Thursday, October 28, 2004

Chomsky, Zinn, Nader & the Quadrennial Farce

By Michael K. Smith

Read full article...

Posted 10/28 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. “...Kerry, who merely supports rabidly racist fanatics mass murdering Palestinian children.” Oh, thank you Mr. Smith. That’s really, really fine. It gets better each time I read it. Please keep writing.

    Posted by catherine from cleveland  on  10/28  at  04:15 PM

  2. Just saying that Bush and Kerry differ doesn’t make it so. Norm Soloman’s performance in the debate with Kevin Zeese (who was solid) was extremely disingenuous, he may be hired by Crossfire to represent the “left” soon. I wonder if we live in especially irrational times or is this just an extreme moment of the way things basically always are in the long history of the homo sapiens as pathological phenomenon (indigenous peoples excluded)?

    The fact that the majority of people (and if I can figure it out anyone should be able to) believe Kerry may be better just because everyone keeps repeating it doesn’t make it so. Do people even bother with empirical evidence, voting record, comparison of rhetoric with actions?

    In fact, there is a case to be made that Kerry could be worse (eg., Kolko et al). Maybe it is true that people never change, but our physical circumstances do: the environmental crisis will bring us down one way or another-- if peak oil doesn’t then global warming will. Great column, I voted for Nader.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  10/29  at  03:55 AM

  3. I think you nailed the hypocrisy of both Zinn and Chomsky.  When Amy Goodman challenged Chomsky regarding making a demand of Kerry his terse response was “To whom?” And that Kerry was not “his audience”.  Yet Chomsky does command a large “audience” however I think that “audience” is largely other academics and “professional” with no sinew to working class people.  Thus I think much of the reactionary aspects of the ABB crowd had to do with their “support” coming from the narrow liberal-left elites vested in maintaining the status quo.

    The importance of the 2004 Nader/Camejo campaign has been the utter *exposure* of the decadence of Liberalism from a left-wing perspective.  Obviously Liberalism has been critiqued from the right but those critiques were not taken to be seriously by the left.  But the Nader/Camejo campaign has laid bare the role Liberalism plays in impeding progress.  I hope that people on the left especially those who challenged the ABB crowd takes that lesson forward into the future.

    WB

    Posted by Wilson Barber from  on  10/29  at  01:00 PM

  4. Chomsky acted as if Nader was spaced-out in Left Field playing as if HE could make demands of Kerry. Very, very bad form, especially given the fact that Nader MADE demands of Kerry in person, AND Chomsky certainly is, arguably, in a better position to make demands of Kerry than almost anyone else in the “progressive” segment of this country.  But won’t. His suggestion that WE all put our energies to making demands through groups, established (large) organizations (with “punch") wears well until you think about what groups he might be talking about. Greenpeace?  The Sierra Club?  The Young Democrats of the University of Minnesota?  C’mon, Noam...and blind supporters of the ABB crowd in the Unsafe States!  Each individual is going to have to make demands “in a new way” with or without association with a group. I would not recommend holding one’s breath for results if you’re doing such in accordance with the ground rules of, say, Global Exchange...following the old paradigms for making demands.  We’re going to have to leave Noam and various organizations behind for the moment as we break new ground.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/29  at  05:55 PM

  5. This seems to be some of a “damned if you do/don’t” scenario regaurding Chomsky...If he ‘makes demands’ on Kerry he is called out for essentially wasting time trying to influence electoral politics, etc...and now if he doesn’t ‘make demands’ he is also attacked. 

    I suspect he would be the first to agree there being way to much weight attached to his words at the moment - segements of the left are rabidly seizing on snippets of his ‘wisdom’, and either following them blindly or else raking him through the coals. I honestly don’t think he would disagree with any of what Richard has to say regaurding finding alternative and more effective means of resistance.

    Posted by CK from  on  10/29  at  06:20 PM

  6. As far as I know, Chomsky has never had a kind word to say about Nader-- professional jealosy?

    Nader has pointed out that the US congress is Zionist occupied territory. Chomsky rejects this as nonsense. Another reason Noam and The Nation Left depart from Nader?

    Chomsky was one of the most astute critics of Clinton early on, offering incisive critiques of Clinton’s policies. But he has contradicted himself regarding CK’s point since if he wants not to get caught up in electoral politics why did he sign that stupid, disingenuous letter calling on Nader to bow down in swing states and making many other crackpot accusations. Does Noam sign everything the Nation mag Left puts in front of his face, and “let the chips fall where they may”?

    Chomsky also suffers from delusions regarding 911, having made up his mind early on that “all those theories on the internet are nonsense” (paraphrasing his response at the FAIR gathering). Has he revised his take on the matter in light of new evidence? Not to my knowledge, which tells you something about the gatekeeper Noam Chomsky (defacto or whatever, but that’s what it is).

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  10/29  at  07:06 PM

  7. I have to somewhat disagree with CK assessment.  Chomsky as well as Tariq Ali have put themselves in the public sphere through their writings.  The left media has provided them a forum to speak and has help to shape “progressive” thinking, values, and views.

    However as Chomsky says that the election is only worth 5 minutes of his time then why did he feel it necessary to allow time for his name and stature to be associated with the “safe-state”, leave-Kerry-alone, anybody-but-Bush mantra.

    Rhetorially speaking is Chomsky that naive and a political neophyte?  Negative.  He knew the ramification of lending his name to organization known as “United Progressive for Victory”.

    It is clear as daylight as well as extremely disheartening that when the decision had to be made to take a stance that the progressive intellegencia took a powder.

    WB

    Posted by Wilson Barber from  on  10/29  at  07:36 PM

  8. I love how Rick can simultaneously put forth these ‘Bush did it’ 9/11 conspiracy theories yet also say there would be no diffeence between a Bush/Kerry administration. Seriously, consider what would actually be the implications if we proved conslusively a 9/11 conspiracy to be true? So we find the Bush administration is more monsterously criminal than we imagined - there is even MORE colusion between the neo-con elite and all elements of the intelligence community working in unison to perpetrate such an eleborate crime. I mean this is pure ABB manna in my opinion! I’m not saying we should all toe the government line, but what would actually be gained by spending large ammounts of time on this?

    As to the ‘gatekeeper’ term, it has been overused and thrown around so obnoxiously as of late that it resembles the ‘anti-semite’ charge -inteneded to be sort of a ‘final word’ damnation so to speak.

    Posted by CK from  on  10/29  at  08:44 PM

  9. CK, these are no longer conspiracy theories but probabilities. That Kerry won’t challenge Bush on 911 (neither has Nader for that matter) shows his complicity. Maybe it would take the Republicans to have the brass balls to pull something like this off, but not without one hundred percent Democratic party backing. Where did I read recently that Kerry is the newest neo-con? (see the video: “911 in Plane Site” if you can find it. Irrefutable evidence that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, or somewhere).

    As for devoting time to 911, clearly the topic is taboo to this website. My belief is that showing the nefariousness of the State in carrying out such a crime might finally open peoples eyes to the REAL legacy of the United States (a murderous empire). I agree though that obsession on that issue is not healthy or strategically sound. Morally, as ROx and Ward Churchill have shown, we are all hypocrits if we ignore the plight of Native Americans.

    Yes, “gatekeeper” is a cliche, but that does not mean that Chomsky is not one on certain important issues. Thanks for the feedback.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  10/30  at  05:32 AM
    10. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Eminem Joins the ABB Mosh Pit

    Previous entry: The Left and Popular Culture

    [ads]

    Support Press Action