[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the great danger of Trump

[Brussel, Morton K]

The issue is not one of voting for either of the parties on one’s election ballot. Chomsky’s view, and mine, is that we are in a uniquely grave (existential) situation for the three issues Chomsky cites: 1. the climate-environmental crisis,  2.  nuclear war, and 3. a democracy crisis. For all of which Trump represents the worst danger one can imagine. Biden may not be far better here for reasons which are evident, but generally we have some hope that his policies and government will be  less toxic and perhaps maleable on individual aspects of these issues. 

The election is a means of avoiding, or mitigating, the worst of these toxicities, and perhaps saving human society and the global  biome  in the process. Other issues such as health care are secondary in the present situation, even with the coronavirus. Even clearly the very important issues such as corporate influence and money in government, military and “national security”, foreign policy generally, a (state-? capitalist economy, civil rights, racism, education, societal inequality, etc, must be of lesser priority in this context. 

The fight will have to be waged on these vital  “secondary” issues after the present governmental horror is eliminated.

 Chomsky is sounding the alarm as forcefully as he can. Too bad the alarm is denigrated, or ignored. 

> On Aug 1, 2020, at 9:51 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> David Green wrote:
>> Mort, I have no problem with Chomsky's appropriate alarmism. I do have a
>> problem with his implying that Biden will in any serious way challenge the
>> institutional forces that are leading us to the abyss.
> 
> I concur with what David said. I'll add a few notes, none of which are in objection to what David said.
> 
> Today's establishment-friendly review of Biden reminds me of the light-touch criticism Hillary Clinton received 4 years ago (and from some of the same people). There's no clear and detailed coverage of his political record in establishment media which includes DN. And like Hillary Clinton's political history, doesn't bear close scrutiny for her supporters. Problems with Biden are waved away as if one of the two major party candidates simply must be deemed better than the other.
> 
> I think that these DN Chomsky interviews are very much about stumping for the Democrats ahead of election time. I think climate change and nuclear war are very important. But I don't think that these issues will be the way voters pick whether to vote or whom to vote for. As I understand it, voters are far more likely to make an election decision based on their immediate financial situation. So I won't be surprised if we see a repeat of what happened in 2016 -- the largest bloc of registered voters didn't vote for US President, likely out of disgust with both major party candidates.
> 
> I find it telling and sad that Medicare for All and Universal Basic Income don't come up at all in the 6 parts of that Chomsky interview posted so far. These two policies strike me as practical, majoritarian-support approaches to help the poor avoid the immiseration they're facing or will likely face soon. But anyone endorsing Biden can't bring up these policy choices without highlighting how awful the Democrats are for basically refusing Medicare for All 3 times in recent history (when Democrats had both houses of Congress & the presidency under Obama with HR676, and now with 2 bills Congress apparently refuses to bring to the floor now).
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss