[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on what we do

[C. G. Estabrook]

[A debate/discussion on the Cohen/Chomsky artices, as Mort proposes, seems
to me a good idea. Meanwhile, here's a brief piece of Chomsky's that I
think puts the election in its place.  It quotes the polls I recently
mentioned in News notes. His conclusion describes the goal of AWARE's
work, I think: "The main task is to create a genuinely responsive
democratic culture, and that effort goes on before and after electoral
extravaganzas, whatever their outcome." --CGE]

	The Disconnect in US Democracy
	Noam Chomsky
	Khaleej Times, October 29, 2004

Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more
meaningfully in the political arena. Essentially the election is a method
of marginalising the population. A huge propaganda campaign is mounted to
get people to focus on these personalised quadrennial extravaganzas and to
think, "That's politics." But it isn't. It's only a small part of
politics.

The population has been carefully excluded from political activity, and
not by accident. An enormous amount of work has gone into that
disenfranchisement. During the 1960s the outburst of popular participation
in democracy terrified the forces of convention, which mounted a fierce
counter-campaign. Manifestations show up today on the left as well as the
right in the effort to drive democracy back into the hole where it
belongs.

Bush and Kerry can run because they're funded by basically the same
concentrations of private power. Both candidates understand that the
election is supposed to stay away from issues. They are creatures of the
public relations industry, which keeps the public out of the election
process. The concentration is on what they call a candidate's "qualities,"
not policies. Is he a leader? A nice guy? Voters end up endorsing an
image, not a platform.

Last month a Gallup poll asked Americans why they're voting for either
Bush or Kerry. From a multiple-choice list, a mere 6 percent of Bush
voters and 13 percent of Kerry voters picked the candidates'
"agendas/ideas/ platforms/goals." That's how the political system prefers
it. Often the issues that are most on people's minds don't enter at all
clearly into the debate.

A new report by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, which regularly
monitors American attitudes on international issues, illustrates the
disconnect.

A considerable majority of Americans favour "working within the United
Nations, even when it adopts policies that the United States does not
like." Most Americans also believe that "countries should have the right
to go to war on their own only if they (have) strong evidence that they
are in imminent danger of being attacked," thus rejecting the bipartisan
consensus on "pre-emptive war."

On Iraq, polls by the Program on International Policy Attitudes show that
a majority of Americans favour letting the UN take the lead in issues of
security, reconstruction and political transition in that country. Last
March, Spanish voters actually could vote on these matters.

It is notable that Americans hold these and similar views (say, on the
International Criminal Court or the Kyoto Protocol) in virtual isolation:
They rarely hear them in campaign speeches, and probably regard them as
idiosyncratic. At the same time the level of activism for social change
may be higher than ever in the US. But it's disorganised. Nobody knows
what's happening on the other side of town.

By contrast, consider the fundamentalist Christians. Earlier this month in
Jerusalem, Pat Robertson said that he would start a third party if Bush
and the Republicans waver in support for Israel. That's a serious threat
because he might be able to mobilise tens of millions of evangelical
Christians who already form a significant political force, thanks to
extensive work over decades on numerous issues, and with candidates at
levels from school board to president.

The presidential race isn't devoid of issue-oriented activism. During the
primaries, before the main event fully gears up, candidates can raise
issues and help organise popular support for them, thereby influencing
campaigns to some extent. After the primaries, mere statements make a
minimal impact without a significant organisation behind them.

The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong
enough so that centres of power can't ignore them. Forces for change that
have come up from the grass roots and shaken the society to its core
include the labour movement, the civil rights movement, the peace
movement, the women's movement and others, cultivated by steady, dedicated
work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years.

But you can't ignore the elections. You should recognise that one of the
two groups now contending for power happens to be extremist and dangerous,
and has already caused plenty of trouble and could cause plenty more.

As for myself, I've taken the same position as in 2000. If you are in a
swing state, you should vote to keep the worst guys out. If it's another
state, do what you feel is best. There are many considerations. Bush and
his administration are publicly committed to dismantling and destroying
whatever progressive legislation and social welfare has been won by
popular struggles over the past century.

Internationally, they are calling for dominating the world by military
force, including even the "ownership of space" to expand monitoring and
first strike capabilities.

So in the election, sensible choices have to be made. But they are
secondary to serious political action. The main task is to create a
genuinely responsive democratic culture, and that effort goes on before
and after electoral extravaganzas, whatever their outcome.

chomsky.info