Chomsky on elections

[muchacho]

I'm currently reading Noam Chomsky's current book Hegemony and Survival and I came across a perfect description of two party duopoly that meshes well with the current primary (quoting from Andrew J. Bacevich's American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US
Diplomacy):

"Through tacit agreement the two major parties approach the contest for the presidency as political kabuki in which the players know their roles and everyone sticks to the script, striking poses tat cannot be taken seriously."

Sober words for those that feel they defend this or that candidate's honor here on the boards.

[stickdog]

1. Insiders vs. insiders

is what he's accurately describing.

[muchacho]

2. true

But when the fans of Candidate X start vehemently making their case it's grounding to remember that they're all ""insiders".

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. Newsflash: Politicians Lie!

Can you believe it? :)

[On the Road]

4. There's a Narrow Range of Opinion

that's considered acceptable. Candidates like Kucinich and Sharption, who do not play by the kabuki rules, can usually be marginalized by being universally described as "not serious." Occasionally a candidate who doesn't play by the rules becomes serious anyway. Then the bloodletting really starts.

This is what I believe is happening with Dean. However centrist his record, however much be may have adopted certain stances out of politics rather than belief, he is running a truly populist campaign. His base of power comes from his supporters rather than the party establishment. If he wins the nomination, he doesn't owe the DLC or the DNC anything.

The good news is that he may win both the nomination and the election. The bad news is that even if he does, he will become the new establishment, like Carter and Clinton. Two-thirds of the hopes his supporters have invested in him will be disappointed. But that's how stacked the system is against real representative government.

[Cocoa]

5. this is where Chomsky is least useful to me

and least credible.

His analysis of foriegn policy and of the media really reveal a lot of truth, he's excellent at getting some very important ideas across.

But his attitude toward our elections system is damaging, imo. Mostly because he doesn't offer much of an alternative as far as I know.

There is an ongoing discussion of reforms of the system to make it more democratic, but I don't hear Chomsky participating in those. He prefers to stick with his radical critique, and I'm not sure what that accomplishes, other than possibly discouraging people from voting, which by definition is undemocratic.

I find Dennis Kucinich to be more credible in his progressive approach to elections, along with Studs Terkel, who endorsed Kucinich.

[debsianben]

9. Yeah, but...

Actually, Chomsky doesn't discourage people from voting. When I saw him on C-Span a while back, he said he almost always votes in local elections, but not always higher level ones. He supported Nader in 2000, has signed fund-raising letters for the Greens, but has said he believes there is enough of a difference to justify getting a Dem in office in 2004. He said he favors "tactical voting" whereby people in "safe states" vote for the Green nominee and people in "swing states" for the Dem.

Personally, while I'm a big fan of Chomsky's in general, this doesn't make sense to me. Given his own definition of democracy, you should vote for people who will represent the things you want or at least who don't represent policies you are absolutely opposed to. That is to say, for example, that if Howard Dean gets the Democratic nomination, and you disagree with Dean's explicit plans to keep the troop in Iraq for a long time "to get the job done," then you shouldn't vote for him. Although of course if you do support continuing the war but think Duhbya isn't handling it well, it makes perfect sense to vote for him.

Don't get me wrong, I don't discourage voting. The right to vote is a hard-won gain by our side, and you'll pry my ballot from my cold dead finers. But I don't think one is taking democracy very seriously if they vote for people who they know will carry out policies that contradict everything they (the voter) stand for. I think the best way to dump Bush would be for the Dems in Congress (assuming they re-gain a majority in November) to simply impeach him and the next several people in the line of succession for his numerous war crimes and violations of the constitution.

[muchacho]

11. war crimes and violations of the constitution

>>I think the best way to dump Bush would be for the Dems in Congress (assuming they re-gain a majority in November) to simply impeach him and the next several people in the line of succession for his numerous war crimes and violations of the constitution.

Spoken like a true Chomsky fan!!

[muchacho]

10. disagree

I disagree, Chomsky as often weighed in on the current electoral inadequacies. Such as the last paragraph in this article;

"Democracy is to be construed as the right to choose among commodities. Business leaders explain the need to impose on the population a “philosophy of futility” and “lack of purpose in life,” to “concentrate human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption.” People may then accept and even welcome their meaningless and subordinate lives, and forget ridiculous ideas about managing their own affairs. They will abandon their fate to the responsible people, the self-described “intelligent minorities” who serve and administer power —which of course lies elsewhere, a hidden but crucial premise."

But just like his critiques in foreign policy, Chomsky offers no easy answers. Just calls it like he sees it.

It's up to us as citizens to use the information and make things more civil and fair.

[Turkw]

12. What is the best alternative to what we have now, in your opinion?

The more I read about instant voter runoff voting, the more I like it. But I haven't found much more in the way of alternatives.

[corporatewhore]

6. my fav chomsky qoute on elections

"Candidates say "vote for me, and I will do so-and-so for you." Few believe them, but more important, a different process is unthinkable: that in their unions, political clubs, and other popular organizations people should formulate their own plans and projects and put forth candidates to represent them. Even more unthinkable is that the general public should have a voice in decisions about investment, production, the character of work, and other basic aspects of life. The minimal conditions for functioning democracy have been removed far beyond thought, a remarkable victory of the doctrinal system." -- Noam Chomsky

[sangha]

7. I don't think they all "know their roles"

I think each and every one of them assumes that their role is "winner", even though that applies to only one of them.

[Clark4VotingRights]

8. I think that's true for most career pols. Major exceptions being Wellstone

& Kucinich...a few others.

But no doubt that new blood is needed.
We've seen that the one party system doesn't work.