Fw: Re: [Peace-discuss] Why Obama has to do that...

Sun Nov 2 13:58:24 CST 2008

Noam Chomsky:".....On the other hand, there is nothing immoral about voting for the lesser of two evils. In a powerful system like ours, small changes can lead to big consequences."

Mort: "If only Carl were as equally nuanced and careful  as his professed intellectual mentor! He is in my view despoiling this list serve with vitriolic rants." 

I agree with Noam Chomsky and Mort Brussel.
 --Jenifer

--- On Sun, 11/2/08, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:

From: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Why Obama has to do that...
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 11:31 AM

The desperation of Republicans (e.g., by the local N-G) as the electoral campaign winds down is paralleled by this noxious piece, which ends up expressing no alarm (even hoping for?) at a MaCain-Palin presidency. If only Carl read more carefully what his mentor Chomsky has expressed recently in Z-Magazine, Nov., 2008: 

David Barsamian asks:

…So, realistically, whichever candidate is elected, can a president make a difference?

NC:  Oh, yes. Presidents make differences. In fact, over time there are systematic differences between Republicans and Democrats. So, for example, if you look over a long stretch, fairly consistently, when there is a Democratic president, there is a level of benefits for the majority of the population. Wages are a little better, benefits are a little better, for the large majority. When the Republicans are in office, it's the other way around. There are benefits, but for the super rich. The same is true for civil rights and other things. It's a consistent difference, even though they're within a narrow spectrum. 
The same is true in international affairs…  I don't doubt that there would be some difference between an Obama and a McCain presidency. The McCain presidency you can't predict very well because he's a loose cannon. It could be pretty threatening.

DB: What do you think of the lessor of two evils argument?

NC: It depends whether you care about human beings and their fate. If you careabout human beings and their fate, you will support the lessor of two evils, not mechanically, because there are other considerations. For example, there could be an argument for a protest vote if it were a step towards building a significant alternative to the choice between two factions of the business party, both of them to the right of the population on most issues. If there were such an alternative, there could be an argument for not voting or for voting for the third alternative. But it's a delicate judgement. On the other hand, there is nothing immoral about voting for the lesser of two evils. In a powerful system like ours, small changes can lead to big consequences.
…

If only Carl were as equally nuanced and careful  as his professed  intellectual mentor! He is in my view despoiling this list serve with vitriolic rants. 

On Nov 2, 2008, at 12:50 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

Look, gang, let's get one argument out of the way up front.  As soon as The One is elected President, there are going to be a lot of self-styled activists after him NOT to do the things that he's promised to do -- like killing people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, continuing the occupation of Iraq, delivering money to Wall Street, and paying off insurance companies for a health program that won't even cover everybody (while leaving most people subject to their employers in order to get it).  The crazy leftist filmmaker Michael Moore (while not of course really criticizing The One) actually said that he hoped Obama would break his campaign promises!

Now we've gotta understand why Obama can't do that.  First of all, it would be dishonest.  He's campaigned all along as the anti-war candidate who would expand the war and the military and kill more people in the Middle East -- including places where the Bush administration is just taking baby-steps in killing, like Pakistan.  He's the candidate of "ordinary people" who lobbied for the Wall Street bailout while explicitly excluding help to people losing their homes. And he's the advocate for health care who has a plan that will provide less coverage than the plan that Republican Mitt Romney put in place when he was governor of Massachusetts.  Obama's got to pay off (so to speak) on these promises.

But the second reason is even more important.  Think about what the Republicans are going to do in four years.  They're going to nominate someone for President who will be even WORSE than John McCain -- someone like Sarah Palin, who's disgusting because she doesn't even have the right background (the progressives say "class") to be a government official. (Do you know she barely graduated from any college at all?!)  Think about how terrible it would be if someone like THAT became president.

So, you see, of course Obama doesn't want to do that killing and looting that his campaign promises commit him to, but once he gets into office, he's gotta do that -- TO GET RE-ELECTED!

--CGE

PS--And please don't bother me with any more talk about how three-quarters of the population want the Mideast war to end, don't want the banks to be paid off, and do want real healthcare for everybody without paying more to insurance companies.  Those are NOT the people Obama's working for.  They're just the people he promised that he could bring around to the interests of those whom he is working for.  And with John McCain's help, he's done it -- a little bit, for the moment...

###

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081102/21200d6f/attachment.htm