Noam Chomsky: The Democratic Party is now in the hands of Moderate Republicans.

[RoccoR5955]

The majority of Democrats have shifted to the right so far that the two-party system is almost unrecognizable, according to Noam Chomsky.

"There used to be a quip that the United States was a one-party state with a business party that had two factions: the Democrats and Republicans—and that used to be pretty accurate, but it’s not anymore. The U.S. is still a two-party state, but there’s only one faction, and it’s not Democrats, it’s moderate Republicans. Today’s Democrats have shifted to the right," Chomsky told RT America's Anissa Naouai.

More at link:http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/chomsky-todays-democrats-are-moderate-republicans

Perhaps then they should rename this place, "Moderate Republican Underground."

[Itchinjim]

1. Could be that Noam is so far left that everything seems right.

[7962]

15. That is exactly what it is.

I have little respect for him anyway

[JRLeft]

50. No it's not the proof is inequality gap. It's widening not shrinking under democratic control.

Obama admitted he would be a moderate republican in the 1980s.

[OwlinAZ]

58. True

[roguevalley]

104. unbelievable. Noam is now the enemy.

There are none so blind as they who will not see. Enjoy your chains.

[green917]

124. exactly!

What the hell has happened to our party? eugene debbs is rolling over in his grave!

[reACTIONary]

201. Are you kidding ???? Eugene Debbs .....

..... never ran for president as a Democrat - he ran AGAINST democrates five times, even against one ticket (1920) that included FDR as VP.

Needless to say he never came close to winning - best he did was about 6%, most often much less.

[merrily]

233. OK Make that any New Deal Democrat.

[reACTIONary]

293. That's a step in the correct direction . ...

.., not going to say the "right direction " ... it might be misconstrued

[merrily]

323. I try to remember to use "correct" instead of "right" for that reason.

[1StrongBlackMan]

183. Who is calling Noam the enemy.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

237. To be fair, I do. Ever since he became an apologist for the Khmer Rouge.

Genocide denial is an ugly ugly thing, whether the victims are Jews or Kampucheans.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Matt_R]

312. Moderate Republicans that took over the Democrat party.

Oh look there's one now #237.

Also the Third Way, DLC, pretty much anyone attacking Socialist programs.

[Ned Flanders]

255. These posters' replies are just more support for Noam's statements.

I mean, they sure sound like Republican Conservatives, making stupid jokes about being too far left or too liberal. I'm surprised they didn't say something like, "He's so open minded, his brain fell out."

[2banon]

267. Noam has been getting bashed by right wingers since forever, nothing new..

ain't no biggie.

[wallyworld2]

292. I just think Thomas Frank

has nailed it.

Author Thomas Frank Talks Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and His New Book, ‘Listen Liberal’

http://billmoyers.com/story/author-thomas-frank-talks-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-and-his-new-book-listen-liberal/

[wallyworld2]

295. We've been abandoned

Thomas Frank describes how the Democrats have left working people/lower class behind

I don't expect anything but more decline with another Clinton administration

[robx]

304. I agree.

Noam is part of the regressive left.

[LiberalLovinLug]

338. the regressive left?

Who's that?...anyone that doesn't jump onboard the New Republican-lite(on social issues) bandwagon?

We better get on board and prove Democrats can be just as much a facilitator of an imperialistic foreign MIC and a corporate oligarchy at home, as their peers across the aisle, right?

[earthshine]

208. Here's the video.

I find it positively disgusting that he has said this.

[SouthernDemLinda]

272. There is only one party in the United States

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." -Gore Vidal

[bvar22]

235. I fought "Moderate Republican Policy" in the 80s with all my passion.

That was the reason I was a Democrat.
Why should I support Moderate Republican Policies today?
As far a Economic Policy, I would drop the "Moderate" from "Moderate Republican Policy" from the 80s.

The sad part is that someone has to be well over 50 to remember what Democrats are supposed to sound like.
That is one reason the I'm a fan of Millennials. They have figured it out on their own.

[earthshine]

212. He is as accomplished as Hillary, but without all the flip flopping and secrets.

This shows how your opinion is blatantly unfounded.

http://www.biography.com/people/noam-chomsky-37616

[BootinUp]

62. Of course. Pretty standard means of propaganda. nt

[The Far Left]

130. The DLC propaganda avoids detailed polls on critical issues.

Most Americans are unexpectedly "liberal" when polled on the specific issues that could help most Americans.

But the DLC friendly corporate media frames its "news" in such a way that each liberal issue is typically ridiculed or ignored.

Just give it another decade and most of the corporate media consumers will either die off or slide into senility...

That won't stop the paid trolls, but it should make peaceful revolution more obtainable.

[sulphurdunn]

71. Could be. Before deciding though,

it would nice to know exactly what 'too far left' means.

[Itchinjim]

76. "So far left"

Meaning having political views that are to the left of everyone else.

[sulphurdunn]

87. Definition isn't working too well.

Maybe you could post an example.

[libdem4life]

115. It's complicated to get into a one-liner.

Also, most really don't know. They just parrot their leaders.

[That Guy 888]

157. I think they mean anything that could be construed as or actually is critical of Clinton.

I know, I know... FOUR DAYS!!ONE!

IDK why so many Clinton supporters are excited about National Fudge Day.

[Volaris]

285. Lol is that when the 'offical' vote totals come in??

I kid. I kid...calm down everyone, it's just a little word play.

[AgingAmerican]

142. How far left is 'everyone else'

And which right wing policies do you ascribe to?

[billhicks76]

296. Moderates Moved The Center To The Right

Today's breed of rabid republicans are a direct result of that. They will always feel a need to differentiate themselves for cultural and religious reasons. The closer you move next to them to the right the more they must move over and away from you further to the right. This little dance of centrist democrats giving in to appease i don't know what or make more money has only resulted in the right moving so far off into whackadoodle land that we are literally all in danger now because of it. It's pathetic. Anyone blind enough to not see this pattern or simply not care is putting us all at risk.

[passiveporcupine]

324. So there is only one person who is so far left?

[TransitJohn]

82. His beliefs have stayed the same over the decades

the Democratic Party used to encompass his beliefs, but it has moved to the right.

[BootinUp]

141. Yes, he is an ideologue. nt

[SkyIsGrey]

193. People on the far right refer to Chomsky as an ideologue as well.

Curious that.

[BootinUp]

196. Look it up in a dictionary if you need to. Then get back to me. nt

[SkyIsGrey]

198. Far-right politics

Far-right politics often involve a focus on tradition as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. Many far-right ideologies have a disregard or disdain for egalitarianism, if not overt support for social hierarchy (Authoritarianism, or the light version in your case), elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism.

Yep, does not describe Chomsky.

[BootinUp]

200. Impressive show of obstinance. nt

[SkyIsGrey]

218. Impressive show of irony.

nt

[ellennelle]

221. more like an impressive show of hypocrisy

these folks are starting to really scare me.

they have no points to make whatsoever, no facts or arguments, just tons and tons of vitriol and smug dismissive condescension.

when they're the ones without a clue.

not. one. clue.

sad. but truly scary.

[SkyIsGrey]

284. Agreed.

nt

[SouthernDemLinda]

276. uncompromising and dogmatic

ideologue
i·de·o·logue

an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic."a conservative ideologue"

[99th_Monkey]

204. Odd how Hillarians constantly accuse Bernistas of being "RW"

glass houses and all.

and now Noam is an "ideologue" because he has NOT become a RWer..

ooof! Makes my head hurt.

[Scootaloo]

149. Actually, no. It's the opposite

It's that US politics are so warped towards the right that Noam, a pretty standard left-winger, is mistaken for "extreme left."

The problem is that yes the Democratic Party is a center-right party. However, the Republican Party is vastly further to the right. In the binary politics of American politics, that means that the center-right Democratic party is our standard of "left" while the Republican party is our standard of "right" - even though both of them have been steadily marching rightward for thirty years, due to Republican's Purity Drive and Democrat's fetishization of "bipartisanship."

The actual political spectrum is decided by beliefs and policy, not by relative placement against some other entity.

[merrily]

236. Nailed it, as you so often do.

[reACTIONary]

286. An anarco- syndicalist is not...

... a prety standard left winger.

[intersectionality]

356. Ah.. Yes...

Thanks to public unions abandoning private unions and the slow right turn of union membership and the incredibly negative portrayal of union and govt employees, this probably does appear true prima facie. Of course, one who is in a place of political stagnation would describe America as having little political diversity, while one who had visited the social hubs of young people from LA to Brooklyn would know that many people do, in fact, share many of his beliefs. And they Aren't always to be young, it's that people who share his beliefs and aren't reformists do not want to participate in a politics of the least. So you may not see us at your town halls because we don't think shouting down our neighbors is healthy politics, and you may not hear us in the stores loudly talking about how murderous the death dealers we've elected are, and you won't hear us proclaiming an individual as having infallible values. We largely see the American political imaginary as the phantasy at large for neocons and neolibs. The major difference between me and Chomsky is that Chomsky is a reformist and is thus willing to at least come to the table with neolibs. I'm just cynical enough to realize when you come sit at a table with neolibs they're as likely to massacre you as shake your hand.

[reACTIONary]

357. Actually,

I'm not particularly interested in whatever might be the difference between you and Chomsky.

[blackspade]

155. Nope. He's pretty much in the same place he's has been for decades.

It the Democratic Party that has slipped right since the 90s

[raindaddy]

176. Princeton did a study a couple of years back, they found we're living in an Oligarchy...

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:31 PM - Edit history (1)

That means the the desires and aspirations of the poor and middle class are being completely ignored by our so-called representatives.
How far left to you have to be to make living in a oligarchy seem right?

And as the very least over the last 30 years the current incarnation of the Democratic party stood back a let it happen..
Closer to the truth they actually helped usher it along.

[freebrew]

211. +1...nt

[merrily]

238. +1

[merrily]

231. Isn't Pres. Obama typical of today's Democratic Party?

I don't know why DU cannot admit what the head of the Dem Party acknowledges.

[2banon]

265. or just perhaps vice versa?

depends on which pair of shoes you're wearing and roads traveled, ya know?

[red dog 1]

290. That could well be.

Although I usually agree with Chomsky, I think he's dead wrong here.

Bernie Sanders will hopefully have a significant role in drawing up the party's platform at the convention;and, (hopefully) Ms. Clinton will not choose a ConservaDem as her running mate.

[pnwmom]

300. +1 n/t

[ronnie624]

314. Chomsky believes

that the power of political and economic capital should rest primarily with working-class people, and that they should benefit society collectively, which is consistent with the principles of democracy. There is absolutely nothing extreme about that. It is the concentration of power for the benefit of a tiny minority that is illogical and detrimental to the security of our civilization.

[pnwmom]

315. It's ridiculous for him to claim that the Dems and the other party are the same

The only reason he can claim that is that his perspective is so distorted.

[ronnie624]

316. That's not what he said.

He characterized the Democratic party as moderate Republicans and the other party as a radical insurgency, and he is absolutely correct. As another poster noted, political philosophy is not about one party's positions relative to another. It is about specific ideology and policies.

[Kip Humphrey]

317. Could be you are a Republicrat and therefore think Noam is so far left.

could be.

[Ash_F]

328. 63% of Americans believe minimum wage should be $15 by 2020

That is the center.

[rjsquirrel]

2. We get it Noam

I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year.

[randr]

10. Are you red baiting?

Have Democratic supporters and especially members of DU sunk so low as to employ McCarthyesque tactics in their rebuts?
I am truly concerned for our once open and fair minded group.
Or have we a rep troll among us?

[Kilgore]

36. Well said!

[The Far Left]

178. Constructive criticism would be better said.

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Rather than simply stating the arguments we don't like by Chomsky, can we suggest better arguments than Chomsky's?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_socialism_and_communism

Personally, I would carefully balance the tyranny of a centralized democratic socialism against the tyranny of a well regulated capitalism so that neither system enslaves us. Also, there should probably be an upper limit on maximum wealth an American or an American corporation can hold so that no person, or group of people, threaten the sovereignty of our Nation.

[ellennelle]

282. nicely put

and decades ago, i might have agreed with that assessment.

but for two huge reasons, i can no longer support a "well-regulated capitalism;" sort of like a restrained psychotic. or, a well-regulated militia. we see where that got us.

but, i digress. the first reason is history, which has proven over and over and over and over again that capitalism is by its very nature and design, orthogonal to democratic principles, and a-moral.

second, we as a species do not have the luxury to keep tweeking this damn chronically failed system that essentially amounts to an excuse to be greedy.

in a more forgiving universe, we could perpetuate every conceivable adjustment to make it run more smoothly and make everyone suddenly play nice, but it has never ever worked in the past for very long at all (the capitalism allowed in socialist governments such as scandinavian etc. run the risks of capitalist competition that will likely swallow it whole; watch for that with the TTIP); its ugly head keeps popping up to devour everything in its path.

and in the process, destroy the very planet that sustains us. at least, that is, until it doesn't.

i have no doubt you're familiar with naomi klein's this changes everything. she lays out fairly clearly how capitalism is what has unleashed the changes that are making this planet uninhabitable for us and a whole host of other species.

at some point, we have to start thinking of the common good as our responsibility and redemption, and recognize we're all in this together. there is no evidence that the selfish individualism that fuels capitalism offers any hope for humanity or the planet at this point.

some may worry about being "enslaved" by the "tyranny" of socialism, but it might hold our only hope for correcting the destructive impulses of capitalism and saving the planet from them.

[RoccoR5955]

126. And since when has there been a true communist government?

The regimes of the USSR and China were merely government controlled capitalism.
They state that they do not want communism, yet there has NEVER been a true example of communism or socialism in history.
It's absurd that people buy into the capitalist propaganda, and think that it is the end all and the be all to society.
They couldn't be more wrong.
Check out http://democracyatwork.info for a lot more info than I could begin to post here.

[hughee99]

180. Right on comrade!

Once the "right people" are in charge and implement their "true" communist system, we'll all see how great it is, but until then we have ZERO evidence to support the argument that it's a better system, or even that it will actually function the way its supporters claim it will.

[reACTIONary]

206. And I hear....

...there has never been a true Scotsman either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[freebrew]

213. Capitalism is a failed system...

to maintain, new money needs to be printed constantly.
Else, we have a monopoly game. And only one will emerge the winner.

Inflation/deflation is a virtual guarantee. While the proles fight each other for scraps.

Lovely system.
(that was sarcasm)

[davekriss]

139. Technically, anarcho-syndicalism

Noam self-identifies with anarcho-syndicalism, not communism. I don't know why anyone would raise "communism" with regard to Noam Chomsky.

And, just to add, Manufacturing Consent and Necessary Illusions are classics that have been and remain highly relevant since they were written. A lot of what Noam has written since involves application of his propaganda model.

[newthinking]

197. You admit to being a McCarthy'st on a liberal board?

And don't give us excuses like "well not exactly like they did". That is no different than saying you identify with the KKK but don't agree with their methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.[1] It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."[2] The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned,[3] laws that were later declared unconstitutional,[4] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[5] or actionable,[6] or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.

The most notable examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.

[reACTIONary]

207. I don't know, I think you might just be....

..... mcarthyite baiting.

[newthinking]

214. Hmm

you have two accounts?

[reACTIONary]

278. LOL, one... and you?

[merrily]

243. McCarthyism was shet and should be crushed, not just baited.

[newthinking]

266. You are vastly showing your ignorance of the period

Red baiting was only one component of a fascist movement that killed and destroyed the lives of multitudes. Many who had nothing to do with "Communism" and were just free thinkers or happened to know the wrong person.

Go ahead and keep spouting how this kind of history is irrelevant. But it doesn't do you any good.

[merrily]

319. LOL! Red baiting is a lot more 1950s than McCarthy hating.

Marx didn't write about McCarthyism.

?itok=1huG7xWs

[merrily]

342. How to count the ways in which your reply is dead wrong?

I will reply to only one. It's eminently possible to be pro-capitalism and/or anti-Communism without touting McCarthyism. Most people, especially Democrats, know that.

[merrily]

344. Look at my post 243 to reACTIONary and your replies to my post 243.

My post 243 was about McCarthyism and nothing but McCarthyism.

[merrily]

346. We all know what you posted. As far as "anger," "spittle" and "butthurt," that's all been from you.

Ditto the comments about race and sex.

My posts have been matter of fact and not ad hom.

[newthinking]

268. Hard to believe isn't it?

Not only that we have people on here trying to justify McCarthyism, but what is really telling is that such right wing (this one is pretty far right) is allowed to continue on the site.

It is absolutely a waste of breath to get upset if people say the word "communism" anyway, as there is no way we are anywhere near adopting that system. Which begs the question of what people are arguing about? So what is the fear? Why not just have a rational debate and not engage in hysteria or red-baiting?

[newthinking]

264. "Lefties" are not stuck. Those of us that are older had better teaching

Red Baiting was one part of what was more than just one evil person. It was an entire fascist movement that killed many and destroyed many lives. Do a little more reading.

[reACTIONary]

203. Right on, brother! eom

[ellennelle]

234. "kleptocratic authoritarian failed God"

wow. thought you were talking about capitalism there.

[reACTIONary]

289. With the exception that....

.... capitalism has not failed.

[ellennelle]

320. 'xcuse me?

are you not paying attention at all? to history or now?

that buddha is quite out of place for someone making that assertion.

[reACTIONary]

358. Well, if you are interested in history....

.... let's consider Tycho Brahe's discovery of a supernova in 1572, which initiated the scientific revolution; the subsequent Age of Enlightenment which developed and established the humanistic liberal values of freedom and equality; and how these social and intellectual revolutions gave rise to the industrial revolution.

These three ongoing intellectual, social and economic revolutions - the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment's political revolutions, and the industrial revolution - very broadly constitute what is considered capitalism. Far from being any sort of failure, they are humanity's greatest success and have ushered in a continuing era of progress and prosperity that had never before existed and could not even have been imagined in all of previous human history.

[ellennelle]

359. good lord

with all due respect to your buddha, but that is one holy hot steaming mess of incoherence so sloppy i would not throw it at a pig.

by all means, tho, do carry on with your delusion, as it appears to entertain you.

[reACTIONary]

360. Actually, it's known as ....

..... Whig historiography. Although I eschew it's deterministic elements. Its failing is its excessive coherence, not incoherance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Science-History-Scientific-Revolution/dp/006175952X

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/27043-if-scientific-analysis-were-conclusively-to-demonstrate-certain-claims-in

[2banon]

269. ahem. Better go do your home work, Chomsky isn't a Communist. SMFH

[7962]

24. Wow, you're on edge arent you.

The Poster merely makes a little joke pertinent to the story and you actually accuse him of "McCarthyesque tactics"?
Better get to your safe space quickly as possible!

[seabeckind]

34. Case in point.

"Safe space"?

Seriously?

[7962]

43. Yeah, its a JOKE.

To have such a reaction at a joking poke at Chomsky is ridiculous. Likely the person needs to be protected from such travesties

[seabeckind]

52. Second case in point.

"person needs to be protected"

Doubling down on a pair of 8s looking at a dealer face card.

Just keep on digging.

[G_j]

95. did it sound like a joke?

not really..

[7962]

165. How could it NOT? "VZ is nice this time of year". OBVIOUSLY a joke.

because who in their right mind would be serious about going there right now?

[G_j]

339. don't ever look for work as a comedian

[7962]

348. Another poster made the joke. keep up.

[GummyBearz]

134. The best joke here

The best joke here is 7962. If it is a -D it is a complete fail. If it is a -R troll it is making it way too obvious. Either way it is a joke

[7962]

161. No, the best joke here are those who cant take one.

Been here lot longer than you. Using the tired "troll" insult is just as weak as the offense taken by someone who simply joked about moving to venezuela. Much like a lot of us here have joked to RW folks about moving to Somalia, where they'd have government "out of their lives".
Chomsky claiming the democratic party is just a slightly different version of the GOP is ANOTHER joke.

[GummyBearz]

191. So funny

You have been here longer? That could be true, I only started lurking in 2002. Maybe you were lurking here in 2001. I don't know why that even matters as it sounds like a dick measuring contest. I would say Chomsky has more expertise in these matters than most people. Please prove me wrong if you have more expertise than he does though. I mean, If you have your phd in political science and have written a couple best sellers on the topic I will try to see it your way.

Otherwise, I don't give a shit

[7962]

194. His PhD doesnt impress me. He's proven many times how full of it he is.

W was able to fly one of the hardest fighter jets of his time; I'm sure not impressed with him either.
See my post 169 for some examples of Chomsky's bullshit. And thats a small list.
But he has plenty of lemmings who hang on his every word. I'm sure he's made a good living off of it too.
Alex Jones has his own version making HIM wealthy

[GummyBearz]

301. And you don't impress a 10 year old with a mental handicap

"I would say Chomsky has more expertise in these matters than most people. Please prove me wrong if you have more expertise than he does though. I mean, If you have your phd in political science and have written a couple best sellers on the topic I will try to see it your way. "

Your response comes down to false comparisons (Alex Jones? wow) and more BS. As I said before, no one with a brain gives a shit about your opinion. But plenty of people do listen to Chomsky.

[7962]

309. I dont take money from the gullible. I posted factual info

Tough shit if you cant process it. Follow him if you like; its your life.
I provided a list of serious things that Chomsky has been on the wrong side of & nothing I said was wrong. He's a charlatan who preaches totalitarian bullshit to the weak minded. He critiques our system,yet he creates a trust to avoid paying more taxes himself! After all, he IS a millionaire.

[reACTIONary]

216. Ummm, Chomsky is a linguist.....

..... not a political scientist. His academic accomplishments provide no credibility for his political opinions. I don't think any of his political writings can be considered best sellers. They are fringe works that appeal to a cult audience.

[newthinking]

273. Laughable

Your attempt to argue here is way out there: I can't take it seriously.

As for Chomsky's credentials, he is one of the most attributed scholars of our time.

From wikipedia:

Academic achievements, awards, and honors

In 1970, Chomsky was named one of the "makers of the twentieth century" by The London Times.[151] In early 1969, he delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford University; in January 1971, the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at the University of Cambridge, titled "Problems of Knowledge and Freedom"; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi;[258] in 1975, the Whidden Lectures at McMaster University, titled "Reflections on Language";[100] in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden, titled "Intellectuals and the State"; in 1978, the Woodbridge Lectures at Columbia University; in 1979, the Kant Lectures at Stanford University;[258] in 1988, the Massey Lectures at the University of Toronto, titled "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies"; in 1997, The Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom in Cape Town;[259] in 2011, the Rickman Godlee Lecture at University College, London;[260] and many others.[258]

Chomsky has received honorary degrees from many colleges and universities around the world, including from the following:

American University of Beirut[261]
Amherst College[258]
Bard College[258]
Central Connecticut State University[262]
Columbia University[258]
Drexel University[263]
Georgetown University[258]
Harvard University[258]
International School for Advanced Studies[261]
Islamic University of Gaza[261]
Loyola University of Chicago[258]
McGill University[258]
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens[262]
National Autonomous University of Mexico[261]
National Tsing Hua University[261]
National University of Colombia[258]
National University of Comahue[261]
Peking University[261]
Rovira i Virgili University[258]
Santo Domingo Institute of Technology[261]
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa[258]
Swarthmore College[258]
University of Bologna[262]
University of Buenos Aires[258]
University of Calcutta[258]
University of Cambridge[258]
University of Chicago[258]
University of Chile[261]
University of Connecticut[258]
University of Cyprus[261]
University of Florence[261]
University of La Frontera[261]
University of Ljubljana[261]
University of London[258]
University of Massachusetts[258]
University of Pennsylvania[258]
University of St Andrews[261]
University of Toronto[258]
University of Western Ontario[258]
Uppsala University[261]
Visva-Bharati University[151]
Vrije Universiteit Brussel[262]

In the United States, he is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, the Linguistic Society of America, the American Philosophical Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[151] Abroad, he is a member of the Utrecht Society of Arts and Sciences, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy, an honorary member of the British Psychological Society,[151] and a foreign member of the Department of Social Sciences of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.[264] In addition, he is a recipient of a 1971 Guggenheim Fellowship, the 1984 American Psychological Association Award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology, 1988 the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences,[151] the 1996 Helmholtz Medal, the 1999 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award.[258] He is also a two-time winner of the Gustavus Myers Center Award, receiving the honor in both 1986 and 1988, and the NCTE George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language, receiving the honor in both 1987 and 1989.[151] He has also received the Rabindranath Tagore Centenary Award from The Asiatic Society.[265]

In 2004 Chomsky received the Carl-von-Ossietzky Prize from the city of Oldenburg, Germany to acknowledge his body of work as a political analyst and media critic.[266] In 2005, Chomsky received an honorary fellowship from the Literary and Historical Society.[267] In February 2008, he received the President's Medal from the Literary and Debating Society of the National University of Ireland, Galway.[268] Since 2009, he has been an honorary member of International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (IAPTI).[269]

In 2010, Chomsky received the Erich Fromm Prize in Stuttgart, Germany.[270] In April 2010, Chomsky became the third scholar to receive the University of Wisconsin's A.E. Havens Center's Award for Lifetime Contribution to Critical Scholarship.[271]
The Megachile chomskyi holotype, a bee that was named after Chomsky

Chomsky has an Erdős number of four.[272]

Chomsky was voted the world's leading public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll jointly conducted by American magazine Foreign Policy and British magazine Prospect.[273] In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted seventh in the list of "Heroes of our time."[274]

Actor Viggo Mortensen and avant-garde guitarist Buckethead dedicated their 2003 album Pandemoniumfromamerica to Chomsky.[275] On January 22, 2010, a special honorary concert for Chomsky was given at Kresge Auditorium at MIT. The concert, attended by Chomsky and dozens of his family and friends, featured music composed by Edward Manukyan and speeches by Chomsky's colleagues, including David Pesetsky of MIT and Gennaro Chierchia, head of the linguistics department at Harvard University.[276]

In May 2007, Jamia Millia Islamia, a prestigious Indian university, named one of its complexes after Naom Chomsky. [277]

In June 2011, Chomsky was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize, which cited his "unfailing courage, critical analysis of power and promotion of human rights."[278] Also in 2011, Chomsky was inducted into IEEE Intelligent Systems' AI's Hall of Fame for "significant contributions to the field of AI and intelligent systems."[279]

In 2013, a newly described species of bee was named after him: Megachile chomskyi.[280]

[reACTIONary]

288. What's laughable is....

.....having an actor and avant-garde guitarist dedicate their album Pandemoniumfromamerica to him. I'm sure that's at the top of his vita.

As a linguist he is undeniably the seminal figure of the 20th century, and, so far, the 21st also. The academic awards and honors for his work in linguistics are very well diserved.

As a political theorist he is a fringe crank. If you haven't been, read rjsquirrel's comments in this thread for a pretty realistic assessment .

[7962]

310. And he has supported a Holocaust denier, claimed Pol Pot didnt commit genocide, etc

The list of his stupid pronouncements is long and I posted a few. Go prove him right if you're a follower. Good luck with that.
So he has a long list of "honorary degrees", big deal! A lot of celebrities do too; you just give a good commencement speech. Greg Allman just got one a few weeks ago!
Also, as I mentioned in another post, while he is critical of our tax code allowing the use of trusts to avoid taxes, HE went to a lawyer and created one for himself to reduce HIS tax bill. So not only is he a charlatan, he's a hypocrite

[newthinking]

199. He identified with McCarthyism. Not going to be so easy to walk that back.

Absolutely I am if you want to call it that

If you say so.

I'm against communism. I think history has shown it does not produce equality or freedom. Noam Chomsky has historically suported numerous regimes I would find intolerable. His decades-long point of view would cast most American progressives as imperialist neoliberals.

So if that is red baiting I own it.

[7962]

202. The original post was a simple joke about visiting venezuela.

And nothing more. His post your refer to here is nothing to be shocked about; he's right. Call it "red baiting" or whatever, doesnt make it less true
Chomsky has been on the wrong side of history so many times its amazing people still listen to him at all

[rjsquirrel]

249. Correct

Obviously I ace no truck with McCarthyism -- which hasn't existed in 60 damn years.

Communism went from being a threat to being a failed joke in the interim. It's just amazing to me that anyone still identified with it.

[thomservo]

110. They're proving his point. n/t

[blackspade]

156. They are.

It is the de jour response these days.

[sulphurdunn]

85. The old America love it or leave it canard.

Haven't heard it for years. Well, no Venezuelan government ever exported an American job, or foreclosed on an American home, forced an American family in to bankruptcy over medical debt, put American college kids into debt penury, send a member of an American family to fight some goddamn corporate war, poisoned the drinking water in an American city, transferred the wealth of the American people to crooked bankers, or launched a class war against the American middle class and called it liberalism. Whether or not Venezuela is nice this time of year depends on who you are, kinda like here.

[stonecutter357]

3. . Noam Chomsky: is full of shit..

[Betty Karlson]

7. Shoot the messenger! (In this case Chomsky)

There is absolutely no way he could be right when Meg Whitman is endorsing the presumptive (or presuming) Democratic nominee.

[stonecutter357]

13. Your comment is unwarranted and disgusting.

Shoot the mesenger! No I'm not a Violent person.

[Betty Karlson]

16. "full of shit" is verbally violent.

[padfun]

25. Shoot the mesenger! is from an old saying

I hope you are kidding because just about everyone has heard that expression.

[NV Whino]

26. Lighten up

It's a long used phrase, and in this case was not directed to you anyway.

[libdem4life]

121. It's actually a medieval phrase...when the messenger would come with a

report to the king, securely ensconsed on his Hill, King of the Mountain/Hill, while the peasants were giving their all...literally. Do or die. So if the King didn't like it, well, you get it.

[NV Whino]

188. Thanks

Never knew the origin. It's been around as long as I have, and that's practically medieval.

[KansDem]

162. It's an expression...

"Shooting the messenger" is a metaphoric phrase used to describe the act of blaming the bearer of bad news.

Until the advent of modern telecommunication, messages were usually delivered by human envoys. For example, in war, a messenger would be sent from one camp to another. If the message was unfitting, the receiver might blame the messenger for such bad news and take their anger out on them.

History[edit]
An analogy of the phrase can come from the breaching of an unwritten code of conduct in war, in which a commanding officer was expected to receive and send back emissaries or diplomatic envoys sent by the enemy unharmed. During the early Warring States period of China, the concept of chivalry and virtue prevented the executions of messengers sent by opposing sides.

An early literary citing of "shooting the messenger" is in Plutarch's Lives states: "The first messenger, that gave notice of Lucullus' coming was so far from pleasing Tigranes that, he had his head cut off for his pains; and no man dared to bring further information. Without any intelligence at all, Tigranes sat while war was already blazing around him, giving ear only to those who flattered him".[2]

A related sentiment was expressed in Antigone by Sophocles as "no one loves the messenger who brings bad news" or "no man delights in the bearer of bad news" (Greek: στέργει γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἄγγελον κακῶν ἐπῶν .[3]

The sentiment that one should not shoot the messenger was expressed by Shakespeare in Henry IV, Part 2 (1598)[4] and in Antony and Cleopatra: Cleopatra threatens to treat the messenger's eyes as balls when told Antony has married another, eliciting the response "Gracious madam, I that do bring the news made not the match."[5]

The term also applied to a town crier, an officer of the court who made public pronouncements in the name of the ruling monarch, and often including bad news. Harming a town crier was considered treason.[6]

Wikipedia

It has nothing to do with you being a violent person. But you knew that already...

[rjsquirrel]

18. The messenger

has praised authoritarian regimes for decades. The OP relies on his celebrity for its force -- in effect you shoot us with the messenger. So impugning his personal credibility is an entirely warranted response.


His "message" only makes sense if your ideal state is far far far to the left of what the vast majority of Americans have democratically supported for 230 years.

[7962]

27. +10000

[Betty Karlson]

33. I'll grant you that the plantation owners' republic (pre-1860) was to the right of Chomsky.

I'll grant you that the gilded age was to his right.

I'll grant you that the GOP dominated 1920-ies were to his right.

Pre-civil rights act democracy: to Chomsky's right.

Reagan's trickle-down state: to his right.

Clinton's trickle-down light: to his right.

Bush the younger: far to his right.

Obama: still to his right.

-----------

But all that doesn't make him wrong when he says that there are a lot of moderate Republicans dripping into positions of power in the Democratic Party. Because that process has been going on ever since the GOP allowed the kookoo-crazies to start dripping into their party. (Roughly since the 1960-ies, but arguably even before that time.)

[rjsquirrel]

37. Articulately said

Incremental and sometimes reversed movement toward greater freedom and equality is my view of what modern democrats are all about.

Remember that democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow. Historical context matters.

[seabeckind]

42. Well said.

I remember reading a piece about the neolib movement by Nunn. I won't bother looking for it but:

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story.

The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN and Third Way.

On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would do so as early as the following week. On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization's website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation. The DLC's last chairman was former Representative Harold Ford of Tennessee, and its vice chair was Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO was Bruce Reed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Oh well, drop the label and move on with the principles.

[ChiciB1]

72. I WONDER What It Will Take OR How long IT WILL Take For

DEMOCRATS TO WAKE UP! Noam Chomsky is a man who has spoken TRUTH to POWER along with Howard Zinn for decades!

I've watched this shift to the right for quite a few years now, and I KNOW WELL how far and how damaging this has become, AND WILL become!

I'm sure many here know the phrase about PAST HISTORY and how if we DON'T learn we're DOOMED to repeat it! There is SO MUCH hand writing on the wall and my anger at those who REFUSE to see it grows daily!

I can only repeat my warning... BE AWARE AND REMEMBER HISTORY! This is NO LARK and those who have been in the trenches for so very long trying to warn us of what may be on the horizon should take heed. IF any here know of these two activists and of their writing probably KNOW what I'm talking about! They've written extensively about what has been done in the name of DEMOCRACY in AMERICA for so very many years. RIP Howard ZINN, I KNOW you must be turning over in your grave!

And to those who DON'T know of them I might only say this... PAUL REVERE has been resurrected and is sounding an alarm.

Call me out if you want, but there are SOME THINGS that need some very SERIOUS ATTENTION! I live in this country and for me I fear WE ARE on the brink of something really awful. Ignore this all you want, but in my heart and in my gut I'm more concerned that ever before in MY LIFE!

Did you see the article about ISIS targeting people in PALM BEACH??? I live in Florida and I WILL NOT IGNORE red flags!

[ancianita]

297. I agree with you that Chomsky's political analysis cred is equal to his linguistic cred. Not sure

about the rest. Please link the article you refer to.

I'm well read in Zinn, and think he'd tell you that your fear of ISIS in FL is fueled by media down there that are not all that fact-based, expert quoting or politically objective. They like to fuel FL Republicans' fears.

I would get more media info on who's there.

Most important are Florida gun laws. The state of Florida has some explaining to do.

I would, if I were you, demand to know why a guy who's been investigated twice by the FBI for terrorist connections is able to buy TWO guns, straw buyer or no.

Take care.

[ellennelle]

44. drowning in koolaid

likely THE most brilliant, knowledgeable, and principled man on the planet, who has turned out - despite being 'left' for several decades - to be right/er, CORRECT on every single issue he's ever addressed.

to criticize him suggests you know NOTHING about him but what you're being told to, er, swallow.

moreover, to suggest that he is so 'far far far to the left of what the vast majority of Americans have democratically supported for 230 years' exposes your own lack of knowledge about the facts of the matter, that you are shilling the propaganda you've swallowed, and that you are to the right of the vast majority of Americans over the past 230 years.

to bring yourself up to speed, may i suggest for starters that you read both manufacturing consent and howard inn's a people's history of the united states.

you can get back to me after that for real, informed discussion.

tho i highly suspect you won't bother.

predictable.

[Betty Karlson]

89. His political conviction may be anachronistic. (And to be fair: so is Third Way conviction.)

His perspective may still be spot-on, though. Outsiders sometimes have a better view of dynamics at work within an organisation - dynamics you would have more difficulty spotting when on the inside.

[ellennelle]

93. ok, well then

i suppose your elite credentials make you the arbiter of truth and reality. i share such credentials, but i'd never try to make an argument by sliming a person and his credentials or background. nerdy? really? why go there? what does that add to your argument or your position?

for the record, i share your personal age and history, with ten years on HMS/MGH staff, fwiw. we can be dueling elite fossils, i suppose. have also met chomsky and attended several lectures, including on language, not just political.

'hardened' is hardly a word that would come anywhere near my description of him (tho i am writing a book that disputes his language theory). consistent and persistent, yes, principled beyond reproach; but not hardened. in fact, he's one of the gentlest souls i've ever encountered.

to reference that 'red diaper' crap (sorry for that image) is ...well, what the hell is that? a smear of despicable proportions, i'd say, and certainly not fitting to your sophisticated background. again, forgive the image.

but what you may feel are opinions upheld by 'a tiny minority of americans' are in fact, well, shared by most. when polled without names or labels included, americans are extremely left and progressive in their opinions about issues. and actually have been all along; it's the propaganda machinery (that noam exposed so eloquently in manufacturing consent) that has shaped the narrative.

a narrative you apparently have bought into, judging from your opinions here, because you don't offer any facts. having followed chomsky as closely as i have and do, i can say with some conviction that he does not typically truck in his opinions. whenever you see that he has shared one, it's just about always when he is asked. and he is unfailingly modest about it.

what he does truck in, to an astonishingly prolific degree, are facts. he's a walking encyclopedia of american history that never makes it to the MSM. not because he is wrong, but because he is so correct. the MSM want no part of anyone calling the government out on their crimes, domestic and foreign, because their corporate owners love the war machine of empire. american interests translates as corporate interests, and if you reject that notion, we'll just have to part ways at that premise.

if you recognize these facts, then you should welcome chomsky's relentless exposure of the truths supporting the premise, and see as well that hillary clinton is and always has been on board/in bed with that corporate empire. (which, to be clear, matches mussolini's definition of fascism).

if you don't recognize these facts, then i am not sure what to make of you, or your opinions.

[ellennelle]

105. saw that

that absolves you of the rest of it how?

[ellennelle]

111. well i sure wasn't to flatter him

or yourself.

either way, it did not make a point, or advance yours.

whatever that point might be.

[ellennelle]

125. backatcha

and i appreciate your gracious comment.

but i'll bet we don't actually disagree that much about the political things that really matter.

peace, bro.

[rjsquirrel]

263. Likewise

on a day like today it's good to make peace.

I suspect we do care about the same things and that's why we have both devoted ourselves to science. What I want most is a rational society.

And it feels very far away today.

Peace out.

[reACTIONary]

220. LOL - spot on. eom

[Proud Liberal Dem]

84. Lots of Republicans don't like Trump

Hillary getting some Republican endorsements doesn't mean much more than that IMHO. Besides, weren't some Bernie supporters arguing that Bernie would do better at drawing some Republican support (and he might be getting the same endorsements if he was going to be the nominee)?

[Betty Karlson]

88. And... we have someone playing the Trump card!

Get your Tin-Ear bingo cards ready, people.

[a2liberal]

181. Different Republicans

Bernie supporters are talking about lower to middle class average Americans who are in actuality just as fed up with the corrupt system that keeps us all down (and also find an honest politician refreshing). The Republicans endorsing Hillary are part of the elite that are responsible for the perpetuation of that system.

[AntiBank]

192. don't forget neocon PNAC Iraq war demigod Robert Kagan

and the rest of the Kagan clan. including his wife Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland and fatneck Fred his brother.

[A Simple Game]

170. Exactly, Noam Chomsky needs to catch up.

The Democratic party went past moderate Republican years ago.

[Duval]

174. How nice.

NOT!

[AntiBank]

184. flesh that chippy little intellectually vapid comment out. And no, putting up a US flag smiley

after your ad hominem doesn't count. You posited an extreme individual broadbrush smear. Back it up with a pointed, cogent defence.

[wyldwolf]

4. STFU Noam

[Gene Debs]

5. I will ask you if he's wrong, and will get crickets in response. This is my prediction.

[wyldwolf]

9. Yes he's wrong

The Democratic Party is more liberal than it has ever been

[randr]

11. The red baiting of Chomsky proves otherwise

[wyldwolf]

20. That's stupid

You assume communism means being liberal and calling someone out for what they are is conservative.

The Democratic Party has always even anti-communist. There has never been a point where the party embraced that failed system.

[Zen Democrat]

39. Chomsky is no Commie. And there was a time in the 30's and 40's when Democrats embraced Socialism.

And Roosevelt had a Socialist veep in Henry Wallace. Wallace was pulled off the ticket in '44 because Roosevelt was sick and the military industrial muscle needed a veep who would do as he was told and do things like dropping the bombs and pursuing a Cold War. Ergo, Harry Truman and the National Security State. We're still fighting that power. And we're and always have been Democrats. Just because you're a Blue Dog doesn't mean there aren't more Yellow Dogs out there.

[wyldwolf]

55. The Democratic Party has embraced elements of socialism

But never straight socialism. FDR dropped Wallace who promptly lost a 'progresive' bid for president.

The Democratic Party has never been a bastion of socialism no matter how much "progressives' try to revise history.

[merrily]

240. Progressive is not a synonym of socialism.

[wyldwolf]

241. Who said it was? Yet, it's always 'progressives' who pine away for it

[merrily]

244. Your post certainly strongly implied it.

[wyldwolf]

247. no it didn't

[merrily]

250. .

[wyldwolf]

253. .

[Scuba]

12. Bwahaaaahaaaaa. Damn, wyldwolf, that's a thigh-slapper! Good one!

[wyldwolf]

22. It's true, though

[Plucketeer]

112. I agree

truly a thigh-slapper!

[ellennelle]

53. hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

whooooo. stop. i can't breathe, laughing so. damn. hard.

[wyldwolf]

63. No substance - just girlish giggles

[ellennelle]

101. uh no

not girlish- going on 67.

and so not giggles, but guffaws.

i saved my substantive replies for substantive comments.

[wyldwolf]

138. And it shows

[ellennelle]

185. thank you

for complimenting my "substantive responding."

i'm not at all alone here; you might want to pay attention; you might learn a thing or two.

[Thirties Child]

73. The Democratic Party Is More Liberal than It's Ever Been ?????????????

More liberal than FDR?
More liberal than the Great Society?

I was a child during the FDR years, a 30s something during the Great Society. There's no comparison. You are either too young to know what you're talking about, or your ideas of history are skewed.

Chomsky is absolutely right. The Republicans are where the John Birchers once were, the Democrats are moderate Republicans, and the Democratic party as I once knew it is no more.

[wyldwolf]

77. Yes???

Since the the great society and the new deal are still intact, where was the party of LBJ and FDR on:

Abortion rights?
Gay rights?
Gun control?
Racism?

[JBoy]

103. Ridiculous assertion.

Where we are today is due to continuing to build on past progress.

What you're claiming is like saying because we now have smartphones and robotic surgery we must all be more intelligent than ever before.

[wyldwolf]

137. Can't answer?

[passiveporcupine]

330. It was a good answer

You may not understand it.

[Turin_C3PO]

116. The Democratic platform

was more economically progressive for a time. Civil rights issues are better than ever, I agree with that.

[RoccoR5955]

259. Theoretically Civil Rights may be better.

But how is it in practice? Yes, and we are more economically progressive. There's more welfare for the upper class than there ever was.

[passiveporcupine]

329. Social issues keep progressing,

Things that you think are progressive today will be laughed at in the future, because we will have progressed so much further socially by then.

Economic progress died 30 years ago in this country. We are regressing as a people, economically. Sure we have more money at the top, but the majority of people are falling behind. Middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing. This has been going on for a long time now, regardless of which party was in the white house.

That is NOT progressive, or even liberal.

For some reason, many of you Hillary supporters think that economics don't matter...only social issues do.

They both matter to a real liberal. They both matter to a real progressive.

[Gene Debs]

75. That statement is so absurd that it makes it impossible to take anything else

you might say seriously. I'm going to usher you past the velvet rope into Club Ignore.

[wyldwolf]

80. I can think of nothing I'd enjoy more

... Than to be ignored by a narcissistic 'progressive.'

[Scootaloo]

150. Either you have a poor grasp of history, a poor grasp of the party, or a poor grasp of the word.

[wyldwolf]

152. "Progressives" have been in a bubble so long...

... They actually believe their own revisionism.

"Progressives" lose again.

[A Simple Game]

172. A bubble has two sides, it seems some don't realize which side of the bubble they are on. n/t

[Scootaloo]

217. I seriously don't think you understand any of the words you're trying to use

But you're doing a fine job of showing us all who you actually are.

[Duval]

179. You are making a joke, right?

[7962]

28. HE'S WRONG. hope that was louder than the crickets. nt

[ellennelle]

59. you can say it as loud as you like

BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE HIM WRONG!

facts, sadly for you, support him.

[7962]

164. Well, you said youd get crickets & you didnt. Facts are what makes him wrong

Most of the Democratic platform items are supported by more people than the pieces of the GOP platform. If you dont think thats moving in the right direction, then fine, theres always the Green Party.
Pointing out people who normally are voting GOP are now voting for Hillary only means that Trump has alienated THAT many people, not that the Dems are further right than before

[ellennelle]

186. never mentioned crickets

you're replying to the wrong person.

but while i'm here, i'll just point out you make no sense. here or anywhere else.

it would be too tiresome to count the many ways.....

[7962]

195. You are correct, another poster referred to the crickets

But my posts regarding Chomsky's nonsense make perfect sense to anyone with an open mind

[ellennelle]

321. a mind so open

it's a sieve, maybe.

[ellennelle]

51. ooh, nice

great way to advance informed debate and win over left thinkers to hillary's right center side.

see comment #44, please.

[wyldwolf]

64. Says the girlish giggler from post 53

[ellennelle]

120. again

almost 67 and still buckled over in guffaws.

[wyldwolf]

136. And it shows.

[zentrum]

6. It's hardly "now"

Has been moving right of center (Repub lite) since the Clinton-founded, Koch-funded, Dick Morris-advised creation of the DLC.

But the creep has been "incremental"—like the technique for boiling frogs.

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. I'm not sure if "moderate" is the word I'd use.

Gore Vidal had a snappier quote, expressing the same idea:

"A one party state: The Money Party; with two right wings." ( Close to verbatim.)

[Trust Buster]

17. Chomsky must not understand our form of government. In order to swing this country progressively

to the Left, we MUST have the political means to do so. We currently do not have the political means. Chomsky's time would be better served if he organized a grass roots effort to have like minded progressives elected to the state and federal legislatures. Just being a serial complainer won't get it done.

[TransitJohn]

86. Yeah, it's Noam fucking Chomsky who doesn't know how the government works

and needs to do more grassroots work.
Seriously, WTF is up with this place anymore?

[Trust Buster]

90. I'm just stating the facts. In 2020, this country is going to perform a Census. Shortly thereafter,

redistricting will commence in 50 states. If we find ourselves in the same position as 2010, where 37 of the 50 state legislatures were Republican controlled, then the Republicans will continue to have the power to stop any and all progressive legislation in the House. Does your guru Chomsky have any advice on that count ?

[TransitJohn]

92. Guru?

WTF are you talking about? Who do you think you are?

[AntiBank]

335. Neoliberal Underground?

[jalan48]

19. Well, how many former Democratic Presidential Candidates gave secret speeches to Wall Street?

Or, is Wall Street considered liberal now?

[jalan48]

29. Just in-Liberals are rocking Wall Street.

[jalan48]

35. Secret speeches convey a message-a liberal one perhaps?

[jalan48]

41. Hillary is a banker?

[randr]

60. No is the answer

The bankers have more rights than most Americans. They can steal us blind and get bailed out when they spend all their stolen money.
As far as fair trials go, what would we have to compare to?
The only person who went down in the grand theft of the the century was a character who stole from the rich.

[randr]

119. What a lame excuse for lack of self control

[ellennelle]

189. more like

what a lame excuse for a conspiracy.

brings to mind the tobacco criminals, does it not? etc. ad nauseam.

were the democratic party more in line with its own historical past, wall street banks would be busted by anti-trust laws.

but, despite these and other laws still in place, democratic presidents since clinton have chosen to ignore the ones they have not destroyed (e.g., glass-steagall). ooh, right; only 2, clinton and obama.

so randr, methinks we may have smoked out a wall street shill; a well-paid, elite shill making excuses for banks who collectively operate to maintain their cushy status quo at the expense of working folk? or a well-paid elite lawyer who uses the law the elite have crafted to teach students how to do the same to keep the elite in place, and the rabble in their place?

something like that. at any rate, thx randr for helping expose the truth here.

[randr]

190. My bullshit meter is on high alert today

I am surprised the Hillary crowd hasn't figured this one out.

[ellennelle]

219. and kudos for that!

so high on it, in fact, it appears the defender of bankers' rights has vanished.

good on ya for that!

[OnyxCollie]

74. Bankers are American citizens with *more* rights than us.

During the 1950’s, the pluralist theory of power maintained that various social groups, holding a diverse collection of interests, acted as a countervailing force against corporate power (Joseph, 1982). It was necessary for corporations, further disadvantaged by heterogeneity and the constraints of public opinion, to compete against other interest groups to influence government.

Charles Lindblom criticized this theory, maintaining that there was “privileged position of business” (1977, p. 5, as cited in Joseph, 1982) which permitted decisions affecting society to be made by corporate executives, not government officials. This public authority stemmed from property rights, protected by the government, which provided for corporate control of assets that, in turn, included authority granted by the government.

In addition, Lindblom (1977, as cited in Joseph, 1982) argued that government depends on corporations to perform essential functions, lest there be great social disruption. Despite this serious concern, government is constitutionally precluded from compelling corporations to perform, and must resort to inducements to provoke business management to act:

To induce business managers to perform, governments must give them not everything they ask for, but everything they need for sufficiently profitable operation. Policy-making consequently comes under a special control by business: government officials must listen to business with special care; must find out what business needs even if it does not take the trouble to speak for itself; must give managers enough of what they need to motivate production, jobs, and growth; and must in so doing give them special rights of consultation and actual participation in the setting of policies (Lindblom, 1977, pp. 254, 255).

[seabeckind]

143. Wait! It's the corporations are people argument.

Where have I heard that?

Here's the response: The banker wears 2 hats. One hat is the one that identifies him as a people, like the one talked about in our historical documents. Those rights, as well as the ones added by law, are inalienable.

The other hat is the one that defines him as Banker. Any rights derived under that hat are as defined in the specific charter that allows his bank to do business within OUR society.

When he has that hat on he most certainly does NOT have the same rights as me as a person.

All it takes for his bank to be put to death is to have that charter ripped up. That's it. Done. Gone. History.

Maybe the bank can bring suit.... if our society agrees that his corporation (the one that no longer exists) has the right to sue.

There ya go.

[edhopper]

32. Wrong Noam

while the current Dem leadership is Center/left, the GOP never supported Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Unions etc.
The Dems always did, and still do.

[seabeckind]

47. Small "d" democrats.

Big "D" Democratic Party likes the power.

They would sell any of the things you mention in a minute.

[Fuddnik]

49. Except when they go behind closed doors with Newt to gut it.

Or appoint Catfood Commissions to kill it.

Nothing Center-Left about it anymore.

[edhopper]

57. Which the Dems

never adopted and never will.

Instead Obama expanded Medicaid and Hillary wants to raise SS taxes on the wealthy and increase payments.

[Fuddnik]

65. Bill Clinton and Obama both tried.

They have a track record.

And I don't believe Hillary will raise the cap for one second. For that matter, neither the Dems in Congress. I had a Congresswoman (a repuke) tell me point blank, that none of them will vote themselves a tax increase. A rare moment of honesty.

[passiveporcupine]

331. You guys all really bought into this left swing of Hillary's didn't you?

She only started to swing left when she saw Bernie's popularity soaring, and everyone knows that campaign speeches are not necessarily the direction the politician will go once elected. For that you have to look at history, and historically Bernie has always been consistent. Noam has always been consistent. Obama fooled us. He was so good at his speeches we really thought he was a progressive, but he wasn't. Hillary is not fooling anyone but her supporters. She has always skewed left socially and right economically.

As soon as she's deep in the trenches, fighting Trump, she will start to fall back to her real position. And once elected President, she will shift back even faster.

Unless somehow Bernie can keep the pressure on (with our help). We need you Bernie, now more than ever.

[appalachiablue]

70. +5

[Gene Debs]

79. If the modern Democratic Party could get rid of any of those things without

committing political suicide, they'd do it in a hot second.

[Cosmic Kitten]

257. HA HA really???

?1354811978

[Wednesdays]

327. Well, that does it. Fold the tents, the argument's over.

A single propaganda poster from sixty years ago PROVES the entire GOP has been fighting tooth-and-nail in favor of social security and labor! I mean, we can always trust them on their word when they call for "a kinder, gentler America" and "No Child Left Behind," right? And they've always been there for African-Americans, because, you know, Lincoln.

Unless your post was meant as sarcasm, in which I missed the part where you said it was sarcastic. I'll admit there's plenty of sarcasm in my post, how about you?

[Broward]

40. Many Dems today are to the right of Nixon whether they know it or not.

[StoneCarver]

66. Nixon created the EPA

And he signed COLAS into SS. What democrat could do that today?
Stonecarver

[still_one]

45. Right, all the Democrats who voted for Hillary are really republicans. What bullshit

[seabeckind]

48. A rose by another name. n/t

[vi5]

109. Not today....

But 30 years ago they would have been moderate Republicans.

I'm not sure how that is even a point that can be argued. The modern Democratic party is socially liberal and with few exceptions, adheres to most tenets of Reagan era fiscal conservatism (low taxes, deregulation, "reforming" education, "reforming social security", minimizing the influence of unions, etc.).

Again prior to say the unhinged Newt Gingrich era which signaled the Republicans move off the far right deep end, people who were socially liberal but fiscally conservative were called moderate republicans.

[7962]

46. Tell it to the millions of registered DEMOCRATS who vote regularly.

he just wants all his blind little followers to have something new to teeth on.

[seabeckind]

54. What? No koolaide reference? n/t

[Fuddnik]

56. I think he's trying to bive you something to wrap your teeth around.

Chomsky is one of the most brilliant observers of our time.

You should try reading him, instead of knee-jerk reactions.

[7962]

169. I have read many of his works. Thats why i dont think much of him.

i think he's just another self-important guy who will come out with stuff like this because it keeps him in the public eye.
When he equated the Paris terrorist attacks with military attacks by the West, he became even more pathetic.
His open support for a French Holocaust denier was bad enough as well. Not to mention being included in his book.
He has written that there was an alliance between the US and the Nazis.
He denied the Pol Pot genocide ever occurred, and when he could no longer stand up against the proof that it did, he blamed the US for that as well
The list of his falsehoods & fabrications is a long one. But if you've read him, you should already know that
He's a blowhard who has a lot of people fooled into thinking he's some brilliant "thinker"

[Fuddnik]

337. I don't know what you've been reading, but it sure wasn't Chomsky.

I have read several of his books, and lots of his articles, and he doesn't talk any of the bullshit you're saying.

A good place for your a rebuttal to your Pol Pot nonsense would be "Manufacturing Consent"." Failed States" would be another.

On the outside chance that you did read anything by him, you sure didn't comprehend what he was saying.

[Triana]

60. I told you so. N/t

[davidthegnome]

68. With respect to Mr. Chomsky...

There are many hands, that are not all that obvious, that are also holding up the democratic party. There are those of us who believe deeply in progressive and liberal ideals, thoughts and policies. There are those of us who are indeed much, much more to the left... who are doing all that we can to make the world a better place. We are not moderate republicans, or any kind of republican. We are democrats, liberals, progressives, independents, people with passion and compassion - with strong values, who are working to make the world a better place. We have succeeded, over and over again. Our passion and our beliefs are reflected in the accomplishments of those like FDR, like Ted Kennedy. In programs we inspired, like medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, welfare - and many, many other things.

Do not neglect our hands. Do not think that we are not there, that we do not watch, listen - and continue to fight for what we believe to be right. Yes, at times, we make common cause with moderates, centrists - and even conservative democrats. This is because there are goals that most of us have in common - despite our differences.

Better protection for the environment, better regulation of environmental policies and standards. Stronger financial regulation. A stronger social safety net for those who fall through the cracks. A nation in which there is greater equality for all, in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, financial status, or what have you. Civil rights that continue to march forward and do not fall behind. Better rights and opportunities for the working class and the working public. Fairer treatment for everyone.

We, most of us, in any event, agree on these basic things. There is some disagreement about how to accomplish them, but they are what we commonly want and are fighting for. We will have them in time, because we do not give up.

With respect to Mr. Chomsky, the democratic party is in millions of hands - and most of those millions are not, by any means, moderate republicans.

[stopbush]

78. Yawn.

Like a broken record, Chomsky plays the same cue on cue every time.

[ellennelle]

81. THANK U SO MUCH FOR THIS LINK!!

but i have to say, i am literally stunned at the ignorant vitriol spewing from hillary supporters here.

you know, you folks are utterly vicious, nasty, and uninformed, not to mention literally drowning in the propaganda koolaid, as i noted above.

but what good examples you have in the MSM, who of course are all in for their corporate lapdog hillary; they know she won't do anything to rock their boat/er, gravy train. jonathon capehart, for one, who was a key player in that despicable CBC PAC orchestration of bernie swift boating back in february. if you hillary folks don't know what i'm referencing, then you're not paying attention. which is already quite clear.

but, to my point here, check out capehart's latest offering:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/06/08/this-is-how-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-are-the-same-person/

note how polite, how courteous, how respectful and gracious and gosh, nice. obviously this guy did not get the memo on wooing the bernie supporters, eh?

so this is what we're to expect from DU hillarybots for the duration of this campaign?

of course, given that hillary schillary david brock has invested millions in the online troll system, however will we know who's swallowing and who's, er, pouring?

you guys have become a cult, pure and simple.

yuck.

anyhow, rocco, thanks so much for bringing some much-needed light into this increasingly depraved situation on DU. i can hardly stand to acknowledge it as democratic in any way, but underground - you betcha!

[deathrind]

83. He is 100% correct.

Thank you Mr. Chomsky.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

91. This is not the DU of the early 2000's, and that's a shame.

[elljay]

94. I could care less about what Chomsky says

but I am old enough to remember the Republican and Democratic Parties of the 60s. Today's Democratic Party has very similar positions to the now-extinct liberal and moderate Republicans of that era. It is a fact, whether you like it or not. Bill Clinton made no secret of his moving the party to the center ( meaning rightward) and Obama did make that statement about being a moderate Republican of that era. Look up Lowell Weicker, Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller and even the policy positions of Nixon and Eisenhower. They are much closer to today's Democratic positions than to today's insane Republican positions. If you just can't accept that, then you will never understand why Bernie Sanders came out of nowhere, with no name recognition, money or support and pushed Hillary until the last week.

[JEB]

102. Ab-so-fucking-lutely correct. nt

[brentspeak]

96. The Republican wing of the Democratic party. n/t

[baldguy]

99. I think this proves that Chomsky et al are not interested in countering the fascism of the GOP.

But are only intent on tearing down the only viable political entity that can.

[ellennelle]

118. just, wow

you guys really do not get it at all, do you?

elsewhere here i posted mussolini's definition of fascism:

the marriage of the state with corporate power.

CHOMSKY HAS BEEN ALL ABOUT EXPOSING THAT HISTORY OF FASCISM IN OUR GOVERNMENT FOR DECADES!!

and he, unlike hillarybots, is not so cultishly embedded in the propaganda that he believes the democratic party is immune to that same fascism.

you can't fight fascism if you are a fascist, i.e., married/in bed with corporate power.

hillary is in bed with corporate power. or have you failed to notice?

sure the GOP is fascist, but that does NOT mean the democratic party is not.

to think the democratic party is immune to fascism is far far far more dangerous than donald trump is.

[baldguy]

132. Oh, please! Have a little acknowledgment of reality here.

Trump is the current face of American fascism. He's not a Democrat. Yet here's Chomsky deriding Democrats.

There's a long-ingrained logical disconnect in Chomsky's argument.

[Gene Debs]

242. ellennelle's right, not only do you not get it, you're determined not to get it. You're

being so dense that light bends around you, and it can't be anything but deliberate on your part.

[baldguy]

258. When was the last time Chomsky criticized an acual Republican?

[Gene Debs]

260. What the hell does that have to do with anything!? How does that have any bearing whatsoever on

whether his statement is true or not?

It doesn't. Density confirmed.

[baldguy]

280. There are GOP fascists on one side, and Democrats opposing them on the other.

Chomsky goes after only the Democrats. Always. He helps make it more difficult to defeat those fascists.

And you think that doesn't matter.

[Gene Debs]

283. So I'll ask again. Is Chomsky's above statement wrong?

[baldguy]

302. Of course it is - because it's a lie.

He's laying blame on the wrong people, and you're eating it up.

And every time that happens, the fascist Donald Trump smiles.

[Gene Debs]

305. Oh, for fuck's sake. Now "Trump smiles." Welcome to my ignore list.

[baldguy]

308. You ignore the truth.

[ellennelle]

322. ah, you cut to the chase

only republicans bad, therefore only democrats good.

so sorry, that is not at all how logic works.

nor the real world.

and clearly you know nothing of chomsky. he goes after those in power. he criticizes whomever is abusing it. he was relentless after bush, and he has been relentless after obama.

i so hate to break it to ya, baldguy, but being a dem - sadly - does NOT protect or absolve you from committing crimes or evil.

[baldguy]

349. I believe that the GOP is uniquly evil.

And what he's saying is that there's no difference between the two parties - then often repeated & often debunked RW talking point designed to sap support from progressives and the Democrats -

AND WHICH IS TOTAL HORSESHIT!

Barack Obama is not a "moderate" version of George W Bush. Hillary Clinton is not a "moderate" version of Donald Trump. To believe that a person would need to be either very, very stupid, very, very ignorant, or insane.

[ellennelle]

353. you are scary, sir

first of all, you don't seem to be even registering what is being said to you here.

i'll try to simplify it even further.

second, NO ONE is saying there are NO differences between the GOP and the dems, not even chomsky. he has said more than once, if you live in a deep red or blue state, don't vote for trump, that would not be smart. so he is on record as recognizing the differences at that level.

third, tho, you really have to step back and get some critical distance here, enough to look in the mirror and see just how dangerously close to a cult you start sounding like when you make this "GOP EVIL, DEMS GOOD" noise. that is truly scary.

fourth, what chomsky is trying to point out is that (and if you'd really followed exactly what he is saying, instead of just reading a headline, you'd know this) on matters of foreign policy, the US presence in the world is relentless and aggressive in matters of establishing and maintaining empire on this planet, to the benefit of an elite few and the destruction of the increasingly impoverished many. it used to be true mostly everywhere else, but it's now increasingly true here, as well. and his point is that hillary will be even more aggressive and relentless in these ways than obama has been.

so, in these respects, yes - obama is indeed a moderate version of bush (we're still enmeshed in the middle east, and have taken aggressive steps elsewhere, thx to him and hillary; or haven't you noticed?), and hillary and trump? given he is currently (he changes with the wind more than she does, so who knows what he really thinks) saying iraq was a mistake and we don't need so many wars, etc., so on those counts he is less a war hawk than she is. [warning: do NOT interpret that to mean trump is better than hillary; he is insane, where she is smart enough to be calculatingly dangerous.]

see, you're seeing all this in black and white, the way cults do - and the way the media sells it - when there's just tons of nuance and subtlety; these things make a big difference.

and, where chomsky makes his greatest contribution, he somehow manages to catalogue all this source info in his encyclopedic memory from combing not the TV or tabloids, but obscure US government journals and documents. in other words, he digs into the real sources and gets the info from the horse's mouth.

he is an invaluable resource precisely because he spends his time reading all this deep, first point resource material, and then sharing it with us. nobody pays him to do this; he is paid by MIT to teach linguistics, not dog the government. in other words, he is doing the job the media should be doing but does not, and he pretty much does the research part for free.

which brings me to yet another treasure chomsky has shared with us, his masterful manufacturing consent, which describes in exquisite detail just how it is that the media is brainwashing the population thru filtering the info and distracting the consumers. until you read (or see; also a film) that, and reread (assuming you have already) 1984, you're clearly missing so much of what is actually happening here.

in short, you've been had.

[Stainless]

100. All I want to say is fuck you to the Chomsky critics on this DU thread.........

Most of you are too ignorant and naive to know anything about exactly how far to the right the Democratic Party has moved in the last fifty years.

I am going to hold my nose and vote for Hillary simply because she is the lesser of two evils. I fully expect her to ignore the Progressives and to fully support the corporate agenda as she always has.

Meanwhile, Progressive Democrats are going to take back our party and ensure that the main focus is on people centered issues and not on corporations and the rich. Those of you who disagree should go back to being Republicans and take your party back.

[Gomez163]

106. I just find him incoherent and frivolous.

[ellennelle]

107. omg. you people are beyond bizarre

chomsky? incoherent? frivolous???

that is just so ridiculous, it renders you incoherent. and frivolous.

[Gomez163]

114. No. I liked John Kenneth Galbraith. Chomsky is vapid and useless.

[ellennelle]

127. you do realize

you just contradicted your first comment?

vapid is hardly frivolous.

useless?

oh good grief; why do i bother?

[Gomez163]

129. He's boring too

[ellennelle]

135. ah! that's what i thought!

he's boring for folks who cannot bother with the details.

of the truth.

carry on, boring one.

[The Far Left]

151. American democracy died 30 years ago.

Remember the 2013 study by Gilens and Page?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy

[ellennelle]

187. thx for this reminder

appreciate your insertion of yet more facts. seems to be reviled in these parts.

lordy, i'm just stunned how abundantly these truths are ignored here at DU anymore.

it makes me quite fearful for the future.

and pretty determined to stop stopping in.

but then, i'd miss breaths of fresh air, like yours!

thx again.

[NorthCarolina]

117. It's true, but her supporters aren't willing to admit it openly. They are apparently

embarrassed to stand up for their real convictions...at least on a Democratic Party board. That's why issues are never discussed here, and only personal attacks back and forth take place. Do they support $15/hr? No. Will they say it? Mostly no. Do they consider healthcare a right? No. Will they openly admit it? No. Are they adverse to trade agreements like the TPP? No. Will they give their reasons for supporting it? No. Better to just throw some anti-Bernie comments and avoid any real discussion, and most of all "truth".

[Duval]

182. +1

[craigmatic]

122. He's correct. Compared to FDR, LBJ, and President Carter we're closer to moderate repubs in

the 1950's. The modern democratic party is somewhere between a George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter politically.

[muktiman]

123. Exactly right

Establishment Democrats are the 21st century non-crazy republicans. Yes, that is it.
The Democratic primary that we just endured was a corporatist coup more than a true democratic election.
Shame on the Party; any clear thinking progressive would be sickened by it.

The PTB are clinging to power at all costs.

History shows there can be a revolution at the ballot box - or there can be a revolution in the streets.
We will see how this all ends, but in the mean time, I cannot call myself a Democrat anymore.

And America will get the president that it deserves.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

128. Subs

[LWolf]

131. Unfortunately, your suggestion doesn't even

need the sarcasm tag.

It's like dropping into another dimension here these days.

[ellennelle]

133. THANKS AGAIN, SO MUCH!!

rocco, this was obviously interesting, and exposed a great deal about where folks are coming from here (at least the ones who were not generated by correct the record's troll bots). or by the propaganda machinery.

it is deeply saddening that so many folks here are ...well, as you say, 'moderate republicans', and they don't even realize it.

truth is hard. but so much easier to manage when you're true to yourself.

again, i so appreciate this link, and this reminder of why i so seldom visit DU anymore, and rarely to almost never ever comment.

it has become pretty frustrating.

but mostly just sad.

[passiveporcupine]

333. Hearing what some people here have had to say about Chomsky

has really opened my eyes to who and what our democratic party seems to attract lately.

I'm a little stunned at how easily some people have bought the propaganda against him.

[Locrian]

350. it doesnt fit

It doesn't fit with their current worldview. One based on identity politics and loyalty to the (what amounts to) the king (or now queen).

Stunning to see the twists and turns as they justify one thing after another. Which if you read Chomsky, he's all ABOUT revealing the complex issues and how group think and power systems take on a life of their own.

[yallerdawg]

140. What a crock of manure!

I am not a "moderate Republican" and neither is Hillary Clinton.

The campaign hyperbolic rhetoric needs to end.

[gordianot]

144. To the right of Ronnie Reagan.

My Rosetta Stone are the trade deals. International Corporate Trade Deals.

[Gman]

145. Don't let the door...

[stupidicus]

146. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838

the minions either support it or are blissfully unaware of what they are like their more "right" cousins

it's the reason for the intra-party battle being waged between the HC and BS camps and why they've tried to pin the "far left extremists" label on BS supporters.

it's also why they "debate" like their rightwing cousins as well.

[seabeckind]

159. Ain't that the truth?

I just commented to my wife yesterday that these arguments look like the textbook of fallacies from my college years.

Argument to authority, Argument to tradition, Argument to populism, and so on.

[stupidicus]

177. yep

it was the first thing I noticed upon starting to participate here after almost a decade of using it as a news aggregating service.

[Odin2005]

148. Lots of moderate Republicans in denial in this thread.

IIRC there is one vocal Hillary supporter here that actually works on Wall Street and she doesn't understand why we poors think the economy is shit.

[immoderate]

153. "Democratic Underground" will be renamed as "Democratic Establishment."

Special privileges for corporate members.

--imm

[RoccoR5955]

163. I like

Republican-Lite Underground better myself!

[immoderate]

167. How about, Republican-Lite Establishment?

Fits.


--imm

[L. Coyote]

154. Good thing we have Noam to decide which party we belong to. Otherwise, how would we know?

What can I say Noam, "I'm proud to be a moderate Republican in that case."

The Epic Inanity of ‘Both Parties are the Same’

The Epic Inanity of ‘Both Parties are the Same’

Even as someone who has spent most of his life voting third party, the claim that there’s no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is simply one of the most ridiculous and reality-defying statements of epic bullshit I have ever heard in my life and I cannot take seriously anyone who makes that claim....

I really admire the amount of restraint in that statement. I'm thinking "You gotta be fucking nuts and moronic too" to believe such crapola."

Ed Brayton goes on:

Only one party has passed more than 100 anti-choice bills after taking control of state legislatures in 2010. Only one party has passed bills to defund Planned Parenthood, putting the healthcare of millions of women in jeopardy. Only one party is furiously opposed to paid parental leave.

Only one party passes bills to prevent trans people from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity. Only one party supports discrimination against LGBT people in every possible way. Only one party supports giving Christians a “get out of discrimination laws free” card. Only one party rails against marriage equality. Only one party includes organizations that demonize LGBT people as demon-possessed child molesters. Only one party supports gay reversion therapy.

Only one party tries constantly, in every possible way, to cut or eliminate food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies and every other imaginable means of support for the poor.

Only one party puts justices like Scalia, Alito and Thomas on the Supreme Court.

I could go on, ......

[tenderfoot]

158. I like that Chomsky managed to upset every "moderate" on the site.

nice.

[CharlotteVale]

160. He certainly hit a nerve.

[maindawg]

166. You get banned around here for pointing this out

The fact that Hillary is a center right politician is evident. That the Republican party's antics while they have destroyed their own party they have drug the Democratic party to the right. Because the billionaires have shifted their money to the Dems .
When the middle class the workers won a battle for union rights they thought they could rest. They won. But the evil billionaires never rest. When Teddy Roosevelt defeated the billionaires , they did not quit. They hired mode lawyers and doubled down on their efforts and 29 years later they crashed wall street. When Franklin built the middle class out of the ruins of failed capitalism the failed capitalists did not conform.they regrouped attempted a coup in 1939 were let off the hook and continued to conspire to destroy our republic. In 1960 the cams up with this bullshit about the public being an unfair monopoly. Convinced people to vote against their own interest. And invented the southern strategy. They never rest.
We rest, they never rest.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

168. Party labels have become meaningless and should be treated with skepticism.

The politicians rely on political expediency (aka collaboration) rather than on principles.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine

[ellennelle]

225. fantastic paine quote

huge thx!!

[Vinca]

171. That's what I've been saying.

Bernie temporarily returned the party to its roots, but it's obviously not going to stay there.

[Duval]

173. I have always had a great deal of respect for Noam Chomsky.

And I still do. The Democratic Party needs to get back to FDR New Deal. This is why we need Bernie Sanders for President. His platform is for US, the people.

[dawg]

175. I don't know about that. How far do you think Bernie Sanders would have got ...

in the Democratic primaries in 1992?

I'm guessing his percentage of the vote would have been a rounding error.

Sure, some party leaders are way more conservative than we would like. But the party base has been moving consistently to the left, and we are making them feel it. Hell, even Hillary will be an improvement over her husband.

[Loki]

205. What a bag of bull shit.

n/t

[FairWinds]

209. The Dems better watch it -

Trump has ridden a wave of popular disgust with corporate trade
agreements to the gates of the White House. It is his only real issue.

If HRC and the corporate dems think they can finesse that issue,
they could well lose - as when they went down to a crushing defeat
following the NAFTA vote in 1994.

[DJ13]

336. "The Dems better watch it" A cautionary tale for November

Again and again, primary voters who were most worried about the economy told pollsters that they had cast their ballots for Trump or Sanders, according to Edison Research, which conducted the surveys on behalf of The Associated Press and television networks.

Trump's candidacy, in particular, has been driven by support in some of the most economically distressed regions in the country, where jobs have been automated, eliminated, or moved to other states and countries. It's in these places that the outsider message of an unconventional candidate promising a return to the way things used to be resonates most.

The depth of that kind of insecurity after seven years of national economic expansion has caught many observers off guard.

"The political reaction to the economy leads me to wonder if we're looking at the wrong things," said Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at Northern Trust and former economist at the Federal Reserve. "The averages certainly don't tell the whole story."

Consider incomes for the average U.S. household. They ticked up 0.7 percent from 2008 to 2014, after taking inflation into account. But even that scant increase reflected mainly the rise in income for the richest tenth of households, which pulled up the average. For most others, incomes actually decreased — as much as 6 percent for the bottom 20 percent, at a time when the economy was mostly recovering.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/09/divided-america-rosy-economic-averages-bypass-many-in-us.html


Our party will try to use 'liberal" social issues to attract voters (as they always do), but people really want economic liberalism this time, anything less wont cut it.

[seabeckind]

347. I remember a guy who won on the cry: "It's the economy, stupid".

As I posted before, Obama was in Elkhart IN talking about economic recovery the very same day a company on the other side of town announced they were closing a factory and moving it to Mexico.

The very same day.

A company which was NOT losing money. It is very profitable... just not profitable enough for the investors.

We need change.

Yeah, Trump is a con man and won't do a dam thing about. We know that.

Neither will someone else.

[jamese777]

210. The American Conservative Union

The ACU rates every member of Congress on how they vote on the conservative politcal agenda.
Over his 25 years in Congress Bernie Sanders has a 6.32 out of 100 rating. Elizabeth Warren has a 4.0 rating and Hillary Clinton had a 8.13% rating from the ACU for her years in the Senate.
Here's what the American Conservative Union said about Hillary Clinton in 2014:
"Another interesting fact in our analysis is the stark reminder that Sec. Hillary Clinton is no moderate. While many in the media portray her as more centrist than self-described Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or fringe activist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Clinton’s lifetime rating of 8.13% is within two percentage points from those extremists. And shockingly, all three of these presidential hopefuls are even more liberal than President Barack Obama’s Lifetime Rating of 10% from when he served in the U.S. Senate. If America wants a third Obama term, three candidates will not disappoint."
http://conservative.org/acu-releases-2014-annual-ratings-of-congress/

[ellennelle]

215. this source is only partially helpful

it does position hillary higher with conservatives than either bernie or liz, but we have no clue what dimensions the ACU used to make these rankings.

their claim that any one of bernie or liz or hillary would 'not disappoint' those hoping for a 3rd term makes my point pretty well; bernie is not interested in staying the obama course, but expanding, building on, and improving it.

i daresay a rank ordering of these 3 - and others - would show substantial distances and differences on the dimensions that matter to most progressives. such as frakking, TPP, universal healthcare, $15 minimum wage, zero college debt, interventionism, breaking up the banks, palestine, and so on.

here's a chart that makes a lot more sense to me, though again, it is only looking at the dimensions of left/right, authoritarian/libertarian.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

thx, tho.

[jamese777]

223. If you look at the actual rankings

You can see every issue that members of Congress were ranked on each year.
For example, in 2007:
http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/?year1=2007&chamber=13&state1=45&sortable=1

There is no statistically significant difference between a 6 rating, a 4 rating or an 8 rating on a 100 point scale.
For comparison, Senator Bill Nelson, the Florida Democrat has a 28% conservative rating and Barack Obama had a 10% rating.
The point of this thread is does Hillary Clinton qualify as a "moderate Republican" and that claim is frankly absurd.

[ellennelle]

228. you apparently did not understand my point

i appreciate the link, but i couldn't make it show the dimensions on which the individuals would be ranked.

but more to my point, their rankings were made by republicans whose dimensions for ranking would differ significantly from those of progressives.

i choose not to rely on republicans to determine such comparisons, thank you very much.

i can tell you bernie supporters in particular, and progressives in general, can see worlds of differences between hillary and bernie. hence the powerful debates throughout this primary.

in contrast, conservatives do not see any differences between hillary, bernie, and liz. and neither do you.

now, what does that tell you?


sorry, that was kind of a cheap shot, but you're leaving yourself wide open for it. again, you're missing my point to you; i and no real progressive would be the least bit interested in a republican's comparison of progressives, any more than they would be interested in our clumping trump and cruz and kasich and the rest of them on dimensions of our choosing because things that matter to us don't matter to them, and vice versa!!!

what makes the difference is the choice of dimensions on which those comparisons are being made. i am unable to see what those are on your link, but i'd be willing to bet my personal copy of manufacturing consent (heh) that the dimensions they chose are nothing like what we would choose.

so why would you even bring this into the conversation? it proves absolutely nothing. except that conservatives believe there are no differences between hillary and bernie.

no one should be surprised, or the least bit interested.

[RoccoR5955]

224. I'll tell you how they get their "positions."

They pull them out of their posterior!

[jamese777]

227. They aren't "positions"

The rankings are based on actual votes on the final passage or defeat of bills that were voted on in the House and Senate.

[ellennelle]

229. ah; so who decides which of these are

progressive or conservative?

there's no good way to do that; it comes down to their opinion, which brings me back to my point.

why would i care what conservatives opinions about (the bills voted on by) these people?

they use an entirely different metric than i (and i'd say we, but ...not sure?) do.

[jamese777]

254. The American CONSERVATIVE Union

doesn't use opinion, it uses actual votes that each member of Congress takes on bills. Its a tabulation of voting records.

The American Conservative Union is not concerned with progressive ideology. That should be obvious from their name.

I prefer to look at how politicians actually vote on legislative bills rather than only looking at what they say in speeches and policy papers.

Using the "Vote Match" questionaire, ontheissues.org lists Hillary Clinton as ideologically a "hard core liberal." (See the very bottom of the page)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[ellennelle]

279. ah. were it so simple as a vote

these amendments and bills get so convoluted and weighed and played, i just cannot be swayed by that kind of narrow analysis. too much nuance gets lost in the shuffle. a bill might make the conservative have orgasms, but gets a vote from a progressive because it carries legislation that is extremely important, possibly even as a concession and/or compromise. and vice versa.

the bottom line tho, james, is that the ACU ranking is simply NOT any kind of reasonable metric on which to measure real differences between progressive politicians! of course they would see hillary as hard core liberal; that's their meme!

but, that is so not the reality. and not even by hillary's own admission; she calls herself - proudly - a moderate!

your link is interesting, but i've seen others that place her in the moderate republican camp. hard to say which methodology is more viable.

but this haggling just proves my point; you want to define this narrowly and specifically with a checklist; i think there are tons of folks who look at her overall record and history, and recognize - especially given her SoS turn - she harbors some pretty dangerous inclinations, and has made some disastrous decisions.

a seriously difficult thing for me, tho, is that she - as jon stewart so eloquently put it - does not have the courage of her convictions, because it is so hard to determine what they are, changing with the political winds.

and i do so wish that were the only difficulty i have with her. amongst even more others: she could the first presidential candidate in our history to be under FBI investigation.

that. just. creeps. me. out.

[RoccoR5955]

256. No they certainly are positions.

But you can call them whatever you want.
Personally, I believe that they come up with them from how far one's head is pushed up the corporate posterior.

[jamese777]

261. O.K.

If you want to call legislative bills "positions" you go right ahead.
Here's one example of a "position" that Hillary Clinton took as a Senator in 2008 that differed from the American Conservative Union's stated "position:"
Vote Description
Energy Production S. 2282 (Roll Call 123)

The Senate rejected an amendment allowing energy exploration in a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and allowing states to authorize oil drilling in their coastal waters. ACU favors these efforts to increase domestic energy supplies, but the amendment was defeated May 13, 2008 by a vote of 42-56.

[geomon666]

222. Never thought I'd see the day

where Noam Chomsky is ripped on this site. Unbelievable.

[ellennelle]

230. no kidding

it apparently has been attracting a very odd crowd these days.

and detracting me. ugh.

[cyberswede]

232. ...nor surprising who's doing it, though.

smh

[MaggieD]

226. Yeah because moderate rethugs also....

Would have brought us marriage equality to LGBT people, access to healthcare, women's reproductive rights, and....

Oh wait. No they wouldn't have. Sorry, I call bull on this old sad "they're the same" canard.

[MellowDem]

281. Marriage equality...

was opposed by most Democratic leaders until it became expedient for them not to. That was definitely achieved by the people, the Democratic leadership were mostly cowards, often willing to throw GLBT under the bus for political leverage for decades.

Access to healthcare is still not universal and used a Heritage Foundation idea from the 90s.

Women's reproductive rights were won by a Supreme Court decision, and that's where the battle remains. If popular sentiment ever became anti-choice, I have no doubt most of today's Democratic leadership would parrot along.

Moderate Republicans aren't the same as conservative Republicans, which is the point, they're different, but all still to the right.

[MaggieD]

294. I'm a lesbian

And an activist. Never actually met a rethug politician that was in favor of any the great things Dems have done even over the past decade.

Sorry, it's just foolish to say Dems or the Democratic Party should be compared to republicans of any stripe. Just ridiculous.

[MellowDem]

298. Democratic leaders are moderate conservatives...

on a lot of issues. The comparison is in ideology, and it's only a matter of "how conservative" between the parties on many issues.

Grassroots efforts have pushed the country to the left on a lot of social issues, not the Democratic leadership.

A two party system doesn't allow for a great diversity of ideological choice.

[MaggieD]

299. Again, false

I'm willing to bet you've never gone without healthcare or been prevented from marrying who you wanted to marry. And chances are you have no idea what it was like when back alley abortions were the main reproductive "choice."

Foolish to pretend there is no difference between Dems and ANY style of republican. Just utter folly, with some over wrought drama thrown in.

[MellowDem]

303. You aren't reading my posts...

I've clearly said there is a difference, but just in matters of "degrees of conservatism" on a lot of issues. I definitely don't give Democrats credit for near as much as you do, they followed behind others that made the push.

When it comes to the economy and foreign policy especially, the Democrats are very conservative IMHO.

They're better than Republicans, but that doesn't make them all that progressive, it's pretty easy to be better than Republicans.

[erlewyne]

239. I have nothing to do with the DNC and DWS!!!!

I will vote for whoever I damn please!

It will not be Hillary.

I will not vote Republican.

But. I will vote.

[ellennelle]

271. with you on that one!!

interestingly, noam had a typically brilliant and wise take on this.

his suggestion is that, if you live in a deep blue or deep red state, your vote will not make that much difference, so you can write in bernie.

it's the swing state voters that have to be more circumspect, and i do encourage deep and careful thoughts on this point.

but, living in MA like noam does, i was mighty relieved to realize hey, i do not have to vote for her!

never have, likely never will.

quite comforting.

[Gene Debs]

245. So can anyone suggest any genuine progressive sites that are structured like DU but truly

liberal and progressive?

[wyldwolf]

248. no, it took a dirty bunch of centrists to perfect the political discussion forum

[ellennelle]

275. your quote there

isn't that the guy who dropped the only nuclear bombs on humans in history?

isn't he the guy who helped shove out the best VP in our country's history, henry wallace, who established all those FDR programs everyone - except the radical right - loves so much?

i believe those are the programs truman considered 'radical'; the henry wallace folks.

i believe he also got us into that war in korea, for what damn reason has never been clear.

that was what started our trend toward empire. not anything to be proud of.

see, centrist democrats are those who are pulled to the right by those money guys, the ones who line their pockets with the blood of our youth and the tears of our hard-working citizens.

bill clinton and the DLC pulled the party all the way into bed with that icky ilk.

this is a source of great shame, not pride.

[cui bono]

252. He is EXACTLY RIGHT!

Well, except that it's Moderate Republicans and Extreme Republicans now.

Time for a new party to represent the left. No matter where you stand you should want that since without it the Extreme Republicans have more control than they would if the left were represented.

.

[JEB]

262. Chomsky nails the usurpers from the Right

for what they are. Moderate Republicans. We are supposed to swallow their swill just because they aren't bat shit crazy.

[ucrdem]

287. Chomsky the libertarian trots out this same simplistic slogan and gets the same genius treatment

every single damn election season. Hmm. It worked great for Nader, KBR and Junior, not so great for the rest of the world. Chomsky doesn't know any more than what he happens to catch on his telly but the bottom line is he's not a Dem and has no business opining on a subject he knows very little about.

Of course, that's never stopped him in 45 years.

[ellennelle]

318. just stunning

in your ignorance of the truth there.

chomsky is not a libertarian in the american, ayn rand sense, not by a long shot. he is a true libertarian of the original sense.

plus, he has forgotten more than you'll ever know, and a huge reason is he doesn't spend much time on the telly at all.

and, since you're not clear on the subject, he says the 'same damn thing' most days of the week, except he keeps adding more knowledge as time progresses. the facts don't change over time, unlike like opinions and political pandering. but, evidently you only notice he's speaking during election seasons. is that when you're awake?

so let me get this straight; are you saying chomsky can't speak about dems because he is not one? does that mean you as a dem can't speak about nondems? because, you know, that would logically follow.

but, don't let that stop you.

[YOHABLO]

291. He's right of course. Let the revolution begin folks. Thank you Bernie for the wake up call.

[Gore1FL]

306. That's been true since Democrats bought into Reaganomics. nt

[ZombieHorde]

307. Even President Obama says this.

I'm not sure why this is controversial.

[azmom]

311. The money elite has taken our government completely.

Bernie was trying to restore the power to the people.

So many are caught in the republicans vs. democrats paradigm, they fail to see who the true oppressors are.

[disillusioned73]

313. K&R..

[certainot]

325. if dems want to keep ignoring rw radio while it kicks their ass

maybe chomsky should tell them about it, but like all liberal intellectuals they don't know shit about the think that's kicking liberal ass

heres the math theyve been ignoring

at a cheap $1000/hr x 15hrs/day x 1200 stations, rw talk radio is worth 4.68 BIL$/ year or 390MIL$ /month FREE for coordinated global warming denial, pro republican wall st think tank propaganda, free market deregulation bullshit, swiftboating, and the hate and fear used to get people to vote republican.

[RoccoR5955]

352. I have news for you.

This genre is fading into the wilderness. Terrestrial radio is fading. Rush, for example is fading in popularity. Now that people can podcast the talk shows, there are more and more liberal and progressive ones popping up every day.

[certainot]

355. i wish you were right

unfortunately we still can't have national fact based discussions about any major issue without its effects

in most parts of the us there are no free easy alts

the hangover will last long before it fades - that is what trump is

not only that but the internet does not compete directly with it and it is a major tool they use to elect the politicians and sell the bs pretexts used to destroy it

[nikto]

332. We see evidence of this right here on good old DU

Honk if you have ever debated an out-and-out Neoliberal, right here on DU.

I have.
Way too often lately.


There once was a time when those folks were all on the OTHER (GOP) side.

Not any more.

[AntiBank]

334. yep, they are right up in our face and 99% of the time rabid Clinton partisans

[G_j]

340. yep

they are swarming, mission nearly accomplished,
reasonably minded progressives losing interest...

[Ikonoklast]

351. Chomsky must have read the call for uniting lockstep behind the chosen New Democrat Dear Leader.

Or be forever vilified as "No Longer A Democrat" by those who aren't Democrats.

[Skwmom]

354. Moderate is VERY misleading. It is corporatist, war hawk Republicans. Of course they like

to use the moderate label as a marketing tool b/c most people would think they are moderate.