[Peace-discuss] No one is immune from criticism, not even Chomsky

[Phil Stinard]

Chuck,

Thank you for a long and thoughtful analysis of Chomsky's views on what 
should be done, and on the election.  I agree with you up until the point 
where you agree with Chomsky's choice of the lesser of two evils.  We've 
argued about this in private emails, and I don't think that we're going to 
convince each other, but my main point is that if we keep voting for the 
same two choices year after year, nothing better will ever come along.  I 
don't think that I'm throwing away my vote by voting for a third party 
candidate.  I am expressing my true choice for who I think is the best 
candidate.  Only by making an honest vote can there be real possibility of 
change in the future.  Othewise, it will always be a choice between Bush and 
Bush lite, both of whom support ugly US imperialism abroad.  I don't buy the 
"a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" attitude that is rather arrogantly 
thrust upon the more thoughtful voter.  It's condescending, and an insult to 
one's intelligence.

--Phil

>Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 17:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Chuck Minne <mincam2 at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] No one is immune from criticism, not even
>	Chomsky
>To: Peace <peace-discuss at lists.groogroo.com>
>Message-ID: <20040503001234.26227.qmail at web20813.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>I too find Chomsky’s lack of a plan (for lack of a better word,) 
>disconcerting. But then I think that for those of us on the far left there 
>is really nothing that we can do except try to band together and make a 
>little (or lot,) of noise; as he suggests. I hate to say this, but 
>realistically speaking, without a great deal of money, our cause is 90+% 
>hopeless. Outside of the university community the local population is 
>overwhelmingly conservative. Period. Ditto the media.
>
>
>
>Indeed, IMO, the vast majority of the country has bought into the 
>government’s lies, which the media only embellishes. Fears, which IMO are 
>generally egregiously overstated, have been instilled in almost everyone, 
>even members of this group. The government promotes them and the media 
>thrives on them; the result being that we are a nation of mostly willing, 
>horrendously over-armed aggressors. This is extremely profitable to 
>business and also provides a gusher of money for research at almost every 
>institution of higher learning. The result is, through fear and 
>self-interest (greed?), nobody wants to rock the boat, at least not enough 
>to ripple the water. I doubt that the Democrats would rock it if they 
>could, but they know that they can’t and still get any votes. Rule One 
>appears to be to suck up to the voter, and why not? So we get Kerry, a Bush 
>clone of a hopefully less malignant nature.
>
>
>
>I did some campaigning with Kucinich in Iowa. I love his ideas, but to be 
>against both the war and the WTO, and to be for Universal Health Care put 
>him so far out in left field that nobody paid any attention to him. As we 
>traveled through Iowa his retinue outnumbered the locals at almost every 
>stop. And the media, possibly for reasons that Chomsky makes clear, ignored 
>him. He had little financial support. We were a pathetic bunch. (I might 
>add, that as outspoken as DK was, he would not touch the Palestine question 
>with a ten-foot pole. I don’t know what he really thought, but I suspected 
>that he realized that the Israeli Army were basically thugs, and was 
>sympathetic to the Palestinians. However, he knew that saying so was 
>political suicide and said almost nothing. It is my guess that he might 
>have felt that he would get drummed out of the Democratic Party if he said 
>anything. This is all speculation on my part.)
>
>
>
>Back to Chomsky’s “dilemma” regarding what to do. I felt that I could do 
>nothing more that was both positive and practical than to work for 
>Kucinich. From the practical standpoint it was a joke (he is still running, 
>BTW.) He never had a chance, the main reason being, IMO, was that the media 
>did not anoint him as a possibility or even as a story. Dean was the 
>selected story – end of story. So what can we do? Regrettably, damn little, 
>really damn little. Given that fact, Chomsky says about all he can.
>
>
>
>Probably the most effective thing we can do is protest. And hope the media 
>does not ignore it. The next most important thing, IMO, is vote AGAINST the 
>worst option. To me the worst option is BUSH and the only way to vote 
>against him is to vote for KERRY. To those of you who say Kerry is a jerk 
>or worse, I agree. But think about the future of the Patriot Act and 
>judicial appointments, do you want Bush or Democrats making those 
>decisions? Politicians lie, its their field of expertise, perhaps Kerry 
>knows he has no chance of getting elected if he does not support our 
>present actions in Iraq, so he does, but maybe he’s lying a little. Maybe 
>(just maybe) he would reverse course (albeit slowly) if he got elected. 
>Maybe there’s a chance of that. OTOH where do you think Bush is headed?
>
>
>
>If you think you are going to be courageously principled and vote for a 
>third choice or stay home, IMO you are just plain wrong. Only two 
>candidates have a chance to win. Not voting, or voting for a third choice, 
>just helps the one you hate the most. How can you feel good about that? 
>Chomsky is just being realistic when he fumbles around for a plan, but I 
>bet he doesn’t endorse throwing your vote away and thereby helping the 
>worst candidate. My 2¢.
>

_________________________________________________________________
Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. 
http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married