Chomsky: US public irrelevant

[kpete]

Chomsky: US public irrelevant



........................

So, the question is, do Americans have any legitimate hope of change this time around? And what is the difference in dynamic between America's presidential "cup" in 2008 compared to 2004 and 2000?

Noam Chomsky: There's some differences, and the differences are quite enlightening. I should say, however, that I'm expressing a very conventional thought – 80 per cent of the population thinks, if you read the words of the polls, that the government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves not for the population 95 per cent of the public thinks that the government ought to pay attention to public opinion but it doesn't.

........................

But those aren't changes coming from pressure from below?

Noam Chomsky: No, the public is the same, it's been saying the same for decades, but the public is irrelevant, is understood to be irrelevant. What matters is a few big interests looking after themselves and that's exactly what the public sees.

............................

What are the chances that a new president will significantly change course on the occupation and might there be any change for the people of Iraq as a result of the electoral moment in the US?

Noam Chomsky: Well, one of the few journalists who really covers Iraq intimately from inside is Nir Rosen, who speaks Arabic and passes for Arab, gets through society, has been there for five or six years and has done wonderful reporting. His conclusion, recently published, as he puts it, is there are no solutions.


It has in fact been catastrophic. The Democrats are now silenced because of the supposed success of the surge which itself is interesting, it reflects the fact that there's no principled criticism of the war – so if it turns out that your gaining your goals, well, then it was OK. We didn't act that way when the Russians invaded Chechnya and, as it happens, they're doing much better than the US in Iraq.

In fact what's actually happening in Iraq is kind of ironic. The Iraqi government, the al-Maliki government, is the sector of Iraqi society most supported by Iran, the so-called army - just another militia - is largely based on the Badr brigade which is trained in Iran, fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq war, was part of the hated Revolutionary Guard, it didn't intervene when Saddam was massacring Shiites with US approval after the first Gulf war, that's the core of the army. The figure who is most disliked by the Iranians is of course Muqtada al-Sadr, for the same reason he's disliked by the Americans – he's independent.

more at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/06/2008624202053652281.html

[lonestarnot]

1. And we haven't had a revolution why?

[Fumesucker]

2. Cable TV, "professional" sports, video games..

The list of distractions is endless..


Recommend..

[MedleyMisty]

7. I play video games

Haven't noticed it melting my brain or distracting me or anything. You should see the occasional political or religious conversations that happen in the trade channel in WoW. And I know I've seen a sig around here about a political site for gamers.

People can multi-task, you know. You might have a case with the cable TV, because TV really is a scary propaganda tool. I don't know about sports - I know that the televised bit of it, especially ESPN, is a bit off but not being a regular watcher I can't really say much about it. But I think the answer lies far beyond new technology that you don't like for some reason. Humans have been passive and submissive to corrupt governments for far longer than we've had video games.

Kudos on not including iPods and iPhones, though - I sometimes wonder if Microsoft people are paid to post irrational hatred for Apple products on here.

[Fumesucker]

12. I'm neutral on video games, I neither like nor dislike..

But they are a major distraction for tens of millions of people.

Bread and circuses.

I'm far from a luddite, in fact I'm an early adopter for a lot of tech stuff, I bought my first computer in 1984. On the other hand I got my first cell phone last year.. I don't talk on the phone much and haven't really needed one until now.

Listen to sports talk radio sometimes, the amount of intellectual energy that some people pour into pro sports is astounding. And it will not make one iota of difference in their lives.

As for Apple and Microsloth.. Although I happen to use Windoze, that's just because I've been building my own machines for a long time from bits and pieces and you can't really do that with an Apple. I've toyed with Linux off and on but XP does everything I want and I'm too lazy to put the effort into learning Linux until it become necessary for me to do so for whatever reason.

[lonestarnot]

18. And that is your response as to why no revolution derived from the OP?

snort.

[dysfunctional press]

13. two main reasons for most americans-

1.fat

2.happy

[truedelphi]

15. That's for the survivng Americans

The rest of us ar etoo poor

and too sidelined to do much

[dysfunctional press]

16. umm...it's generallly the poor who DRIVE revolutions...

i hope you don't expect the fat and happy ones to do anything about it.

[Hannah Bell]

17. if they're so happy, why are more than 1/4 on anti-depressants?

[dysfunctional press]

21. maybe if they spent a week in the third world- they'd realize that they aren't THAT depressed...

and wouldn't the ones that are already on anti-depressants supposedly be back or on their return to happy...?

[struggle4progress]

22. Because the American opposition doesn't engage in careful analyses of the power structure

and doesn't work towards mass organization

[zeos3]

3. K & R

[skooooo]

4. He does say he sees some reason to be hopeful though. nt

[flashl]

5. "No, the public is the same, it's been saying the same for decades, but the public is irrelevant" nt

[T.Ruth2power]

6. Yep

K&R

When politicians offer nothing, and the people demand nothing, then the powers-that-be are free to continue doing whatever they choose. The death knell of participatory politics can often be a very noisy, celebratory affair - such as we have witnessed in the call-and-response ritual of "Change!" "Hope!" and other exuberant but insubstantial campaign exercises.

[Boojatta]

8. Are most of his book sales now to consumers outside the US?

Perhaps Chomsky's mode of generating personal income has modified his consciousness in such a way that he no longer cares what Americans think? After all, not becoming homeless is presumably a high priority for Chomsky. Alternatively, perhaps Chomsky is not particularly concerned about such an eventuality and thus he might be unable to understand why any homeless people would feel seriously upset about their circumstances.

[High Plains]

9. ???????????

[davekriss]

10. You do understand what he is saying, right?

There is so much wrong with your post that I won't bother to even begin.

[Canuckistanian]

11. No international reader has doubts about what Chomsky's nationality is

He is 100% American.

And he is widely respected as such.

The fact that he's NOT well-read in his home country takes NOTHING away from his relevance.

[struggle4progress]

20. Gotta link?

[Marie26]

14. Well, yeah.

So what do we do about it?

[Echo In Light]

19. K&R

[Peace Patriot]

23. It always surprises me that smart leftist intellectuals like Chomsky ignore the

most obvious facts about our election system. He is smart enough to perceive that "the public is the same, it's been saying the same for decades"--that is, that it feels unrepresented in our political system, which is run by a rich elite for the rich elite--but he fails to ask how this got so completely undemocratic that the public is "irrelevant."

How does a political establishment insure the "irrelevance" of the public (i.e., the majority)? That is the first question that needs to be asked. And, secondly, what is the condition of the vote counting system in this situation in which the public has become "irrelevant"? There is no surer way to free yourself from "the public," to become deaf to "the public," and to make the public "irrelevant," than to convert the entire vote counting system from something that everyone can watch--and that was, indeed, a matter of civic pride--into a mysterious voodoo, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit-recount controls.

You thus render the public irrelevant.

It is not a matter of most Americans being stupid or uncaring, or uninformed 'sheeple,' or enjoying sports or video games. Back in Feb 03, just before the invasion of Iraq, FIFTY-FIVE to SIXTY percent of Americans opposed the Iraq war (all polls). Now it's a whopping, unprecedented SEVENTY PERCENT. Also 70% who think the country is going in the wrong direction. And more than 70% who disapprove of Bush. And in a poll last year, EIGHTY PERCENT opposed to any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast War. We vote, and what do we get? More war. We vote in 2004. We get more war. We vote in a 'Democratic' Congress in 2006. We get more war.

It seems so obvious to me that the fast-tracking of "TRADE SECRET" voting systems all over the country, during the 2002 to 2004 period, was designed for this result: the "irrelevance" of the public.

Yeah, there's the campaign money problem, and the war profiteering corporate 'news' monopoly problem, and the entrenched, corrupt 'military-industrial' complex problem, and all the other fascist and treasonous shit going down--all building its fascist head of steam over many decades. But nothing as diabolical as 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting has ever been perpetrated in the U.S. before. It is MIND-BOGGLING. It is the ultimate democracy killer. It renders change impossible. We can't even hope to achieve campaign finance reform, if we have a vote counting system that almost no one understands and that no one has a right to observe. There is nothing we can do about fascist corporate 'news' monopolies, if our public officials are beholden to Diebold & brethren and not to us. These fascist/corporate powers that most Americans understand as running our country of, by and for themselves cannot be overthrown--and cannot even be reasonably regulated--without the power of the vote, counted in the PUBLIC VENUE.

It's so elementary that great intellects seem to miss it. THEY'RE FUCKING WITH THE VOTE COUNT, NOAM!

And it would certainly help the grass roots struggle in state and local venues--the only levels of government where ordinary people still have some influence, and where a courageous battle for election reform is taking place--if people like Noam Chomsky, who have a public platform, would point to our egregiously non-transparent, Bushite corporate controlled voting system, as the latest and worst assault on the will of the people.

[Fumesucker]

24. In case you didn't notice..

The Democrats took Congress in 2006.

That should have signaled a major change.

And yet it did not.

It would appear that even when the votes are there, change still does not happen.

[Peace Patriot]

26. "In case I didn't notice"? I think you misunderstood my comment.

"Back in Feb 03, just before the invasion of Iraq, FIFTY-FIVE to SIXTY percent of Americans opposed the Iraq war (all polls). Now it's a whopping, unprecedented SEVENTY PERCENT. Also 70% who think the country is going in the wrong direction. And more than 70% who disapprove of Bush. And in a poll last year, EIGHTY PERCENT opposed to any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast War. We vote, and what do we get? More war. We vote in 2004. We get more war. We vote in a 'Democratic' Congress in 2006. We get more war."

I think the 2006 elections were fiddled to shape a "Blue Dog" Congress that would keep funding the war (among other fascist policies). In 2004, I think it was just outright theft by 'TRADE SECRET' code. (Ohio was extra insurance, but the election was stolen in small percentages all over the country, before it ever "came down to Ohio.") In 2006, it was a more complex picture, with money to pro-war Dems in the primaries being a factor. So what the war party ends up with is a bunch of Dems who are acceptable to the war profiteers, and our corporate rulers can then pick and choose among Dems, with the awesome power of 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting, to shape a fascist Congress. They can thus give us a brief illusion of change--because Congress now has a "D" in front of its name--but it's just more of the same: billions and billions and billions MORE of our tax dollars poured into Iraq to secure the oil contracts for Exxon Mobil & co., and also simply to stuff the coffers of the war industry. And WE get gas-gouged IN ADDITION. Jeez. I don't mean to stress the financial cost next to the loss of life--of our soldiers and Iraqis--and the permanent injuries, and the horrors that these soldiers will have to live with (or will choose not to live with--many of them), nor the horrendous sufferings of the Iraqi people, the millions of displaced persons, the dysfunctional society, the civil war, the loss of sovereignty, the staggering poverty--the insults, the torture, the brutalization. But the money drained out of our pockets, into the pockets of war profiteers, is what keeps it going. And that is by action of this so-called 'Democratic' Congress, in defiance of the will of SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people.

The 06 Congress is the OPPOSITE of the American people. It is 60% to 70% pro-war, and furthermore, pro-fascist (end of the Constitution). Part of the reason is filthy money. Part of it, also, is the fact that only 1/3 of the Senate was up for re-election. But the main key to it is what none of them will talk about: the 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting. The silent coup. There is hardly a member of Congress who can prove that he or she was actually elected. And this causes...not one breath of a comment from our entire political and press establishment? It's damned spooky.

[Echo In Light]

27. Agreed on the 06 "victory;" also a necessary purge valve for an increasingly angry electorate

Put a friendlier face on things. Also, re the high percentages of U.S. citizens opposed to war -- they can be opposed all they want, but at the end of the day if the majority of those opposed don't take any action whatsoever, and they choose to keep to the familiar business of their lives... in part that's what Chomsky is alluding to.

[Peace Patriot]

31. I think it took a while for people to wake up, but there was considerable action

taken in 2004, by a rather awesome grass roots campaign to oust Bush/Cheney. This grass roots campaign blew the Bushites away in new voter registration, nearly 60/40, in 2004. It also matched the Bush money machine dollar for dollar, in small donations, a lot of it raised on the internet. And, although Kerry was not the anti-war, pro-Constitution hero that we needed, still, if he had become president, he would at least have been beholden to some extent to the anti-war majority. And I think it was to prevent that, at all costs, that the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines had been fast-tracked into place almost everywhere, by 2004. 80% of the country's votes were 'counted' by the election theft industry in 2004. Back in 2002, there had been only a few experimental electronic systems--such as Georgia (no paper trail whatsoever), where Max Cleland was kept out of the Senate, in a very blatant theft. But people tried, in 2004. They really did. They just didn't realize that the voting system was already rigged.

There were also very many, and several huge, anti-war protests. But I think you have to consider that most people thought that our democracy was still working. That is the point I'm making below (about my friend and her unwarranted faith in our Democratic Party leaders). And in truth our democracy was still working--but our vote counting system wasn't. And it was very hard for people to know this. There was almost no mention, even of the corporate-acceptable criticisms of e-voting, anywhere. People expected the system to work--that we would be able to "throw the bums out." But when you have the voting system rigged, and the 'news' system rigged, and party leaders who are silent and complicit, and multiple crises (war, torture, looting of government treasuries, Social Security threatened, rising job losses, people having to work two and three shit jobs to feed their families, medical care meltdown, etc.), it takes a long time for people to figure out what's going on--in this case, to get the facts about the voting system--and to start devising strategies to fix it. Getting the facts out on the voting system was entirely word-of-mouth (and the internet) for quite a long time. Organizing has had to be scattered among thousands of state/local jurisdictions--the only viable venues for reform (Congress is hopeless--in fact, they are a menace to election reform).

You say people didn't do anything. But many did. People were flocking to the Democratic Party to oust Bush/Cheney. People were dragging non-voting friends, family and co-workers to the polls. There was a big volunteer outpouring of energy--even with the McAuliffe DNC resisting at every step. I think that the majority of people felt that voting would do it. If they voted and got others to vote, we could straighten this mess out, and right the ship of state--because obviously most Americans wanted that to happen. There was a lag time in their understanding of just how bad this fascist coup was, and especially of this specific method of fascist control--the rigged voting machines.

[Echo In Light]

25. Re the "irrelevance of the public," he's addressed the question: the "manufacture of consent."

Manufacturing Consent - A Propaganda Model:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html

Propaganda and the Public Mind:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Propaganda_PublicMind.html

http://www.understandingpower.com/

Manufacturing Consent:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730

[Peace Patriot]

29. Yes, but I don't recall him saying LITERALLY "manufactured"--that is, with

Bushite corporate-controlled 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting. I also think that the "manufacture of consent" has changed, in some essential ways, over the last decade. People used to believe "the news." So it was easy to feed them what to believe. More people--a lot more people--are skeptical now. And what the corporate 'news' monopolies are doing is, not trying to convince people of anything, but rather they are pre-writing feasible-sounding narratives for foregone conclusions (such as the invasion of Iraq, and Bush/Cheney 'winning' the 2004 election), NOT to gain "consent," but to suppress revolt--by creating a depressed, disempowered stupor in some people, or misdirected, unfocused anger, or a feeling of isolation and loneliness among members of the great progressive American majority. The corporate rulers FAILED TO SELL the Iraq War. A significant majority opposed it from the beginning. And an overwhelming majority opposes it now. They weren't after "consent." They wanted to bludgeon the opposition into thinking that it was in the minority, and into feeling powerless to prevent it. They used to "manufacture consent." Now they manufacture the ILLUSION OF CONSENT.

And how can they do this? By the corporate rulers controlling the voting system with 'TRADE SECRET' code and no audit/recount controls. They can elect whomever they want, THEN they promulgate the fable of how these fuckwards in the White House and in Congress 'won.' Without the 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting power, they would have to go back to at least some degree of persuasion. By the time the Iraq invasion occurred, there was no persuading the American people. The majority did not trust Bush, and did not agree to the war. The "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA)--the $3.9 billion electronic boondoggle, to fast-track these election theft machines all over the country--was passed in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution (IWR)--Oct 02--and is closely related to it. The IWR guaranteed unjust war. HAVA provided the means for shoving the unjust war down the throats of the American people. Not persuading them. Not "manufacturing consent." Ignoring "consent" altogether. "Consent" is not needed when the warmongers have the EASY, undetectable capability of changing millions of votes.

That is one thing on which the American people can be faulted--lack of vigilance over our election system. But, jeez, it is understandable considering not only the total black hole in the corporate 'news' on this vital matter, but also the SILENCE and COMPLICITY of our own Democratic Party leaders.

I remember telling a usually well-informed friend about the voting system--after I learned about it. This was circa 2004 election. And you know what she said? She said, "But the Democrats wouldn't let that happen, would they?"

But the issue wasn't what the Democratic leadership "would do." The issue is what they DID do. They let rightwing Bushite corporations take over the election system with 'TRADE SECRET' programming code and virtually no audit/recount controls. They all voted for it and promoted it, and they are covering it up to this day. Now they're saying, well, if we just add on a paper ballot, everything will be hunky-dory. Add it on. Now. As an afterthought--after a shit-storm of outrage from the grass roots. And even now, they are LYING about this. Because paper ballots are utterly useless in a 'TRADE SECRET' code system IF YOU DON'T COUNT THE BALLOTS as a check on machine fraud. And they never do. And they never will. They like this system. It keeps the war party in power--and renders the public "irrelevant."

It is simply mind-boggling that our party leaders did not insist on a 100% paper ballot backup and count, with these new 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, at least through the first few election cycles (and a substantial handcount after that--Venezuela does 55%, and they have an open source code system!). It is so mind-boggling that my friend couldn't believe that our Democratic leaders would do that to us--but that is exactly what they did--in the same month that they gave George Bush the power to declare his own goddamn war.

[Echo In Light]

30. Well put. It makes one wonder if we've technically, say, since WW2, "elected" any of our presidents?

Power will do what it wants to do ... although I do agree that scope of perception has changed favorably in a short span of time due to the web. However, comprehensive analysis aside, silence still equates to consent, of sorts.

If I recall, Chomsky's position on election fraud in 04 was somewhat ambivalent {he acknowledged it at least} as he tends to not climb the soapbox re the higher profile conspiracies. The trade secret software thing though is just astonishing...yet how many still insist we exist in a rep democracy?

[Peace Patriot]

36. "Chomsky's position on election fraud in 04 was somewhat ambivalent..."

I do love Chomsky, but I sometimes think that academia and a full belly insulate him from the real world in some ways. It's a leftist intellectual prejudice that the American people are stupid, uninformed 'sheeple,' so when they show plain evidence of not being stupid or uninformed--such as the significant majority that opposed the Iraq War (and the overwhelming majority now)--the left doesn't credit this, and doesn't even notice it. If they did, it might lead them--as it led me--to investigate why this significant majority in 2004, and overwhelming majority in 2006, was NOT reflected in the elections and has not resulted in a change of policy. How CAN Bush/Cheney be so oblivious to the will of the overwhelming majority? How can a new Democratic Congress be so oblivious to it? If you look at the election system--even just a superficial look (at the 'TRADE SECRET' code thing, for instance)--you begin to realize that the mechanism for granting/acquiring power in the U.S. government is severely compromised. Basically, three corporations--all with close ties to the Republican Party and far rightwing causes--have seized direct control of the election system. If that had not been the case in 2004, the people would have thrown Bush/Cheney out. (I think the case for this is quite overwhelming.) And if that had happened, intellectuals like Chomsky would have had to credit the common sense, intelligence and good judgment of most of the American people. They don't look to the election system because they have this prejudice that most Americans are sheep. It's ironical, as to Chomsky, because he has done so much, himself, to make them NOT sheep. He is a great educator and writer.

To my mind, free and fair elections can solve almost any problem you could name, because I really believe that democracy produces collective wisdom. Our elections really started going haywire with the JFK and RFK assassinations, but they began losing ground as "free and fair" very quickly, starting with Reagan. Reagan was more of a corporate media coup than a matter of ballot box stuffing. It was the first total illusion presidency--an illusion spun by the increasingly powerful corporate 'news' monopolies. Christ, Reagan was directly complicit in the slaughter of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Mayan villagers in Guatemala, and an illegal war (forbidden by Congress) on Nicaragua, permitted his buds to loot the sacrosanct S&Ls, busted labor unions, re-wrote the tax code to favor the rich, began to dismantle the 'New Deal,' and started off his presidency with outright treason (negotiating arms for hostages with Iran--IRAN!--over President Jimmy Carter's head.) Reagan was the worst president the U.S. has ever had, before Bush II. The corporate media worshiped Reagan and destroyed his Democratic rivals. They literally sold Reagan like a toothpaste.

The Reagan era was also the beginning of the demise of the Democratic Party, as the party of the people--the party of the workers and the poor and the enlightened--and the defender of the rights and interests of the majority. Their failure to impeach Reagan over the Iran/Contra war (war on Nicaragua) was harbinger to their current, appalling failure to impeach Bush/Cheney for far, far worse crimes, including their naked assault on the Constitution.

By this era--the '00 election--the corporate media was freely creating and destroy candidacies. But it was still theoretically possible to run insurgent campaigns and win elections (especially with this new technology, the internet, coming along--with alternative news, and also fundraising and organizing capabilities). During the 2002 to 2004 period, the sovereign power of the people--to vote in real representatives of the people--was taken away. While the corporate 'news' monopolies were beginning to wane as an influence over what people think and how they vote (2003 to the present), peoples' votes were being rendered useless--became the 'TRADE SECRET' property of private, Bushite corporations.

There is truth to the notion of the American people being 'sheeple' during the Reagan era. They still had the power to vote, and could have thrown those fuckers out. On the other hand, they didn't have the internet. They were still enthrall to the awesome and dreadful illusion-making of the corporate media (which Chomsky so brilliantly analyzed--in "The Manufacture of Consent"). Now I think we have a different problem. The corporate 'news' monopolies are still a major problem. I would prioritize them, currently, as problem #2, as to the election system. A big problem, truly--but one that is being mitigated by the internet, and word of mouth (the increasing political consciousness and savvy of ordinary people). The rigged voting, though, is problem #1. We cannot even begin the process of reforming this country without transparent vote counting. Transparent vote counting may not yield, say, 100% reformers, as our representatives, but it will likely yield reps we can work with. People like Sens. Feingold and Obama should be much more common in Washington DC than they are. They should be the rule. And the FDRs and the Thomas Jeffersons should be the avantgarde. We don't have these yet (except for Kucinich and maybe one or two others whose names I don't know, because their work gets no 'news' coverage). Obama is no great reformer--but he seems reasonable and intelligent, and would likely agree to proposals for restoring total transparency to the election system, for instance. He himself ran an insurgent campaign in the primaries, and got his first edge in the caucuses (which are NOT COUNTED BY DIEBOLD & BRETHREN). The election theft corporations can EASILY steal his victory (even with a landslide), but I don't think they will. He is not that much of a threat to their fascist rule. And we might be able to work with him to get some fundamental reforms in place, such as vote counting that everyone can see and understand. And there are other dreadful things that the Bushites have done--such as suppression of black voters--that need to be undone, just to get us back to square one, pre-Reagan democracy, wherein the collective common sense, wisdom, intelligent and good will of the American people can begin to operate once again.

[Ysabel]

32. very good points / all your posts in this thread...

[jmondine]

35. The whole trade secret software code thing amuses me...

We're talking about software that counts button presses, a programming feat that any first semester "Programming 101" computer student can do, something my digital calculator from 1975 was capable of. Needless to say, I don't buy it for a second.

"OMG, you mean, when someone votes for Proposition X, the memory location for Prop X goes up from 76 to 77!? Wow! How advanced!" :sarcasm:

[Blue_Tires]

28. ttt

[Ysabel]

33. k and r...

[Kolesar]

34. The news stories about Iraqis wanting us to leave "after the UN mandate" are encouraging

IIRC, the "UN Mandate" expires at the end of this year and their parliament is saying "US get out".