[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the election, etc.

[C. G. Estabrook]

"...there's no principled criticism of the war..."

	WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2008
	18:29 MECCA TIME, 15:29 GMT	
	Chomsky: US public irrelevant

Noam Chomsky, the renowned US academic, author and political activist, speaks to 
Avi Lewis on Al Jazeera's Inside USA.

They discuss whether the US election this year will bring real change, the 
ongoing conflict in Iraq and why Americans should look to their Southern 
American counterparts for political inspiration.

Q (Avi Lewis): I'd like to start by talking about the US presidential campaign. 
In writing about the last election in 2004, you called America's system a "fake 
democracy" in which the public is hardly more than an irrelevant onlooker, and 
you've been arguing in your work in the last year or so that the candidates this 
time around are considerably to the right of public opinion on all major issues.
	So, the question is, do Americans have any legitimate hope of change this time 
around? And what is the difference in dynamic between America's presidential 
"cup" in 2008 compared to 2004 and 2000?

NOAM CHOMSKY: There's some differences, and the differences are quite 
enlightening. I should say, however, that I'm expressing a very conventional 
thought – 80 per cent of the population thinks, if you read the words of the 
polls, that the government is run by a few big interests looking out for 
themselves - not for the population - [and] 95 per cent of the public thinks 
that the government ought to pay attention to public opinion but it doesn't.

As far as the elections are concerned, I forget the exact figure but by about 
three to one people wish that the elections were about issues, not about 
marginal character qualities and so on. So I'm right in the mainstream.

There's some interesting differences between 2004 and 2008 and they're very 
revealing, it's kind of striking that the commentators don't pick that up 
because it's so transparent.

The main domestic issue for years ... is the health system - which is 
understandable as it's a total disaster.

The last election debate in 2004 was on domestic issues ... and the New York 
Times the next day had an accurate description of it. It said that [former 
Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry did not bring up any hint of 
government involvement in healthcare because it has so little political support, 
just [the support of] the large majority of the population.

But what he meant was it was not supported by the pharmaceutical industry and 
wasn't supported by the financial institutions and so on.

In this election the Democratic candidates all have [health] programmes that are 
not what the public are asking for but are approaching it and could even turn 
into it, so what happened between 2004 and 2008?

It's not a shift in public opinion - that's the same as before, what happened is 
a big segment of US corporate power is being so harmed by the healthcare system 
that they want it changed, namely the manufacturing industry.

So, for example, [car manufacturer] General Motors says that it costs them maybe 
$1,500 more to produce a car in Detroit then across the border in Windsor, 
Canada, just because they have a more sensible healthcare system there.

Well, when a big segment of corporate America shifts its position, then it 
becomes politically possible and has political support. So, therefore, you can 
begin to talk about it.

Q: But those aren't changes coming from pressure from below?

CHOMSKY: No, the public is the same, it's been saying the same for decades, but 
the public is irrelevant, is understood to be irrelevant. What matters is a few 
big interests looking after themselves and that's exactly what the public sees.

Q: And yet, you can see people agitating against the official story, even within 
the electoral process. There is definitely a new mood in the US, a restlessness 
among populations who are going to political rallies in unprecedented numbers.
	What do you make of this well branded phenomenon of hope - which is obviously 
part marketing - but is it not also part something else?

CHOMSKY: Well that's Barack Obama. He has his way, he presents himself - or the 
way his handlers present him - as basically a kind of blank slate on which you 
can write whatever you like and there are a few slogans: Hope, unity …

Q: Change?

CHOMSKY: Change. And it does arouse enthusiasm and you can understand why. Again 
80 per cent of the population thinks the county is going the wrong way.

For most people in the US the past 30 years have been pretty grim. Now, it's a 
rich country, so it's not like living in southern Africa, but for the majority 
of the population real wages have stagnated or declined for the past 30 years, 
there's been growth but it's going to the wealthy and into very few pockets, 
benefits which were never really great have declined, work hours have greatly 
increased and there isn't really much to show for it other than staying afloat.

And there is tremendous dissatisfaction with institutions, there's a lot of talk 
about Bush's very low poll ratings, which is correct, but people sometimes 
overlook the fact that congress's poll ratings are even lower.

In fact all institutions are just not trusted but disliked, there's a sense that 
everything is going wrong.

So when somebody says "hope, change and unity" and kind of talks eloquently and 
is a nice looking guy and so on then, fine.

Q: If the elite strategy for managing the electorate is to ignore the will of 
the people as you interpret it through polling data essentially, what is an 
actual progressive vision of changing the US electoral system? Is it election 
finance, is it third party activism?

CHOMSKY: We have models right in front of us. Like pick, say, Bolivia, the 
poorest county in South America. They had a democratic election a couple of 
years ago that you can't even dream about in the US. It's kind of interesting 
it's not discussed; it's a real democratic election.

A large majority of the population became organised and active for the first 
time in history and elected someone from their own ranks on crucial issues that 
everyone knew about – control of resource, cultural rights, issues of justice, 
you know, really serious issues.

And, furthermore, they didn't just do it on election day by pushing a button, 
they've been struggling about these things for years.

A couple of years before this they managed to drive Bechtel and the World Bank 
out of the country when they were trying to privatise the water. It was a pretty 
harsh struggle and a lot of people were killed.

Well, they reached a point where they finally could manifest this through the 
electoral system - they didn't have to change the electoral laws, they had to 
change the way the public acts. And that's the poorest country in South America.

Actually if we look at the poorest country in the hemisphere – Haiti - the same 
thing happened in 1990. You know, if peasants in Bolivia and Haiti can do this, 
it's ridiculous to say we can't.

Q: The Democrats in this election campaign have been talking a lot, maybe less 
so more recently, about withdrawing from Iraq.
	What are the chances that a new president will significantly change course on 
the occupation and might there be any change for the people of Iraq as a result 
of the electoral moment in the US?

CHOMSKY: Well, one of the few journalists who really covers Iraq intimately from 
inside is Nir Rosen, who speaks Arabic and passes for Arab, gets through 
society, has been there for five or six years and has done wonderful reporting. 
His conclusion, recently published, as he puts it, is there are no solutions.

This has been worse than the Mongol invasions of the 13th century - you can only 
look for the least bad solution but the country is destroyed.

And it has in fact been catastrophic. The Democrats are now silenced because of 
the supposed success of the surge which itself is interesting, it reflects the 
fact that there's no principled criticism of the war – so if it turns out that 
your gaining your goals, well, then it was OK.

We didn't act that way when the Russians invaded Chechnya and, as it happens, 
they're doing much better than the US in Iraq.

In fact what's actually happening in Iraq is kind of ironic. The Iraqi 
government, the al-Maliki government, is the sector of Iraqi society most 
supported by Iran; the so-called army - just another militia - is largely based 
on the Badr brigade, which is trained in Iran, fought on the Iranian side during 
the Iran-Iraq war, [and] was part of the hated Revolutionary Guard; it didn't 
intervene when Saddam was massacring Shiites with US approval after the first 
Gulf war, that's the core of the army.

The figure who is most disliked by the Iranians is of course Muqtada al-Sadr, 
for the same reason he's disliked by the Americans – he's independent.

If you read the American press, you'd think his first name was renegade or 
something, it's always the "renegade cleric" or the "radical cleric" or 
something - that's the phrase that means he's independent, he has popular 
support and he doesn't favour occupation.

Well, the Iranian government doesn't like him for the same reason. So, they 
[Iran] are perfectly happy to see the US institute a government that's receptive 
to their influence and for the Iraqi people it's a disaster.

And it'll become a worse disaster once the effects of the warlordism and 
tribalism and sectarianism sink in more deeply.


<http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/06/2008624202053652281.html>