rest of response: The Nader Question

[FRSFreeState]

Sounds like Noam Chomsky was being practical about Ralph Nader's Presidential Campaign. By saying he wouldn't support him, because he didn't want another Neo Conservative Administration. By taking votes away from Barack Obama.

[whereismybailouttv]

Also remember that kerry is one of the richest people in Congress. Much of his money comes from defense industry stocks.

[lakerfan198126]

Ralph Nader has the right to run for President as any other American who meets the constitutional requirements. He was certainly better than Bush, Gore or Kerry.

[HughieGphiladelphia]

I like Noam a lot....But I DONT AGREE WITH HIM ON THIS! I am actually disapointed because he is brilliant....But Nader is right for what he is and has done.

Ralph Nader/Mike Gravel 2012!

[XM8rifle]

Chomsky is such a hypocrite. He supported Obama, and now he is criticizing him. Why the hell didn't he support Nader if he disagrees with Obama?

[dubified89]

No big funding = can't be president, period.

[wda013]

*THANKS* for uploading this interesting clip !

--

recorded (aired?) WHEN? and (taken from?) where?

(please provide more info! (preferably in the video's description))

[seltian]

I'm sorry, Chomsky. You're still one of my heroes, but I don't see how you can defend this two-party system.

You're books frequently criticise Clinton and other Democrats for not caring for the American people. How can you defend them?

The Democrats could have prevented the Iraq War. They controlled the Senate in 2002. They could have killed the Iraq War Resolution, but they didn't.

Do you really want to defend them, Mr. Chomsky?

[JGuildersleeve]

He's not defending them. He's saying that there are marginal differences between the two parties that can have large and important consequences. Clearly Chomsky argues that the Democrats don't "care for the American people" - it just so happens that coincidentally, their policies often end up being better for the American people than the policies of the Republicans. In that case, where the vote comes down to the two parties, the sensible solution was to vote Democrat.

[seltian]

It comes down to one question: is keeping the Republicans out of office worth putting the Democrats in office?

For me, the answer is no.

[boing3887]

@seltian

well, i understand ur hatred of the democrats, but there is a difference. what you're saying is that in order to keep the democrats out of office, you're willing to have rpeublicans in office. that is the height of irresponsibility. say what you want about the democrats, and there's plenty to say, but they dont have the same hunger for slaughtering foreigners or stepping on the poor - they go easier on them, is what im saying. and thats better than a fullout assault, republican-style

[seltian]

"to keep the democrats out of office, you're willing to have rpeublicans in office"

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I'm not willing to vote for a Democrat just to keep the Republicans out of office. I don't think the Republicans are so much worse that they absolutely MUST be stopped.

I'm not trying to keep either party out of office. But I'm not trying to get either party in office either.

[boing3887]

@seltian

criticizing aspects of nader's campaign strategies and tactics does not amount to a defense of democrats, just as criticism of bush and co's conduct in the iraq war does not amount to approval of saddam hussein/al qaeda, etc.

chomsky's point is that in the elections btwn bush and kerry, it was a difference between taking 10 steps back or merely 7. i believe if the green party and nader wer ein office it would be ten steps foward, but that outcome is statistically not likely.

[seltian]

Perhaps 'defend' was the wrong word. But I don't see why it is so important that the Democrats win.

Yes, the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. But the differences are so small that it isn't worth giving them our vote.

In 2004, the essential issue was the war. Kerry supported the war in Iraq (he criticised the way it was fought, but didn't want to end it). He only wanted to EXPAND the war in Afghanistan!

[boing3887]

@seltian

looking at the poll numbers, it was clear that nader was not going to win (which is a fact that i mourn). so that means either kerry or bush. ok, so we have 2 shit choices, which do we choose - the less shitty. it's like what chomsky said about obama "vote for obama, but w/o illusions, you are choosing the lesser of two evils."

[seltian]

Even if you're sure Nader won't win this election, voting for him still makes a difference. The more support he gets this time, the more he'll have to build on next time.

If he gets 5%, for example, he's entitled to Federal funding in the next election.

He could use that funding to build a stronger campaign and perhaps win.

So voting for him makes a difference, even if you're sure he won't win.

[boing3887]

@seltian

i always try to get dems i know to vote green/nader. so up until the last month before an election, i'm usually boosting nader and the greens. then i take a look at the polls: who's going to win? until the point at which nader and greens is within 10 percent of either part in the polls, i'll vote democrat in the presidential and congressional elections. hopefully the evil republican of the moment is kept out of office, crisis averted, then u go back too work campaigning for green

[boing3887]

@seltian

as for the 5% thing, i'm all for that, and voted for nader the last pres. election over obama (my friends gasped). however, i live in california. if i was living in a swing state, i would've voted for obama. see what i mean?

[seltian]

I understand your point, and I respect your conclusion that swing-state liberals should vote Democrat. I don't agree with it, but I respect it.

It do not believe that it is any individual's responsibility to help the Democrats win, particularly if that individual would prefer Nader over the Democrat. It's the Democrats' responsibility to win the swing states on their own, not the responsibility of independent liberals to help them.

[seltian]

But I recognize that it's a difficult decision (I've gone back and forth on it myself).

And I'm not totally opposed to voting for a Democrat. If Dean or Kucinich ever got the nomination (not that they ever would), I'd be right on voting for them.

[stirrrrrr]

elections no longer change this country

[Nederlandac]

They never did in no country.

(A)

[prkjs08]

I'm very disappointed in Chomsky's position here, as well as with his tacit support for Obama. The differences are quite minuscule.

[RevolutionaryJam]

political biggotry,

if Obama loses it's because he didn't adopt Nader's policies, he cannot be blamed for the incompetence and spinelessness of the democrats in aquiring a progressive platform

[HughieGphiladelphia]

Your right on!

Nader is the right choice!

[afghanosaurus]

How is voting for second worst instead of the best choice a democracy?

[azalbar]

Chomsky isn't so much a bigot as he is a utilitarian. He advocates voting Democratic in swing states, which is perfectly reasonable. I think Nader made a huge mistake in not taking the Green nomination. Without a ticket, he can't really help build a ticket toward federal funding and anything like national credibility and awareness.

[prkjs08]

I disagree. The election results show Nader won more votes than McKinney, even without a party nomination. The USA Green Party is in many ways marginalizing itself, and Nader was smart to cut his ties (I say this as a registered Green).

[mickalene]

i don't quite understand what he means or where he stands in his opinion of Ralph Nader,but even though he(Chomsky) is a very sensible man,he whispers a lot and is sometimes not sound...

[SunspotCycle]

Does Chomsky in his right mind think that any Elector would also sign on to also be a Nader Elector ?

Does Chomsky think the DemocRATS would permit such a Crackpot Scenario to take place ?

Imagine if you will Kerry taking office with Nader having received more of the popular vote. Then Ralph could haunt Kerry for the next 4 years saying the people backed his positions over Kerry's. That would be fun !

[uwaisis]

wow, i'd never seen this video before and i'd always wanted t know what chomsky thought of nader running for president.

[VooWa24]

I've been reading NC all my life, and generally agree with him on most things, but his analysis on Nader is really quite stupid. American Empire thrives precisely because there is no opposition in the political arena. Did Chomsky forget that John Kerry voted for the Iraq War, that he's an ardent supporter of the right wing in Israel, that he believes just as much in Empire as George W. Bush? The only solution in the U.S. is to dislodge the 2-party state.

[sonisisuper]

ooooh, so radical, yet so sensible. I love it! But then, I'm Canadian, so...

[VooWa24]

Give me another year. I'll probably end up in Vancouver (a gorgeous city). American culture is so mindless and dreadful.

[VariedInterest]

It isn't that much better here anymore.

[robaquarian]

nader didnt spoil in 04 at all,also chomsky forgets that even the head of the DLC admitted that if nader would not of run in 2000 bush would of won the popular vote by 1 percent,also Kerry's ,ilitary and foriegn policy was very similar to Bush's,they didnt militarize space i this term

[stkhlm2anth]

I totaly agree with you! But do you know if there is any other video, artical or book where chomsky discusses further his point on Nader? It would be great to understand better were NC is trying to go with the Nader critic!

[8Marx8]

Chomsky did not forget, in fact he always regarded the 2 parties as 2 wings for the same shutle. The president, as Chomsky always described is a symbol,icon, and ceremonia figure. Even the people's "angel" president (carter) Chomsky always percieved him as a culprit, and did not hesistate to expose his complicity in East Timor agression and massacres when the carter adminstration assisted and furnished 250 million $ is military aid to Indonesia. (Ref: The Essential Chosmky).

[timetochilli]

@VooWa24 he didnt say carey was good he said carey domestically is less extremist which can have significant diffrences obviously he isnt wehat we want far from t but if you had to choose in this time where the public is sleeping its better to hoose between the lesser of two evils

[mogem]

@VooWa24 reading books by great men is wonderful and all...but if you don't understand the words in those books---it's kind of useless.

[robaquarian]

@VooWa24 he also fails to notice that voting doesnt matter. bush stole both elections. and obama was given more money by wall street then they gave to McCain. Obama is worse then Bush on foriegn policy and finance and everything else a continuation. why doesnt chomsky bring up IRV voting and open debates?

[QwidgyboMan]

@VooWa24

He's not supporting Kerry ffs.

[mcshobe2008]

@VooWa24 I generally agree but I think his point that in this particular situation -because Buch's administration was so far right- it is best to take a lesser of two evils. The critical issue that put him to this decision in this case seems to be the militarization of space. He writes about it at the end of 'Hegemony or Survival'. I do not recall Chomsky making similar remarks in the McCain-Obama election (though I'm not sure)

[deluxeaction]

@VooWa24 I think you might be misunderstanding him. He's not talking about the ideal situation which is where Nader could run honestly and possibly win and affect policy the way he should, remember how Chomsky said he's good friends with Nader and respects what he's trying to do. He's never going to say that about Kerry. What you're saying is right, the 2-party state is in desperate need for dismantling, but one Nader or Perot or whoever runs the 3rd party isn't going to do it clearly

[darkillity]

@VooWa24 A one-party state with two factions I'd say.

[DeweyZinnChomskyFisk]

@VooWa24 chomsky knows that the democratic party is right-wing and that kerry and bush are both skull and bones

[xivix]

cmon everyone unless someone has gone to college(i'll include myself in that group),and not a religious funded one,asking that question is valid,

[TheRuthlessRoman]

Asking "who is this guy?" is the same as asking "where does reason live?" ... you should find out more about him, read his books, listen to his interviews and learn about what he has to say about the world. He presents it very well. There is the other option of course. You can continue on being the walking dead as I call them. :)

[teto85]

What pazu7 said.

[pazu7]

In a more rational society everyone would know who Noam Chomsky is and Bill O'Reilly's name would only incite a confused "who?"

[nuclearchicken69]

Very good point! Mr. Chomsky makes so many enlightening points, but most Americans have never even heard of him! He should be required reading certainly in high school.

[inkw311]

NOAM CHOMSKY, RECOGNIZE!

[f1br30p7ix]

therealcellardoor

RE: "who is this guy?"

LOL!!

[todoroki45]

I like that quote about politics being "the shadow cast on society by big business".

[therealcellardoor]

who is this guy?

[xivix]

Noam Chomsky,Prof. of Liguistics at MIT(?)

and the most quoted american itellectual alive today

Check out his book "Manufacturing Consent" and theres a 2 hour Documentary that was made with him called the same thing

[SickNick69]

I loved listening to this guy speak-He is very on-the-ball and articulates his opinion brilliantly-If only more ppl's attn span wd allow them 2 stop and listen 2 ppl like this guy-Then idiots like Bush wd never get in2 power

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v­=kT06sBs16Z4

[JungSteinAvelli]

If only more people had the attention span to spell out words, instead of using text-speak.

[zetsway5000]

awsome