To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Replying to Nader

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

Replying to Nader

By Noam Chomsky at Oct 12, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
[Nader wrote a response to a letter many, including Chomsky, signed. Noam was asked his reactions to Nader's criticisms of the letter and its authors.] The letter [Nader 2000 Leaders Organize To Defeat Bush](http://www.vote2stopbush.com) very briefly repeated the same position that I (and probably other signers) took in 2000: that it's important to keep the Bush crew from having another four years in power, even more important now than it was 4 years ago. That entails "tactical voting," meaning against Bush in swing states. But other than that, the statement says nothing about supporting Nader, the Greens, or any other political organization. That wasn't the point of that very brief and narrow statement, and if it had gone on, participants might have expressed various ideas about safe states and elections other than the presidential election -- which are crucial. ZNet sustainer quotes Ralph Nader's responce to the letter from his interview on Democracy Now 10/04/04 Noam responds point by point. Nader: “Well, it's a total loss of nerve. I mean, first of all, they didn't ask anything of Kerry.” Chomsky: Nor of Bush. Kerry and Bush are not my audience. Nor their predecessors. Nor the party leaders. Activists have quite different concerns. They are engaged with the public, and try to help in the growth and development of popular organizations that will become powerful enough so that they cannot be ignored by centers of power. If Pat Robertson says, as he recently did, that he'll start a third party unless the Republicans are sufficiently extreme in "support of Israel," that's a threat, because he might be able to mobilize tens of millions of evangelical Christians who already form a significant political force, thanks to extensive work over decades from local levels and on, and on numerous issues apart from the political choices from school boards to presidents. If I were to ask something of the Democratic or Republican campaigns, it would be a joke. If we had succeeded in creating mass popular organizations, they would be able to influence campaign rhetoric (and, if powerful enough, decisions) as well. The way we "ask something of Kerry" or Bush is by joining in the work to develop those popular forces. Nader: “They said to the voters in the close states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon, they said, vote for Kerry, quote, even though we strongly disagree with Kerry on the war and other issues, end quote. Well, when you don't demand anything of Kerry, he gets worse.” Chomsky: And if the signers were to say "vote against Kerry" unless he does so-and-so, the effect would be at most a few rhetorical flourishes that have no meaning, because the Democratic leadership knows that the voters in these states are not going to try to help re-elect Bush (the consequence of not voting for Kerry), and will therefore ignore the call. That will continue until we escape the traps of the massive campaigns to restrict political action to personalized quadrennial extravaganzas, and engage the real tasks of organizing, including potential electoral alternatives. Nader: “If you don't make Kerry better, he gets worse.” Chomsky: And the way to make the Democrats (not Kerry; this isn't a gladiatorial contest) better is by developing political forces and popular organizations that they can't ignore. Actually, during the primaries, before the massive extravaganzas takes off, it is possible for candidates to raise issues and help to organize popular support for them, thereby influencing the campaigns to some extent -- even though even that is far too late in the game. But after the primaries, once the extravaganza is underway, the effects of mere statements are minimal -- in the absence of significant mass organizations. Nader: “Because the corporations are demanding 24 hours a day. They're not squeamish like the left is.” Chomsky: The "squeamishness" is not about the electoral extravaganza, but about developing mass popular organizations that can -- along with other activities -- enter into the primary campaigns and the political arena generally, local to national, in some significant way. That's a day-after-day activity, not every four years. Of course the business classes are constantly fighting a bitter class war, all the time, not for a few months every four years. And so are other forces, like evangelical Christians, at every political level, and on the issues of importance to them. And that's been true often of other major forces, like the labor movement and civil rights movement, the anti-war movements, the women's movements, the consumer movements that Nader did so much to energize, and many others. And they do have an effect, as we have often seen and still do. That's the lesson for the left. Nader: “More important is that if the left believes that their issues are compelling issues to the majority of the American people,...” Chomsky: Exactly. That's what we all try to do all the time, and shouldn't be diverted from it by these marginal issues. The rest is just missing the point, for the same reasons, so I'll stop here.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (49)

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Matthew__b, Nicobluu at Nov 21, 2004 06:20 AM
Impendingexpat, I don't think your post is very persuasive at all. You suggest that "any serious activist is engaged in the electoral process" This is precisely what Chomsky is advocating. He simply redefines "engaged". Nader's response "demand something from Kerry" ignores what Chomsky describes as an ongoing phenomenon. Every election cycle we have this constrained choice or as he calls it "extravaganza". The key is to take a look at the right's sucess with organizing and treat every election as an ongoing battle in a war of ideas. In other words, be issue focused as opposed to Nader V. Kerry focused. Chosmky suggests that popular organization around issues can and has had a voice in ELECTORAL politics as a result of the engagement he supports. So, your assertion that Chomsky ignores or downplays the importance of the electoral process is flat wrong. Throughout his writing he expresses the democratic process as philosophically strong but structurally weak. Your "comfy tree stump" post focuses on one sentence and ignores the context.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Wisniewski, Joseph at Oct 31, 2004 18:30 PM
Good point maurice. The same thing happened in Russia. Maybe it's happening now under Putin?

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 26, 2004 21:57 PM
Part III (final part for now) Graeme, I do not need to re-read Manufacturing Consent to find out how that happens. It happens because they vote the way they do - period. Go look up the vote and you will see. P.S. That's not even one of Noam's best books it just gets the most press. One member of congress voted against that bombing. One. Yes she is an African American woman but it is totally sexist and racist to say that she voted that way because she is an African American woman. Think about that for moment and I trust you'll agree. She voted that way because she is the only true progressive member of the United States Congress - based on even the loosest definition of the word "progressive." It doesn't matter what skin color she has in terms of her voting record. Oh yea and why don't we check in and see how the African American community's support of the Democrats for the last 30 years has served them. The situation for African Americans in "liberal" San Francisco has been abysmal under our Kerry supporting mayor. -DJ Freak

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 26, 2004 21:45 PM
Part II Nader's press guy pointed out something out which I forgot to mention and that is that Kerry supported justice Scolia who is against a woman's right to choose. Can we expect President Kerry to make similar endorsements? Let's approach it this way. I'd like to ask the Kerry supporters on this forum - and yes that's what you are like it or not - what YOUR strategy is to help a third party, progressive candidate become President of this country. The Republicans are not going to nominate a liberal in 2008 - especially if Kerry wins. We're going to be right back at square one with the same rhetoric flying back and forth on the "left"." Are you suggesting that we're going to get a progressive candidate nominated into the democratic party? OK forget the Presidency. Let's just shoot for 5% so that he or she can at least be in the debates. You all like strategic voting right? What's our strategy? I'm all ears. My strategy is to vote for a third party candidate. If you have a better strategy then share it with us all. -DJ Freak

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 26, 2004 21:37 PM
Part I Well I just heard Norman Soloman debate this issue with Nader's press secretary whose name is escaping me of course because he gets far less press than Norman Soloman but I am just beside myself with frustration right now. You know Norman, we've been hearing you endorse Democrats for years now. When do we get to hear you endorse a candidate you actually agree with. I mean you may as well work for the Democrats at this point. In fact, why don't you. You're like they're progressive champion.

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 26, 2004 19:14 PM
Part III King George II has had four years to make a move on abortion. So did King George I. They didn't because the American people wouldn't stand for it just like we wouldn't stand for it in 2005. It is so unbelievably selfish and arrogant to put OSHA regulations above shrapnel tearing people's bodies apart. Come on now! What are your moral priorities? By the way, I expect to hear people on this site and others in the left endorsing the hell out of progressive, third party candidates when this election is over no matter who wins. -DJ Freak

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 26, 2004 19:13 PM
Part II Don't you see? We are all getting played! We must not allow this to continue. They have dozens of Bushes and Kerrys coming down the assembly line to be force fed to us. No more band-aids. It's time to heal this wound once and for all. This is not just about Women's rights or poor people's rights or white people's rights. It's about EVERYONE'S RIGHTS - everyone in the whole world. How many women voted to bomb Afghanistan, the poorest Muslim country in the world into the stone age? How many African Americans? Go look it up. It's not because they're being brainwashed by white men. That's more sexist and racist than those very pig headed white men that are wrongly empowered by that misguided opinion. They did that because they're human beings who choose to believe what they do. This debate we're having is critical. Mr. Shalom's article on the home page of Znet is very, very upsetting.

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 26, 2004 19:12 PM
Part I Graeme, I never insinuated that Chomsky should or would be devastated by my disappointment. If you read my post I actually thought he might be proud of it and I meant that. He understands the value of critical thought - even when the thoughts are critical of his own opinions. His original answer to the objections of his signing that petition was that we needed to pursue a strategy of grass-roots organizing and to build real community-based political movements. My problem is that voting for Kerry for whatever reason fundamentally undermines that goal. Furthermore, deciding who to vote for because some corporate poll tells you that you live in a "swing state" has absolutely nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with getting played like a country fiddle.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Steppling, Steppling at Oct 26, 2004 11:37 AM
These arguments in favor of supporting a naked Imperialist are pretty threadbare. Kerry is very close to EXACTLY what Bush is....a corporate flunkie carrying out the mandate of the ruling class.....and in our waste economy that means more and more and more war. What will the ABBers say when Kerry (assuming he wins) topples Chavez or bombs Iran? Oh, well, he did it better than Bush? Kerry and Edwards want MORE spent on domestic security (you know, the police state) and yet we are told we have to get rid of Bush. Bush is soooo bad.....well, yeah, he is....and so is Kerry and all this blather about being realistic and different agendas is simply caving in and lending support to the machinery of oppression.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Dwd2004, Dwd2004 at Oct 26, 2004 00:31 AM
I wonder what is meant exactly by the Democrats being "less bad" than the Republicans. Seems like self-serving mythology to me, especially when you factor in the cooperation between the two in denying the population reasonable access to other options. Of one thing I am certain, the Democratic Party will continue to disappoint progressives who put any faith in this crew doing the right thing. How many times must we be disappointed before the lesson is learned? I urge everyone to do a quick Google search and look up Franklin Roosevelt's fourth inaugural address of 1944 in which he called for enactment of an Economic Bill of Rights. Compare the Democratic platform of 70 years ago with what these people are supporting today. To place any faith at all in the mediocrity Kerry and his party is a travesty of common sense. I can't tell you how disappointed I am in Noam Chomsky and the rest of the left intelligentsia.

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 20, 2004 20:37 PM
Yes. The recording of that interview will be broadcast on our Nov. 30th show at 8PM (PST). It will remain up at http://www.beathustler.com/radio.html after that broadcast.

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 20, 2004 12:52 PM
Part III Look, I understand the need to get Bush out. But not at all costs. Not if it means we will continue to operate under the delusion that another corporate party will bring about any meaningful change whatsoever. That is just as dangerous as a Bush Presidency if not more. Everyone on this debate loves being "realistic". Well what about "realistic" hope? What about "realistic" possibilities for change? Remember, in 1993 understandably furious Muslims attempted to topple the twin towers in a manner that would have resulted in a much higher death toll than the 3000 who died on 9/11. They saw no reason to postpone that attack while Bill Clinton liberalized the United States because they correctly predicted that he wouldn't. The minute you all state as a matter of fact that Nader will never win the corporate string pullers have already won. And they have. They've won even before this election has even begun. Bush wins they win. Kerry wins they win. Nader wins they LOSE. This disillusionment on the left is very upsetting. Noam Chomsky taught me to be critical and on this one I am criticizing the teacher which I hope makes him proud on some level. -DJ Freak

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 20, 2004 12:51 PM
art II He also takes time to point out differences between Kerry and Bush. It is important to note that that is precisely what the corporate media spends all of its time and energy doing. Is Chomsky right? Sure he's right. There are plenty of differences. But not where it really counts. Ask a poor person how things were for them in 1999 under Clinton compared to 2001 under Bush. Ask the poor people of San Francisco how things are going under our Democratic Mayor who just finished slashing their assistance by 300% under the Orwellian named "Care not Cash." Ask the people of Sudan or Afganistan at whom Bill Clinton fired 200 cruise missiles - a crime for which we would have nuked the perpetrator's nation off the face of the earth by the way had we been on the receiving end of that terrorist attack.

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 20, 2004 12:47 PM
Part II He also takes time to point out differences between Kerry and Bush. It is important to note that that is precisely what the corporate media spends all of its time and energy doing. Is Chomsky right? Sure he's right. There are plenty of differences. But not where it really counts. Ask a poor person how things were for them in 1999 under Clinton compared to 2001 under Bush. Ask the poor people of San Francisco how things are going under our Democratic Mayor who just finished slashing their assistance by 300% under the Orwellian named "Care not Cash." Ask the people of Sudan or Afganistan at whom Bill Clinton fired 200 cruise missiles - a crime for which we would have nuked the perpetrator's nation off the face of the earth by the way had we been on the receiving end of that terrorist attack.

Reply this comment

3983

Re: Replying to Nader

By Djfreak, Evan at Oct 20, 2004 12:43 PM
Part I Well since Noam Chomsky has just agreed to be interviewed on my radio show I am feeling enormous anxiety right now over the fact that I will feel compelled to open the interview by demanding that he clarify this most uncharacteristic endorsement. I often felt frustrated with Noam's reluctance to get into the political arena responding on more than one occasion to the "what would you say or do as a political candidate?" question by saying "the first thing I would say is don't vote for me." I now long for those days when he could expose lies and ponder ethics without this broken political machine poisoning the good old truth as he has so bravely spoken for so many years - and continues to despite this endorsement. Chomsky responds to Nader's letter by supporting grass roots political organizing, astutely siting Pat Robertston's Christian base as one example. An example we must concede is a very good one. However, if that is our goal and if that is the most effective way for change to come about in this "democracy" then shouldn't we vote for the candidate who best represents that organizational dynamic?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Reiner, Rewt2004 at Oct 20, 2004 09:24 AM
Nader: oh so strong and glorious. True, I love how he can take the Republicans apart, and the mediocracy of the Democratic party. I think though that he has lost it now. It maybe in part because he was met with so much rage by Democratic party activists. Too bad, now when he has a public TV or radio appearance he is bashing the Democrats more than the Republicans so that, to the uninitiated at least, it looks like he just wants us all "Fight the right fight" and loose. Does he really care about the outcome of all of this? He says, in the short run we may loose but in the long run we'll win. The reality might well be that Bush wins again and Nader becomes even more bitter by 2008? It may be that Bush wins again and manages to further ruin America and the World, making it so much harder to reverse it. What if Bush wins and we have indeed another terrorist attack? What if Ashcroft manages to declare Nader's organization an enemy of the state? Does Nader really know in what political danger we are? It's all about consumer protection, right? At the same time, some right winger Christian preachers are ready to change this country into the American equivalent of the Taliban.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By S3344945, Mick at Oct 20, 2004 03:34 AM
from what i can gather from both reading and talking to various American activists i've met the American left is massively fractured. In the last election there wer 8 Socialist Groups running and 10 or 11 other leftist groups not counting the Greens. Now you have Nader the Greens and all the others. America is the heart of the beast as it were and it would hearten people worldwide if there could be real cooperation and an end to secterianism to at least reconstitute and recreate the anti-capitalist anti-war sentiment

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By S3344945, Mick at Oct 19, 2004 07:08 AM
Look the historical reliance that the American Left has shown in the Democratic Party, despite a history which has little to nothing to recommend it, is quite astonishing. It has meant that at no stage has there been any threat of a working class based party getting anywhere near government. Its quite obvious to those of us in countries that have had these parties, such as Australia and the U.K. that they have shown themselves to be fairly bankrupt but they do still have to rely on unions etal in a big way for campaign support. The American left should firstly not try and isolate itself from the election process, and secondly figure out a forum or party which will allow for a truyly left wing party to organise in elections. Nader may not be the one but to ignore the issue and just vote for Kerry merely prolongs the agony. Only 40% of voting age population votes. thats a hell of alot of votes or even just community support to be won

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Dredges, Redhawksky at Oct 19, 2004 02:33 AM
Nader encompasses all my political ideals and values. I believe he is all the things that America needs in a leader. But I cannot vote for him because my desire to avert the destruction that four more years of Bush poses is greater than my desire to actually once in my life vote FOR someone, rather than AGAINST someone. If I did not live in a swing state I would vote Nader. I truly do not think that the Nader campaign is going to take us out of the two party system we are locked into. It's going to take something monumental, on the scale of a revolution. I think that is unfortunate, but we just do not have the tools or the politcal firepower for change at this time.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 18, 2004 00:15 AM
You assume a strategy that Nader has never endorsed nor shown even the slightest interest in following. Oops forgot about this -- one more thing you're wrong about. Nader actually intimated such a strategy when he urged Democrats to support Kucinich and claimed he'd have "less reason to run" had Kucinich won. He also said many positive things about Dean, and again suggested an ambivalence about spoilage had Dean captured the nomination. We can't assume anything definite about this, but it does suggest a willingness to step down were there cause to believe the Democrats were in a process of reform. That he actually felt positive about Dean suggests his expectations are not at all unreasonably high.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 17, 2004 22:47 PM
If you really want to alienate workers, women, people of color, the poor, etc., by showing your ideological purity and support Of all the truly idiotic spin points the ABB frothers throw out, this one is genuinely Republican in its shamelessness. As an ABBer, you are, by definition in favor of excluding the candidate with the best policies for workers, women and the poor from both ballots and debates. You are encouraging and enabling the Democratic Party to continue to take these constituencies for granted. Everything you and your ilk do and say aims specifically at preventing Nader's constituency from becoming more inclusive, lest the spoilage potential increase beyond its usual 2%. Then you complain that nobody knows him As to ideological purity, it should be very clear if you've ready any of my posts that I take issue with ABB as much on strategy as I do on principle. And the ones making the greatest show of moral probity on these boards are the folks like you.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 17, 2004 22:31 PM
It's all well and good to say "here's what should have happened" if you want to ignore reality. Fine, here's what should have happened: Bush never should have gotten elected in the first place, a genuine widespread leftist popular movement should have risen up against the depradations of the Democrats You realize these statements are not at all analogous to what I proposed, don't you? Instead of proffering arguments that are 99% ridicule, why don't you tell us all how one goes about moving the dialog to the left? Chomsky and the walking dead of the left keep faulting Nader for not building a movement. But how can he build a movement if they keep pushing him to the margins? cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 17, 2004 22:26 PM
Or maybe, we should all look at the world as it actually is. . . One of the things I actually admire about right-wingers in relation to leftists is they are less prone to grandiose omniscience about 'political reality' And a good thing for them too, because their agenda has no innate appeal to anything outside a very narrow and extreme fringe. So, a little over a year ago, when the political reality was that Americans had no interest in going to war with Iraq, they changed the political reality. cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 17, 2004 22:22 PM
You assume a strategy that Nader has never endorsed nor shown even the slightest interest in following. I've assumed nothing. I've posited. The point was to show deficiencies in both the Nader and ABB strategy. If it seems I find fault with one more than the other, it's no accident. One is at least principled and the other isn't. It has never been proven that popular support of Nader would ever force the Democrats to move even an inch to the left. And it's never been proven that it wouldn't. We can only guess based on how power reacts to a threat: It can either thwart it through undemocratic means or appropriate it. The ABBers have aided and abetted undemocratic thwarting rather than the more socially useful and democratic appropriation alternative. Certainly if the Democrats were assured spoilage every election, they'd have to do something. cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 17, 2004 20:21 PM
A couple things ARE obvious though: 1. Chomsky's silence on ballot and debate access is complicity. He has, for tactical reasons, joined a movement diametrically opposed to first principles. 2. The most degenerate elements in the Democratic Party will be fortified. 3. The only public leftist standing resolutely for first principles is a pariah. 4. Kerry's candidacy, despite the left's broad spectrum endorsement and aid, still leaves a lot of American's cold and, as a result, Bush has a very strong chance of winnning. Nice work, guys.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 17, 2004 20:16 PM
Of course, the risk in this strategy is that Nader would not withdraw at any point in the process and a Bush victory would be virtually assured. This is because Nader's agenda has innate appeal to, at the very least, a very large minority. This is why the paternalistic left, ever so full of itself and its good intentions have collaborated in keeping him at the margins. We can't let the theft of "stolen" votes creep past 2% can we? But if a movement had been allowed to develop around Nader's candidacy, we would be in a much stronger position to defend ourselves against whichever war-happy millionaire happened to win the election. Chomsky and his defenders are being disingenuous here. Chomsky is at liberty to quietly counsel Nader in private. But he hasn't. He has made his misgivings public. The goal is to neutralize Nader's impact. In this last post, his tone is contemtuously dismissive. As if it's all just so fucking obvious that a Kerry presidency=less death. Well, no, it isn't obvious and one of the reasons why I know is I've read Chomsky. cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 17, 2004 19:52 PM
5. The Estalishment left for its part -- assured of Nader's willingness to withdraw under certain conditions should have endorsed him, at the beginning at least, to put some fear into the Democrats. As the campaign progressed some of them could later jump on their "Now is not the time" bandwagon, but this would happen only after the Democrats got the wake-up call they (and we) so desparately need. 6. Having endorsed Nader, the left would work on behalf of getting him access to the ballot and the televised debates. This would assure the national dialog had moved onto topics that majorities of Americans, regardless of how they describe themselves, want to talk about: health care, corporate corruption, electoral reform and jobs. In other words, it would change the culture of the debate, probably for good. cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 17, 2004 19:41 PM
Here's what should have happened: 1. Nader should have announced his candidacy explicitly as an effort to spoil the Democrats on the grounds that they give no evidence of wavering from their corporate-centric agenda and have aided and abetted the Bushies in all their worst excesses. 2. He would, along with this, express deep regret that spoilage is presently the only structural weapon by which he can defend the interests of the general public against a two-party duopoly working day and night to undermine their interests. He would call for bi-partisan support for simple reforms like Instant Runoff Voting every time the subject of spoilage was raised. 3. Having announced his purpose explicitly he would have concentrated solely on ballot access in swing states, and shown no hesitancy in taking money/help from anyone, including Republicans. 4. He should have openly expressed a willingness to withdraw from the race once he'd received concessions from the Democratic Party in the form of campaign promises: single-payer national heath insurance, timely de-escalation in Iraq and support for Instant Runoff Voting. cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Hoogland, Scaredwierdlittleguy at Oct 16, 2004 19:23 PM
I was wrong to label Chomsky's logic as "suspect" - this discussion has helped clarify for me where he and others are coming from. I can see how he wouldn't lightly recommend voting for Kerry. I can see that Nader running is indeed "activism" but we shouldn't see it as the main game, its just part of the efforts of a lot of good people. I can see that most of the folks on this petition probably want Nader to run in the non-swing states. In representative government its more important to change the actions of those in power, rather than the candidates. I agree that the more likely response of the Democrats to the electoral pain caused by Nader is probably not to shift leftward but to try to play the game better.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Iragladnick, Pacificcoast at Oct 16, 2004 04:44 AM
Graeme said: >I couldn't possibly care less what William Safire thinks The point is that Safire's embrace of Kerry as a Neoconservative is well-founded in the aggresive foreign policy that Kerry expounded during the debates. Comes under the heading of takes-one-to-know-one, I suppose. Actually, my comparison with Lyndon Johnson was a bit unfair, since Kerry doesn't even pretend to be a peace candidate.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mttmalin, Adm_puphie_pants at Oct 16, 2004 00:42 AM
Here is an exerpt from Chomsky regarding Bush V. Kerry on September 20. “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).” I've heard Chomsky address this issue in other forums as well.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mttmalin, Adm_puphie_pants at Oct 15, 2004 23:19 PM
I think that what Chomsky is saying is that the potential (and likely) negative consequences of a second Bush administration far out-weigh most other issues. To me, the issue that Chomsky has raised, here and in other forums, regarding the defensive/offensive nuclear stances of nations around the world, led in no small part by the actions of the U.S,. is central to this topic. Put another way, what matters most? A common and important issue on this forum is that of reform of the voting process and “rehabilitation” (possibly creation) of our “democratic process.” I respect this view and share the frustration that I read here. However, I cannot allow my issue, be it electoral reform, gender issues, minority issues, environmental issues or otherwise to become of greater importance than the continued opportunity for positive change that can only be experienced in a world that has yet to “go up in smoke.” Certainly, John Kerry is not a saint. Neither is George Bush, but that's ok, he says he's getting instructions from God. I take Chomsky's concerns here very seriously.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Scraggs, Usrcjp at Oct 15, 2004 08:38 AM
I am sure this will sound simple minded and overly idealistic to many but shouldn't everybody vote for who they believe in(whether it be Ralph Nader, David Cobb, Michael Badnarik, Walt Brown etc.)? Although we currently have a system that only allows the possiblity of 2 parties winning, how can we break from this unless we start acting as if this wasn't the case? Surely only 2 choices for a national leader is offensive and extremely undemocratic. After all, if only one of our choices is eliminated, we have a dictatorship. We definitely need more choices representing a broader spectrum of public opinion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Hoogland, Scaredwierdlittleguy at Oct 15, 2004 04:25 AM
Graeme, I'm Australian so no vote either but the election impacts on us too. I think I understand this line of reasoning damphouse, i.e. change is best achieved through activism to challenge the frameworks, moreso than trying to use the current (flawed) electoral process to advantage (i.e. increased vote for a 3rd candidate who cannot win in current system in the hope this will force change on major parties) -> on this basis Chomsky and others above say favour Kerry to do less harm, but focus most of your energy on the activism. I admit to still finding this a bit unsatisfying. I suspect I reacted negatively at first to this because of the simplistic message of this group "vote for Kerry not Nader", wasn't accompanied by some more of the reasoning. But isn't voting for Nader still "activism"? Perhaps I would be more open to the argument if the statement was accompanied by an equally brief sentence regarding the need for fundamental electoral reform (e.g. preferential voting).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Hoogland, Scaredwierdlittleguy at Oct 14, 2004 21:00 PM
I appreciate your perspective Graeme, this is not black and white. Another 4 years of Bush is disturbing. I understand that another 4 years of Bush could actually lead us on a path to global conflagration and the end of our species. But reasonable people can differ on how to best approach this. Chomsky has helped many of us see, however, that in the broader time scale, Kerry is just Bush-lite, and that the struggle really must be against the rules and frameworks that tie us in these Gordian knots. I admit it sounds perverse and idealistic to say that some unnecessary death and suffering in the short term could in fact help us on the way to saving many many more well into the future, but this is an ageless ethical dilemma that we can't draw up hard and fast rules for, it must be an individual choice of conscience. But it is clear from http://www.vote2stopbush.com/release.html that Chomsky _is_ encouraging people in "swing states" to not vote for Nader. That's simply a fact. However I'm still not persuaded of the intellectual or strategic benefits. Where does it end? Merely flipping between Republican and Democrat presidents doesn't seem to me the most viable strategy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Iragladnick, Pacificcoast at Oct 14, 2004 10:00 AM
>he is certainly not trying to keep Nader out of the political process. Well, somebody is, for sure. The effort of the Democratic Party (and by clear extension, John Kerry) to deny ballot access to Nader puts it on the same gutter level as the Republican Party in Florida circa 2000. The letter in question said "This year, we urge support for Kerry/Edwards in all swing states, even while we strongly disagree with Kerry's policies on Iraq and other issues." In the interest of honesty, they could have added something about the assault of the Democratic Party on the fundamental democratic right of free choice on the ballot. >..if Kerry loses, Bush wins. That means thousands more deaths and much more suffering than if Kerry wins. If people have been listening carefully to the debates, this is not at all clear. None other than William Safire has awarded Kerry the title of "the newest Neoconservative". The worse vs. less worse calculus strikes me as exceedingly hollow, and reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson running as the "peace candidate" in '64. It's puzzling that Chomsky has adopted this position, given his long track record of documenting intellectual self-deception.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Hoogland, Scaredwierdlittleguy at Oct 13, 2004 22:55 PM
Just a quick addendum with further thought... The personal choice involves an assessment of risk. One thing I can think that would drive Chomsky and others to encourage people not to vote for Nader is that they assess the risk of another 4 years of Bush as so incredibly serious a threat to our future. That alone is a significant point, if it were the case, and worth more consideration...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Hoogland, Scaredwierdlittleguy at Oct 13, 2004 22:15 PM
The wonderful thing about Noam Chomsky is that he encourages critical thinking. On this issue, one of very few, I respectfully disagree with him. Everyone must make a personal choice. As a newbie to the left, its interesting seeing how it can turn so vociferously on itself (not refering to Chomsky's thoughts but to the comments above). The political frameworks as they are, the strongest force that can propel change remains electoral. The Democrats seem unlikely to bend to the popular concerns represented by Nader if he were not to represent a threat to their access to power. The only way is to hurt them electorally. Again, and again. In the short term there is pain, but blame this on the lack of preferential or "instant runoff" voting in the US, not on Nader. The "cabals" will only listen once they see Nader's share climbing up from 2-3% to 5 or 10% or more. Its a shame the left seems so divided on this. Since Chomsky's logic seems suspect on this one, I'm wondering if there is not more to the story here.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Oct 13, 2004 18:14 PM
I had the pleasure of hearing and meeting Ralph Nader a few weeks ago when he spoke at the Kennedy School in Cambridge. He's the only candidate running who criticizes aspects of, say, intellectual property, and other untouchable issues. That's why I'll be pleased to vote for him in Cambridge. I'm also contacting people involved with Instant Run-Off voting to help try and organize a coherent look-and-feel to their communications, possibly including a set of design templates that organizers can use. These are important steps, and I'm glad for Ralph Nader's participation. I also know that he isn't going to win the national election. That leaves us with expectations of two likely outcomes. If I lived in a place like Florida, I would support the better outcome. I would not lose sleep over it, and would continue to work on electoral reform, and on raising awareness on the type of issues where Ralph Nader agrees with us.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 13, 2004 07:23 AM
To conclude that this would preclude participating in the electoral process is to ignore the very movements cited as a "lesson for the left." Agreed. I admitted in a later post that my first response was, in part, incorrect. I fault Chomsky and the rest on this question in two ways. The ABB position, reliant as it is on denying Nader ballot access and participation in debates, is undemocratic to the core. That too me is enough to damn it. I also think it's strategically unsound, but this issue just tires and disgusts me and I really need to break the habit of partaking of it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 13, 2004 06:00 AM
But no matter, the ABBs, in the manner typical of middle and upper middle class left/libs, are ever secure in knowing more than average Americans about what average Americans need. Do they care at all that 57% of Americans want him in the debates? It seems not. Nor has there been a peep out of them about all the dirty tricks involved in keeping him off ballots. Then having played a critical part in preventing America from getting a good, careful look at him they'll complain about how the only folks who care about him are middle class white guys. It's grotesque and dishonest in all the same ways the Republican response to the Democrats is grotesque and dishonest. The very same ways.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 13, 2004 05:59 AM
On re-reading Chomsky's post, I was pleased to see it wasn't quite as foolish as I'd orginally thought. However, even if his audience is other activists rather than Kerry and Bush, he could exhort that same audience to tie some strings to their vote. I think one of the fundamental differences between Naderites and non, is that the latter are annoyingly purist about what a movement is and how it grows. Nader believes, I think correctly, that a movement could grow up around his candidacy fairly quickly if he were given ballot access and allowed to participate in the debates. I believe the Democrats think so too and fear the long-term impact of such a movement more than they fear spoilage this time around. It was for similar reasons that the Democratic establishment worked so hard to destroy Howard Dean. cont'd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Oct 13, 2004 05:51 AM
I don't believe that voting in the U.S is a guarantee of actual relevancy. In other words, by hook or by crook the golden rule applies...the one with the most gold rules. Remember Florida ? So much for voting, this year the voting is done electronically, without a verifiable paper trail. Voting looks to me like a con. The patriot act(provisions originated by Dems) is well in place and is meant to squash dissent through fear and actual legal action against threats to the satus quo. The more dissidents try and affect change, reactionary force will increase accordingly. They are not going to bend, they are going to become more recalcitrant i.e the domino theory of dissent inspires their machinations.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 13, 2004 05:08 AM
What is needed is personal incentive for change by the oligarch cabals. God -- I wish right-wing Christians had been as enamored of their little spot at the margins twenty-five years ago as leftists are now. Both you and Chomsky are basically saying activists need not ever imagine being OF the government. No, the truly serious among us are busily creating potent organizations that through some mysterious means other than judicial and legislative reform make the world a better place. Interesting what they'll come up with to match the power and reach of the Pentagon. I agree that the cabals need a stake. How about winning elections? That seems stake enough. When progressives make it impossible for Democrats to win elections -- which they can easily do -- one cabal will take an interest in some incremental change. Instant Runoff Voting would make a nice start. Won't happen without some serious spoilage, though.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Oct 13, 2004 04:36 AM
Ralph has a point, Noam has a point, both are trying to change the staus quo for the better. Although I can't see either plan working. America is not a desperate third world country, so the mass of people are not going to rock the boat, if they even believed they needed to. Without mass support for change, grass roots orgs have no real potency to overcome the obstacle of entrenched power. What is needed is personal incentive for change by the oligarch cabals. The French revolution succeeded because one oligarch cabal developed a new vision, and overthrew the other oligarch cabal, it wasn't the "people" who forced change. The oligarchs themselves need to see the light, when one of the power cabals sees the wisdom of change, then things will change for the better. Individuals can affect change by enlightening the hearts and minds of the powers that be.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Oct 13, 2004 04:23 AM
Nader: “Well, it's a total loss of nerve. I mean, first of all, they didn't ask anything of Kerry.” Chomsky: Nor of Bush. Kerry and Bush are not my audience. Nor their predecessors. Nor the party leaders. Activists have quite different concerns. They are engaged with the public, and try to help in the growth and development of popular organizations that will become powerful enough so that they cannot be ignored by centers of power I never thought I'd say this about anything Chomsky would write, but this is just idiotic. Like it or not we have a government. Any serious activist is engaged at some level in the electoral process. If Chomsky didn't believe this himself he would not have put his name to the silly petition. Second -- it is precisely because Nader can insure a defeat of Kerry that progressives are in a position to barter. Bending over for a party that goes further right with each increment of least-worst voting is not the way to change it. Another unconvincing argument from one more comfy left-wing tree stump.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Provocateur, Agent at Oct 13, 2004 03:20 AM
First of all: I live in Miami, Florida and am Cuban-American. I plan to vote for Nader because I despise with my whole being these corporate-thugs in Congress like Kerry, who have disgraced the Constitution by delegating their war-making authority to the Bush oil and gas junta. Who knows? Maybe we will have a repeat of the repressive 2000 election and the people will become incensed at being cheated again and overthrow the government or at least cause some of that "little rebellion" that Jefferson insisted should happen "now and then." Well regarding Chomsky's comments: they are fool of wisdom, insight and so are merely laughed at by the thugs that are in Washington. The people need to exercise some real ultra-violence to keep the thugs in check.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Mttmalin, Adm_puphie_pants at Oct 13, 2004 01:27 AM
Dear Mr Anarchist, Of course Ralph Nader is a part of the system. How could he be otherwise? This "system" is one that created him and you and me (yeah, me!). Regardless of how "radical" one may be viewed, it is important to remember that the very same system creates the most smelly and corrupt of republicans. Sub-cultures only exist within cultures. This is how cultures change. ...this is our future... To expect otherwise is to experience an artificially dichotomous view of both the "self" and the "environment". Which I, obviously, am also guilty of. God bless

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Replying to Nader

By Historybuff, Anarchist at Oct 12, 2004 21:59 PM
How does Nader justify his making profits by fighting corporations? If indeed corporations are evil, then how it is moral and/or ethical to make money by fighting them? The way to defeat corporations isn't by fighting them using the very system. The way to defeat corporations is to attack the foundational aspect of American society: rational egoism. And, of course, that will require revolutionary change... Secondly, Nader has failed to really bring about any change. He is simply just apart of the "system." Multi-millionaire radical: an oxymoron.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (49)

Loading_border