Comments on: Chomsky, Zinn, and Obama

By: bob graph

bob graph — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:27:33 +0000

This article is a bunch of self-righteous crap. Chomsky and Zinn have both risked going to prison for resisting the Vietnam war in their careers and have dedicated their lives to radical causes. They deserve more respect in their age than to have a younger writer with obviously not a shred of their talent diss them on the internet. Your books Mickey Z are probably based on their research and theory. So what if you don’t agree with them, 99 percent of the world is reading their books and not yours so show a little respect for the old school.

By: H.Z.

H.Z. — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:20:53 +0000

Well, you’re not going to break the paralysis of the two-party system within the party system. In other words, you’re not going to break it in the electoral system by putting up a third-party candidate whose showing will inevitably be pitiful and will therefore only be a demonstration of the weakness of the movement outside of the electoral arena. If you choose to go into the electoral arena, you’d better go in with strength. If you’re going with weakness, you are not doing a progressive movement any good. To me it is a waste of Ralph Nader’s energy to throw himself into the electoral process, ’cause his energy is best used by building a movement, by doing what he has done for most of his life very effectively, reaching out to millions and millions of people who will not vote for him but who really believe in his ideas, and help him to organize those people so that whoever is elected as president will then have to face a constituency, a citizenry which demands change.

By: Ramy

Ramy — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:50:57 +0000

Bemoaning the fact that the system is flawed does not change the fact that the system is the only one we have. I wholeheartedly agree that a vote for Nader would be better than a vote for Obama and, of course, McCain. But the point that you bring up about Nader not being able win IS RELEVANT. If you want to vote for Ralph Nader, by all means, please do. I don’t think any vote is ever wasted. But when the (highly flawed, no one is denying) system is such as it is you have to be more realistic. Calling a vote for Obama “an act of criminal negligence” is horrifically inacurrate.
Let me exaggerate the situation to make the point. Let’s say that instead of John McCain, Adolf Hitler were to accept the Republican nomination. Now your choice becomes a person with real progressive ideas for the oval office but little chance of actually getting to the White House in Ralph Nader, a viable and, for the sake of this argument, Moderate candidate in Barack Obama, and to the right of everyone ever, Hitler. Now, if you know that Ralph Nader is not likely to win because of an albeit unfair two party system, it becomes an act of criminal negligence to vote for Ralph Nader.
In closing, Mickey, i’d like to say that I have a lot of respect for you and people like you: idealists. You, along with people like Ralph Nader, play an important part in the political discourse in this country and the truth is that we need more people like you who are devoted to progressive ideals. But please, don’t tell me that voting for a man like Barack Obama is an act of criminal negligence. Voting in a two-party system while naively acting oblivious to the system itself is more dangerous than i think you realize.

By: Anna

Anna — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:25:24 +0000

This reminds me, to some extent, of the small population of “revolutionary leftists” in the US who literally think they are going to shortly begin a revolution and overthrow the government via coup-d’etat and, therefore, socialism or anarchism or anarcho-insertword-ism will prevail. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the population in this country are completely clueless about the genuine state the country is in because all their information comes from CNN and FOX news and all the other garbage in the mainstream media. Yet somehow these very people, who believe bullshit along the lines of ‘FOX news is “the no spin zone”‘ and ‘the Democratic Party is hard-left’ and ‘America is getting closer and closer to Socialism’ and, for Christ’s sake, ‘Barack Obama is a Communist!’ are going to miraculously shed their straight jackets of misinformation, run into the streets, and take part in a leftist revolution to overthrow their own government. Granted, your take is far more sensible than that, but I still don’t believe it’s sensible enough to translate into any palpable change. You’re right that we don’t have a lot of time, but the sad fact of reality is that, no matter what anyone does, significant transition to a transparent non-imperial more socially and economically-just society is going to be a timely process.. no matter what. The revolutionary left and the Greens (which is not to compare the two, because they are immensely dissimilar) can sit around and wait the rest of their lives for their revolution or the election of a president from their own party, but the reality is that it isn’t just going happen one day out of nowhere. If the Greens want to win a presidential victory (or any third party wants to win such a victory, for that matter), they’d better work their way up. That is to say, they have to start with the House of Reps. Instead of spending their money and effort on a campaign for their undeniably ill-fated presidential candidate, they’d be wise to scrap the idea for a few years and redirect their funds, energy, and attention on securing a few seats in the House and the Senate. I’m not certain about the following statement, but isn’t it generally true abroad that a party with no representation in parliament doesn’t have much of a shot as the head of the nation? Consider: Ralph Nader had, instead of running for president for the past couple decades, poured his resources into building a strong Green Party base and convincing leftists that the Democrats/Republicans are the same brand, putting Greens in congress, and establishing his (former) party as a ‘legitimate’ (as the term would commonly be accepted in the US) political party. Yes, it may have taken a couple decades, but as a result of the effort and patience, he probably would have had a decent shot at being successful in the election just this past November. If not him (considering his age), someone else in the Green Party.
Look, I’m on the libertarian left, I know where you’re coming from. But I think you have to take into account that being a ‘purist’ in this form (and I mean no disrespect) may ultimately be counterproductive to your goals. If we take the time now to embark on the long process of building a strong base that will be taken seriously, perhaps we will live to see a member of a third party elected president. But these symbolic gestures aren’t moving the country forward an inch. It sucks. But it’s the way it goes.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:20:23 +0000

Zeke,

Now put down you calculator, pencil and paper, and think.

Now tell us, what positions has Obama taken that you think are worthy of your “mature” vote?

By: Zeke

Zeke — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:59:39 +0000

Acting as if the Democrats and Republicans are different faces of the same coin is facile, immature. I may identify more closely with the Green candidate any given election year, but there is no excuse to vote Green. (And even less to voter Nader.) Without significant electoral reform, 3rd parties are inconsequential – even if the Greens somehow got that 5% they never get. Better to vote for Obama, on the Working Families ticket (NY state). This sends the message that I’m a progressive voter who will hold Obama to any pledges I hold dear.

That hypothetical Pakistani or Afghan child isn’t going to be impressed with your 3rd party vote. Chomsky and Zinn are correct. Things aren’t black and white; Obama is a shade better.

By: bozhidar bob balkas

bozhidar bob balkas — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:35:03 +0000

max,
my concern is ab zinn et al having been quoted as saying, Vote for lesser evil.
as for how many people may actually vote for obama is, to me, of much lesser evil than to advise amers to vote for obama. especially, by prominent people.
more votes for obama because chomsky, et al r advising/telling people to vote for obama, may also be of greater evil.
now, if i who finished last in my class and having only 3 yrs schooling have figured this out, why cldn’t these very well educated people figured out about possibility/probability of emergence of greater evil whether obama or mccain gets in.
is not uncle sam in control? if so, u cld elect me for president and i, fearing for my or my wife’s life, wld also commit greater evil.
or at least as much as evil as uncle demands.
this analyses shows or even proves that s’mthing has happened.
eg, are these people minizionist? and obama being better for zionists? thnx

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:52:11 +0000

Jonathan,

It is precisely that sphere of influence that led me to post a response to your first remarks. The strength, call it power, of these two has only eminated from the consistency of their criticism. Even when I’ve disagreed with Chomsky, there is a clear logical consistency that is missing here.

As far as anyone easily convinced to vote because of some utterances, I suppose they’re simply looking for an excuse.

I did read that Chomsky did not so much endorse, but stated that those in swing states may want to vote for the Dem and those who are in non-swing states should consider someone like Nader or McKinney.

If Chomsky resides, as I think he does, in Mass. then by that thinking he should be voting for Nader.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:05:07 +0000

Max, I completely agree with your comment, and after having thought a bit more about what Chomsky is actually saying with his tacit support for the Dems my respect for him fizzled somewhat. If either Chomsky or Zinn are actually afraid of the consequences of giving their implicit endorsement to the Dems that in it self speaks volumes about the state of things as they are. I can partly understand their lack of courage, that said, given their huge sphere of influence it may have been better had they withheld their opinions.

By: Martha

Martha — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:22:25 +0000

Max Shields boiled it down to the basics: “This slight difference that Chomsky seems to advocate, however slight, reminds me of Solomon’s decision on how best to divide the baby.”

By: bozhidar bob balkas

bozhidar bob balkas — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:26:53 +0000

let us jump to a clear fact: fact is we don’t know whether one or the other administration wld turn out to be “lesser or greater evil”
so, electing obama or mccain may amount to even greater suffering for iraqis, et al.
true, electing dems might mean a few $ more in people’s pockets or it might not.
voting for nader is voting to end the occupations; bringing healthcare, etc.
to me, at this time, it is perplexing that some people say, Vote for lesser evil, when the lesser evil in their heads may easily become greater or much greater evil. thnx
OK, chomsky, zinn tell us wats going on in ur heads.?
thnx

By: mystylplx

mystylplx — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:21:14 +0000

Max Sheild wrote: “Who can write book after book, decade after decade; and make a fair living at it, no less, and utter, this slight difference as if to say, well, if you gotta go to the polls, better to pick the Dem than the Rep., ”

I think you are intentionally misunderstanding. It’s not about “the Dem.” or “the Rep.” Charectorizing them that way ignores the fact that they are two vastly different human beings. Neither of them is “evil,” nor is either of them a saint. But they are two very different people, and pretending there is “no difference” between them is little more than obstinate blindness. And equating each of them with their respective party, as if they each personify their party, is more than obstinate blindness–it’s dishonest obstinate blindness.

By: mystylplx

mystylplx — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:44:59 +0000

“The lessor of two evils.”

That very way of thinking is part of what Obama has been running against–the philosophy which believes that anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100% is “evil.” And since Obama agrees with you more than McCain then he is “the lessor of two evils.”

The truth is that very way of thinking is the most evil thing there is. The inability to accept diversity of opinion and the need to demonize those who don’t think like you are the foundations of evil in this world.

Chomsky and Zinn understand that. Neither of them agrees with Obama on every issue, but neither of them feel the need to demonize him either–they see him for who he is and they endorse his candidacy. Obama is not a Saint (neither is Nader) but nor is he a devil. What he is is the best person for the job at this moment in history.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:42:41 +0000

Jonathan,

This slight difference that Chomsky seems to advocate, however slight, reminds me of Solomon’s decision on how best to divide the baby.

It is trite and meaningless to say that one Party provides somewhat better than the other. This is particularly true when we realize that we are not in some kind of linear trajectory that allows an interplay of two parties = good guy/bad guy.

How does one say that people fare slightly better when the empire requires its pound of human flesh on the battle field? The life of what Pakistan or Afghan child is worth this “slightly better” deal; this Hobbsian choice?

Who can write book after book, decade after decade; and make a fair living at it, no less, and utter, this slight difference as if to say, well, if you gotta go to the polls, better to pick the Dem than the Rep., when Chomsky could be saying there are TWO candidates who agree with what I’ve been expounding decade after decade, book after book: Nader and McKinney – if you must vote, by god, vote for one of them!

That’s called having the courage of your convictions.

By: Jeremy Wells

Jeremy Wells — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:26:21 +0000

Obama and the Democratic Party are fully complicit in maintaing the corporate status quo. Especially when corporate capitalism is collapsing, Obama fully supported the bailout rewarding the very system and individuals who have causef the latest fraud upon the people.

Obama is not against the undending global wars for power and profit. Obama supports keeping corporate profit in the collapsed privatized health care system. Obama speaks of establishing a “national service” (ie. the universal draft) to further impose U.S. corporate interests. etc.etc. ad nauseum.

To think that “pressure” can be applied to Obama AFTER the election, when he is fully compromised BEFORE the election, is insane. Obama has surrouneded himself with people such as Rupert Murdoch, Warren Buffett, Republican advisers, etc. His cabinet will be filled by similar corporate operatives who will work to re-establish and maintain corporate.profit.

Obama has embraced all the directives from his “handlers” representing the interests of the capitalist ruling class. He cannot oppose the interests that put him into power. His candidacy is one last effort effort to deflect the rage of millions of newly impoverished people by cynically creating yet another false hope that somehow the capitalist system still works. After this comes the military suppression of the resulting “civil disorder” that is the inevitable result.

Vice presidental candidate Biden has spilled the beans, perhaps, in this cynically warning of what the capitalist ruling class has in store for us once figurehead Obama is installed.

Biden’s chilling remarks at fundraiser
What “incredibly tough” foreign policy actions is Obama preparing?
By Patrick Martin
22 October 2008

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/bidn-o22.shtml

“In remarks made over the weekend in Seattle, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Biden warned that Barack Obama, if elected president, would be compelled to take deeply unpopular actions in both domestic and foreign policy within months of taking office.

In closed-door gatherings with two audiences of Democratic Party insiders and fundraisers, Biden forecast a major international crisis in the first six months of an Obama administration.”

By: bozhidar bob balkas

bozhidar bob balkas — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:37:39 +0000

folks who suggest people vote for obama do not espy an obvious fact: there is only one constitution.
and there is only one interpreter/interpretation of the constitution. and one is either for that constitution/interpretation or not.
a working person, whether white, black, latino need not be bothering to apply for the job of interpreting the constitution.
and folks, there is only one governance in US. and u’r for it or against it.
and there is only one party in US.
nader is starting a second party. do not expect it to be of much significance for decades.
it’s a start. and i am astounded that i some people have starded.
to me zinn and chomsky r fundamentally wrong. Or? have they been threatened by uncle? thnx

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:18:07 +0000

I think both these videos are worth watching in light of the discussion as it is as they say straight from the horses mouth and interestingly Chomsky does not explicitly endorse Obama but rather echoes what Nigel suggests – there virtually no differences between the two parties but in a longer span of time the majority of Americans fare marginally better under a democratic Pres.
http://www.zmag.org/zvideo/2871
http://www.zmag.org/zvideo/2869

By: bozhidar bob balkas

bozhidar bob balkas — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:16:25 +0000

i remember that some weeks ago i labeled chomsky as a “minizionist”.
some people were angered over this.
a minizionist to me is for a twostate ‘sol’n’. a maxizionist keeps an eye on much more that just tiny, impoverished expalestine.
twostate ‘sol’n’ wld reward enormous crimes against yet another indigenous people.
and the war criminals may not ever face any court, even after thier deaths. some justice.
people who tell people to vote for obama, who may or may not be “greater evil”, r to me persona non grata.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:07:32 +0000

I think our understanding of fascism which is very much aligned to none other than Mussilini. But from FDR

Franklin D. Roosevelt on fascism

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power.”

I would say, we’re are clearly there!

By: Andy Best

Andy Best — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:05:06 +0000

I’m in late here but I feel I have a valid point for everyone. I was reading Frank and RMJ’s little exchange about if we already have fascism or not.

The problem is that we judge whether we live in a regime or not based on very very extreme sterotypes of what that would be like. We have been propagandised.

I have lived in Shanghai now for seven years. It is definitely a non-transparent authoritarian government that routinely jails or executes dissenters of one form or another.

My surprise was how free most people were and how close it was to back home (UK). You are basicaly free here, in day to day life, unless you cross certain lines. But – it’s clearly a regime of sorts, albeit one that still makes certain concessions to stop outright revolt.

I can go to diverse rock gigs and the local bands can rip into the Olympics set up or issues, mock anything they like and we’re all dressed like punks and blah blah. But if you want to take community action that opposes the national ideology – the gloves come off. Sound familiar?

What I got out of this experience was this: the sudden awareness of how close we are to this back home. And that, in some areas, we were there already.

For example. You can protest here – but you have to apply for a permit and follow rules set by the people you are protesting. Its hard to get and when you finally get out there you are under constant risk of violent police action for the slightest perceived infraction. Sound familiar?

When we ask ourselves how bad things are and if we need to take action – lets make sure we are not using a McCarthy style cartoon of the single worst day at the height of Stalin’s regime as the comparison.

If you see what I mean?

Andy.