Chomsky backs "Bush-lite" Kerry

Noam Chomsky, the political theorist and leftwing guru, yesterday gave his reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry, calling him "Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival.

Professor Chomsky - a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as a renowned chronicler of American foreign policy - said there were "small differences" between Senator Kerry and the Republican president. But, in an interview on the Guardian's politics website, he added that those small differences "can translate into large outcomes".

He describes the choice facing US voters in November as "the choice between two factions of the business party". But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.

He said: "Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

He reserved his especial venom for the Bush administration's plans for the health sector: "The people around Bush are deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century no matter what the cost to the general population."

(Reported from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1174017,00.html?=rss)

this would be why some anarchists have a problem with chomsky, for all of you who were wondering.

flag_to: Kevin

So which part is selling out:

Saying that Bush is worse than Kerry (and both are awful) or saying that voting is OK for damage control? I think both positions are arguable - calling someone a sellout over either is poisoning the well of discourse.

edit

edit

Kerry is worse than Bush.

the term "selling out" is problematic since we all have to make compromises to live life in this society. however, chomsky is perpetrating certain fallacies here:

- that kerry is better than bush - even by a fraction. kerry supports sending *more* troops to iraq. kerry will push the rudder back to the neoliberal agenda (as opposed to the protofascist agenda). neoliberalism is actually worse than protofascism. it kills more. it engenders less opposition.

- that policy is set at the presidential level. it isn't. policy is set by elite economic imperative. everything else (gay marriage, immigration policy, etc) is window dressing.

- that voting represents the will of the voters. it doesn't. the voting system in the U.S. has been corrupt for years. exit polling - once thougt of as the most accurate way to verify elections - stopped working the U.S. seven years ago.

- that america is something akin to a democracy. it isn't. the U.S. is a corporate welfare state which takes direction from global elite economic imperative.

i sitll have much respect for chomsky. but my take on him has always been the same: his research is excellent. his analysis is very good. but his suggestions for action often miss the mark.

but whats wrong with kerry? he says the things i want to hear...

this has come up on flag several times now, and Chomsky has said for perhaps a year or more now that within the limited framework that is US foreign policy the marginal differences between the two parties in this instance might indeed make it worthwhile to vote for the democrats. I think its very objectionable to label this selling out by any measure as he does make a reasoned arguement that is based upon his own humanistic beliefs. If i were in a position were i felt that voting would indeed lesson harm projected by the state then i would vote. I don't know if this is indeed the case, but its certainly a reasonable proposition to consider the facts.

I think Chomsky is just making the point that while their foreign policies are identicaly evil, Bush's domestic policy is fractionaly more evil than Kerry's. Its true too, look at the changes to healthcare and welfare. It's not an argument that would convince me to vote, but I can't see how it means Chomsky is 'selling out' as he never advocated not voting. This article is in complete accordance with everything Chomsky has previously said. Doesnt make him right but it doesnt make him a sell out either.

please tell me you're joiking.

it was clinton - a democrat - who dismantled welfare and made the situation for the underclass even worse than it was. he also did nothing for healthcare.

and i would not say that the foreign policies of bush and kerry are identically evil. kerry is obviously going to be a lot worse than bush. but, as usual, he'll have a democrat's smile and all the US-liberals will go back to making money instead of complainging about the government.

death to america. bush in '04!

well, for what it's worth here's the actual interview.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5177

i agree. i will add that it also doesn't make him an anarchist, and that if he feels so good about voting for rulers and supporting government by making a public endorsement of a candidate, then he might choose a more honest socio-political position to identify with.

i see noam chomsky and the anarchist cookbook in a similar light. both have very little to do with anarchism, and yet both profit by the association made.