Filipowicz writes: "Professor Chomsky said he will probably vote for Jill Stein for president in effort to push a genuine electoral alternative."
Noam Chomsky has been awarded the Sydney Peace Prize. (photo: Ben Rusk/flickr)
Noam Chomsky On How Progressives Should Approach Election 2012
01 October 12
ecently, on the Matthew Filipowicz Show, I had the privilege of speaking to Professor Noam Chomsky at his MIT office. We discussed many aspects of activism including how he felt activists and progressives should approach two party politics and specifically the 2012 election.
Chomsky stated "I think they should spend five or ten minutes on it. Seeing if there's a point in taking part in the carefully orchestrated electoral extravaganza. And my own judgment, for what it's worth, is, yes, there's a point to taking a part."
Professor Chomsky said he will probably vote for Jill Stein for president in effort to push a genuine electoral alternative, but that if he lived in a swing state he would vote "against Romney-Ryan, which means voting for Obama."
We also discussed the relationship between tactics and action. Speaking about Occupy Wall Street's public encampments, Professor Chomsky, who supported OWS and authored a book on the subject, said such tactics have a half-life and that when one tactic stops working, activists have a responsibility to try something else.
You can listen to the audio of the complete interview below.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 24 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 24 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
he wants war criminal obama, killer-in-chief obama to be re-elected!!!
i believe we are morally and legally constrained from voting for war criminals and murderers.
obama is actually, through his duplicity, more insidious than romney.
vote 3rd party.
If he lived in a swing state he'd take a deep breath, hold his nose, and vote AGAINST Romney-Ryan.
With friends like you, progressives spin off into space.
At the same time, he recognizes that Obama is the lessor of 2 evils.
So, now what are you going to do about it? Encourage people in the swing states to vote for Jill Stein so that Romney will win the Presidency?
Your failure to live in the real world is rather disconcerting.
Re-electing Obama would make clear that the US voter supports aggression, absolute power, defiling our Constitution and treaties, and lying by the US head of state.
Check out Rebecca Solnit's article in RSN:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13689-leftists-explain-things-to-me
so, let's say progressive's/l eftists/ whatever vote for the greens (or some other third party candidate) in swing states and say this causes obama to lose and we get romney and a republican house and senate. are you saying it doesn't matter either way when to just take a couple of examples, the repubs would have cut of unemployment benefits to millions? would have prevented women from getting basic reproductive health care covered by their insurance? would have stepped up oil drilling in the artic and gone ahead with the keystone pipeline? i agree with everything you have said about Obama but i don't understand how ensuring a romney victory helps "the cause." It may "feel good" to seem "pure" by voting ones conscience (and if were in NY i would vote green but as i will be voting in ct i will vote dem just to hopefully keep the senate out of repub control). so, while you are right about Obama and right about the dems overall to real people (millions) there are real differences (though i would agree not substantive game changing ones) that will either increse or decrease (even modestly) their daily misery.
think of the grief. my head shakes with wonder that this is not obvious to everyone.
an odd form of stockholm syndrome.
yawn at the murder of foreigners.
i for one don't condone or make excuses or aplogogies for Obama (am am certainly not yawing at the murder of foreigners and in fact have opposed all of Obama's military escapades abroad including our role in the overthrow of the democratically elected president of honduras and our role in keeping Aristide's party out of the elections in Haiti) but to say that what he has done abroad "trumps" the effects of a republican administration on the working class and poor at home just doesn't make sense to me if only becuase had we had a republican in the white house now i don't think that things would be better abroad. I respect (and suspect we agree) your take on Obama but given that the choice is between him or romney and the impact on millions here will be far worse under a repub pres (and even worse if the they get back both houses of congress) it doesn't make sense to me to make the poor and the working class here suffer even more because of what Obama has done abroad.
I'm voting for Rocky Anderson because he shares my vision of America--ground ed in justice and governed by the rule of law--a vision neither the GOP or Dems share as borne out by their actions. http://voterocky.org
Without proof, you're just another Obama-hater that will tell any lie, no matter how ludicrous, to spew your vitriol.
I don't think it's Chomsky who is losing it.
The wars are illegal, violations of both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.
Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, killing thousands of innocent people there. His drones have killed hundreds of innocents in Pakistan.
Obama has publicly stated that anyone of military age in the vicinity of a "militant" is considered a target -- i.e., whether innocent or not. He has targeted U.S. citizens for assassination by drone, solely on his say-so.
These are not opinions, but facts. What more proof do you need?
Of course, expect the same level of understannding as existed in 1965 when branch line rail demolition was getting in full swing and oil flow thru the strait of Malacca was reason for America's big war therabouts.
Note US Navy buildup in vicinity of South China Sea. Its about the oil as usual, boys & girls. Japan is considering rethinking the "Pacifist" policy, and may go nuclear this decade. Rubber tire transport uses 2 times or more oil as rail transport economic model..
Does Doc Prof Chomsky have any rail savvy?
stop murdering foreigners, democrats.
stop betraying troops, democrats.
that ought be our priority. simple
I'm reminded of Germany before Hitler took power. The Communist Party aligned themselves with the Nazis in order to keep out the middle-of-the-r oad Social Democrats.
A vote for Obama may be a vote against Romney, but it's not a vote against illegal wars, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, NDAA, and the control of American politics by the plutocracy.
For progressives to ally with Obama, even against Romney, is as rotten as what happened in germany.
Okay, lesser-evilists , bring on your silly thumbs-down votes.
Ask yourself, will Romney improve anything and what is the other choice to Obama?
Bring on some better ideas.
And, to say that anyone that votes for Obama is a fascist is to neither understand fascism or the realities of american politics (which doesn't mean that i am a dem, which i'm not, or an Obama supporter but the prospect of a republican WH and a republican congress should be enough for all progressives/ra dicals/revoluti onaries to understand what the immediate battle has to be.
the commenters on commondreams.or g are true progressives. many of these commenters are into party loyalty and are inured to murder.
i must say, chomsky surprised me a bit.
The other thing of note is your anger which is a "mental distortion" that precludes clarity of thought, if not wisdom.
Finally, whatever you think of Obama (obviously not much), with everything we know about Romney, to say that he's less insidious than Obama is frankly laughable.
Sounds like Noam is more "with it" than ever. His statement is sound and can be taken as advice.
By not voting, you let the system win. Vote to change the system, or at least to not make it much, much worse.
sorry, noam. progressives don't vote for war criminals. period.
think about it. and take it back, please.
Wake up!
Then again, I suppose there is something to letting the republitards just burn it all to the ground...
Many progressives will vote for Obama, especially in the swing states. I live in California where the election outcome is not in doubt, thus my protest vote will be for Stein. If my residence was in Florida I would vote and work for Obama, expressing my reservations about the man and some of his domestic and foreign policies that I find intolerable to any Democrat that would listen. I do not want a repeat of the 2000 election. Gore, not my favorite candidate, would have had a clear victory in Florida in a two party race. Instead we got W and his neocon, chicken hawk entourage. Now it's a pair of new faces singing the same old song, on steroids. Best that we send the GOP a message in November, Then, rather than sit back as we did in 2000,reorganize and clamor for Progressive "change we can believe in". The opinion polls seem to indicate that on key Progressive issues the majority of Americans respond favorably. If reelected, giving Obama the politician a free pass, is a disservice to the moral and ethical that we as Progressives proclaim. "Organize" was a start. Let it not be an end.
That's the problem! Americans to date have NOT rebuked the two major parties.
We can hope that, with continuing rot, Americans will finally wake up and abandon the festering Big Two the way they abandoned the Whigs, but so far that hasn't happened. Until it happens, no third-party candidate can do more than play spoiler.
Step 1: Build a party...
YOU should consider the advice and choose the option that is LEAST likely to start a war with Iran (for instance).
Why so obscenely judgmental? Leave that to the Vyshinskys and Freislers of the world.
Seems to be the fashion nowadays, especially in America: to pick out the blackest cloud in the sky, even an otherwise pure blue sky, and dwell only on that. Everyone's doing it, from fascists to those who like to call themselves progressives.
Apart from Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, is there a any US president from the past 80 years who can get off on that count? Protecting one's people is an honorable but hard and dirty job. I don't care one bit for some of Obama's actions, but I'd hate to be in his place. It takes guts and awareness to fill that post, knowing the vast and terrible responsibilitie s it entails. (Easier for those who are aware of nothing...)
Once I entered a vegetarian restaurant and found a group of "women for peace" at the next table. Angelic motivation, but they cut my appetite! Your kind of comment is far far worse than that.
Europe owes its freedom to Winston S. Churchill and we owe much to the monster Stalin for the defeat of the Nazis. My dad and countless Americans owed their lives to Harry Truman's dreadful decision. Enough said.
Orwell by george, would you have supported progrssives voting for FDR?
Don't react. Vote him down.
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/13560-before-i-cheer-obamas-revival-i-look-at-philadelphia
Chomsky while agreeing with me totally of voting Obama in a swing state but not elsewhere differs with me in that he thinks this is not important activism, but worth the few minutes it takes to push or press the vote buttons.
I disagree I see an amazing opportunity. Gary Johnson and especially Virgil Goode are taking votes from Romney, while Jill Stein is bringing out otherwise non voters and stay home this time to the polls. The NRA has a knack to getting their true believers to the polls and bring a not very politically interested friend to go vote as well. Some pot smokers who otherwise aren't interested in politics are coming to vote for Gary.
Many others who are too disgusted with politics to vote can be inspired by Jill and poor people tired of Obama only talking about the middle class can be inspired by Cheri Honkala to participate in politic.
For once I agree with Paul Ryan,
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-25/paul-ryan-do-you-want-barack-obama-be-reelected-then-dont-vote-ron-paul
Norm Chomski your yawning about the importance bothers me I hope I can get you to read my new post “Vote No, Vote No, then Vote Yes to 3rd Party Hope” when it appears on Reader Supported News
The Goldman Sacs / Fed reserve / GMO food-fuel twins might create a fun contest with the Texas Dr. Ron Paul
Audit the Federal Reserve, Support HR 459 Paul & S 202 Paul
Is this game about D R or other? maybe it is about saving the republic. Maybe Obama and Mitt are the underdogs.
americans are inured to killing and murder. it's sad.
sad. bizarre...orwellian...
stop taking innocent lives and causing grief, democrats.
So... Between the current war criminal and the other guy who wants to become his replacement, which one would you rather be sworn in January 21st? It's going to be one or the other; do you go with Romney, then ('cause he hasn't had the chance to start any wars yet)?
Vote for the best candidate if you are not in a swing state. That way you are not throwing your vote away. If you live in a swing state, then vote for the better of the two who have any chance of winning. That way you are not helping the worst man win. As I've said before, vote intelligently.
Believe me, I have been tempted to think of Obama as being no different from Romney, and in some ways he is exactly the same. He's way too much of a corporate whore for my tastes. And he really doesn't understand global warming and climate change, the issue that is most important to me. But at least he has done several things that will slow global warming down more than if a Republican had been in office. At least he doesn't pretend the problem doesn't even exist! That may make the difference between survival and a mass extinction. It's terrible that these are the only two people who could get elected this year, but they are.
Don't be a denier about this. Look at the situation objectively and think about what you can do to make the best of it. Meanwhile, do everything you can to change the situation so we have a real choice in the future.
Yes, I am thoroughly disgusted by a great many of Obama's decisions and in his attitude toward the left in general. However, no way anyone votes in this election is going to end the war machine or restore civil liberties or fight climate change.
Nevertheless, there is a serious case to be made -- or at any rate, there used to be -- for the cliched old nostrum of supporting the less reactionary, less compromised candidate on the grounds that it would make a serious difference to the victims of American imperialism which crime lord was at the helm of the ship.
(That is, for example, while Carter's support for the butchers of East Timor, or his plotting with Brzezinski to draw the Russians into "their own Vietnam" in Afghanistan were supremely criminal and cynical acts, his human rights rep, Patricia Derian, actually made a serious difference for the better in Argentina's gulags and torture chambers.)
Personally, I haven't supported a major party candidate since ever, as the only one I considered supporting was McGovern, whom I ended up throwing over for Dick Gregory of the Peace and Freedom Party. But that in no wise is a superior stance to principle progressives who adopted the stance of attempting to minimize harm to the unfranchised millions who suffered from U.S. hegemonism and imperial hauteur.
The problem with Obama vs. Romney, though, is that Obama is literally a continuation of the Bush camorra, so the strategy no longer applies.
He signed the Patriot Act and NDAA. He favors indefinite detention without charge or trial.
He targets American citizens for assassination purely on his say-so. He broke his promise to leave medical marijuana alone.
These are just a few. How many do you need?
How do any of those things, although true, make him a war criminal?
I need you to stop evading a direct question and give some proof of your charges, if you actually have any.
The Taliban, who came to power with American support, offered to turn Osama over to an independent third country for trial, or to extradite him to the United States if the U.S. could present any evidence at all of his guilt. The U.S. spurned these offers and attacked
Afghanistan, a country that as an entity had in no wise threatened the United States, any more than Iraq had.
Attacking a country that has not threatened you in order to resolve political differences is forbidden by Article II of the United Nations Charter, and is considered aggression, the "supreme crime" according to U.S. Supreme Court Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Tribunals.
Moreover, the drone attacks against the Pakistani population, which according to the most recent and exhaustive study kill 50 civilians for each misnamed "militant" ["resistance fighter" is more accurate] targeted, are clearly war crimes, due both to their indiscriminate slaughter and to their usage against civilians far from the battlefield, residing in a country with which we are not at war.
Obama, like every other U.S. president, is a war criminal. The fact that Romney undoubtedly would also be does not detract from that fact.
By the time of Obama's inauguration, the country was under the internationally recognized governance of the National Assembly under Hamid Karzai, who to this day hasn't been able to bring himself to actually ask us to leave.
I agree with you on the drone strikes, however. Shades of Cambodia.
I totally agree that I would vote for Obama in a battleground state, but disagree that other peace activities are for more important,
Vote No, Vote No, Vote No, Vote yea to new Party Hope.
Vote like our lives depend on it, which I think it do,
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/13744-vote-no-vote-no-then-vote-yes-to-3rd-party-hope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
Other people's new votes don't show up on your screen until you either refresh the page or cast your own vote.
I gave him a positive also, and the total didn't change, for the same reason.
If you have a principle - stick to it.
Don´t ask people living in swing states
to chicken out and vote for Obama.
Vote Green Party/Jill Stein in whatever
state you live in.
Politicians and diapers should be
changed frequently, for all the same reasons.
1. Actvists should focus on their activism.
2. They should devote a little time (5-10 minutes) considering their response to an election.
3. If they decide to vote, they should make a judgment of how they can make the most impact-in this presidential election, he judges that a vote for Jill Stein (or other progressive on the ballot) is the best choice unless you are in a state where a vote for a third party might help elect Romney/Ryan.
He assumes that expanding the electoral system is the primary objective (although a minor and marginal one coming after a progressive's actual activism).
He does not advocate andy position. He recommends that activists take some time to figure it out for themselves.
www.oracorf.blogspot.com
To all the down-thumbers here, who I assume support the "lesser of two evils" argument, I'll state a parable. I've said it a couple of times before, but nobody's ever replied to it:
Let's say criminals handed you a gun and threatened to kill your kids if you yourself didn't kill your spouse. In that situation I would refuse to do it, and let any killing be on the shoulders of the criminals. I would take no part in it, even if I was 100% sure that they would do as they said. The only moral thing to do would be to fight, even if I had no chance of overpowering the criminals. So would you kill your spouse in that situation, to spare the lives of your kids?
mark. He lives in MA, a Safe State,
so he has a Free Vote(TM). People
in CA, NY, CT, IL, MD -- also in
TX,UT, OK, MS -- can vote for whom
they like It is only people in Ohio,
Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania,
who must wrestle with the arcane
question of who is worse, Obama or
Mitt.
Let's build an alternative to the
Duopoly! This year is the ideal time
to do that.
Best wishes,
Alan McConnell, in Silver Spring MD
I'm not sure about some of the other states but in CT. it is not necessarily about the presidential race but the senate race is definitely important as the true nightmare scenario would be for the repubs to take back not only the WH but also both houses of congress. So, i agree with the strategic voting strategy (and will vote for the Greens if i vote in NY but if i wind up registering and voting in Ct. will vote for the dems).
The latter would give even more free rein to corporate control of the both the economy and the political process.
WANT Obama, but I don't want Romney even more. I live in a swing state. My vote actually matters and a vote for someone who has good values and is not going to win a majority of the votes is a vote for Romney.God help us if he is elected!
democrats & republicans. Have you forgotten how Bush II got elected?
If Nader had not allowed "progressives" to "vote their conscience" and feel good about themselves, we would not likely have had to deal with any of these wars, and feel bad about just about everything. Obama is better than Romney-Ryan, even aside from the supreme court's future...
How is your intolerance any better than those on this board who say there is no difference at all between the two parties or those that slam so-called progressives for voting for Obama not because they like or support him but because they understand what a repub WH and congress could do?
Have you even read any of Chomsky's major works? Define "extreme left" and how Chomsky is a part of it? Because he condemns US military escapes abroad? Because he slams the dems for not increasing the minimum wage or guaranteeing jobs for all? Because he condemns US torture of prisoners and the crackdown on domestic civil liberties?
Well said.
He escalated the war in Afghanistan and drone attacks on Pakistan. He is responsible for thousands of innocent civilian deaths.
Both wars are in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. Pre-emptive war is criminal. And so is Obama.
Vote No, Vote No, vote Yes to change could excite more than 1/4 of the electorate, the reactions and counter reactions to an incinerator movie belong under the topic of road rage and how to deal with it, not under whether the West is the reason we don't live in an ideal world,
http://www.wikihow.com/Respond-to-a-Road-Raged-Driver
Personally I have been swinging since 1965 when I was overjoyed with my brand new drivers license to drive a sound truck for Montgomery County, Maryland Republican Peace Candidate Bill Martin.
What you have is a choice between center-right and far right by the standards of the rest of the industrialized world, both seemingly blinded by entrenched and creeping broad-brush conservatism to true progressivism, from taxation to infrastructure, to Universal health care; it's just a matter of degree.
However, those of you who mentioned the consequences of a reactionary (far-right) victory on the future of the Supreme Court have hit the bullseye and are entitled to a coconut. Check out http//www.democ racynow.org/. Amy Goodman hosted a detailed piece on this just yesterday and it's a frightening prospect. Ruth Bader Ginsberg has spoken of stepping down when she reaches a certain age (quite soon) and Gawd knows what the fruits of a Twit nominee would be, especially if you want even shot at overturning "Citizens United", given the lily-livered nature of many Dem's, especially the "Blue Doggie" types.
To all of you true progressives, I wish you luck; it's a real wrench.
Supreme Court nominees must be approved by the Senate, so a Democratic Senate could block an appointee by a GOP president.
There is a subtle genius to being able to make deals of any kind. Sometimes, the "long game" is to settle for a small advancement, until you are set up for the big move.
I may be wrong but I suspect that Obama is the type that waits for the right moment before pouncing. A second term for Obama is likely to be a very good four years for America.
Ted Kennedy always regretted not making a Health Care deal with Nixon. To understand Obama, one needs to understand that lost opportunity well.
As for the military drone usage, Americans authorized two wars. Like it or not, we are all equal in the eyes of radical Islamists, because they (like us) don't parse out the good guys and the bad guys of a society. And in a war, nothing but destruction and death takes place. That's why they call it war and not the "away game". Sadly, too many Americans can't seem to process the idea of that and have never experienced it themselves, so it is the "away game" to them and the only thing that matters is "what's the score" and "are we winning?" The idea that there is no "winning" only "stopping" is too much for them to handle.
"Leave Afghanistan and Iraq before we won? The shame; Ahhhh the shame of it all".
I agree we need to build a viabele third party in this country. But this work takes place in between elections or else it is just all BS. How would the election of Mitt Romney (let's say that this is the result of your having people vote for a third party in "swing states" a "concrete step toward rejection of the two-party system and building a progressive alternative?" All this does is elect one of the two parties. It doesn't build anything. This has to happen in between elections with a lot of thankless, hard work starting at the local level. Simply running a third party candidate every 4 years and believing that this is building anything is pure fantasy.
Supporters will go back to the "wait and see" attitude they had in 2009, when Obama began to sell out to the GOP on one issue after another. They'll regard any effort to build a third party as "betraying" Obama.
The big problem is that while it's obvious how bad the GOP is, supporters of the Democrats refuse to see how bad their party is as well.
Labor Party 2016.
We tried doing that in 2000 and got Bush elected. NEVER not in my lifetime will a third party EVER in this huge lumbering country be a viable option. We are simply too HUGE for that. As bad as they are the two parties DO present a difference and if progressives are too obtuse to see it then they will pay the price with their lives as climate change does not discriminate.
NO nation is infallible, no nation is perfect. We choose every single day of our lives for the lesser of the evils. To do so now and elect Obama is INFINITELY better than a horrific President Romney (God forbid!) The sooner left of center liberals get it the better we will be. VOTE BARACK OBAMA 2012 and if in Mass. Elizabeth Warren for US Senate from Mass.
So, yes, we should never make the mistake of thinking that both parties are "the same" but we should also never make the mistake in believing the dems are any less the party of the 1% or have ever represented anything other than the interests of capital as a whole or making excuses for heinous policies.
So, just because we may say that in the immediate term we have no choice other than choosing between the lesser of two evils we need to call out "evil" wherever and whenever we see it no matter from which party it comes.
if you live in a swing state - vote "against Romney-Ryan, which means voting for Obama."
else vote for anybody except Obama/Romney-Ryan.
The American Spring/emergenc e will come from present chaos - believe in power of powerless = 99%.
and the crippling disease will continue and become terminal until and unless progressives - without quotes - demand , work for, vote for , and finally get social change beyond putting a national, allegedly multi-cultural minority-divide d commercially profitable individualistic face on the massive loss to humanity in a social and global disaster...
America is waking up in spite of the continuous censorship and propaganda. It seems that Clinton and his foundation led by ex AIPAC chair made Obama the puppet = "were clever to send a Democrat to front for them .."
To the latter point, I think it's important for people to have a good understanding of where their ideas are, in history and who is most likely to help make the changes they want to occur. Then "walk softly, but carry a big stick".
Too often, setbacks occur because of timing. I feel that, had Al Gore become president, gays and minorities would have been better off. But because they fed into the culture war, before an important election, with parades and demonstrations, they only incited the people on the other side of their cause to rally against them. Had they been more "grass roots" in their organization and helped the right people get into office "quietly" they (and all Progressives) would have done better.
That's exactly the formula being used by the Conservative Right, at this very moment. No anti-abortion marches. No anti-gay rallies. Just a quiet takeover of the Congress, one "Tea Party Candidate" at a time.
Progressives need better tactics and a better sense of when to be publicly vocal and when to hold back.
The only one suffering form delusions of grandeur (not to mention just a bit of holier than thouness) is the writer of such nonsense.
have you even read any of Chomsky's major writing and if so what is your problem with them or any of the completely principled and consistant positions he has taken for more than half a century?
As Chris Matthews has also stated. most Americans will not raise their hand and say they are a Liberal or a Progressive, but they generally are fine with most Progressive causes.
As I see it, the key to building a third party that has broad ranging support, and a shot at the White House, and Congress, is by mixing a little "old" with some new, and not so "radical" ideas.
The candidate I think Americans would vote for would be a mix of Obama and Ron Paul (of all people). The "Ron Paul" side would be anti-war and talk about personal freedoms being restored/protec ted, with the government staying out of people's bedrooms and churches. He would say "those things are best kept in your own bedrooms and in your own churches and don't belong in the policy discussion of government".
The Obama side would say, "we have the strongest military in the world and, for defense purposes, we'll keep it modern and well maintained; But we will not charge off to every war or opportunity for war in the world.
His "Socialist" side would talk about government intervention in a very few limited markets; The "necessities of life" like energy, agriculture, and environment. He would say "we the people, own these resources and we deserve the right to control them. The public's right to life necessities trumps corporate mega-profits." Maybe oil drilling and refineries should be government entities?
At first I was disappointed that Chomsky said he didn't think voting was important but worth the few moments it takes to press a lever.
But for the first time I saw a fiber debate then a real world discussion as well.
Chomsky statement is overwhelmingly important equal to Pat Robertson opposing harsh drug laws,
I agree. It seems the damage to the political process is two-fold. The American First Past The Post electoral system and limp campaign finance laws are only half the story. The other half is how organizations like ALEC have targeted state and local government.
RSS feed for comments to this post