To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Bush & Kerry Differences

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Bush & Kerry Differences

By Noam Chomsky at Sep 20, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
The most uncontroversial differences have to do with the large majority of the population of the United States. For example, those who will have to bear the burdens of essentially freeing the rich from taxes and other social responsibilities. Or of destruction of Social Security and the limited health care system. Or workers who will not received the limited but real protection of OSHA. Or our grandchildren, who might like to have air to breathe. Or who will suffer from the effects of the huge deficits that are being consciously piled up. Etc. On these matters, the differences between the groups around Bush and those around Kerry are quite significant. For the world, the differences have to do with the likelihood of international violence, including possibly terminal nuclear war. Bush sharply accelerated militarization of space (including "missile defense") and dismantled the international regulatory apparatus (treaties, not as good as they should be, but not zero either), leading, as anticipated, to rapid increase in development of military capacity by those who feel particularly threatened, Russia and China in particular. The rapid increase in offensive military programs under Bush is so disturbing to mainstream strategic analysts that some go as far as to say that they are leading to "ultimate doom" (John Steinbrunner, in the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences). These things matter a great deal to the population of the world, which is why there is such extreme opposition to Bush and his cohorts worldwide. That includes potential targets of direct aggression. It doesn't take a microscope to see these differences. Many on the left seem far too casual about them, in my opinion. Not only is that wrong in itself, but it completely nullifies any possibility of appealing to the natural constituency of the left, at home or abroad. How far do you think one will get organizing people by saying, for example, we simply don't give a damn about the fact that you'll suffer more from Bush-style dismantling of the progressive achievements of the past century than by the programs of the political opposition?

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (54)

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Oct 03, 2004 22:54 PM
for those who may be interested in vote pairing: www.votepair.org i just signed on. here's the scoop: i live in massachusetts, where voting for Kerry has about a 0% chance of affecting the vote against Bush, given the obvious mainstream outcome here. I agree to vote for Nader in this state, while someone in Florida, Ohio, etc. agrees to vote for Kerry in their state. It's true that I'll never "really know" if they keep their pledgem and they would never "really know" about me. But it has a higher than 0% chance of meaningfully impacting the overall vote against Bush, unlike the non-effect of just going with the flow.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Tmstratman, Tmarcial at Oct 02, 2004 00:11 AM
Continued from last posting This desperation is the realization that our ideals are slowly being casted beyond the fringe. This election is about survival. You can dream about better candidates, but that thought is self-defeating. The fight of ideals has to be taken into the broader context of time. We need to move the circle of thought back to the center before we can realistically consider a move to the left. A war is made up of many battles. The battle at hand is getting G.W Bush out of the White House. We will never move our agenda forward unless we first get rid of this administration. Whatever your opinion, John Kerry is the candidate closest to our ideology that can be elected. (part 2 of 2)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Tmstratman, Tmarcial at Oct 02, 2004 00:05 AM
To everyone wanting to vote their "conscience", Think about how far away we are today politically from those very beliefs you wish to voice, then magnify that by 4 more years of this country being moved further to the right. How can anyone consciously ignore the reality of this election? John Kerry is not any progressives' first or even last choice as a candidate, but whether you like it or not, he represents liberalism in this election. We are not going to help our cause by solidifying the neo-conservatives' grip on power. This will only serve to further marginalize our voices for many many years to come. In 2000 I voted for Ralph Nader. He was my "vote of conscience". My rationalization, beside the obvious, was that if Bush was elected people would eventually see the difference between the right's ideology and their rhetoric. I believed this could lead to reactionary resurgence of the left. Four years later, is there one? Maybe. There is more unity against the republicans, but how much closer are we to promoting our agenda? Our unity, if that is the appropriate word, is fueled by desperation. Part 1 of 2

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Drekhead2000, Scionkirk at Sep 30, 2004 02:54 AM
and a belief that if they let the US backed regimes totally rape the country, the country would be ripe for a 'real' revolution led by them. I think the American left has been too much in this line of thought. What I think Chomsky's message is, by letting things get so bad as to cause a 'correct' revolution, we are risking the very survival of the planet. We need to be realistic here. The radical right has all the guns. We'd lose, and bad. John Kerry is the best hope the world will have in quite some time, and there may not be that much time left. I think all spectrums of the left should support Kerry just this once, so if the Dems lose, they won't be able to blame it on Nader and repeat the same mistakes in 2008. I've said that America doesn't need a viable 3rd party, it needs a viable 2nd party. I wish Nader held out until 2008. If he did, he'd be able to say in 2008 'look, I let the Dems have their way in 2004, and they lost, bad, and now they don't have any excuses. Now lets get down to the business of creating a viable alternative.' If we have a muddled election like 2000, and the Dems can point to Nader instead of themselves, 2008 won't be much different.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Drekhead2000, Scionkirk at Sep 30, 2004 02:38 AM
Wow... Chomsky Blog!! One of the most suprising things in studying Latin American politics in the 2nd half of the 20th century is that more often than not official Communist parties actually supported the US backed military regimes over indigenous movements like the Sandinistas or Jacobo Arbenz. The key was the 'imperfections' of their ideology CONT

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Fomalhaut2003, Eridani at Sep 29, 2004 12:46 PM
The question really is "Are progressives actually going to participate in electoral politics or not?" Poking your head out of your hole in the ground like a groundhog every four years and noting that yep, still seems to be that corporate shadow cast over everything--may as well vote Green or Libertarian or one of the 57 varieties of socialist splinter groups--does not count as participation. Elections are not about your conscience, or about 'educating' anybody. They are about your candidate getting more votes that the other candidates and winning a chance to shape public policy in the legislative arena. And of course this does not stop us in any way from working on issues as outside pressure groups. Getting votes means convincing enough of your neighbors that they can and should participate actively in the public sphere and that progressive policies are better for them. If we can't do this, there isn't any point to a 'revolution.' This means either taking over the Dems starting from the ground up, or building local alternative parties. If this never happens, we will never be able to supplant the Kerrys and Bushes running for national office.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mttmalin, Adm_puphie_pants at Sep 28, 2004 11:33 AM
Mostly I agree with you. I think that the reps and dems, while largely the same, have had different roles to play in terms of "crowd control." Those roles seem to be in transition these days. My fear is that all of this is really just pointless. The current admin wasn't given power. They took it. If you're willing to go that far, why would you give it up? There are plenty of things they can do (if needed) to maintain it. Anyway, why should there really be an election this year? There wasn't four years ago.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Sep 28, 2004 09:07 AM
Is a vote for Nader a mistake? Is any vote relevant with electronic no-paper trail voting controlled by Republican companies? I doubt voting in the U.S is legitimate. If it is, then Nader can't win, period. So then we have Skull and Bones. The question is can Kerry grow as a person? We know Bush cannot. Even though Kerry is a creature of the corporate/oligarch world, he is not a complete moron, unlike Duhbya. If you vote, vote Kerry, his intellect is real, his heart may be dark, maybe he is capable of being more then he seems. Duhbya cannot. And Nader cannot win, period. Whats the argument about? Nader is qualified, but cannot win, Kerry has a brain, therefore he has potential for personal growth. There is no difference between Dems and Reps, the hope is that PEOPLE can change. Parties won't.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mttmalin, Adm_puphie_pants at Sep 27, 2004 01:11 AM
Hey, look, my concern is with Nader and the statements that he has made regarding similarity between Republicans and Democrats. Trust me, I am very much aware of the similarities that exist. (My concern IS NOT with those that question Kerry. He should be questioned. In a meticulous and vigorous fasion.) The fact is Nader and supoorters have asserted this Dime's Dif issue that I believe is not only un-substantiated but also very dangerous. I have not asserted anyhing except that Bush is lethal and that any move that gives him authority should be questioned(in a meticulous and vigorous fasion). I am also saying that I disagree with Nader. I do not have to prove Nader wrong, he has to prove himself correct. Do you have a difficult time allowing others to be and felt heard?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 27, 2004 01:01 AM
Clinton is not relevant That's just silly. I'm over it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 27, 2004 00:52 AM
That does not disqualify the Iraq war as a point of discussion. No what disqualifies it is the tissue-thin difference between Kerry and Bush on this particular matter. Even the signers of the anti-Nader position knew to steer clear of it This war IS an example of the illegitimate exercise of authority. . . Agreed. Authority which came by way of Kerry and Edwards, among others, who claim to have no regrets. But this is a pointless exercise. You've yet to even attempt a factual case based on his or anyone else's policies or record. And Chomsky's original post was unsatisfying in this regard as well. The more I see this issue discussed the more convinced I become of how utterly degraded, hopeless and cynical the left establishment has become. Chomsky signing on with the likes of Kerry will be regarded in retrospect as some sort of death knell. Repudiating Nader will do nothing in our fight against the right. It will only create divisions and, of course the most divisive elements will be the ones crying foul. It's disgusting.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mttmalin, Adm_puphie_pants at Sep 27, 2004 00:18 AM
Clinton is not relevant. This war IS an example of the illegitimate exercise of authority. Be wary of accepting too much of the "right's" spin on what Kerry says. Re-visit the original post and read some of the potential consequences (in terms of war) that we may be facing with Bush. Certainly there are other areas of vulnerability for Nadar, however that does not disqualify the Iraq war as a point of discussion. Finally, regarding "moral probity" I would consider citizens of "swing states" as individuals who can exercise a certain amount of self care, as such it might be suggested that they look beyond their own dinner plate and realize that there are others in (much) greater need. There are indeed problems with this system that need to be addressed. A vote for Nader is not the solution. Neither, by the way, is the continuation of the Business party as it exists today. This is not simply a moral and tactical issue (but it does have moral and tactical aspects). This is about what kind of "solution" will facilitate a true "Change" as opposed to merely a change of symptoms.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 26, 2004 22:14 PM
Are the people outside of the United States who have lost their families who are MOST CERTAINLY ARE GOING TO DIE when George Bush is elected really served when I choose an ideology over their lives? Oh I don't know. Maybe you should ask the living relatives of all the Iraqis who starved to death or died without medicine on Clinton's watch. C'mon folks. A case can certainly be made for Kerry, but best not to focus on the 'war' since until recently he was promising escalation. Please. It seems to me the area where the Nader crowd's case is most vulnerable are those areas where the President can exercise authority without Congress. Show us the damage Bush can/will do in these areas, compared the Clinton's record in the same areas and you might actually persuade someone in some swing state somewhere to bend over for Kerry. Spare us the preening demonstrations of your moral probity. Isn't that what you tactical voting types are always accusing Nader of?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mttmalin, Adm_puphie_pants at Sep 26, 2004 21:45 PM
"it's a just war, after all." When I think about “voting my conscience” I cannot escape the idea that I am voting for the rest of the world. I ask myself, "Are the people outside of the United States who have lost their families, who are dying right now, and who are MOST CERTAINLY ARE GOING TO DIE when George Bush is elected really served when I choose an ideology over their lives?" Just how excited do you think they are for me? I'm sure the twenty-plus thousand already dead in Iraq were quite willing (probably quite "pumped" in fact)to make the sacrifice for my conscience and "progressive" ideology. It seems like another example of how the rest of the world (specifically the poor)usually end up footing the bill for for unconscious American privilege. So, my conscience says that I do not have the right to once again demand my "American Privilege" at the expense of the rest of the world. To do so would move me closer to George Bush and his fellows, dedicated to my ideology over my humanity, to my shame and peril of the world.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Brickbat, Brickbat at Sep 26, 2004 20:57 PM
Hi, Do you want to vote for the good cop or the bad cop? ciao, bb

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Sep 24, 2004 23:05 PM
Mmm. I actually did some volunteer work for the Nader 2004 campaign, too. Perhaps not as much as a could have, but I put in some time. I hope that his (and other) messages have effects. It's just that we live in a "democracy" right now. So in a swing state, to vote is to choose between possible outcomes. I live in Massachusetts, so I get to vote for Nader and feel good about it. If I lived in Florida, well.. it's a very personal choice. If you make yours for Nader, of course I respect it. I understand the reasons. For one thing it feels like total bullshit to vote ("vow") for something that one doesn't even agree with. But considering that we are setting the context for the next 4 years' protests... ah. Whatever happens, we need to ramp up on generating conversation and demand around instant run-off voting.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 21:51 PM
Remember how under many Democratic presidents we were talking about acid rain, we were talking about racial equality And talking and talking and talking. Under Clinton, the 'first black president' who so soulfully felt everyone's pain, more black men went to jail than at any other time in history. This was not a coincidence. Clinton was in bed with the prison industry. As a 'New Democrat' he also wanted to show he was tough on crime and not as beholden as his predecessors to black activists. I'm sure we needn't re-visit his part in welfare reform. I seem to also recall that it was Clinton who got us all talking about Al Queda, Osama Bin Laden and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and Saddam's evil intentions while the divide between rich and poor grew ever wider. But oh, how we talked.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 21:26 PM
cont'd from previous post: Therefore, for me, agenda item #1 is the demolition of DLC/DNC monopoly on opposition. Demolish this monopoly and you can finally fight the right wing with both hands. If Kerry loses this election (by larger than the margin taken by the quixotic Nader) the DLC/DNC monopoly is toast.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 21:25 PM
Some notes: Under Bush/Clear Skies, SO2 is capped at 4.5 million . . . . . .I believe we are better off to assist the less-bad alternative. I appreciate the citing of specific policy differences, which are critical to any legitimate discussion of this issue. I have no doubt, that, in the short run, a Kerry presidency is less harmful to most things we hold dear, though we could probably quibble over the extent. But anyway, I am not convinced in regard to the long haul. The single biggest impediment to forward movement in this country is not the right wing (which will always be there be it center stage or at the margins) but the monopoly on dissent maintained by the most degenerate elements in the Democratic Party. It is this monopoly that has enabled right-wing control of all branches of government. They would rather lose elections than mobilize the base. Were these elements not in control of the Democratic Party, Bush would be getting his ass whipped by now. cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Sep 24, 2004 21:01 PM
For any of you who don't know about the Dollar Euro war and it's history. [url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html]The Invasion of Iraq: Dollar vs Euro[/url]

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Sep 24, 2004 20:45 PM
also, for those who like to examine the details of policy alternatives, here is a report worth examining: www.rff.org/multipollutant It is a legislative comparison of multipollutant proposals (i.e. what will be the limits for polluting corporations). Some notes: Under Bush/Clear Skies, SO2 is capped at 4.5 million tons in 2010; under Jim Jeffords it is 2.25 million tons in 2009. NOx under Clear Skies is 2.19 million tons in 2008; Under Jeffords 1.51 million tons in 2009. Mercury under Bush 34 tons in 2010, Jeffords 5 tons in 2008. CO2 under Bush there is no CO2 policy, under Jeffords 2.05 billion tons in 2009. It goes on. I don't know whether it is still in debate, but this illustrates the point. None of the proposals says "citizens who breathe the air determine the limit." This is clear. But we can (a) reduce the harm, and (b) continue to protest Jeffords-type proposals as not being good enough. Given that there are two feasable outcomes to the 2004 election, I believe we are better off to assist the less-bad alternative. From there, as always, it's a matter of continued hard work, communication, and protest.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Sep 24, 2004 20:44 PM
It's a war being played out by Corporate/economic adversaries. All sides are equally (more or less) degenerate. They will propagandize against each other, but at heart, they are different cabals of Plutocrats. They all want to exploit the world and the "serfs", as much as possible. They may have different styles, but they have the same exact goals. Brit/Fed has dominated since WWII, the new world war is being fought to save that dominace. Make no mistake about it, the E.U. is fighting back, and they will not stop. Therefore the war on "terrorism", is a never ending war. It's a disguise to fight the E.U on all fronts e.g U.S rights diminish/Police State, making espionage a scary proposition if caught by the U.S. i.e you're a terrorist. Bush, Kerry, the difference is in public style, not policy. The same money powers will continue the war with the E.U. and their economic allies for world economic hegemony. Social issues in the U.S by politcal parties are meant as fodder for public support i.e Republicans try to get religious support, Democrats try to appeal to everyone else. It's a scam.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Sep 24, 2004 20:40 PM
E.U mass media is extremely anti Bush for a reason. I believe the invasion of Iraq has started WW3. Unlike WW2, this war is like the Cold War, where covert operations (including overt media propaganda) by the major powers, coincide with regional conflicts where they fight over control of 3rd World resources and loyalties. It's a war between those who support Dollar hegemony, versus those who are against it. It is a world where the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The main adversary of the Bush/Brit/Federal Reserve cabal, is the E.U. They must be supporting, as much as possible, resistance to Bush/Brit/Fed. To the E.U., U.S. occupation of Iraq is an economic defeat. The E.U. agenda is of course, to weaken U.S. economic hegemony. Iraq had changed to the Euro, violating the dollar price rule. Of course the E.U. is all for that, and all against anything that helps the Dollar and it's controllers. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Sep 24, 2004 20:13 PM
To backtrack a little: I would like to apologize if anyone perceived my remark as telling people how to vote. That wasn't my intention and it isn't my business. I would suggest that, to my eyes, we are going to continue protesting and organizing regardless of who is president. None of the viable candidates is going to work with us tomorrow on repealing monopolistic drug patents etc. -- But -- Remember how under many Democratic presidents we were talking about acid rain, we were talking about racial equality -- there were huge PR campaigns going to kids in high school and that shaped public attitudes for the future at a crucial formative time. I belive that if we give Kerry the 2% that would otherwise go to other candidates in "swing" states then we can create again a climate that is better for our agenda. It doesn't mean that administation will do the work for us -- hardly -- but at least we can set the discussion better, rather than having to waste time explain why the Bush plans are wrong. In other words, we would be far better position to continue talking about the things we actually want to discuss. But we still have to do the work, and that's important to remember.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 06:16 AM
fear-ridden racist minority The Democrats current positions on prisons, drugg laws, Israel and Venezuela suggest that fear-ridden racist minorities will be well-served by either candidate. Kerry, like Clinton, will give them a clearer conscience though.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 05:57 AM
We get to survive, here in the USA, a bit longer. What is meant by this? It's a horrible tragedy that the survival of the whole world depends on what a fear-ridden racist minority in the USA will do in voting booths on November 2, 2004. No, the horrible tragedy is that the world's survival is up for grabs regardless of which war-happy millionaire wins in Nov. Could the ABBs deal for a moment in facts? Like the bipartisan nature of American hegemony. And how about a little faith in the basically democratic instincts of the American people and the mitigating effects of global resistance to the Bush agenda. Why do you think so many elites are now backing Kerry? Why are the media finally giving Bush the hammering he's deserved from day one? It's not 'enlightened' ruling class thinking. It's practical. They feel he's becoming a hindrance. They're right. Would somebody in the ABB crowd, citing examples from history, prove why Kerry is going to be more oriented toward peace than Bush?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 04:14 AM
I think the fact that Prof Chomsky and others are saying there is a major difference between Bush and Kerry speaks volumes. . . when you have people like Naomi Klein joining the "Anybody But Bush" camp, it's very interesting. Hmm, I think even Chomsky would agree that arguments stand or fall on their own merits rather than the status of those who make them. Chomsky is no doubt capable of a strong case for Kerry. He has not made one here. His argument is based entirely on an assumption the Kerry's merits relative to Bush are so obvious and large they require no factual comparison. But he wouldn't need to make a case at all if that assumption were widely shared. So basically, the weightiest aspect of the post is the high status of the person making it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 03:58 AM
PART 5 We keep hearing that 'now is not the time' to finally abandon lesser-evilism. But when exactly is a good time? Do you think the extreme right is just going to scuttle back into some dark hole never to emerge again? No, they'll be there the whole time fighting tooth and nail for power. So it will never be the 'right time' to reject the Democrats, will it? The thing I find so bothersome about ABB is that it's so supplicant. There needs to be a pow-wow. Progressives say, we'll hold our nose and even work for you, but we want certain concessions and we don't get these concessions we will work in every swing state to ensure your defeat. The slim margins in modern Presidential elections give insurgencies a tremendous amount of clout. But it's never used methodically. This business of socialists taking buses to Pennsylvania to work for Kerry, asking nothing in return, is truly cringe-worthy. Anyway, blah blah. It just seems that as much as this topic is written about too little of fact and strategy gets said. Sadly the same actually goes here for Chomsky. END

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 03:55 AM
PART 4 There is also just the simple matter of strategy. If Kerry loses, it really will mean the end of politics as usual for the Democratic Party. The Democratic base will certainly either sieze control of the party or marginalize it out of existence by finally building a viable alternative out of its ashes. This will certainly be the last time they will tolerate one more hideously inept bid for the presidency. In this light, it really would be better if progressives stayed home. It needs to be clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Democrats lost due to their own inadequacy. Fighting for their lives, the Democrats will very likely attempt to impeach Bush. Certainly the grounds to do so are there. These are all good things. cont'd.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 03:54 AM
PART 3 Having factually contended with all of that, I would like him to prove how in the long run a Kerry victory, which would very likely restore a certain amount of international co-operation toward America's mission of global privatization, does more good for potential 'enemies' in the long run. Or why, given the very bloody history of Democratic presidencies, Kerry would be less inclined to use the full force of America's weapons systems than Bush? If Bush has a single redeeming feature, it is that he has laid the whole game bare. The American empire without international cooperation is doomed to fail. This is a good thing. With Kerry, the Emperor's clothes go back on. cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 03:53 AM
PART 2 Considering that the DLC is still very much in charge of the party, I would like Chomsky to contend with, say, Clinton's hideous attacks against Iraq, black people, the poor, the environment and civil liberties. With his record-breaking weapons sales. His record prison-building and support for racist drug laws and enforcement. His inaction on AIDS. His enabling of Israeli atrocity. With the fact that the neo-liberal plan for world dominance, as plainly written, differs very little from the neo-con plan for world dominance. With the fact that the greater part of the Patriot Act was authored by Janet Reno. cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Sep 24, 2004 03:52 AM
PART 1 What an honor to participate in a discussion with Noam Chomsky. I have to say I'm glad I don't live in a swing state because I would be very much at odds with myself. I live in NYC and can therefore vote Nader or Socialist in completely clear conscience. One of the liabilities of the blogging form is that, by convention, it is not particularly rigorous. We do not find here, then, Chomsky's usual relentless proving. Which is a pity, because when a voice as weighty as Chomsky's says "Vote Kerry", it's serious business. We therefore deserve a tad bit more proof that on foreign policy, labor issues and the environment a Kerry presidency would be a good deal better over the long term in material terms than four more years of Bush. cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Jonrandellsmith, J.r.smith at Sep 24, 2004 03:09 AM
CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE Hello everyone! As someone living outside the USA, and in the particular (and often particularly uncomforatble) position of being the USA's neighbour, I'd like to ask all Americans to do us, by which I mean the rest of the world, a big, big, big, really big favour and vote Kerry in November. Please! Kerry will by no means be perfect, but look, when you have people like Naomi Klein joining the "Anybody But Bush" camp, it's very interesting. Please get rid of the current cronies in the Administration, and then we can get back to activism as usual. Pretty Please! Thank you for your time.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Dredges, Redhawksky at Sep 24, 2004 02:26 AM
I think the fact that Prof Chomsky and others are saying there is a major difference between Bush and Kerry speaks volumes. It may not be an official endorsement for Kerry, because he does not excatly fit our progessive values, but it is saying that stopping the current destruction is a progressive value. You've got to go with your conscience. I myself am going to do some vote trading and vote Kerry in my state of Arizona for a Green vote somewhere else.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By minot, Minot at Sep 23, 2004 21:51 PM
Does Prof. Chomsky wish to coment on how his recommendation (to vote for Kerry in swing states) has been used in a general offensive against Nader by anti-Nader groups? The viciousness of left-for-Kerry attacks (e.g., Alterman in the Nation) on Nader, who has consistently been a force for good, and the contrasting excuses for war-criminal Kerry, complicit in mass murder and more, are inexcusable. In a safe state myself, I am fortunate that I can vote for an anti-war, people-before-profits candidacy. I would vote for Kerry if I lived in a swing state, but only blindfolded and having been provided a last meal.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Comraderie, Comraderie at Sep 23, 2004 18:24 PM
"A Bush win will cement the idea that he can do whatever he wants in the US and across the globe." In the past four years, not a single action he's taken didn't have the support of Congress. Every broken program, every scrapped treaty, every military action, has required either explicit permission and budget allocation from Congress, or their unwillingness to even attempt to override his authority. Matt and I were talking about impeachment in particular, but that's simply a formalism (albeit a desirable one) for stripping a President of his power. Why does the President have any power at all? Because Congress sees their fates linked to his. Lawmakers, judges, the military... They obey the President for one reason alone: They believe his decree is the will of the people. Show them that's not true, and his power vanishes. Even without a formal impeachment, his Presidency is finished. "I know that I am not going to convince you to change your mind, comraderie" Nor I yours. :) That's okay, naturally we can agree to disagree. Many people are reading this forum, and we can work together here to present them with our own perspectives so they can draw their own conclusions.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Whitworth, Colin at Sep 23, 2004 17:21 PM
I think the talk of a GOP-controlled Congress impeaching Bush is fantasy and should not cloud anyone's judgment. We know exactly what we would get with Bush, and it is disasterous. For us. For the world. A Bush win will cement the idea that he can do whatever he wants in the US and across the globe. Heck, he didn't even win in 2000 and, lacking any mandate, set about enacting an awful agenda anyway. I know that I am not going to convince you to change your mind, comraderie, and I appreciate that you stick to your principles, because we don't have enough of that. My belief is that a Kerry presidency will be far better for our country and the world than a Bush presidency, and that's enough for me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Comraderie, Comraderie at Sep 23, 2004 08:30 AM
"Let's assume they ... get 10% of the Presidential vote - you think that's enough to pass articles of impeachment through a GOP controlled Congress?" Yes, and here's why. Most Congressmen would LOVE to impeach him. All the Dems would, just for payback for the GOP's impeachment of Clinton. Many Reps would happily do it because of infighting (Bush's treatment of McCain in 2000 still draws lingering resentment; also, Buchanan and Falwell hate him for not being Right-wing ENOUGH!). Right now, today, they could impeach him easily. But they WON'T, because they're afraid they'd lose their own jobs. Personally I think 3rd-party turnout will be huge, 18% to 20%. But I'll take your 10%. That margin is more than enough to make politicians realize voters are moving Left. It'll embolden them to fight against Bush like never before, and impeachment won't be far behind. But a Kerry win tells them the country likes him, and they should follow his policies. As much as you rant about the crimes of Bush, the crimes of Kerry won't be far behind. And, unlike Bush, nobody in Congress will speak out against him. Nobody. An impeached Bush, or an entrenched Kerry? I'll take the former.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Matt6440, Mattb at Sep 23, 2004 05:05 AM
That's a pretty big if, isn't it? What are the realistic projections for 3rd party candidates this year, 3-5%? Let's assume they perform beyond the wildest expectations and get 10% of the Presidential vote - you think that's enough to pass articles of impeachment through a GOP controlled Congress? That's just not a serious scenario. "Yes, if we vote third party, then Bush may win, but his remaining term will be ineffectual and, most likely, quite brief - and the political establishment after Bush's impeachment will be a solid progressive base." Again - I'm spotting you 10% here. There's still no chance of an impeachment, so if that is your strategy to rally a progressive base you'd better have a plan B. Now we're stuck with Bush, who doesn't have to worry about another election while he rolls back more social programs under the cloak of "fiscal responsibility" continues the imperial assault on the Middle East, accelerates deregulation, subsidies the militarization of space. No thanks - I'd rather work on building a progressive base with a less threatening President.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Comraderie, Comraderie at Sep 23, 2004 03:07 AM
"There is one way (besides an unlikely impeachment) to remove him from office - vote for Kerry." Of COURSE it's unlikely for Bush to be impeached in our current political climate - because our current set of politicians see no personal political benefit for themselves in doing so! But, if they see the electorate's viewpoints are those of Nader, Cobb, etc., then those politicians will realize that their constituents will cheer an impeachment. Yes, if we vote third party, then Bush may win, but his remaining term will be ineffectual and, most likely, quite brief - and the political establishment after Bush's impeachment will be a solid progressive base. If we vote Kerry, the establishment may move a hair's breadth Leftwards, but it'll remain jammed where it is for the indefinite future. A restrained Bush is still bad, but is it as bad as an all-powerful Kerry whom nobody will never challenge? You need to think outside the proverbial box. If you remain fixated on who gets the White House, you implicitly accept the false premises of the political machine. Which, of course, is exactly what both parties want you to do.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Matt6440, Mattb at Sep 23, 2004 01:30 AM
"Any other action tells the political establishment, "We do not support this man, nor his policies." I disagree. There is one way for for Bush to be held accountable - remove him from office. There is one way (besides an unlikely impeachment) to remove him from office - vote for Kerry. Voting for a 3rd party or abstaining does nothing to hold Bush accountable and does nothing to remove him from office. If there is evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to consider it, otherwise we must proceed on the assumption that either Bush or Kerry will be President. Whatever "significant difference" will be achieved by voting 3rd party or abstaining has to be considered against the offsetting, predictable consequences of a 2nd Bush term. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how another 4 years of Bush will shape favorably the political direction of the country in any way.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Sep 22, 2004 22:59 PM
Fat cat corporate klingons, putting on a show for peons. Will it be Exxon or will it be Sony? said the prophet..money money money...MONEY! Clintonian Bushoian fighting over who can confiscate your dreams, a vote from the damned is less then it seems. Calculating prisoners in a beauty contest, which guard will win? Is it the one who smuggles your cigarettes who you fantasize about at night? Predators and sycophants in humble drag sharpening their claws as their meal sets the dining table. Ritualized hypnotized, what will the new day bring? Clinton redux Neocon reflux. Ain't no rules, ain't no vow, we can do it anyhow:I'n'I will see you through...Jah sitteth in Mount Zion And rules all creation,Yeah, we're - we're jammin'...Excuse me while I light my spliff, Good God, I gotta take a lift, From reality I just can't drift,That's why I am staying with this riff.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Comraderie, Comraderie at Sep 22, 2004 22:48 PM
MattB: "A vote for ... a third party candidate, or staying home on November 2 is a vote not to hold Bush accountable for the crimes done in our name by his administration...." That statement is false. The only election-day behavior that absolves Bush of his crimes is a vote for Bush (which is why I ellipsed that option out). Any other action tells the political establishment, "We do not support this man, nor his policies." Any anti-Bush action opens a door for more politicians to adopt anti-Bush positions to capitalize on the votes they see available. You would have us believe that the only action that would encourage anti-Bush politicians is a vote for Kerry. That's plainly and simply untrue, and it saddens me when people who have no love for Kerry espouse the lie that we should vote for Kerry because of our lack of choice. You seem to believe that this upcoming election will only affect who gets to be President for the next four years. What it's actually shaping is the entire political direction of this country. It is there that real change will occur, and it is there that we can make a significant difference.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Matt6440, Mattb at Sep 22, 2004 22:02 PM
"A vote for Kerry is a vote for a far more militaristic democratic platform." More militaristic than Kucinich, yes, but maybe less militaristic than BushCo. We don't have the luxury of the first option, we're stuck with the latter. A vote for Bush, a third party candidate, or staying home on November 2 is a vote not to hold Bush accountable for the crimes done in our name by his administration by the only (flimsy) means we have. That would be terribly irresponsible, IMO.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Comraderie, Comraderie at Sep 22, 2004 19:04 PM
Colin: "At least with Kerry progressives would have a chance to be heard." That may seem to be the case, but it is only true on the surface. Our political establishment consists of two juggernaut parties. Both are deeply entrenched, but one has a good chance of moving toward an ever more progressive agenda. We will not get it to move one inch by telling it that we support it in its current form. Remember the Democratic Convention? The Dems have moved Rightward to challenge GWB, because they think that's where the votes are. You can plainly see it before your eyes. If we give them our votes, we will confirm to them that, yes, that IS the right direction to move in, and yes, we endorse a GOP-Lite. Is that the country you want to live in? A President Bush-Lite with effectively 100% support from Congress to do anything he pleases? I don't think so.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Comraderie, Comraderie at Sep 22, 2004 18:52 PM
x3ro: "Try explaining to an Iraqi whose country has been destroyed by the neocon administration..." Yes, and what I'm saying is that this is what Bush has done UNDER RESTRAINT. Think about it. We have not used nuclear weapons. We have not fire-bombed population centers. We have not rounded up entire Muslim communities in this country and sent them to detention camps. We have not reinstituted slavery not reintroduced segregation into public schools. All of these are on the Bush agenda, and the only reason they have not happened is because Congress wouldn't let him get away with any of it. They saw his low election numbers and knew that they would lose their own chance at re-election by supporting him. If he were elected with a sizeable majority, they would have no reason to stand against him, and plenty of reason to stand WITH him... Like they did, for example, in passing the PATRIOT Act right after 9/11. They cared, as they must, more about poll numbers than about principle. You speak hyperbolically about the horrors of the Bush regime, but I hope you realize that, while it's been bad, our active and vocal resistance has succeeded in keeping it from being much, much worse.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Whitworth, Colin at Sep 22, 2004 16:59 PM
Comraderie, Millions of people voting for Nader in 2000 likewise has not made Dems more progressive today. However, Dems like Kerry, as distasteful as they can be, are far better for our country than Bush, in dozens of ways. And Kerry actually has a chance of winning. If voting for a third party candidate helps Bush get re-elected, then doesn't that also "prop up an agenda that violates so many things we hold dear"? I think so, and in fact I think it props up a far worse agenda -- the dismantling of the social safety net, protections for workers, destruction of the environment, a zealous rightwing Supreme Court, and on and on and on. I just don't think our country and the rest of the world can chance another Bush presidency. At least with Kerry progressives would have a chance to be heard. Colin

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Josh, X3ro at Sep 22, 2004 06:59 AM
In reply to comraderie's comment. You say 'Bush's power has thankfully never grown so great' ... Really? Try explaining to an Iraqi whose country has been destroyed by the neocon administration that it's better to 'hold dear' to your principles than to vote tactically ..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Comraderie, Comraderie at Sep 22, 2004 05:11 AM
In even a partially working democracy, power comes from perception of the public will. Politicians act by what they THINK will win the most votes. Each vote for Kerry, then, IS an endorsement. It's a message to all politicians that we're willing to vote for someone who espouses Kerry's beliefs. The unelected Bush lacks a public mandate to rule. Powerful figures scrutinize and question him openly, denounce him in the Senate, oppose his judicial picks. Imagine if he'd truly won in 2000! Senators who've been vocally anti-Bush would keep silent for fear of losing voters. Bush's power has thankfully never grown so great. Why, then, would we give that power to Bush-lite? If Kerry wins, he won't think, "I must change for my constituents!" He'll see our votes as marks of approval. More importantly, other politicians will see that the public will vote for Kerry, and change to be more Kerry-like! Electing Kerry won't make him adopt a progressive agenda. Instead, it will make progressive politicians move Rightward for political self-preservation. Our votes cannot go to Kerry. We must not let our votes be used to prop up an agenda that violates so many things we hold dear.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Sep 21, 2004 23:55 PM
If we are to bother participating in the voting option, which I believe we should, then that participation should be realistic. It's not a wholesale endorsement of John Kerry to vote for him if you live in a "swing" state. It's taking a five minute break for the meaningful work to go out and vote, so we can create the best possible climate for our work, given the narrow set of candidates we have. In other words, I believe it will be worthwhile for the real Left to vote for the fake one on T.V., otherwise we all know what will happen, since we can do basic math. And this is a temporary concession. After eight years of protesting a President Kerry, we can mobilize enough of the population to take it further. (You didn't think we'd just sell out, did you?) :-)

Reply this comment

Person

By Johnson, Walter at Sep 21, 2004 19:50 PM
Kerry has one of the most "liberal" voting records in the Senate. He has also taken courageous stands in the past, which means he might take courageous stands in the future. For these reasons alone he is preferable to Bush. However,on Iraq or the Middle East situation in general, people are "dreaming in technicolour" if they expect Kerry to provide some "magic bullet" solution to the current chaos. People who vote for him must do so with their eyes open.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Smith, Brucesmith at Sep 21, 2004 17:01 PM
On virtually every issue that matters now (i.e. issues on which action will be taken over the next four years) Kerry will reverse or slow the destructiveness of the Bush Administration policies. To name just a few: Kerry won't appoint anti-choice judges; he won't allow polluters to set environmental policy or drug companies to set health policy. He won't allow a cadre of Neocon ideologues to set foreign policy. Also, think about three items that are likely to top the agenda of Bush's second term: 1) “winning” in Iraq--you can expect an all-out assault on the insurgents' urban strongholds right after the election. Bush will no longer be constrained by fear of American casualties; it'll be bloody and futile; 2) the effort to privatize Social Security and 3) an attack on the concept of progressive taxation. These last two are the crème de la crème of the radical Republican movement. They will use their usual method of deceptive sloganeering and sentimentality to redirect public spending upward. There are untold numbers of people whose lives will be materially worse if Bush wins. I'm voting for Kerry. Things don't have to get worse before they get better.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Whitworth, Colin at Sep 21, 2004 16:58 PM
Kerry is not the same as Bush. They may be more alike than, say, Kerry and Nader, but voting your conscience will not get your conscience elected. It might help Bush get elected. I believe Bush would be far worse for the cause of Greens than Kerry.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush & Kerry Differences

By Cox, Grahamcox at Sep 21, 2004 16:28 PM
You are to vote how your conscience tells you to. Yes, a reason to vote for John Kerry is because his platform is less destructive and less brutal than Bush... or at least this is a reason not to vote for Bush. I think this post is simply a response to a lot of the "Left" commentaries that basically say "Do not vote Kerry, he is the same as Bush." The main points have been confused in those commentaries. The message is Kerry is not Left, not good for the people, and not the solution to empire. However, I do not see any reason that you cannot step on him (figuratively) as you march towards a just society. Change will take time and take more than just voting Green in this (and other) elections. To bring real change you must bring people with you by convincing them that your way is better. This gets more difficult when you have to exert a lot of effort just to keep things from getting worse.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (54)

Loading_border