Noam Chomsky: What Next? The Elections, the Economy, and the World
-
World-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky discussed the meaning of President-Elect Barack Obamas victory and the possibilities ahead for real democratic change
EXCERPT:(4/4)
... right after the election, a front page story, the lead front page story was on how Obama developed this wonderful grassroots army but he doesnt have any debts. Which supposed to be a good thing. So hes free to do what he likes. Because he has no debts, the normal democratic constituency, labor, women, minorities and so on, they didnt bring him into office. So he owes them nothing
What he had was an army that he organized of people who got out the vote for Obama. For what the press calls, Brand Obama. They essentially agree with the advertisers, its brand Obama. That his army was mobilized to bring him to office. They regard that as a good thing, accepting the Lippman conception of democracy, the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders are supposed to do what theyre told and then go home.
Well, what can we anticipate if the popular army, the grassroots army, decides to accept the function of spectators of action rather than participants? Theres two kinds of evidence. Theres rhetoric and theres action. The rhetoric, you know, is very uplifting: change, hope, and so on. Change was kind of reflective any party manager this year who read the polls, including the ones I cited, would instantly conclude that our theme in the election has to be change. Because people hate whats going on for good reasons. So the theme is change.
In commercial advertising as everybody knows, everybody who has ever looked at a television program, the advertising is not intended to provide information about the product, all right? I dont have to go on about that. Its obvious. The point of the advertising is to delude people with the imagery and, you know, tales of a football player, sexy actress, who you know, drives to the moon in a car or something like that. But, thats certainly not to inform people. In fact, its to keep people uninformed.
The goal of advertising is to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices. Those of you who suffered through an economics course know that markets are supposed to be based on informed consumers making rational choices. But industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to undermine markets and to ensure, you know, to get uninformed consumers making irrational choices. And when they turn to selling a candidate they do the same thing. They want uninformed consumers, you know, uninformed voters to make irrational choices based on the success of illusion, slander, and effective body language or whatever else is supposed to be significant. So you undermine democracy pretty much the same way you undermine markets.
Well, the first post-election appointment was for Chief of Staff, which is a crucial appointment; determines a large part of the presidents agenda. That was Rahm Emanuel, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq in the House. In fact, he was the only member of the Illinois delegation who voted for Bushs effective declaration of war. And, again, a longtime Washington insider. Also, one of the leading recipients in congress of funding from the financial institutions hedge funds and so on. He himself was an investment banker. Thats his background. So, thats the Chief of Staff.
The next group of appointments were the main problem, the primary issue that the governments going to have to face is what to do about the financial crisis. Obamas choices to more or less run this were Robert Rubin and Larry Summers from the Clinton--Secretaries of Treasury under Clinton. They are among the people who are substantially responsible for the crisis. One leading economist, one of the few economists who has been right all along in predicting whats happening, Dean Baker, pointed out that selecting them is like selecting Osama Bin Laden to run the war on terror.
Yeah, Ill finish. This saves me the problem of whats coming next, so Ill finish with the elections. Let me make one final comment on this. There was meeting on November 7, I think of a group of couple, of a dozen advisers to deal with the financial crisis. Their careers were, records were reviewed in the business press, and Bloomberg News had an article reviewing their records and concluded that these people, most of these people shouldnt be giving advice about the economy. They should be given subpoenas.
Because most of them were involved in one or other form of financial fraud, that includes Rahm Emanuel, for example. What reason is there to think that the people who brought this crisis about are some how going to fix it? Well, thats a good indication of whats likely to come next, at least if we look at actions.
Loading...
10:19
Chomsky - After the Election - Historic? ...by gfde081,324 views
@megagagnon1
At some point when you get out of diapers maybe we can talk, until then quit wasting my time.
themountainviewguy 1 year ago
@themountainviewguy Who's advocating getting rid of government? Your reading comprehension skills are low - damn those public schools! And Ron Paul doesn't advocate going back to the gold standard completely - go to his website or read his book on the subject. Corporations want their industry regulated - the more regulations the better - as long as those regulations favor corporations and make it impossible for small companies to compete. Funny how you're an Obama supporter - a corporate shill.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
@megagagnon1
Ron Paul has no hope of being elected. Corporations back Libertarians until there such a time as their lies are accepted by non-thinking people like yourself. instead of just listening to RP go found some criticisms of him. There is also no reason to believe that basing our currency on gold does anything but economically help people with gold.
The answer is to take business & money out of government, not get rid of government which has worked for 200+ years.
themountainviewguy 1 year ago
@themountainviewguy If corporations were so in love with libertarians, and they wanted Ron Paul in, why haven't they supported him? Why haven't the media, which is connected to corporations, extol the virtues of libertarianism and encouraged people to vote for Ron Paul? Because Big Bizz wants Big Gov, so that Big Gov can change the rules in favor of Big Biz. Big Biz doesn't want competition from small biz, so Big Gov makes sure small biz can't compete, it throws up obstacles. Corporate Welfare 2
megagagnon1 1 year ago
@megagagnon1
Ron Paul is a real schmuck. He wants to sell of the national parks and does not care if the old redwood trees are chopped down and sold. He is a LIBERTARIAN, meaning he wants corporate and money interests to rule this country even more than they do now. What kind of clueless do you really have to be to not get what Ron Paul is all about?
themountainviewguy 1 year ago
@themountainviewguy Real change is Ron Paul. Obama was phony change.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
Chomsky never has a good word to say about anything. If he wants to attack Obama he should do it on specifics and not just saying everything is rigged. What else should any politicians do? What would Chomsky do? Then he goes off on advertising. It is not just voters who are uninformed, there is little agreement with voters ... so how do we get an election not run by the business class, and what would the agenda be? not so easy to change totally.
themountainviewguy 3 years ago
Obama's treasury secretary, the guy who was the only man in the world who could do the job... He is a Henry Kissinger Accolate. In fact his first job was working for Kissinger in Indonesia with Obama's Mother who also worked for Kissinger. Obama took the fast track to where he is now. He certainly has a lot of "Debts" and most to some very unsavory characters who are now working behind the scene in his administration.
AbuBakerSmith 3 years ago
"Having any debts"? Does he mean owing favors once in office to the companies, lobbyists, etc who gave so generously to Obama's campaign? In that case, then of course Obama has "debts"! Chomsky IS right about Biden and Obama's cabinet choices...a very war-loving team, indeed!
sufisis 3 years ago