Chomsky backs Kerry

[alarcojon]

Interesting snippet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1174017,00.html

on edit: Forgot to include text! Here it is in its entirety.



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."

[izzie]

1. Well I hate this laissez faire style of business

I feel like we are going back to Dickens time at this rate but Kerry can not be as bad a Bush. And I would like to see some real Dem back in power.

[TruthIsAll]

2. Chomsky is overrated: Kerry is light-years ahead of Bush..

For him to say there are "fractional" differences makes him sound like Ralph Nader.

Bush is the village idiot. He has failed at everything he has done. But he falls upward.

Kerry is almost rated almost 100% liberal by his voting record. He fought bravely in Nam. And he critcized the War when he came back.

Chomsky is an overrated Chump.

[alarcojon]

3. Read some Chomsky first

before referring to him as an "overrated chump". He operates in a wider ideological framework than most of us do. He knows his shit inside and out.

I couldn't agree more with your first three sentences. No way in hell am I voting for Nader. As the title of the article makes clear, neither is Chomsky. Chomsky is just weighing in on the Kerry vs. Nader thing. Bush was never an option.

I agree with you that the "fractional differences" line is not tactically great. However, you can find plenty of argument on the left that the difference between Bush and Kerry is not as great as the media tends to portray it.

While I am just as pissed at Nader's egotistical run as everyone else, I do admire his stands on most of the issues. I do agree that the Democrats continue to put forth corporate candidates. Of those, Kerry happens to be a pretty good one, and Bush happens to be a horrid one.

[ixion]

6. I beg to differ

Chomsky is no overrated chump. He has distinguished himself as an outstanding intellect for nearly 40 years. And you know what? I would tend to agree with him. Kerry is pretty a pretty conservative candidate, and if it were anyone but Bush in the WH, I'd probably vote for someone else.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. ;-)

[enki23]

8. now *that* is an amusing post

thanks for the laugh this morning. :)

[dudeness]

9. why did kerry fight in a war he opposed ?

and why did he not oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq?...and btw chomsky is no chump..http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/26/1451251 listen to this ..cheers..

[alarcojon]

11. Thanks for the link, dudeness

Nice avatar B-)

[KissMyAsscroft]

4. Everyone I talk to pretty much agress...

Kerry will be a signifigant improvement. Just the Supreme Court issue alone is reason enough to vote for him. Plus he wont be bankrolled by evangelical wackos.

His environmental practices and business regulation will be light years better.

I dont think he is going to be any different on forign policy but to tell you the truth, I dont know how much control the president has anymore on foreign policy. Its pretty much run by the Pentagon and I think the military/industrial complex will eliminate any opposition to their plans.

[Cocoa]

5. Chomsky is a Bonesman

he's been posing as a radical for 40 years.

[alarcojon]

7. ?????

Could you clarify the "Bonesman" thing? I don't get your reference.

[dudeness]

10. please clarify..

how do you pose as a radical??

[RaulGroom]

12. I have to assume this is some sort of strange joke

There are a lot of key pieces of evidence that call into question whether Chomsky could have been a Bonesman.

1) He didn't go to Yale.
2) He's not from money (son of a Hebrew teacher in depression-era Philly.)
3) He's a Russian jew (Bones is for Anglo Protestants.)

Other than that, it could happen. :D

Like I said, I'm giving Cocoa the benefit of the doubt here and assuming this was an odd attempt at humor.

[Zookeeper]

13. Regardless of how one feels about Chomsky...

his statement, "...small differences can translate into large outcomes," has certainly been proven by the last three years with Bush in power.