To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Bush or Kerry?

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 or Kerry?

By Noam Chomsky at Oct 05, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
We should not be caught up in the massive propaganda campaign to focus attention, laser-like, on quadrennial personalized extravaganzas as if that constitutes democratic politics. As I wrote in my one comment about this, a web post at Znet many months ago in response to repeated inquiries, we can't ignore the extravaganzas, any more than we can ignore a hurricane, but it shouldn't take much of our time and energy, and we should continue to work on far more important matters, creating the basis for a live, functioning democratic culture in which whoever happens to hold office will be compelled to respond to popular concerns and demands -- and, some day, we may get to the stage where issues are permitted into the electoral arena and there are real choices of candidates. I have precisely emphasized [that] we should "not focus only on the individuals but on the underlying power interests that they represent," and should be constantly working on this, not becoming obsessed with the extravaganzas, and spending only a few moments making (I think quite obvious) decisions about them. Within the existing framework of institutions, there are different options. Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz etc. happen to constitute a radical jingoist extreme of the narrow spectrum, committed to violence and enhancing very serious military threats abroad and destroying what exists of decent government programs at home. That's why they have received such unprecedented condemnation from the heart of the mainstream.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (16)

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Cfraserh, Haps33 at Oct 30, 2004 04:34 AM
I think the most important point to make is that nobody can possibly predict the extent to which either a Kerry or Bush administration will provide "fertile ground from which an awareness can be harvested". We just don't know. As such, the only reasonable decision should be made based on what little knowable consequences the election of either will produce. For example, one could make the argument that the more executions the better because more people will inevitably realize the injustice of the death penalty. Conversely, one could argue that the more victims of crime the better because they will then realize the necessity of the death penalty. It just doesn't work that way. There is no such inevitability and counting on it is only going to bring more executions, and more war. Obviously this flawed logic could apply to almost anything and I think it's both a wrong and dangerous way to approach such an important decision as Americans are faced with on Nov. 2nd.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Innerreflection77, Grissebasse at Oct 30, 2004 04:16 AM
I believe it is exactly because the Bush administration is so extreme and aggresive in marginalizing itself from others that there is better chance for change under him. The global and political awareness of individuals in the US has risen under the bush years because of the impacts of his policies. Noam speaks of a grassroots effort to awaken American conciousness to both the international and domestic consequences of american policy abroad and at home, both by republicans and democrats. What the bush administration offers is fertile ground from which an awareness can be harvested. The Kerry campaign is designed to promise a return to the status quo of government policy and a diffusion of the atmosphere of activism and change with little stuctural change to the appartus of power and government.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Boog, Rlb at Oct 29, 2004 06:42 AM
The Iraq war is going to destroy whoever wins this election. There is a slim hope that the outcome will be less bloody under Kerry, but its slim. The long term effect on the federal judiciary seems to me to be more dispositive. If Bush picks according to his "Dred Scot" litmus test - and he will - the result will be devastating.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Historybuff, Anarchist at Oct 12, 2004 22:05 PM
The whole debate on Iraq is a pseudo-debate. The people are left in ignorance with regards to the actual history of US in Iraq. You will never, ever hear John Kerry or Bush talk about how we loaded Saddam up with weaponry during the Iran/Iraq war. How the CIA hired him for purposes of an assassination. How we took Iraq off the "Terror Country" list in the 1980's. The list can go on and on. How 500,000's of Iraqis died due to the real WMD's: Sanctions. The whole entire current debate on Iraq misses the point because if you fail to have a firm, complete understanding of American foreign policy in Iraq, in no way can you make a rational, accurate judgement on the war itself. The genocide of the Iraqi people continues..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Cfraserh, Haps33 at Oct 12, 2004 03:59 AM
Ummm... A few hours later, been browsing Znet, I find out that there are many people who actually seriously posit what I implied in my previous comment. I would just like to clarify: I did not mean to imply that the more brutal the administration the better because we will then be that much closer to some unknown, apparently inevitable "end". Having read the debate over the idea, it seems to revolve around the assumption that the next 4 years will not happen, or if they do, they don't matter. This, of course, is easy to say as a Canadian who would not have to live in the United States for another 4 years under this administration. Although I still don't think there will be much in the way of change if Kerry is elected, I do not, as some do, support the re-election of GWB as a punishment or as some kind of abstract catalyst of dissent to the American people.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Cfraserh, Haps33 at Oct 12, 2004 00:20 AM
I just have a few thoughts to add here.. So far as I can tell, the only difference between Kerry and Bush regarding the war (according to Kerry) is that if Kerry did the invading, it would have been "done right". He's not now, and never was, opposed to the war. The only valid argument I can think of for electing Kerry over Bush is that a change in power might disrupt things for a little while. Even saying that is pure speculation, there's absolutely no reason to think the Democratic party will not simply continue what is happening. As Prof. Chomsky noted, it's the fact that this administration is so clearly a radical departure even from most elements of their own party that a heightened level of protest is almost inevitable. If one had the comfort of sitting in their Canadian armchair (hey, wait a second, that's me!) they might suggest that it's better to have an administration that puts little or no effort into disguising what it does than one with equally horrific crimes and a very good PR department.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Johnson, Walter at Oct 11, 2004 23:34 PM
In response to MattB as to why Kerry voted against Gulf War 1, CBS news reports that Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War. He said, at the time, "it is a vote about war because whether or not the President exercises his power, we (the senate) will have no further say after this vote." In other words, such a vote would grant the President an open-ended ticket to wage war. Apparently, Kerry had no such qualms this time when he voted to give the current President the power "to threaten" the use of force before the invasion of Iraq.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Zeppelinjunkie08, Frodo at Oct 10, 2004 23:27 PM
Bush's decision to invade Iraq was rash. Didn't even have a good motive. Bush is darn lucky that Sadamm Huseian has been caught. If he hasnt been caught, this war would have a lost cause and Bush wouldnt even have a chance in the election. If Bush is relected, he'll make the same rash decisions on other countries such as Iran, Sudan, North Korea and any other country that can fit Bushe's motive. That would add a lot of countries to his hit list. And if he invades North Korea, we'll lose China's alliance and have no communist ally. They may go make rash decisions just like we did. You never know. I know that Kerry has more common sense than Bush and would only invade a country as a last resort and only a country that has good critera to be a dangerous country to begin with. And I like Kerry's idea of dissarming North Korea by reason and with the help and support of other countries instead of Bush's brilliant idea of burning billions of dollars looking for nuclear facilities that turn out to be bread factories. (I'm not a good speller. Just to let you know)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Lawrence, Theodore at Oct 10, 2004 07:06 AM
Dear Mr. Chomsky, You say, "I have precisely emphasized [that] we should 'not focus only on the individuals but on the underlying power interests that they represent,' and should be constantly working on this, not becoming obsessed with the extravaganzas, and spending only a few moments making (I think quite obvious) decisions about them." It seems that the Bush family represent the underlying power interest of the Saudi Royal Family. And many Democrats represent the underlying power interest of Israel. Both power interests want to manipulate the government and military of the United States for their unhealthy motives. The former in the name of oil and the latter in the name of democracy. Both interests are oppressive and corrupt. Theodore Lawrence

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Matt6440, Mattb at Oct 10, 2004 03:22 AM
Does anybody have any backround on why Kerry voted against Gulf War I? I haven't had any luck finding out what he said at the time.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Directing, Canadian at Oct 08, 2004 21:10 PM
As an outsider I've come to the conclusion that Americans haven't been given any real choices. Kerry is the lesser of the two evils but he hasn't really addressed the Israel problem or touched the Patriot Act II (major restrictions with American rights issuses). On top of that Americans haven't really been given any real objectives from either party. Win the peace doesn't mean anything other then political spin. More of the same...well I assume that means arrogance and disregard for the rest of the worlds opinions. I also question the idea of only two alternatives in such an important election. In our last election here in Canada we had four parties and we chose a minority goverment to keep our liberals in check. So what's the problem America? Why is your democratic process so out of alignment? Why aren't Americans fighting for their rights as a society and as individuals?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Parke, Parke at Oct 08, 2004 19:45 PM
I agree entirely with the thrust of the New Yorker's article, that the invasion of Iraq was purely strategic and had nothing to do with preserving democracy, wiping out WMDs or fighting terrorism--though these things would have been useful side-benefits, if true. (As I blogged at http://thingsasitis.net/2004/10/realpolitik.html). And this makes Chomsky's point. So long as the United States is committed to being the dominant world power, power-grabs like Iraq are inevitable, no matter who is in charge. The difference between Bush and Kerry, it seems to me, is one of subtlety of approach rather than ultimate objective.

Reply this comment

Person

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Oct 07, 2004 16:59 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?041011fa_fact

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Oct 07, 2004 16:54 PM
Here is some of the "unprecedented condemnation from the heart of the mainstream" (quotes not used for irony, ironically). This one is from The New Yorker magazine, which is usually pretty conservative. The article addresses the peak oil theory and notes, among other things: "The decision to invade Iraq represented one way to deal with the oil-dependency dilemma: direct American intervention. President Bush, a former Texas wildcatter, and Vice-President Cheney, the former chief executive of Halliburton, the world's biggest oil-services company, both have an acute understanding of energy issues. In 1999, when Cheney was still at Halliburton, he gave a speech at London's Institute of Petroleum in which he pointed out that by 2010 the world would probably need another fifty million barrels of oil a day. 'So where is the oil going to come from?' Cheney asked. 'While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.'"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Theologynerd23, Agentoftruth at Oct 05, 2004 22:25 PM
I have a difficult time believing that if the failed Bush/Cheney Administration is considered a failure, that the thinking American public concedes to the next best loser. Kerry is not going to satiate the naysayers of the current Administration - in fact, he may end up a bigger disappointment. But I hear little of the frustration of the limited options - left or right. I think we need to press for more options in the electorial process than the choice of bad or bad in different way...can anyone posit options for a viable future beyond the upcoming election? Kerry cannot be the answer for America - not now, not in a million years! Most independent newsites are falling to the Kerry option, as though they cannot consider another option to protest the limited political milleiu.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Bush or Kerry?

By Johnson, Walter at Oct 05, 2004 20:50 PM
Criticism of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy cuts across the political spectrum. From the paleoconservative "culture warrior" Patrick Buchanan, to "Rothbardites" like Justin Raimundo, who operates the highly effective website anti-war.com, to Lew Rockwell, and other right "libertarians", of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, and mainstream conservative columnists like Eric Margolis and Charley Reese, there has been an unprecedented outpouring of critical comment on the "right" about the real danger that the re-election of the current administration poses. Like many on the "left", none of these commentators "pull their punches" the way Kerry does but, then again, none of them are running for office. Kerry represents the only viable alternative at the moment.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (16)

Loading_border