The Shotgun Blog

« (Video) Sean "Val Venis" Morley endorses Libertarian Dennis Young | Main | Let's go get that majority! »

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Noam Chomsky: "If I were in a swing state, I'd vote for Obama"

In this Der Spiegel interview with Noam Chomsky, this exchange piqued my interest:

SPIEGEL: Is there nothing about McCain that appeals to you? Chomsky: In one aspect he is more honest than his opponent. He explicitly states that this election is not about issues but about personalities. The Democrats are not quite as honest even though they see it the same way. SPIEGEL: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political platform? Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party.

Since Chomsky didn't come out and say that he supported either of the candidates (something I would expect) I thought I'd ask him a few follow-up questions. Here they are, with his answers:

Peter Jaworski: Do you support a political party, or any particular individuals running for office?

Noam Chomsky: If I were in a swing state, I'd vote for Obama, reluctantly and without illusions, only because I think that McCain-Palin and the constituency they represent are extremely dangerous -- in fact, there's a proto-fascist character, a term I don't use lightly.

PJ: What do you make of identity politics in this election? Barack Obama and Sarah Palin (as well as Hilary Clinton) have made this election much less about policies and much more about identifying with someone because of their skin colour or gender. Is it worrying or a good thing?

NC: It's not in the least surprising. For years party managers have been dedicated to keeping issues out of the campaigns -- a way of keeping public concerns out -- and focusing on "character," "values," "qualities," etc. I've written about it. The PR agencies that run the campaigns use the same devices to undermine democracy that they use to undermine markets in commercial advertising.

PJ: Are you following the Canadian election at all? If so, do you have any thoughts about it?

NC: Don't follow it closely enough to say anything with any confidence.

In a separate email, I asked Chomsky what he meant by calling McCain-Palin and their supporters "proto-fascist." Here's what he wrote:

NC: I'll lift some remarks from a recent letter to someone who asked about Palin. It's enough to look at the news reports of recent Republican rallies.

And here are the remarks he sent someone else about Palin:

If you think Sarah Palin is a frightening phenomenon, you should listen to talk radio, as I often do while driving. It was taken over years ago by a very well-funded ultra-right. And it reaches tens of millions of frightened people, who are true believers, judging by the phone calls. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today ranting with extreme confidence about how the financial crisis was created by Bill Ayers and Acorn (Obama's secret connection) and the rich liberal Democrats who run Wall Street (and of course the media, the government, industry,...), and are trying to destroy the lives of us ordinary folk. They're cheering the meltdown they orchestrated because they want people to suffer and they want to destroy capitalism and introduce Cuban-style Communism. Democrats are happy to raise income taxes because they are so rich they live on unearned income. The way Ayers, Acorn, Obama, and the rest engineered the crisis was by intimidating banks so that they gave subprime mortgages to illegal immigrants, shiftless blacks and hispanics, etc., and it's left for us hard-working god-fearing white working folk to pick up the burden. And on and on. I'm old enough to barely remember Nazi speeches. Very similar. The US, and the world, is lucky that no charismatic figure has arisen here. McCarthy was too much of a thug. Reagan a clown. W. Bush couldn't walk across the street without falling into a manhole. Someday one will appear, and we all could be in bad trouble.

UPDATE (Oct. 14): I sent two follow-up questions to Chomsky, and he responded as follows:

PJ: Did you feel the same way about Ron Paul? What do you think of him?

NC: No, Paul was very different from Palin. I agreed with his positions on lots of things, but in general his views would be catastrophic if implemented, I think. One reason he doesn't stand a chance. The business world would never allow it.

PJ: And Dennis Kucinich, what about him?

NC: Kucinich is a very decent person, with generally reasonable positions, I think. Which is why he doesn't stand a chance in a business-run sociopolitical system.

(I had a chance to exchange emails with Chomsky before, just before William F. Buckley Jr. passed away. You can read that exchange here.)

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on October 12, 2008 in U.S. politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e201053580c8ed970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Noam Chomsky: "If I were in a swing state, I'd vote for Obama":

» The Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism Is Being Exposed from Prose Before Hos

The Article: The Anti-democratic nature of US capitalism is being exposed by Noam Chomsky. Bretton Woods was the system of global financial management set up at the end of the second World War to ensure the interests of capital did not smother wider so... [Read More]

Tracked on 2008-10-14 11:27:45 AM

Comments

Very interesting responses you were able to elicit from Chomsky. Well done. It's rear to get him to discuss presidential elections and considering he's favored Nader openly, it was interesting to hear his "support" for Obama, albeit 'conditionally'.

Posted by: Ryan Thomson | 2008-10-12 3:12:22 AM

Jaws,

That's pretty interesting stuff. I don't read much Chomsky - well, ever, really - but I have to say I agree with what he says here. I think he might overstate the degree of the fascist tendencies of the radical right, but I agree they are there. The lynch mobs McCain and Palin have had coming out at town halls (and even the PUMA anger before that) shows that some people are just waiting for a leader to hand out the pitchforks and torches.

As for voting, well, we all know one vote does not make a difference. But if I lived in a swing state, I'd put up an Obama lawn sign. In a safe state (whether safe R or safe D) I think I'd put up a Babar the elephant lawn sign ( http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/06/04/bob_barr_colbert.html ). You gotta make room for fun! And (in reference to your previous post) if I lived in Stephen Harper's riding, I'd put up a Dennis Young lawn sign. Or a Dennis DeYoung sign. Why? Because he's there for you whenever you get weary and you've had enough and feel like giving up!

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-10-12 7:45:29 AM

Lynch mobs?! A literal handful of people out of thousands of supporters equates to "lynch mobs"? Meanwhile, Obama has been a practicing fascist for decades (he himself--not just his nutty supporters) and, yawn, nothing to see here.

It's posts like this why people don't take libertarians (big "L" libertarians) like you guys even remotely seriously.

Posted by: ECM | 2008-10-12 9:00:28 AM

Jaws:

There's one question that still hasn't been answered.

After the Democrats demonized ‘greedy' Wall Street, why is it that a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bailout package than did Republicans?

All we have to do is look at John McCallum to understand that Canadian bankers, as well as US bankers, understand they can profit from liberal values.

It was an admirable goal to get minorities into houses, when they were being turned down for mortgages even though payments could have been supported by income. That's unfair discrimination.

Politically, when home ownership became a ‘civil right' rather than a matter of contract law, it was inevitable that the house of cards would collapse at some point.

ACORN is now being investigated for voter registration fraud in several states. The CO in ACORN stands for ‘community organizers'.

In Canada, we take for granted the integrity of our voter lists. Such is not the case in the US, obviously.





Posted by: set you free | 2008-10-12 10:00:35 AM

It was an admirable goal to get minorities into houses, when they were being turned down for mortgages even though payments could have been supported by income. That's unfair discrimination.

Politically, when home ownership became a ‘civil right' rather than a matter of contract law, it was inevitable that the house of cards would collapse at some point.

Posted by: set you free | 12-Oct-08 10:00:35 AM

Those are some very sensible observations, set...I have to agree.



Posted by: JC | 2008-10-12 10:28:14 AM

SYF "It was an admirable goal to get minorities into houses, when they were being turned down for mortgages even though payments could have been supported by income. That's unfair discrimination."

It is not admirable to lend money to people who can't pay it back. It's stupid and disasterous. This is typical lefty moral-high-ground bullshit that's sinks countries into an economic abyss. Lefties are good at giving hugs, not managing economies.

Posted by: attitude | 2008-10-12 10:48:48 AM

I can not take a person like Chomsky seriously. He represents the most diabolical political philosophy devised and you guys put him on your blog.

Posted by: gord | 2008-10-12 11:21:02 AM

Quit the rhetoric, Gord. How about attacking his points?

He's concluded the same thing I have a few years ago - That there is no marked difference between the right and left.

Both attack people's economic and personal freedoms. They are both big government powerhouses. That's why I'm a Libertarian.

Posted by: attitude | 2008-10-12 11:33:36 AM

Chomsky is a very deranged and hate filled man, including self-hatred and hatred for his country. Why he does not leave for a better place, such as Cuba says a lot. Therefore it is not surprising that he would support Obama who most represents the destruction of American culture and society. As for brown shirt mobs you find them in the Obama crowd. Let us not forget either the threat that if Obama does not win, it will be due to white racism which will results in riots across the country.

I agree with SYFs comments with one exception concerning the mortgages, for attitude has it right on that one.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-10-12 11:39:36 AM

I remember Chomsky denying that the killing fields of Cambodia even existed. He swore they were a CIA fabrication until finally even the Khmer Rouge admitted it openly.

Then he simply switched to blaming it on the US because we MADE them feel threatened, so of course they had to slaughter anyone with a university education.

Chomsky's a nut.

Posted by: Einah Teb | 2008-10-12 1:48:15 PM

This race baiting has got to stop! A lot of people got mortgages for properties they could not afford. It's not that they could not afford any home, they could not afford the homes they were buying!

These people were not 'shiftless' no matter their color. They simply believed, or were led to believe, they could afford more real estate than they actually could. I would be willing to bet more whites fell into this trap than any other group.

But calling out the realtors and banks for their role in this fiasco is NOT RACIST. It has nothing to do with race.

Posted by: Wren | 2008-10-12 1:53:38 PM

Wren: Don't forget about the gov't pressure on those banks. This is a gov't boondoggle.

Posted by: attitude | 2008-10-12 3:07:40 PM

Rush Limbaugh has never said that God fearing white people have to pick up the pieces. He said hard working people have to. They don't walk away from their responsibilities. After reading Chomsky statement, I know he is a charlatan.

Posted by: KansasGirl | 2008-10-12 3:54:39 PM

attitude:

I think we're in agreement that the fundamental attitude for the US financial crisis was developed by both main parties in the interest of social justice.

Where it went wrong was when the idea of home ownership became a ‘right' that was backed up by the state via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thereby absolving lending institutions the responsibility of following contract law.

Unfortunately, the hard-working taxpayer got stuck holding the bag on a politically-correct policy of creating equal outcomes.

The American Dream is about equal opportunity. Marxism is about equal outcomes.

As screwed up as Canada is, this country has not been as stupid about the difference as a succession of US governments have.



Posted by: set you free | 2008-10-12 4:15:13 PM

I agree with some of the above comments.

Chomsky is beyond the pale - the moral equivalent of the KKK, the Nazis or the Communists.

Among his many sins - claiming that the Vietnamese Communists were not engaged in mass murder after the fall of Saigon. And then denying the existence of those who tried to flee the slaughter (the boat people).

No website that cares about liberty should be giving him any space at all.

The guy is really evil.

Posted by: Craig | 2008-10-12 5:39:11 PM

Republican march through NYC. Interesting to hear all the references to Nazi Germany.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-10-12 9:28:06 PM

Hey Attitude, Chomsky thinks there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats because he is a Communist(Far leftist). Over the years, he has made excuses for the crimes of the Khmer Rouge and other communist states. He excuses the actions of numerous Communist criminals(responsible for 50 million + deaths). To a Communist, almost everyone else is in the backpocket of big business. Perhaps Factcheck you could explain to me how someone who would support Canada's libertarian party would support Obama. Obama has called for increased spending and will raise taxes. Also, he has(in the past) voted for a handgun ban and numerous other gun restrictions. Finally, this radical right lynch mob bit is garbage. You want to see real hate look at the left. This might be hard to do since the radical left in Canada has long had control of the media, education system, and government bureaucracy. In America, the left is bitter because(unlike Canada) the country(since 1980) has generally been pushed to the right. Conservative Americans(like myself) despise Obama because he wants to raise taxes(believe me it won't only be the rich), hike spending, close Guantanamo(so will McCain), hogtie us in gathering information on terrorists, is a big gun control guy, supports affirmative action, wants no restrictions on abortion, has a friends' list of far left nuts(Ayers, FLagger, Wright, etc.) and until the last debate oppose both oil drilling and nuclear power. We think Obama's a liar and want to defeat him at the ballot box. The radical left is this country has mocked McCain, Palin, and Bush from day one. The left has even tried to say that McCain lied about his time as a POW. One far-left group said that he collaborated and was treated well. All the other POWs disagree with this. Some leftist commentators even joke about McCain's permanent injuries. Palin has also been attacked viciously from day one. A leftist comedian(Sandra Bernhard) even joked about Palin being raped. Sicko. The far left mocked Reagan when he died. In 1998, Alec Baldwin called for a prominent Republican leader to be stoned to death during Clinton's impeachment hearing. Sadly, many members of the leftist audience clapped and applauded. So where is the real hate? You should know better. In Canada, the left plays the same games.

Posted by: Brian | 2008-10-12 11:50:49 PM

You know, I could criticize Chomsky for being a statist even while he claims to be an 'anarchist' and a 'libertarian socialist', but Roderick Long does it so much better than I would:

http://www.theartofthepossible.net/2008/09/04/chomskys-augustinian-anarchism/

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-10-13 3:47:55 AM

quote "radical left in Canada has long had control of the media"

The majority of the National Newspapers have already backed "Harper" in this election. So I guess Harper is to be considered a lefty.

I read the same BS stated all the time about the US media.



Posted by: peteb | 2008-10-13 4:05:11 PM

Make that 3 out of the 4 largest national newspapers endorsing Harper.

Globe and Mail-Harper

Toronto Sun-Harper

Toronto Post-Harper

Toronto Star-Dion

Posted by: peteb | 2008-10-13 4:23:55 PM

I would also guess that the majority of you guys calling Chomsky down haven't even read a book of his. Instead you get quotes from some radical right website.

I certainly agree that he goes too far sometimes, but he has it right about the Rich and Corporations controlling the western world.

Posted by: peteb | 2008-10-13 4:30:04 PM

I heard Chomsky supported a Holocaust denier. No wonder Ontarians and libertarians like him.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-10-13 4:33:36 PM

So here you have it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2008

There is how much the left wing controls the media.

Enough of that nonsense already. Same can be said for the US. So once and for all, it's time to put that myth to bed.

Posted by: peteb | 2008-10-14 3:24:09 PM

There is no left in the mainstream US political landscape. You have a centre-right candidate, Obama, and a far-right, McCain/Palin.

I warmly recommend that people consider staying in the centre-right, as the moral and physical cost of the far right is almost unbearable, as we have seen in recent weeks. Obama does not qualify as a socialist, let alone a Marxist (I see someone also threw in references to a fascist which is not even funny).

If you want to see a left wing candidate, check out Brian Moore. "Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth."

That does not sound like the Democrats to me - nor to most Republicans from what I read of their comments. These are radical left wing sentiments. Obama is not left wing.

Posted by: Outsider | 2008-10-15 1:29:21 AM

There is a lot of hysteria and misinformation here -- too much to debunk in several paragraphs.



To take a single point: Chomsky did not "deny[ ] that the killing fields of Cambodia even existed". If you actually read his book on the subject, you will see that he documented the fact that IN THE PERIOD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE KHMER ROUGE TAKEOVER, the U.S. mainstream media grossly exaggerated the killings by the Khmer Rouge.



As explained, within months after the Khmer Rouge takeover in April 1975, the number of "2 million" dead was quickly seized upon by the U.S. mainstream media and repeated over and over again. In fact, as the CIA documented, the actual figure dead AT THE TIME and as a direct result of Khmer Rouge violence (assassinations, murder) was perhaps 10,000 -- a shocking and horrifying number by an measure, but far below anything like 2 million dead.



Meanwhile, the U.S. media virtually ignored the fact that (again, according to the CIA, and corroborated by Cambodian specialists) hundreds of thousands of Cambodians were killed by the U.S. bombings in the early 70s, and that the country (about the size of Missouri) had been virtually destroyed by years of U.S. bombings (`3500+ bombing raids). More recent figures indicate that from 1969 until 1975, 600,000 Cambodians were killed by these aerial assaults. The CIA also reported that in the aftermath of the collapse of the Lon Nol gov't, it was predicated that 100,000 people would die of starvation, simply due to the wreckage of the country -- again, a direct result of years of U.S. bombings.



Now, as it turns out AFTER the Khmer Rouge took over in April 1975, the killings continued. They reached a peak sometime in the late 70s. Some specialists have concluded that as many as 2 million Cambodians in fact DID die under the Khmer Rouge regime. Most of those people, died of starvation, disease and exhaustion -- no doubt aided by the Khmer Rouge's radical agrarian policies and totalitarian labor practices. Many others died as a result of being killed by the Khmer Rouge.



As Chomsky has repeatedly observed, the fact that as many as 2 million Cambodians were LATER discovered to have died is completely irrelevant to the point he was making regarding the ill-founded estimates circulated by the U.S. media in 1975, in the wake of the immediate aftermath of the Khmer Rouge takeover.



Even assuming (contrary to the evidence) that 2 million Cambodians were killed by the Khmer Rouge in the immediate aftermath of the takeover, the fact is that no information existed at the time sufficient to support a proclamation to that effect.



Furthermore, even if the evidence supported the information being reported by the media (which it did not), that does not excuse the media's ill-founded assertions. Accidental accuracy as a result of lying is not the same as telling the truth.



The entire point of Chomsky's argument in this respect is to show how media coverage of the crimes of official enemies are subject to gross exaggerations, distortions, and outright lies. Meanwhile, coverage of the crimes of the favored state (in this case, the U.S.) are either ignored or receive scant attention. The fact that the U.S. has a free press makes the failures of the U.S. media all the more unforgivable.

Posted by: Martha | 2008-10-15 11:18:36 AM

"I heard Chomsky supported a Holocaust denier. No wonder Ontarians and libertarians like him."



Chomsky supported the right of a French historian to make public an argument denying the Holocaust. Chomsky did not endorse the argument itself.



Furthermore, Chomsky only came to the support of the French historian AFTER that person was charged by the French gov't for the crime of falsifying history.



If you have any conception of free speech at all, and if you do not believe that the State should be accorded to right to determine historical truth with the right to prosecute citizens for deviating from historical truth, then you will appreciate the distinction between: (1) defending a person's right to the freedom to express a view; and (2) defending the view expressed.

If you are incapable of understanding that distinction, then you are either cognitively impaired or engaging in willful ignorance.

Posted by: Gordo | 2008-10-15 11:27:48 AM

I would tend to agree with Chomsky on the Fascist threat. It is with great hesitance that I join others in using this word that is by now devoid of any reliable lexicon.

However, these people on the right-wing are starting to get desperate. Some think that makes them pathetic. Maybe. But to the other hand it makes them very, very, dangerous. The sorts of right-wing ideas espoused by "conservative" media are rarely diffused with mantras of peace---the right-wing doesn't have many of those. Their Gods are jealous Gods, aren't they.

Of course I accuse them of what they're accusing Obama and company of. The difference---let me say there is one---is that doctrines on the right side tend to prescribe violence far more frequently. That's the point I'd like to reverberate.

I hear their bark. I see their teeth.

Posted by: werd | 2008-11-02 1:02:58 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.