[Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] Norman Solomon's plea

[C. G. Estabrook]

What we actually have is "a clear national rejection" of s system that produces 
  two candidates with essentially identical views on the major issues -- the 
economy, the war, healthcare -- while an overheated media insists that these 
candidates cover the map of possibilities, are polar opposites, and that a 
choice between them is a matter of overwhelming importance.  So the election is 
covered like the World Series or the BCS -- with an equivalent fraction of the 
population thinking it important.

The situation is hardly new. "The elections of November 2004 have received a 
great deal of discussion, with exultation in some quarters, despair in others, 
and general lamentation about a 'divided nation' ... Though significant in their 
consequences, the elections tell us very little about the state of the country, 
or the popular mood.  There are, however, other sources from which we can learn 
a great deal that carries important lessons ... One conclusion is that the 
elections conferred no mandate for anything, in fact, barely took place, in any 
serious sense of the term “election” ... in 2004 Bush received the votes of just 
over 30% of the electorate, Kerry a bit less. Voting patterns resembled 2000, 
with virtually the same pattern of “red” and “blue” states (whatever 
significance that may have).  A small change in voter preference would have put 
Kerry in the White House, also telling us very little about the country and 
public concerns...

"On the eve of the 2000 elections, about 75% of the electorate regarded it as a 
game played by rich contributors, party managers, and the PR industry, which 
trains candidates to project images and produce meaningless phrases that might 
win some votes.  Very likely, that is why the population paid little attention 
to the 'stolen election' that greatly exercised educated sectors.  And it is why 
they are likely to pay little attention to campaigns about alleged fraud in 
2004. If one is flipping a coin to pick the King, it is of no great concern if 
the coin is biased...

"It is instructive to look more closely into popular attitudes on the war in 
Iraq, in the light of the general opposition to the “pre-emptive war” doctrines 
of the bipartisan consensus.  On the eve of the 2004 elections, “three quarters 
of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have 
WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the 
war was the right decision” (Stephen Kull, reporting the PIPA study he directs). 
  But this is not a contradiction, Kull points out.  Despite the quasi-official 
Kay and Duelfer reports undermining the claims, the decision to go to war “is 
sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided 
substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program,” 
and thus see the invasion as defense against an imminent severe threat.  Much 
earlier PIPA studies had shown that a large majority believe that the UN, not 
the US, should take the lead in matters of security, reconstruction, and 
political transition in Iraq. Last March, Spanish voters were bitterly condemned 
for appeasing terror when they voted out of office the government that had gone 
to war over the objections of about 90% of the population, taking its orders 
from Crawford Texas, and winning plaudits for its leadership in the “New Europe” 
that is the hope of democracy.  Few if any commentators noted that Spanish 
voters last March were taking about the same position as the large majority of 
Americans: voting for removing Spanish troops unless they were under UN 
direction.  The major differences between the two countries are that in Spain, 
public opinion was known, while here it takes an individual research project to 
discover it; and in Spain the issue came to a vote, almost unimaginable in the 
deteriorating formal democracy here.

"These results indicate that activists have not done their job effectively.

"Turning to other areas, overwhelming majorities of the public favor expansion 
of domestic programs: primarily health care (80%), but also aid to education and 
Social Security.  Similar results have long been found in these studies (CCFR). 
  Other mainstream polls report that 80% favor guaranteed health care even if it 
would raise taxes – in reality, a national health care system would probably 
reduce expenses considerably, avoiding the heavy costs of bureaucracy, 
supervision, paperwork, and so on, some of the factors that render the US 
privatized system the most inefficient in the industrial world.  Public opinion 
has been similar for a long time, with numbers varying depending on how 
questions are asked.  The facts are sometimes discussed in the press, with 
public preferences noted but dismissed as “politically impossible.” That 
happened again on the eve of the 2004 elections.  A few days before (Oct. 31), 
the NY Times reported that “there is so little political support for government 
intervention in the health care market in the United States that Senator John 
Kerry took pains in a recent presidential debate to say that his plan for 
expanding access to health insurance would not create a new government program” 
– what the majority want, so it appears.  But it is “politically impossible” and 
has “[too] little political support,” meaning that the insurance companies, 
HMOs, pharmaceutical industries, Wall Street, etc., are opposed.

"It is notable that such views are held by people in virtual isolation.  They 
rarely hear them, and it is not unlikely that respondents regard their own views 
as idiosyncratic.  Their preferences do not enter into the political campaigns, 
and only marginally receive some reinforcement in articulate opinion in media 
and journals.  The same extends to other domains.

"What would the results of the election have been if the parties, either of 
them, had been willing to articulate people's concerns on the issues they regard 
as vitally important?  Or if these issues could enter into public discussion 
within the mainstream?  We can only speculate about that, but we do know that it 
does not happen, and that the facts are scarcely even reported.  It does not 
seem difficult to imagine what the reasons might be.

"In brief, we learn very little of any significance from the elections, but we 
can learn a lot from the studies of public attitudes that are kept in the 
shadows.  Though it is natural for doctrinal systems to try to induce pessimism, 
hopelessness and despair, the real lessons are quite different.  They are 
encouraging and hopeful. They show that there are substantial opportunities for 
education and organizing, including the development of potential electoral 
alternatives.  As in the past, rights will not be granted by benevolent 
authorities, or won by intermittent actions – a few large demonstrations after 
which one goes home, or pushing a lever in the personalized quadrennial 
extravaganzas that are depicted as “democratic politics.” As always in the past, 
the tasks require day-to-day engagement to create – in part re-create – the 
basis for a functioning democratic culture in which the public plays some role 
in determining policies, not only in the political arena from which it is 
largely excluded, but also in the crucial economic arena, from which it is 
excluded in principle."

These paragraphs are from a longer article by Noam Chomsky, "2004 Elections," 
ZNet, November 29, 2004 <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041129.htm>. --CGE


On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Brussel Morton K.
<mkbrussel at comcast.net> wrote:
>  ...
> Needed for This Election: A Great Rejection
>
> October, 30 2008 By Norman Solomon
>
> It could be a start -- a clear national rejection of the extreme right-wing
> brew that has saturated the executive branch for nearly eight years.
>
> What's emerging for Election Day is a common front against the dumbed-down
> demagoguery that's now epitomized and led by John McCain and Sarah Palin.
>
> A large margin of victory over the McCain-Palin ticket, repudiating what it
> stands for, is needed -- and absolutely insufficient. It's a start along a
> long uphill climb to get this country onto a course that approximates
> sanity.
>
> McCain's only real hope is to achieve the election equivalent of drawing an
> inside straight -- capturing the electoral votes of some key swing states by
> slim margins. His small window of possible victory is near closing.
> Progressives should help to slam it shut.
>
> Like it or not, the scale of a national rejection of McCain-Palin and Bush
> would be measured -- in terms of state power and perceived political
> momentum -- along a continuum that ranges from squeaker to landslide. It's
> in the interests of progressives for the scale to be closer to landslide
> than squeaker.
>
> As McCain's strategists aim to thread an electoral-vote needle, it cannot be
> said with certainty that they will fail. Who can credibly declare that an
> aggregate of anti-democratic factors -- such as purged voting rolls, onerous
> requirements for voter ID, imposed obstacles to voting that target people of
> color, inequities in distribution of voting machines, not counting some
> votes as they are cast, anti-Obama racism and other factors -- could not
> combine to bring a "victory" resulting in a President McCain and a Vice
> President Palin come Jan. 20, 2009?
>
> Under these circumstances, the wider the real margin for Obama over McCain,
> the less likely that McCain can claim sufficient electoral votes to become
> president.
>
> Progressives are mostly on board with the Obama campaign, even though -- on
> paper, with his name removed -- few of his positions deserve the
> "progressive" label. We shouldn't deceive ourselves into seeing Obama as
> someone he's not. Yet an Obama presidency offers the possibilities that
> persistent organizing and coalition-building at the grassroots could be
> effective at moving national policy in a progressive direction. In contrast,
> a McCain presidency offers possibilities that are extremely grim.
> ...