[Peace-discuss] Biden = business as usual...

[C. G. Estabrook]

I seem to be having trouble making myself clear, at least to Mort:

[1] As I've said, it seems that a Democratic administration might be less bad
for social policy than a Republican one (but they're working for the same
people, as Biden once again illustrates).

[2] You can be antiwar and anti-imperialist even though you prefer Obama to
McCain (but you shouldn't pretend that Obama is anti-war and anti-imperialist).

[3] Chomsky (who is most feared and despised in left-liberal intellectual circles):

   "...the Obama phenomenon, I think, reflects the alienation of the population
that you find in the polls: 80% say the country is run by a few big interests.
While Obama says we are going to change that, there’s no indication of what the
change is going to be. In fact, the financial institutions, which are his major
contributors, think he’s fine, so there’s no indication of any change."

   "...McCain is another example of very effective propaganda-creation imagery.
The public relations industry is a huge industry, very sophisticated. Probably
something like a sixth of the gross domestic product goes into marketing,
advertising, and so on, and that’s a core element of society. It’s the way you
keep people separated from one another, subdued, and focused on something else.
And this is explicit and, as I say, it’s all discussed in public relations
propaganda."

   "...McCain may be worse than Bush. He doesn’t say much, because you’re not
supposed to say much about issues, but the few things he has said are
pretty frightening. He could be a real loose cannon."

Does Chomsky therefore "damn without conviction"?  (And what does that mean?)

[4] As to the "differences," more Chomsky:

   "In the last election, 2004, most Bush voters were mistaken about his views on
major issues - not because they’re stupid or uninterested, but because the
elections are a marketing system. This is a business-run society: you market
commodities, you market candidates. The public are the victims and they know it
... So people are not deluded, they just don’t really see any choices."

   "There has been a lot of criticism of the Bush administration as extremist, if
not at the far extreme of radical nationalism, and McCain is probably in the
same territory. Obama very likely would move back to the center right where the
Clinton administration was.  The Bush doctrine itself, the doctrine of
preventive war - you know, brazen contempt for our allies and so on - is an
interesting example. The doctrine, however, was not new. Clinton’s doctrine was
even worse, taken literally. Clinton’s doctrine officially was that the United
States has the right to use force to protect access to markets and resources,
and that’s more extreme than the Bush doctrine. But the Clinton administration
presented it politely, quietly, not in a way that would alienate our allies. The
Europeans couldn’t pretend they didn’t hear it - of course they knew it and, in
fact, European leaders probably approved of it. But the arrogance, brazenness,
extremism, and ultra-nationalism of the Bush administration did offend the
mainstream center in the United States and Europe. So, there’s a more polite way
of following the same policies."

The candidate of politesse: Barack Obama. --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> My conclusion from this debate is that Carl, or Neil, among others, will be 
> as happy to see McCain win as Obama. Carl seems to think that you can't be 
> antiwar and anti-imperialist if you prefer Obama to McCain, that all your 
> antiwar energy will be sucked dry if you make distinctions between them.
> 
> I believe this to be nonsense. Perhaps Carl should ask advice here from 
> Chomsky. Chomsky, I believe, is more nuanced, without having illusions. My 
> guess is he might say that we should have no illusions about either McCain or
>  Obama for getting to the out of reach (peaceful) revolution we need, but in
>  several, perhaps many respects, Obama would be better for the world's
> peoples and environment than McCain. He would also advocate with Carl,
> however, a steady devotion and commitment to anti-imperialism, that we
> shouldn't be too much deflected by American electoral politics in this
> matter.
> 
> Carl damns without conviction, describing McCain as "somewhat" of a "loose 
> cannon". But even with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, and  Iran, there are 
> differences between the two, bad as both their stated policies seem.
> 
> Either one will be President. Does it make a difference or not? That is the 
> question.
> 
> Some speak of fuzzy headed liberals. I think we can now speak of fuzzy headed
>  anti-war idealists.
> 
> --mkb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 25, 2008, at 7:15 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> And anyone who thinks that supporting Obama is opposing the war is 
>> mistaken. Absent serious opposition, foreign and domestic, the US 
>> government will continue to kill people in the Middle East next year, 
>> whoever is president.
>> 
>> McCain is something of a loose cannon, and what he would do in office is 
>> unclear -- but it's also unclear what Obama might do.  Within the broad 
>> (and vicious) parameters of US policy, it would have been impossible to 
>> predict what either Clinton or Bush actually did in office.
>> 
>> From what little we know, it seems that a Democratic administration might 
>> be less bad for social policy than a Republican one, but they're working 
>> for the same people, as Biden once again illustrates.
>> 
>> The worst thing is to turn the energy that might go into a serious anti-war
>>  movement into the presidential election, as if it mattered much. That of 
>> course is what our rulers would like us to do.
>> 
>> The point was made explicitly by the rather limited WH press secretary, 
>> Dana Perino, in an exchange with reporters this spring. In an interview 
>> with Vice President Cheney, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz had noted that 
>> “two-thirds of Americans say” that the Iraq war “is not worth fighting.”
>> 
>> “So?” Cheney replied. "I think we cannot be blown off course by the 
>> fluctuations of the public opinion polls."
>> 
>> Referring to Cheney’s comment during a White House press briefing, a 
>> reporter asked Perino, “So is the vice president saying it really doesn’t 
>> matter what the American public thinks about the war?”
>> 
>> “No, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying,” Perino replied.  Reporter 
>> Helen Thomas took up the matter:
>> 
>> HELEN THOMAS: The American people are being asked to die and pay for this.
>>  And you’re saying they have no say in this war?
>> 
>> PERINO: No, I didn’t say that Helen. But Helen, this president was 
>> elected...
>> 
>> THOMAS: But it amounts to it. You’re saying we have no input at all.
>> 
>> PERINO: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and
>>  that’s the way our system is set up.
>> 
>> Some system.  Some input.  --CGE