[Peace-discuss] Does the election matter?

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Why most Americans don't care about Bush/Kerry.  It's not because they're
too stupid.  --CGE]

	Money Determines U.S. President
	Noam Chomsky interviewed by Mehr News Agency
	Tehran Times, October 11, 2004

Mehr News Agency: Given the fact that the US presidential election looms
closer, how do you see the perspective of such an event?

Chomsky: The US is a very free country, perhaps uniquely so. It is also,
to an unusual extent, dominated by a highly class conscious business
sector, so much so that America's leading social philosopher, John Dewey,
described politics as "the shadow cast by business over society." That is
not much of an exaggeration. On the eve of the year 2000 presidential
elections, a large majority of the population dismissed it as unrelated to
their interests and concerns, regarding it as a game played by wealthy
contributors and the Public Relations industry, which trains candidates to
focus on "values" and "personal qualities," and to keep away from issues.
There are good reasons for that. On many important issues, there is a
considerable gap between an elite consensus and popular opinion, as polls
reveal. Voting is heavily skewed towards the more wealthy. Years ago it
was shown by leading political scientists that non-voters -- about half
the population -- have a socioeconomic profile rather like those who vote
for labor-based and social democratic parties in Europe, but feel that
they are not represented in the US. In 2004, more appears to be at stake
and interest is greater than in 2000, but there is a continuation of the
long process of disengagement, mainly on the part of poor and working
class Americans. The Harvard University project that monitors electoral
politics currently reports that "the turnout gap between the top and
bottom fourth by income is by far the largest among western democracies
and has been widening." There are some differences between the candidates,
but they are not very far-reaching, particularly in foreign affairs. In a
system of immense power, however, slight differences can translate into
outcomes of considerable significance, both in foreign affairs and on
domestic issues.

MNA: As you know the two main US parties are competing with each other in
supporting Israel. Now in view of Jewish support for Democrats in the last
presidential elections and given George W. Bush's Israel policies how do
you foresee the Jewish policies in this regard?

Chomsky: There are strong pro-Israel voting blocs and funding
constituencies. The largest voting bloc by far is evangelical Christians,
an enormous segment of the population in the US, which is entirely unlike
other industrial societies in the scale of religious fundamentalism, and
in recent years, its role in electoral politics. The matter is debated,
but my own view is that US policies towards Israel have been guided
primarily by geostrategic considerations, more so than domestic politics.
That has been so particularly ever since Israel performed an enormous
service for the US (and its Saudi and Iranian allies) in destroying the
major center of secular Arab nationalism in 1967, Nasser's Egypt. By now
Israel has become almost an offshore military base for the US, and a high
tech and financial center closely linked to the US economy, and resembling
it in many ways. A large majority of the US population opposes the
bipartisan and quite extremist "support for Israel" -- in fact, very
harmful to Israelis in my opinion -- and favors the overwhelming
international consensus on a two-state settlement approximately on the
international border. But these views receive little articulate
expression, and the most important polls are not even reported. There is
little organization related to these views, and they do not enter the
electoral system.

MNA: The US president has recently announced that he would need another
4-year term in office to complete his mission in Afghanistan and Iraq; he
has also said that he would strongly tackle Iran. How do you assess the
next US administration policies in the face of the Middle East issues
particularly the Palestinians?

Chomsky: The US mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is intended to be
permanent. "Completing the mission" means establishing dependent client
states, with some formal trappings of democracy but under US control, the
sites for major US military bases, with the US maintaining primary control
over the immense energy resources of the Persian Gulf and secondarily
Central Asia. That is familiar from earlier days of British imperialism,
in Iran as well, and in US traditional US domains in Central America and
elsewhere. The US intends to bring Iran into this system in one way or
another, probably by subversion and, some scholars believe, supporting
efforts to fragment the country. Palestinians offer nothing to the US.
They have neither wealth nor power, so they are granted no rights, by the
most elementary principles of statecraft. The most recent manifestation of
these attitudes on the part of the US political leadership is their
reaction to the World Court ruling on Israel's separation wall, which was
virtually unanimous: the US Justice dissented, but on narrow grounds
having to do with procedural matters, while he accepted the basic Court
conclusions, including the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention
to the occupied territories and the illegality of settlements. But that
will have no effect on US policies unless there is some success in
educational and organizing activities among the public, as has happened in
the past on many other issues. I should add that one of the disastrous
failures of the leadership of the Palestinians, and the Arab states, has
been that they did not help in this process, as they could have done, or
even appear to recognize its importance.

On Iran, I am sure you know that the US is providing its Israeli client
with over 100 of its most advanced jet bombers, F16-Is, to supplement an
air force that Israeli military analysts already describe as more
technologically advanced and larger than any NATO power, US excluded. That
is thanks to the US-Israel military alliance; on its own, Israel is a
small country with limited resources. The new jet bombers are openly
advertised as capable of bombing Iran and returning, and according to the
Israel (Hebrew) press, are provided with "special weapons"; what that
means is unexplained. Surely all of these announcements (unpublished in
the US) are intended for the ears of Iranian intelligence, for what
purpose one can only speculate.

MNA: How do you see the voters' viewpoint about the next presidential
elections, in view of the ongoing US problems in the Middle East
particularly in Iraq? Will the U.S. citizens vote for a change of
president at a time of crisis?

Chomsky: At the moment, the polls indicate an even race. Usually, US
elections can be predicted pretty well by the level of funding,
overwhelmingly from the very wealthy and corporations. In the early
stages, Bush was far in the lead, not a surprise in the light of the
enormous gifts his administration has lavished on a very small wealthy
minority and on corporate power. However, that funding gap has reduced
considerably in the past months, apparently reflecting concern among elite
sectors over the extraordinary incompetence of the Bush planners and the
harm they are doing to core elite interests. The election is, as usual,
avoiding issues of major concern to the population. Few people are aware
of the proposals of the political parties on matters of concern to them.
The public relations campaigns are focusing on "strength," "leadership,"
"personal qualities," and other matters that keep the public removed from
interference with policy choices, which are not considered to be the
public role in a severely eroded democratic culture.

MNA: How would Democratic Party victory in the elections affect the
Greater Middle East initiative?

Chomsky: There is very little in the way of a "Greater Middle East
initiative," apart from rhetorical posturing. The primary concerns remain
as they have been for close to a century, very clearly since World War II,
when the US government recognized the Persian Gulf region to be a
"stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material
prizes in world history," "a vital prize for any power interested in world
influence or domination," as Britain, previously the dominant power,
described the region in 1947. That is even more true today than it was
then. We should always be careful to distinguish rhetoric from policy.
Even the most awful criminals -- Hitler, Stalin, and others -- typically
employ quite noble and uplifting rhetoric. It carries no information,
because it is completely predictable. People who want to understand the
world will therefore pay little attention to it, and will inquire instead
into consistent practice and its institutional roots.

chomsky.info