Noam Chomsky on Obama & our one-party state

[Karmadillo]

As always, Chomsky is worth reading. I put a few things in bold, but reading the whole interview with Amy Goodman wouldn't waste your time.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21162

NOAM CHOMSKY: He's different. I mean, first of all, there's a rhetorical difference. But we have to distinguish the first and the second Bush terms. They were different. I mean, the first Bush term was so arrogant and abrasive and militaristic and dismissive of everyone that they offended, they antagonized even allies, close allies, and US prestige in the world plummeted to zero. Now, the second Bush administration was more—moved more toward the center in that respect, not entirely, but more, so some of the worst offenders, like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, were thrown out. I mean, they couldn't throw out Dick Cheney, because he was the administration, so they couldn't get rid of him. He stayed, but the others, a lot of them, left. And they moved towards a somewhat more normal position.

And Obama is carrying that forward. He's a centrist Democrat. He never really pretended to be anything else. And he's moving towards a kind of a centrist position. He's very popular in Europe, not so much because of him, but because he's not Bush. So there is the kind of rhetoric that the European leaders and, in fact, the European population tend to accept. In fact, you know, even in the Middle East, where you'd think people would know better, they accept the illusions. And they are illusions, because there's nothing to back them up. So, yes, he is different from Bush.

Same—on the economy, well, you know, the current Obama-Geithner plan is not very different from the Bush-Paulson plan. I mean, somewhat different, but circumstances have changed. So, of course, it's somewhat different. But it's still based on the principle that we have to—somehow, the taxpayer has to rescue the institutions intact. They have to remain intact, including the people who, you know, destroyed the economy. In fact, they are the ones who Obama picked to fix it up.

<edit>

NOAM CHOMSKY: Because those are his beliefs. I mean, his support comes from the—his constituency is basically the financial institutions. Just take a look at the funding for his campaign. I mean, the final figures haven't come out, but we have preliminary figures, and it seems to be mostly financial institutions. I mean, the financial institutions preferred him to McCain. They are the main funders for both—you know, I mean, core funders for both parties, but considerably more to Obama than McCain.

You can learn a lot from campaign contributions. In fact, one of the best predictors of policy around is Thomas Ferguson's investment theory of politics, as he calls it—very outstanding political economist—which essentially—I mean, to say it in a sentence, he describes elections as occasions in which groups of investors coalesce and invest to control the state. And he takes a look at the formation of campaign contributors, and it gives you a surprisingly good prediction of what policies are going to be. It goes back a century, New Deal and so on. So, yeah, it can predict pretty well what Obama is going to do. There's nothing surprising about this. It's the norm in what's called political democracy.

<edit>

NOAM CHOMSKY: There's a difference. I mean, we basically are a kind of a one-party state. I think C. Wright Mills must have pointed this out fifty years ago. It's a business party, but it has factions—Democrats and Republicans—and they're different. They have somewhat different constituencies and different policies. And if you look over the years, the population has—the majority of the population has tended to make out better under Democrats than Republicans; the very wealthy have tended to make out better under Republicans than Democrats. So they're business parties, but they're somewhat different, and the differences can have an effect. However, fundamentally, they're pretty much along the same lines.

So take, say, the current financial crisis. Actually, it began under Carter. The late Carter administration is the one that began—was pushing for financialization of the economy, you know, huge growth of speculative financial capital, deregulation, and so on. Reagan carried it much further, and Clinton continued it. And then, with Bush, it kind of went off the rails.

more...

[Captain Hilts]

1. That's just not fair to Obama. nt

[Threedifferentones]

66. Not fair to Obama YET, perhaps

It was not fair to Clinton after his first months either. We all know how that turned out. Better than Bush would prove to be sure, just like Noam said in the OP: Dems run things a little more equitably.

The factions, and even the individuals, influencing Obama's economic policy are very similar to Clinton's. Just ask Lawrence Summers.

It seems pretty clear that Obama's financial efforts are propping up the same system, engineered by the same corrupt assholes, that we are used to. Chomsky and others have done a good job illustrating this, if you hadn't already noticed or did not see it coming.

Again, as Chomsky pointed out, this "crisis" is not a sudden collapse, but rather a natural part of a system that lets those with knowledge and "leverage," ie capital, control the prices of things to "make money." This system was nurtured by both parties for decades. The people who pointed that out long ago are still largely unknown, the people who caused it are still rich and influential.

The fact of the matter is that actually remodeling our economic structure would require a MUCH bigger effort from Obama than simply repainting the old one. According to the "investment theory of politics" NC talked about, it is an impossible task. Almost all the money "donated" to almost all our Federal candidates has too much interest in preserving the status quo. Trying to kick the fuckers who legalized the sort of fraud which has clogged our system back down where they belong is political suicide, and Obama knows it.

These "financial institutions" are obviously crucial to our national interests. They are dependent on government money. Yet their profits must always belong largely to private citizens who are already rich. Why? Because they bought the government which feeds them, once they realized it could no longer be "drowned in a bathtub."

So, why should I wait to bitch about what we all see coming? I am sure another boom time will come to America, perhaps under Obama's watch. Then, everyone will talk about the heroic man he was. But, I know the new economy will be just like the old: so corrupt that a few people rocket around on jet packs, while most of us cannot even afford a safety net, at least in the long run.

[truedelphi]

73. You say:

So, why should I wait to bitch about what we all see coming? I am sure another boom time will come to America, perhaps under Obama's watch. Then, everyone will talk about the heroic man he was. But, I know the new economy will be just like the old: so corrupt that a few people rocket around on jet packs, while most of us cannot even afford a safety net, at least in the long run.

Hell it's fair to bitch.

I clearly remember the boom times udner Clinton and they were very concentrated in the dot com side of things. For the most part, you had to be am electrical engineer, computer programmer or graphics person to be benefitting from the dot com boom. Or someonehandling the stock trades involving those stocks.

Lots of people fell into those categories.

But to those outside the industry, the boom inflated the cost of living. Simple little places that had been a mere $ 960 a month to rent became a % 2,140 a month investment. I was living in Sausalito CA and many of the folks that made their living connected to boat making or boat repair were worried that they would be pushed out of the warehouses they had along the water front. They simply could not compete with the money that the dot com bubble brought intot he systemm.

So it has been my hope that somewhere along the line we get someone in a place of power that will avoid the "bubbles" and help bring about real economic boom times. Like the fifties were. Not a flagrant, 14% a year kind of boom, but just a steady economuic growth that lifts all ships, not just a few.

[galileoreloaded]

2. God, what a freeper......

:sarcasm:

[LWolf]

87. Made me look.

:spray:

[cali]

3. What's Chomsky smoking?? I disagree strongly that

the second bushco term took a turn toward the center. And Chomsky doesn't provide any evidence of that except for Rumsfeld leaving. If anything bushco ramped up in his second term with his use of signing statements continuing and the issuance of regs and admin rules.

I also believe that Chomsky's wrong about why Obama is popular in Europe. It's certainly not simply that Obama isn't Bush. That's patently absurd.

Chomsky is big on making pronouncements but not so good at providing evidence. This illustrates that quite well:

"In fact, you know, even in the Middle East, where you'd think people would know better, they accept the illusions. And they are illusions, because there's nothing to back them up. So, yes, he is different from Bush."

Interesting and reavealing claim by Chomsky.

Chomsky claims that Obama's chief support comes from financial institutions, but again provides no evidence. The fact is that Obama has support from disparate groups. Claiming his constituency is financial institutions is simply wrong. The claim that most of his financial support came from said institutions is simply a lie. Why he'd lie about this is beyond me.

Chomsky may be a brillian linguist, but a brilliant- or even honest- political commentator, he ain't. Of course he's the perfect political idol for some segments of the left- sort of a high brow Nader.

[NeedleCast]

5. High brow Nader - That's a very apt description n/t

[Kali]

10. so do you have the stats on Obama's support?

speaking of providing evidence

I honestly don't know - I read somewhere of the large amounts of contributions by individuals but what were the amounts from financial institutions?

[cali]

15. there are lots of sites out there that track and analyze this

here's one:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_average_size_of_obamas.html

[Selatius]

83. The place I generally reference is opensecrets.org. It's pretty concise. nt

[Karmadillo]

37. Chomsky dishonest?

Interesting point of view, I guess. I would note it's a radio interview and the precision and volume one finds in Chomsky's writings is likely to be less given the forum. Kind of like when Obama refers to the 57 states or the President of Canada. I think anyone who's read Chomsky's works will note he provides a huge amount of evidence to back up his assertions.

In any case, you are correct that Obama has a range of financial support, but I assume what Chomsky is referring to is these kinds of stories:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/obama-way-ahead-of-mccain-in-wall-street-firms-funding_10066375.html

Obama way ahead of McCain in Wall Street firms funding
July 1st, 2008 - 12:20 pm ICT by ANI -

Washington, July 1 (ANI): Financial industry big houses have contributed almost twice in funds to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama in comparison to his Republican rival John McCain.

For both candidates, Wall Streets investment and banking sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing 9.5 million dollars to Obama and 5.3 million dollars to McCain so far, The Daily News reported.

No matter who wins in November, Wall Street will have a friend in the White House, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics, which crunched the data for The Daily News.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

University of California $1,385,675
Goldman Sachs $980,945
Microsoft Corp $806,299
Harvard University $793,460
Google Inc $790,564
Citigroup Inc $657,268
JPMorgan Chase & Co $650,758
Stanford University $580,904
Sidley Austin LLP $574,938
Time Warner $547,951
National Amusements Inc $541,251
WilmerHale $524,292
UBS AG $522,019
IBM Corp $518,557
Skadden, Arps et al $510,274
Columbia University $503,566
Morgan Stanley $490,873
US Government $479,956
General Electric $479,454
Latham & Watkins $467,311

[KittyWampus]

55. at the least Chomsky is simply a dogmatic fool who has conncoted his own version of reality

into which he puts all presented facts.

[Odin2005]

57. I don't think he's even a brilliant linguist.

The "language instinct" notion is looking increasingly bogus.

http://www.zompist.com/whylang.html

Myth: Children learn languages easily

This is a popular commonplace, and one asserted by linguists as well, mostly due to Noam Chomsky's belief in an innate 'language organ'. (Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct popularizes Chomsky's ideas.) Unfortunately, the evidence is against it.

Children begin learning languages at birth (infants pay attention to their parents' voices, as opposed to random noises or even other languages), and haven't really mastered it subtleties before the age of ten years. Indeed, we never really stop learning our language. (See David Singleton, Language Acquisition: The Age Factor, p. 56.) This isn't exactly the sort of behavior (like foals walking an hour after birth) that we call 'instinct' in animals.

But at least it's effortless, isn't it? Well, no, as we can see when children have a choice of languages to learn. What's found is that, to be frank, children don't learn a language if they can get away with not learning it.

Many an immigrant family in the U.S. intends to teach their child their native language; and for the first few years it goes swimmingly-- so much so that the parents worry that the child won't learn English. Then the child goes to school, picks up English, and within a few years the worry is reversed: the child still understands his parents, but responds in English. Eventually the parents may give up, and the home language becomes English. An anecdote from Grosjean:

Cyril, a little French boy in the States, started going to an English-language day care center, he brought home English-speaking friends, he watched television, and American friends of his parents quite often came to dinner. Above all, Cyril realized that his parents spoke quite good English, and as there was no other reason for speaking French (no French-speaking grandmother or playmate, no French -speaking social activities outside the home), Cyril probably decided that the price to maintain both languages... was too high. Little by little he started speaking English to his parents and ceased to be an active bilingual, although he retained the ability to understand his fist language.

The linguist R. Burling spent two years in the Garo Hills of India; his son grew up speaking English and Garo-- mostly the latter. They left India when the boy was three; for awhile the boy would attempt to speak Garo with anyone he met who looked Indian. But within six months, he wouldn't speak any Garo and seemed to have trouble with even simple Garo words.

A child is likely to end up as a fluent speaker of a language only if there are significant people in her life who speak it: a nanny who only speaks Spanish, a relative who doesn't speak English, etc. Once a child discovers that his parents understand English perfectly well, he's likely to give up on the home language, even in the face of strong disapproval from the parents.

These stories help demonstrate that it's a myth that children learn to speak mainly from their parents. They don't: they learn mostly from their peers. This is most easily seen among children of immigrants, whether they come from differing language backgrounds or merely diffferent dialect areas: the children invariably come to speak the dialect of their neighborhood and school, not that of their parents. (I found a neat example of this in my college's alumni magazine: A liberal family in Mississippi sent their daughter to the public schools, which except for her were all black. She grew up speaking fluent African-American Vernacular English.)

Supporters of the 'language instinct' make much of the fact that children learn to speak without formal instruction-- indeed, they notoriously ignore explicit corrections. For instance, an example collected by Martin Braine :

Child: Wnat other one spoon, Daddy.
Father: You mean, you want the other spoon.
Child: Yes, I want other one spoon, please, Daddy.
Father: Can you say "the other spoon"?
Child: Other... one... spoon.
Father: Say "other".
Child: Other.
Father: "Spoon."
Child: Spoon.
Father: "Other... spoon."
Child: Other... spoon. Now give me other one spoon.

This argument ignores the fact that very little of what we learn is through formal instruction. Children aren't schooled in video games, either, yet they pick them up with the same seeming ease.

The apparent effortlessness is largely an illusion caused by psychological distance. We just don't remember how hard it was to learn language. (In fact, there's some studies suggesting that memory is tied to language, so that we can't remember the language learning process.) The perception of effortlessness should be balanced, anyway, by the universal amusement (which some cartoonists have been mining for nearly half a century) over children's language mistakes.

Another anecdote: my wife liked to tease a young boy who was having trouble understanding the reciprocal nature of personal pronouns:

Adult: Is this your ball?
Child (trying to say it's his): Yes, it's your ball!
Adult: So, it's my ball?
Child: No! (cries)

That's not exactly easy!

Another clue that children find language difficult is that they become agitated when someone speaks the 'wrong' language. An English-German bilingual child, Danny, was speaking to a German-speaking researcher; trying to help, his mother (who normally only used English with him) asked, Was macht der Vogel? ("What's the bird doing?") Danny, startled, told his mother, Nicht 'Vogel'! ("Not Vogel!") He points to the researcher and said Du Vogel ("You bird"), and to his mother and said Du sag 'birdie' ("You say birdie").

Another example: an Italian-German bilingual girl, Lisa, became upset and started to cry when an Italian friend spoke to her in German. On another occasion, Lisa's father said something to her in German, and she responded, No, tu non puoi! ("No, you can't!") Keeping two largely unknown language systems separate is a tricky task, and associating each with different people helps: Lisa can count on knowing that whatever Daddy says is Italian. If anyone in her life could use either language at any time, the learning task would become much harder.

One may fall back on the position that language may be hard for children to learn, but at least they do it better than adults. This, however, turns out to be surprisingly difficult to prove. Singletonexamined hundreds of studies, and found them resoundingly ambiguous. Quite a few studies, in fact, find that adult learners progress faster than children (Language Acquisition, pp. 94-106). Even in phonetics, sometimes the last stronghold of the kids-learn-free position, there are studies finding that adults are better at recognizing and producing foreign sounds.

Now, I think Singleton misses a key point in understanding this discrepancy: the studies he reviews compare children vs. adults who are learning languages. That's quite reasonable, and indeed it's hard to imagine an alternative approach; but the two groups are not really comparable! All children have to learn at least one language; but few adults do. So the studies compare the situation of all children with that of the minority of adults motivated to formally learn other languages.

Why do children learn languages well, when even adults who want to learn them have trouble with them? Innate abilities aside, children have a number of powerful advantages:

* They can devote almost their full time to it. Adults consider half an hour's study a day to be onerous.

* Their motivation is intense. Adults rarely have to spend much of their time in the company of people they need to talk to but can't; children can get very little of what they want without learning language(s).

* Their peers are nastier. Embarrassment is a prime motivating factor for human beings (I owe this insight to Marvin Minsky's The Society of Mind, but it was most memorably expressed by David Berlinski (in Black Mischief, p. 129), who noted that of all emotions, from rage to depression to first love, only embarrassment can recur, decades later, with its full original intensity). Dealing with a French waiter is nothing compared with the vicious reception in store for a child who speaks funny.

If adults could be placed in a similar situation, they might well learn languages as readily (I don't say 'easily'!) as children. The closest such situation I can think of is cross- cultural marriage. And indeed, this works quite well. My wife, for instance, a native Spanish speaker who came here in her late 20s, has learned exceptional English, since we speak it at home. By contrast, some of her Spanish-speaking friends of the same age, married to other Spanish speakers, speak English haltingly and with a strong accent.

[Marie26]

62. Evidence

Obama DID get the support of financial institutions. And they DID contribute to Obama over McCain. It's no use waving that away now. IMO people should have paid better attention to that during the election.

Top Contributors:

University of California $1,385,675
Goldman Sachs $980,945
Microsoft Corp $806,299
Harvard University $793,460
Google Inc $790,564
Citigroup Inc $657,268
JPMorgan Chase & Co $650,758
Stanford University $580,904
Sidley Austin LLP $574,938
Time Warner $547,951
National Amusements Inc $541,251
WilmerHale $524,292
UBS AG $522,019
IBM Corp $518,557
Skadden, Arps et al $510,274
Columbia University $503,566
Morgan Stanley $490,873
US Government $479,956
General Electric $479,454
Latham & Watkins $467,311
Bank of America: $274,493
Wachovia: $214,151
AIG: $112,170

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Hedge funds embrace Obama

BOSTON (Reuters) - Hedge funds shifted bets in the hotly contested U.S. presidential race in January when they wrote bigger checks to Democratic contender Barack Obama after favoring his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in 2007.

The $1.8 trillion hedge fund industry donated $50,450 to Obama last month when the Illinois senator won wide support among voters in early caucuses and primaries, new data show.

Clinton, who lost Iowa but defied pollsters by winning the New Hampshire primary, took in $18,800, the lowest donated to either party's front runners.

In comparison, hedge funds gave $26,400 to Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain in January, according to the data compiled for Reuters by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance research group.

"Hedge funds may be synchronizing their giving with Obama's pull ahead in the polls, and people might be realizing that if they haven't given him money already, it might not hurt them to write some checks now," said Denise Valentine, who focuses on hedge funds at financial consulting firm Aite Group.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2635694020080226

Obama and the Hedge Fund Factor

As Pennsylvania voters headed to the polls on Tuesday, Andrew Ross Sorkin of The New York Times looked at where hedge funds have been placing their political bets. While Senator John McCain, and perhaps to a lesser extent Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, might seem like the natural favorites for hedge fund managers, Senator Barack Obama has been getting contributions from many of the most highly paid hedge fund bosses — the kind that make a half a billion dollars a year. ... many of the wealthiest hedge fund managers are lining up behind the Obama campaign. ... Many of the top 10 managers on Alpha magazine’s mind-blowing 2007 rich list, which was released last week, have put money on Mr. Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. .... So why is Mr. Obama such a popular choice among the hedge fund crowd?

In a word, access. Unlike Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is relatively new to national politics and is therefore open to bringing new people - and new money - into the tent. For money types who want a table, or at least to look involved and get an invitation to the right parties, Mr. Obama is the candidate.


http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/obama-and-the-hedge-fund-factor/

REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004
Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors

It turns out that Barack Obama's donors may not have been quite as different as we had thought. Throughout the election season, this organization and others have been reporting that Obama received about half of his discrete contributions in amounts of $200 or less. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) noted in past releases that donations are not the same as donors, since many people give more than once. After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated. "The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

In Obama's case, one should combine the estimated $90 million or so he received with the help of bundlers through August with the remaining $120 million or so from other large donors, and then compare it to the $119 million he raised from small donors through August. The comparison should make one think twice before describing small donors as the financial engine of the Obama campaign.
Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors.

http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216

Sourcewatch:

Obama "used campaign donations generated by PACs and lobbyists to bankroll the birth of his White House bid -- though he's banning that money for his presidential 2008 race," Lynn Sweet reported<2> February 9, 2007, in the Chicago Sun-Times.

"Obama's conversion to a laudable higher standard does not negate that money from sources he now disdains helped paved the way for his kickoff in Springfield on Saturday .

"Obama has been raising campaign cash for two political pots -- Obama 2010 Inc., his Senate re-election committee, and the Hopefund, another war chest. Obama, until his recent conversion on the eve of his presidential run, took more than $1 million from political action committees.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing

[olegramps]

85. Thank for clearing up this mystery for me.

I couldn't understand why President Obama chose Summers and Geithner to clear up the mess that they had been involved in creating. I foolishly thought that his support was largely due to the little people, you know people like me who could only afford to give him 20 bucks. You have made it crystal clear. Quid pro quo. Thanks again.

[tomp]

88. nothing would please me more than to see you go one-on-one with chomsky.

i'd pay a lot of money to see that, even though it would certainly be a first round knockout.

[ieoeja]

4. Chomsky worth reading? Well ... for the laughs, I suppose.

Doesn't even waste any time here. Right in the first paragraph we have stupid, "I mean, the first Bush term was so arrogant and abrasive and militaristic and dismissive of everyone that they offended, they antagonized even allies, close allies, and US prestige in the world plummeted to zero."

The election of Bush II was largely met with shrugs around the world because "his father wasn't so bad". The world largely thought of Bush I as a huge improvement over Reagan and a return to sanity in the United States.

The very reason Communism finally collapsed in the Soviet Union during Bush I was they found him NOT as militaristic as his immediate predecessor. Had Bush I been like Bush II, the Russian people would have continued rallying 'round the flag til Clinton got into office.

You may like Chomsky's opinions, but he gets his very first FACT in the article wrong. Which is fairly typical of the man. He writes real purdy. But he is still an idiot.

[Zodiak]

25. He meant the first GW Bush term, not GHW Bush

You misread the article.

[Occam Bandage]

6. I suppose to an anarchist, Democrats would look the same as Republicans. nt

[xchrom]

7. i love chomsky -- but the comments so far

have been more 'interesting' than the article.

[cali]

8. uh hun,. now let me ask you, do you agree with Chomsk,y that

bush moved to the center in his second term?

[xchrom]

13. look -- chomsky is not looking at this as an emotional leftist

fighting for political direction.

he's making a commentary -- it was A -- then shifted and became B.

i can make that distintion when he's speaking -- but i'm on the left -- and want a more leftward drift politically.
his focus isn't mine.

[cali]

14. look, whether he's emotional or not isn't the issue.

Either he's right about bush having moved to the center in his second term or he's wrong. And the evidence out there doesn't support his assertion.

[xchrom]

16. then you better get a publisher and start writing

so you can set chomsky straight.

[cali]

17. nothing like a completely inane retort. so... snappy- and meaningless.

[xchrom]

18. nothing like a member 101st keyboard brigade

thinking they know better than someone like chomsky.

[cali]

20. lol. what's the difference between someone pointing out that Chomsky

is wrong on something, and a person pointing out that Obama is wrong on something? Are we not supposed to comment about YOUR idols? I don't have idols. I think critically about things. This is a discussion board. I understand you're offended that the people you adore so uncritically are subject to rational criticism, but get over it. Do you criticize Obama? Do you think you know better than he does? Do you think you're smarter than he is? Well then, by your silly standards, you better shut up when it comes to criticizing him.

[xchrom]

54. now we're on to 'idols'?

:rofl: you do amuse.

[Threedifferentones]

67. You said Chomsky was lying about Obama's campaign donations

Then, multiple people posted multiple links demonstrating you are wrong.

Most thinking people also already know that 99% of the politicians Obama has to deal with took money from the same institutions you said Obama did not take money from, which he actually did. So, tell me why again should anyone listen to you over NC?

[moodforaday]

58. Personality cult

Chomsky is an idiot, but Obama knows better than you or me, Paul Krugman or anybody else in the world, and anyone protesting the current version of corporate feudalism is a PUMA or a Repug who lost a leader.

It would be almost endearing - this way of thinking - if it wasn't so dangerous.

Just a brief observation here. It is true Obama has already done a number of things that progressive Dems - and even anarchists like Chomsky and myself - would and will applaud. No-one is disputing that. Relaxing the relations with Cuba seems to be the latest example. Great. What's worth noting though is that the nice, progressive things Obama does in no way affect the interests of the financial sector or the military. In these two domains (bailout, expansion of the war) he seems to be following pretty closely in W's footsteps, whether he wants to or not. (And we have no way of knowing what he wants - we only see what he does.)

Does that mean Obama = Bush? No, that's a strawman argument and a stupid thing to say. What it does imply is that a president is not free to go where he pleases on these two issues. It pretty much tells you who's running the country, and whose interests count before any other. And that Chomsky is actually correct in saying there is only one party - the business party.

If what I've described here is even remotely true, than the sort of Obama personailty cult is truly dangerous, as it protects the killers and the banksters. If speaking against Obama's policies violates the rules of discourse even on DU, then the killers and the banksters really have little to worry about.

[Geek_Girl]

68. I think Bush second term was a move to the center

It was hard to notice since he fucked things up so bad in the first term the damage was done and he would not work to rectify his mistakes.

But he did not invade Iran which was planned and a bunch of neo-cons fled the administration. Who knows maybe they were kicked out. He never delivered on abortion and basically dismissed the constitutional amendment to define marriage which he campaigned on for his second term. Basically he never delivered the goods to the religious right, he was just using them.

If Bush ran things in his first term like he did in his second term, (which was basically do nothing) then the world would have been better off and he could have just gone down in history as a place holder president instead of an epic disaster.

[Echo In Light]

21. One's "interesting" is another's "inevitable."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. A government of CEOs and bankers. But, the chairs have been rearranged. K&R

[Mari333]

26. yep. nt

[denem]

11. For a renowned linguist, Noam, I think, is starting to lose it.

"Same—on the economy, well, you know,.. not very different from the Bush-Paulson plan. I mean, somewhat different, but circumstances have changed. So, of course, it's somewhat different.

"And then, with Bush, it kind of went off the rails."

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. He's a linguist, not an economist or a political scientist

[QC]

35. Do you know what a linguist does? n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

56. Uses his tongue - that's why Chomsky has so many devoted fans. n/t

[QC]

74. He is said to be quite a cunning linguist. n/t

[walkaway]

12. I love Noam. No one is ever going to live up to his standards.

They are completely unrealistic. Tearing down the entire system would result in chaos, but this is his end of the spectrum. Those of us who have to live in the real world are just happy with health care for all, a good education for our kids and a more fair distribution of resources. If President Obama can deliver that he is good enough for me.

[Echo In Light]

19. K&R for Uncle Chomsky

[blindpig]

22. That's it ! Under the bus with Chomsky.

How dare he belabor the obvious.

Move over Krugman, peace movement, Rev Wright, make room under the bus.

[cali]

23. critically looking at this piece is hardly throwing him under the bus

do you actually agree with Chomsky that Bush moved to the center in his second term? I find that completely wrong- and all he has for evidence is the departure of Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz.

[blindpig]

30. It hadn't occurred to me.

The exit of Wolfie & Rummy, the retreat from overwhelming arrogance, certainly made for that appearance. Don't know that I'd call it so much a shift to the center as putting on the brakes of a head long careening towards foam at the mouth beserkness. They had to, they were making everybody nervous, tearing the curtain. Mostly PR, but that's important, particularly given the first term.

As far as his analysis of the two parties, spot on.

[FudaFuda]

24. LOL. Yeah ol' Chomsky was great when he was saying what DU'ers were wanting to hear. nt

[arcadian]

27. Awww, did Chomsky break the echo chamber?

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[cali]

28. do you agree with Chomsky that bush moved to the center in his second term?

what evidence is there to support such a claim? Or can't you take your kneepads off long enough to actually read the piece?

[Echo In Light]

32. It seems a lot of the shadowy police state tactics came to light under his 2nd admin

Although I doubt that's what Chomsky's alluding to.

[Luminous Animal]

45. No, he was talking

about the demise of influence from the neo-cons in regards to foreign policy.

[Echo In Light]

51. Talking heads may have been having a hard time omitting the PNAC group from discussion

That obviously held sway over why the shadow govt had Bush/Cheney installed in the first place

[Luminous Animal]

34. He was referring speciically

the Bush admins antagonism in the global sphere and he offers up the departure of the neo-cons as evidence. When the shake up occurred in Bush's second term, it was commonly accepted that Bush was abandoning the neo-cons vision of global ambitions.

[omega minimo]

49. if you "actually read the piece" he didn't say what you may be trying to argue........

.............breathe................. (cue context):


"I mean, the first Bush term was so arrogant and abrasive and militaristic and dismissive of everyone that they offended, they antagonized even allies, close allies, and US prestige in the world plummeted to zero. Now, the second Bush administration was more—moved more toward the center in that respect, not entirely, but more, so some of the worst offenders, like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, were thrown out. I mean, they couldn't throw out Dick Cheney, because he was the administration, so they couldn't get rid of him. He stayed, but the others, a lot of them, left. And they moved towards a somewhat more normal position. "




".......second Bush administration was more—moved more toward the center in that respect, not entirely, but more, so some of the worst offenders, like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, were thrown out."


In That Respect.


He did not say what you are trying to get others to defend in the thread.

[DevonRex]

31. SO glad I found you again so I can put you on ignore with little to no effort.

<click>

[arcadian]

52. ...

:rofl: lol

[Taverner]

33. Chomsky, like most Marxists (and yes, he has said so) wants purity

There are no shades of grey in his philosophies. Not to say he doesn't make some good points, but any capitalist solution will be a failure to him.

Give me an open minded Marxist like Howard Zinn any day.

[leftstreet]

38. Capitalists and corporatists seem to demand purity

Is there an open minded one?

:shrug:

[Taverner]

41. FDR was a pretty open minded capitalist

Obama seems the same

[leftstreet]

44. Well, FDR took a pragmatic approach to destroying the Left

But I see your point.

Obama really isn't in the same position, given that the American (true) Left is essentially dead.

[Taverner]

47. I disagree the left is dead

The "left" is a moving target in this country, just like the "right" is

FDR had a choice to make back in the 30's - save capitalism or scrap it. Being that scrapping it would have caused much more suffering than saving it (show me a country that went socialist without collateral damage, e.g. DEATH) and I'll show you a country that doesn't exist.

The left in the US has never been more alive, and the hope is that we can get this country back on the track it was on before Truman and Ike derailed it by taking the riches we had after WWII and instead of building the great society, chose instead to keep us in a state of war from Pearl Harbor up to today.

[eridani]

76. Yes, by actually coopting some of their programs

Social Security was a straight ripoff of the Socialist Party platform. Not complaining--I'd be delighted to see Obama rip off the single payer idea and make it his own.

[gulfcoastliberal]

89. FDR & the establishment were scared to death of Huey Long & Share Our Wealth

That's the only reason for the larger New Deal reforms FDR implemented in his 2nd term.

[Echo In Light]

39. As an aside, were you aware that Zinn has endorsed David Ray Griffin's 1st book on 9/11?

[Taverner]

40. Yes, and he's wrong on that too

But Zinn, unlike Chomsky, is willing to admit when he makes a mistake - although he hasn't admitted to that one yet...

[Echo In Light]

43. And likely won't as he probably gave it serious thought before doing so

Then again, I'm biased on that one

[Taverner]

48. I give Zinn more credit than I do Chomsky

Chomsky supported Milosevic - that's like supporting Franco

[eridani]

78. Wrong. He supported not attacking Serbia

Huge difference.

[Echo In Light]

90. Both are brilliant, and have contributed considerably to institutional analysis, but....

I'd rather listen to Zinn, as he's more passionate in general, and supports questioning what's thought of as the 'conspiracies' the more prominent lefties usually avoid.

[eridani]

77. Chomsky is adamantly opposed to all of the non-official 9/11 narratives n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Chomsky is a self-identified Anarchist, not Marxist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Chomsky has stated that his "personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism"<47> and he has praised libertarian socialism.<48> He is a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism<49> and a member of the IWW union.<50> He has published a book on anarchism titled, "Chomsky on Anarchism", which was published by the anarchist book collective, AK Press, in 2006.

[Marie26]

70. Chomsky's a Marxist?

I don't think so. Do you have a link for that? I'll wait. :)

[QC]

36. Chomsky is an enemy of the people. n/t

[Taverner]

42. Um, no

Chomsky is a misguided academic

[QC]

72. He is a kulak. n/t

[Runcible Spoon]

61. His books should be BANNED!

Maybe we can at least get links to him banned and the people who link them banned too!

[QC]

69. And people who recommend threads that have links to threads about Chomsky, too.

[Runcible Spoon]

80. Yep.

I can't believe how many haters, purists and bashers we have on this website.

[PHIMG]

46. We must fight the Democratic Leadership - the conservadems

Mandate and Subsidize will not work. It has failed in Mass. and it will fail for the country as a whole. We need reform we can believe in. Build on what works - Medicare. Expanded and Improved Medicare for All is the solution. The Public Option is a distraction and it will be watered down or compromised away. Don't fall for it. Ever wonder why PhRMA (drug industry) is a part of the HCAN coalition pushing for the public option?

The solution is single payer. It comes from the grassroots not the politicians. It saves hundreds of billions of dollars. Doctors want it, patients want it. Health Insurers, Banks, and the drug companies do not want it.

Cut out the middleman -- pass HR 676.

[Mudoria]

53. If Chomsky said it, why it must be true...

[moodforaday]

59. Um, no.

It's only true when Obama says it.

[Vidar]

60. Chomsky's right as usual.

[Pastiche423]

64. Yeppers

And the Obama apologists in this thread are having a hissy fit that he did not bow down to their messiah.

It's been interesting seeing who at this site stands by their principles and who defends a man no matter how wrong he is.

[ProgressIn2008]

63. Chomsky is interesting and unafraid to speak truth to power, as per norm. nt

[Marie26]

65. One-party state

That's about right. I really liked this part: "Thomas Ferguson's investment theory of politics, as he calls it—very outstanding political economist—which essentially—I mean, to say it in a sentence, he describes elections as occasions in which groups of investors coalesce and invest to control the state."

In Bush's case, we now know who the "investors" were that wanted to control the state - the neocons & the fundies. In Obama's case, IMO it is the financial sector.

[Threedifferentones]

71. kick

[Common Sense Party]

75. Chomsky is a brilliant godsend--UNTIL he disparages Pres. Obama

in any way, I guess. It's amazing how quickly the fairweather fans can go cold.

[downeyr]

81. F-ing thank you!

n/t

[DatManFromNawlins]

79. Respecting someone's ideas until they disagree with your own...

... is the height of intellectual discourse, apparently.

The Republicans have been opening the floodgates to create a permanent aristocracy that is largely immune to financial problems, and when Democrats take power back, our leaders only close those floodgates a little bit at a time.

As long as corporations can donate huge chunks of cash to political candidates, the candidates will always be in the pockets of the corporations. But we can never get the money out of politics, because politicians will never voluntarily give away the financial advantage they have as incumbents. And we allow this to continue, especially when we venerate career politicians.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. The "he's funded by financial institutions" argument doesn't add up

Obama raised $700 million about $3 million of which came from contributions from the financial industry. No logical politician would blatantly put the interests of such a small contributor over the interests of the people on an issue as crucial as the country's economy. $3 million can buy you a Senator but not a President. For that you would need far more money than the campaign finance system permits you to contribute.

And yes both parties are "business parties". We have a capitalist economic system and both parties fundamentally believe in capitalism. Obama is bailing out the banks partly because he believes it is the best option to stop the financial crisis and partly because he is a capitalist. But while he may be ideologically prone to doing things that inadvertently favor the financial industry, he is not bought and paid for by them.

[ColbertWatcher]

84. Chomsky says " a kind" of one-party state.

And he goes on to say that there are differences between the Dems and the GOP--constituencies, policies and effects.

[LWolf]

86. He's right.

I'm glad to read this. It carries more weight when Chomsky says it than when I do, lol.

I'm going to read down the thread now. I wonder how many who have agreed with Chomsky's positions in the past are now going to "distance" themselves...