chomsky backs 'Bush-lite' Kerry

[Paragon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1174017,00.html

Noam Chomsky, the political theorist and leftwing guru, yesterday gave his reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry, calling him "Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival.

Professor Chomsky - a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as a renowned chronicler of American foreign policy - said there were "small differences" between Senator Kerry and the Republican president. But, in an interview on the Guardian's politics website, he added that those small differences "can translate into large outcomes".

He describes the choice facing US voters in November as "the choice between two factions of the business party". But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.

He said: "Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

(more)

[JohnKleeb]

1. If Chomsky can, you can

I dont find him bushlite honest but its nice to see him backing him. I prefer Zinn myself, but then again I havent read Chomsky.

[mgc1961]

8. You should try some Chomsky.

He'll give you a wholly different perspective on things by his disection of the words used by the establishment. The name of the game is propaganda and framing. Whether intended as a conspiracy or not the use of various words carry a great deal of non-verbal weight in the images and thoughts they convey. He has helped me to see through the bullshit and find my own words to discribe what I see. I refuse to accept the framing handed to me by the political establishment.

Try "Profit over People"...Neoliberalism and global order.

[JohnKleeb]

10. I will

Thanks guys. I have one book by Studs Terkel but its about WWII. I really loved Peoples History of US.

[jansu]

9. Aw, as a person who reads both, I can recommend Chomsky.

If you enjoy thinking and screaming, you should read everything of his that you can get your eyes on! I screamed, yelled and have never closed the book of Zinn's on the History of the US. I think I am done, but always go back and read some part of it again. Noam is the same way!

[Ricdude]

58. ...or you can get Chomsky on CD

It's easier to listen to in the car. If you're into online music services, http://www.emusic.com/ has about half a dozen of his albums available.

[pollock]

83. Read Chomsky.

One of the greatest political writers living today, no question.
Also, he is absolute dynamite when giving a live lecture on politics and history.

[kalian]

2. Well then....

if Chomsky backs Kerry, I guess I'll have to have another look at
Kerry's position on the major issues.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. And I will have to take another look at Chomsky

[Paragon]

6. Oh, for crying out loud

:eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Chomsky's not some brainless ideologue, mindlessly parroting slogans.

He actually thinks for himself.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. It's a good thing, Paragon. It means I'll hide you in my basement

when the day comes that you need it, and I won't give you up to the death squads even if they offer me a whole bunch of money and/or blast Amrikan imperialiberal rhetoric at me till my ears ooze.

[Paragon]

16. Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

[DuctapeFatwa]

19. Is it? I'll take your word for it. I'm sure you know more about it than me

[no name no slogan]

33. LOL!!!

What did the five fingers say to the face, Darkness?

[Paragon]

38. *slap*

I'm Rick James, bitch.

[Darranar]

18. And what does that have to do with the current situation?

We may be heading towards the situation you describe (in a general sense) already... that's why Bush needs to go.

Kerry may continue in the same direction, but at the very least he'll jog rather than sprint.

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. You deserve better. Your kids deserve better, and your grandkids

deserve to be born.

[Darranar]

23. Every American deserves better...

nevertheless, what other choice is there?

Vote for Nader, enabling the "president"?

Vote for another third party, enabling the "president"?

Vote for no one, enabling the "president"?

Vote for the "president"?

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. To be brutally honest, that's up to Diebold, and not really relevant in

the context of the current situation globally.

The ball is in the rest of the world's court.

[sangha]

66. If it's up to Diebold, and not the individuals

then why bother pointing out that there's no/little difference between Bush* and Kerry?

[DuctapeFatwa]

90. I agree it is sad that such an obvious thing needs to be pointed out

On the positive side, over 40% of American high school graduates are functionally literate enough to read newspapers.

[sangha]

99. Typically non -responsive

I ask why bother pointing out that there's no difference when Diebold is running the election, and all DF can do to respond is it "needs to be pointed out"

No explanation as to WHY it's needs to be pointed out. Like all good propoganda, no explanation is needed. Just claim that the goodness of one's own goals is self-evident

[Darranar]

15. Why?

The war criminal sitting in the White House is a threat to the US and the world.

He has devestated the economy, disregarded international norms, gone extreme lengths to enforce the neoliberal global order, withdrawn from crucial treaties, wrecked the environment, torn our civil liberties to shreds, tried to institutionalize anti-gay marriage legislation in the form of an amendment to the Constitution, lied hundreds of times, and killed tens of thousands of innocent people.

He is leading the US and the world straight on the path to further destruction.

Nothing, NOTHING, John Kerry will do can match that. Chomsky is basically right here.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. giving all of that attractive names will not change it for the victims

with the possible exception of the environment*, Kerry can be counted on to maintain the status quo. That is what makes him "electable."

Candidates who advocated even a slight deviation from the status quo haven't done so well with the 20-25% of Americans who participate in the political process.

Also please see post 13

*the environment is a more relevant consideration for a nation that is not hurtling along in a handcart to hell.

[Darranar]

22. Kerry is certainly a defender of the status quo...

nevertheless, there is little question that he will:

• Strengthen social programs; even if it is insufficient, it is something
  
• Try to get the US a little more in touch with the international community
  
• At least make the hurtle towards a police state slower
  

Even if it is a tiny difference, it is still worth voting for the guy.

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. My opposition to crimes against humanity does not slide, nor is it

negotiable.

[Darranar]

26. I despise crimes against humanity as well...

which is why I support Kerry, who will likely commit fewer of them than Bush.

[DuctapeFatwa]

28. Things are past the point of likely maybe and magical thinking I hope

Political reality is what it is. Greed is what it is. Kerry is a politician who will deliver what the voters want, nor will he abandon business interests.

And what the voters want is kick their ass and steal their gas.
And the business interests want more money.

[sangha]

67. "Kerry is a politician who will deliver what the voters want"

What do you have against democracy? Why do you prefer authoritarian solutions where a Great Leader does whatever s/he thinks is best without regard to what the voters want?

[ulysses]

76. "What do you have against democracy?"

I fail to see how it's undemocratic in the least to offer voters a different choice than the one they're told they want.

[foo_bar]

86. the 640x480 filibuster

I fail to see how it's undemocratic in the least to offer voters a different choice than the one they're told they want.

The poster in question doesn't advocate a different choice, just an apocalyptic means to ending "greed". It's the neocon vision with a different outcome, which follows from inhabiting other people's straw houses.

[DuctapeFatwa]

88. My opinion of American democracy is the same as Gandihji's opinion of

western civilization. I think it would be a good idea.

[foo_bar]

74. if you don't believe in an American political solution

why gripe about it on an American political message board? You may as well spend every day on HBO.com telling people not to watch cable TV. It's nice to have a Chicken Little for counterpoint, but when Chomsky joins the ranks of your imaginary death squads you just might be a contrarian for its own melodramatic sake.

[DuctapeFatwa]

91. Or I might be one of those people who thinks for myself. Quite dangerous

I suggest you contact Tom Ridge posthaste.

[foo_bar]

93. Ridge could certainly appreciate the faith-based paranoia

[Mairead]

73. "there is little question that he will..."

Actually, I think there's quite a lot of question. Can you support your claims with any evidence? And please use post-Coup evidence--today's Kerry is a far cry from yesterday's.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. HAHAHAHAHA! The Gods Must Be Crazy!

The godfather of PURE just sold out.....you can too :D BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[IndianaGreen]

79. "the choice between two factions of the business party"

"Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival.

Or as Pat Buchanan said 4 years ago about the 2-major parties: "two wings of the same bird of prey!"

Chomsky is still on target!

[DuctapeFatwa]

89. see post 13 and be glad I will not (nt)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

94. Are you saying that will happen if you vote for Kerry?

People will try to come get us from your basement? Is that really your assertion in the matter?

[diamondsoul]

62. Nah. He's just as human as the next guy.

I've seen some of Chomsky's personal comments on the candidates, and he's a good guy, but like many of us, scared sh*tless of what a second Bush term will bring. He'd rather endorse Kerry in hopes Bush won't win than endorse someone who can't possibly win now.

Chomsky would have wholly and happily endorsed Kucinich but that isn't to be. He's accepted that defeat and is looking to avoid the armageddon of defeats. Good man, but like myself far more afraid of Bush than of Kerry.

[zulchzulu]

3. I know that must have been hard for Chomsky, but hats off to him

He could done a Nader.

Bush Lite? WTF.

[President Jesus]

5. Chomsky donations

He's only supported independents in the recent past, so this endorsement is somewhat significant.

Noam Chomsky donations

[xray s]

7. I don't care how "small" the difference is between Kerry and Bush

The difference between the people they would appoint to head government agencies and the Supreme Court and all the other federal court seats and the thousands of other governmental appointees and people at the State Department and the Department of Defense and then EPA and on and on and on....is ENORMOUS!


Kerry administration over here...



Bush administration over there...

[gristy]

12. This is very good news.

I am moving into Boston May 1, and look forward to taking the Red Line over to MIT to hear him speak on occasion.

Thanks, Noam! :headbang:

[Darranar]

14. Good for Chomsky!

:toast:

[nicecakes]

21. Then why didn't he just go for Nader?

Either vote your convictions or stop posing.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

30. Maybe Nader didn't cut it for him

And Kerry did.

[Faygo Kid]

24. It is incredible. Bush is the most radical, worst president in history.

Have we lost our sanity here? No president in American history (Reagan, Buchanan, Nixon, you name it) has ever come close to George W. Bush. The neo-cons continue to define us to their doctrine, and this crap shows we buy it. Even here, on DU, we accept this kind of unadulterated crap. I am sorry, but what I see looming in a "second" Bush term scares the hell out of me, and redefines this nation. Chomsky, who I respect, is nuts here.

[RichM]

87. If you took a moment to look at what Chomsky said, it's the same as

what you just said.

The above passage reads:

Professor Chomsky ... said there were "small differences" between Senator Kerry and the Republican president. But... he added that those small differences "can translate into large outcomes".

This is Chomsky's recognition that the Bush regime is exceptionally dangerous - which is basically just what you are saying. He is advocating a vote for Kerry, not because Kerry is particularly good, but because he is a lesser evil. He is saying that the modest difference between them does justify a vote for the Democrat.

What is so "nuts" about that?

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

29. I've read Chomsky... and I like him a lot... but...

You know, he could have at least given a little better endorsement than THAT. Kerry's not Bush-lite. He's the most liberal member of the US Senate.

[Darranar]

31. I don't think it's very "liberal"...

to vote for IWR and the PATRIOT Act.

I don't think Kerry is bush-lite, though.

[JohnKleeb]

32. among the most liberal in the senate though

If you can see that Kerry isnt Bush-lite Dar, why can't others. Just saying, youre one of the most radicals I know. Thats a good thing PS.

[Darranar]

34. I think it has something to do with how one looks at it...

looking at the current field of ruling class politics, Kerry is a liberal and not Bush-lite at all.

Looking at the way politics ought to be, if they weren't bought elections between two pro-business parties, Kerry is Bush-lite and radically pro-status quo.

[JohnKleeb]

35. I see

I appreciate your opinion.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

36. I'm not saying those votes were liberal

I'm saying that in conjunction with his other issues, his votes put him at 97 percent more liberal than the rest of the Senate. I think he's the most candidate liberal we can seem to get in there without losing. I'll admit I am far far to Kerry's left, but I think on issues like environment, he has really struck a chord with me.

[JohnKleeb]

37. Hes up there, thats for damn sure Mags

The environment, hes utterly brilliant on the environment, we could have Bobby Kennedy Jr in the adminstration, that wuold be mega cool and he opposes the death penalty. Hell some speculate hes even more liberal than Kennedy, and if thats the case, we are two lucky kids, you know that :).

[Khephra]

40. AMEN

[Teaser]

45. He's an anarchist...

To a true anarchist, of course Kerry and Bush are very similar.
To the rest of us, not so much.

[mouse7]

39. Kerry gets nods from Trump, Chomsky, and Hunsel same day

I'm happy we are building a strong coalition to throw out Dunbya and the neo-cons.

However, my brain is rebelling against the warp in space time this list of allies is causing, much like what Bugs Bunny's did when he was informed of Hunsel's name.

"Hunsel? Hunsel? Hunsel?" http://home.wanadoo.nl/onnorienstra/bbs/sounds/hunsel.wav

Trump? Howard Stern? Mel Gibson? Chomsky?

[DaveSZ]

41. .

Chomsky is a socialist no?

I've breifly glanced over some of his writings.

It's obvious that the Dems are also corrupted by big business or we'd all have healthcare now.

[DaveSZ]

42. Oh

And the main reason I'm supporting Kerry is because the Bush admin is so evil. It's not because I really believe in Kerry, and that's a bit sad.


LOL, and since when did Gibson endorse Kerry?

:P

[Doomsayer13]

44. I don't think Gibson endorsed kerry

but I don't think he likes Bush. He said that he thought Bush was going to lose becuase of the WMD lie. I believed he backed Pat Buchanan in 1996.

[Quetzal]

48. Isn't Chomsky a Libertarian Anarchist?

correct me if I am wrong.

[Mairead]

51. Libertarian socialist, aka anarchist

He believes that anyone who claims the right to wield power over others must fully justify that claim.

[diamondsoul]

63. Cripes, no wonder he liked Kucinich of the

original field! Wow, I really hadn't heard of Chomsky until this Iraq nonsense cropped up. (shall I crawl under a rock now or wait a while?)

Seriously, though, Kucinich has the life and world experience to back up his offer to take on some control of things. My respect for Chomsky just grew by leaps and bounds.

[Mairead]

80. Yes indeedy! DK and NC are natural co-conspirators--they both want to

pull us back from the edge of the cliff before it's too late, and really really give the Power to the People.

Pity there were so many who voted their fears rather than their hopes.


(and nah, you don't have to climb under any rocks DS :D)

[tameszu]

85. This idea is at the core of all liberal democratic theories

The problem is in the details.

[Mairead]

95. "The problem is in the details"

Surely that's true of everything, though, isn't it?

[T_i_B]

46. Some more on Chomsky's views

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/story/0,12820,1168160,00.html

Kerry is sometimes described as Bush-lite, which is not inaccurate, and in general the political spectrum is pretty narrow in the United States, and elections are mostly bought, as the population knows. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. And in this system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.

My feeling is pretty much the way it was in the year 2000. I admire Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich very much, and insofar as they bring up issues and carry out an educational and organisational function - that's important, and fine, and I support it.

However, when it comes to the choice between the two factions of the business party, it does sometimes, in this case as in 2000, make a difference. A fraction.

That's not only true for international affairs, it's maybe even more dramatically true domestically. The people around Bush are very deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century. The prospect of a government which serves popular interests is being dismantled here. It's an administration that works, that is devoted, to a narrow sector of wealth and power, no matter what the cost to the general population. And that could be extremely dangerous in the not very long run.

[JaySherman]

47. While I generally admire Chomsky...

and agree with a lot of what he says, I think he's dead wrong on this one. To say Kerry or any democrat outside of Lieberman or Zell Miller is
Bush-Lite is just nuts. I can't understand how Chomsky would come out with a statement like that. It's hard for me not to lose a measure of respect for him. Kerry just isn't Kucinich enough for Chomsky.

And before anyone flames:nuke: me I happen to like Kucinich a lot.

[Mairead]

50. "I can't understand how Chomsky can say Kerry is 'Bush-Lite'"

It probably has something to do with how little difference there is between their positions. Kerry uses different words, but Chomsky sees through them.

[JaySherman]

52. Right then

I assume you're voting for Nader then are you?

[Mairead]

53. "I assume you're voting for Nader then are you?"

No, for Dennis Kucinich.

[JaySherman]

59. "We are in trouble."

OK. When Bush wins, have fun.

[Mairead]

60. "When Bush wins, have fun."

I'll tell you what: if Bush wins because of my one vote in western Massachusetts, then I'll let you give me stick about it. Until then, though, your attempt to do so is ...misplaced.

[JaySherman]

61. Then what you're saying is...

Your vote in and of itself quantitatively means nothing in terms of the final outcome.

So why even bother voting?

To which I say: B.S.

Every vote towards Kerry is a vote against Bush. If you don't believe that, you are sadly misguided. Go ahead and vote for Kucinich, Nader, or whoever else you want. I'm not going to give you a stick about it. But then don't complain when you don't like the outcome of another four years of Goerge W. Bush.

[sangha]

68. You nailed it

Some like to criticize other people for voting for Bush*-lite, as if their one vote will turn the election, but then hide behind the "my one vote won't change the election" when their vote is questioned.

Responsibility is for other people

[Mairead]

49. Has desperate partisanship completely driven away honesty here?

Chomsky's not 'endorsing' Kerry except in the loosest, most trivial possible sense of the term.

If our own Tinoire, for example, were to say that this new warlord in Haiti will probably be fractionally less murderous and destructive than Baby Doc, how many people here would claim she's 'endorsing' him?

[jpgray]

54. If Tinoire 'gave [her] reluctant endorsement' to him, then yes

I believe, by definition, that would be an endorsement. Please read the article. Chomsky acknowledges Kerry is a bourgeois corporatist like Bush, but he also acknowledges that Bush is dangerous in a way Kerry is not.

As usual, Chomsky is absolutely correct when he says the small difference in a position of vast power can make a big difference in world affairs.

[Mairead]

55. The reporter *called* it an endorsement, but that doesn't make it one.

This seems to be the actual text:

Kerry is sometimes described as Bush-lite, which is not inaccurate, and in general the political spectrum is pretty narrow in the United States, and elections are mostly bought, as the population knows.

But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. And in this system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.

My feeling is pretty much the way it was in the year 2000. I admire Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich very much, and insofar as they bring up issues and carry out an educational and organisational function - that's important, and fine, and I support it.

However, when it comes to the choice between the two factions of the business party, it does sometimes, in this case as in 2000, make a difference. A fraction.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT


That's not 'an endorsement'.


(edit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/story/0,12820,1168160,00.html)

[jpgray]

56. If that's the whole, I agree with you--it is not an explicit endorsement

I deferred to the Guardian for the complete statement, both in the headline and the opening paragraph. If he mischaracterized Chomsky's comments, ignore my previous post.

[Moderator]

64. Mairead

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.


DU Moderator

[Mairead]

65. humph. first time i've ever made that mistake

i guess i got carried away

[sangha]

69. Wow! Such overwhelmingly persuasive logic

Chomsky, known for thinking that there's little difference between the Dems and the Repukes, makes the surprising statement that people should vote for Kerry, but that is of no significance becauseChomsky did not "officially endorse" Kerry.

So ignore Chomsky. Yes, he's smart, and he makes a good and important point here, but because he did not use the word "endorse", his words should be ignored.

[blindpig]

57. persons planning on voting Nader need to pay attention......

Chomsky ain't no fool. He recognises the seriousness of the situation and has put ideology aside. So should we all. (I voted Nader in 2000)

72. exactly, he realizes the seriousness of the situation

Dean said something very similar in the speech I attnededyesterday & I agree with him.
Of course, he had to be a bit more polite about it than Chomsky in terms of comparing Kerry to Bush, but he did say that the Bush administration was too dangerous to wait. When someone in the crowd yelled out "2008!" at one point when Dean was talking about having not gotten the nomination this year, without missing a beat Dean responded by saying that we can't wait that long because the Bush administration is too dangerous.

[messiah]

70. Ok good to know, You know some people think and do things independently.

Chomsky will go his way others will go their own way, this does not make a difference.

[Mairead]

71. "this does not make a difference".

Right. Particularly since it didn't actually happen. Uncharacteristically, the Guardian reporter overstated the case by a factor of Lots: Chomsky did not endorse Kerry.

[mobuto]

75. Chomsky Supports Kerry?

Donald Trump supports Kerry?

At this rate, I may have to look for another candidate. ;-)

[Mairead]

81. Nope. It's much more accurate to say he completely opposes Bush

[sangha]

100. Nope. Chomsky SUPPORTS Kerry

Saying people should vote for Kerry can only be (honestly) described as support.

[Simard]

77. Noam's Press

In Canada we regularly see Chomsky on News documentaries. Why have I never seen him on any American networks? As a longtime student of philosophy myself I can say that he is one of the top 5 leading philosophers and social critics alive today (and arguably the top social critic at least in the United States). Why is he not on American networks more often and why are Americans not demanding to hear more of him.

[ulysses]

78. I'd be willing to bet

that the huge majority of Americans have never heard of him. Never underestimate the power of American anti-intellectualism.

Welcome to DU, btw.

[pollock]

84. Why indeed?

Looks like the "liberal media" won't give a liberal a chance to speak.

[Zorra]

82. Noam Chomsky is a very aware and intelligent man.

He does not want to see the 2nd coming of Hitler either. He knows that only the Democratic nominee has a chance to defeat *. Supporting John Kerry is the only sane decision that a rational person can make at this time.

[SendTheGOPPacking]

92. Whoa!

I wish he'd been a little more forthcoming with his endorsement, but it's a start.

[Mairead]

96. It's not an endorsement! Chomsky did not endorse Kerry!

[union_maid]

97. Call it what you want

He laid out the facts that the differences were important, even if according to his philosophy, much too small. "Dramatic" in some areas was a word he used. No, it's not exactly an endorsement. It's simply a statement that says what a lot of us have been saying all along. Even if you don't like Kerry, and even if what you endorse is a complete change of the system, in the real world, there are important differences between the parties and things will be different depending on the outcome of the election.

[sangha]

101. Please don't explain what Chomsky saida

It takes away from repeating the mantra "Not an endorsement! Not an endorsement!" :-)

[Paragon]

98. kick

:D