Chomsky on 2004 Elections

[malatesta1137]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=6751

The 2004 Elections

by Noam Chomsky

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." They are likely to have policy consequences, particularly harmful to the public in the domestic arena, and to the world with regard to the "transformation of the military," which has led some prominent strategic analysts to warn of "ultimate doom" and to hope that US militarism and aggressiveness will be countered by a coalition of peace-loving states, led by - China! (John Steinbruner and Nancy Gallagher, Daedalus). We have come to a pretty pass when such words are expressed in the most respectable and sober journals. It is also worth noting how deep is the despair of the authors over the state of American democracy. Whether or not the assessment is merited is for activists to determine.

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. Public opinion in the US is intensively monitored, and while caution and care in interpretation are always necessary, these studies are valuable resources. We can also see why the results, though public, are kept under wraps by the doctrinal institutions. That is true of major and highly informative studies of public opinion released right before the election, notably by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) and the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the U. of Maryland (PIPA), to which I will return.

One conclusion is that the elections conferred no mandate for anything, in fact, barely took place, in any serious sense of the term "election." That is by no means a novel conclusion. Reagan's victory in 1980 reflected "the decay of organized party structures, and the vast mobilization of God and cash in the successful candidacy of a figure once marginal to the `vital center' of American political life," representing "the continued disintegration of those political coalitions and economic structures that have given party politics some stability and definition during the past generation" (Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers, Hidden Election, 1981). In the same valuable collection of essays, Walter Dean Burnham described the election as further evidence of a "crucial comparative peculiarity of the American political system: the total absence of a socialist or laborite mass party as an organized competitor in the electoral market," accounting for much of the "class-skewed abstention rates" and the minimal significance of issues. Thus of the 28% of the electorate who voted for Reagan, 11% gave as their primary reason "he's a real conservative." In Reagan's "landslide victory" of 1984, with just under 30% of the electorate, the percentage dropped to 4% and a majority of voters hoped that his legislative program would not be enacted.

[AmerDem]

1. you better edit this

It goes against copyright rules. Reduce to 4 paragraphs and provide link back to the article.

[malatesta1137]

3. self deleted

[IrateCitizen]

2. Noam always provides a window to the machinations of power

I especially like his discussion here of the methodology of the advertising industry, and how it is applied to everything from toothpaste to pharmaceuticals to politics. I've become a believer that the advertising industry may be the single biggest threat to democracy around, and that it MUST be brought to heel, somehow.

However, I think that Noam operates a bit too much from his own preconceived notions when it comes to the successful projection of US power. I personally believe that the United States is possibly weaker right now than at any time since the Civil War and Reconstruction. We are over-extended economically and militarily, and our populace is rapidly becoming an ignorant mass of consumers as opposed to involved citizens.

The US may control the spigot of oil in the Middle East, but at a tremendous and unsustainable cost. Furthermore, with Russian natural resources rapidly coming on line, the EU and Japan may soon have another place to go for their oil needs. Also, the rest of the industrialized world is rapidly tiring of our unilateralist antics, especially under the arrogance of the Bush administration. They will reach a point at which they will decide that it is actually in their greater interest to no longer acquiesce to and support our irrational behavior -- and that is the moment that the United States will cease to be a superpower in the world.

Although it means some pain and discomfort for me and my family -- not to mention the vast majority of the populace -- I actually welcome that moment. I welcome it because it will mean the renewal of a better and more equal world community, and also because it could result in a return to more egalitarian ideals and civic involvement here at home.

[TruthIsAll]

4. He avoids the main issue while pontificating from his Ivory Tower

He said:
"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".

He should have said:
"What would the results of the election have been if had not been stolen. Or if the BBV issue could enter into public discussion within the mainstream? We can only speculate about that, but we do know that it did happen, and that the facts are scarcely even reported. It does not seem difficult to imagine what the reasons might be".

[IrateCitizen]

7. No, I think that Noam addresses the main issue quite succinctly

The main issue being that we live in a country in which there are two major political parties, both of whom are largely controlled by monied elites. Neither of these political parties are very responsive to the needs nor desires of the public at large. Also, we have reached the point at which the advertising industry controls every single facet of our daily lives, peddling all manner of wares from toothpaste to pharmaceuticals to politics -- and peddling it all in a manner that can only be described as founded on deceit.

It appears that a large portion of the electorate voted for one candidate or another without really knowing what they were voting FOR. In a democratic society that depends on citizen involvement and participation, that's downright scary. I see the BBV issue as peripheral, not central, to this problem. BBV would never have come about if we lived in a society in which people had easy access to accurate information (i.e. mainstream TV and print media). It would only be a major issue if the majority of people actually knew what they were voting FOR, rather than simply casting a ballot based on "perceptions" or "values".

I'm not saying that anyone should be letting go of BBV. I'm simply saying it's a symptom, not the problem in and of itself.

[rman]

9. he does address the stolen election

"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."


My take is that Chomsky argues most people do in fact know/suspect/sense that the game is rigged, and that people are in effect turning their backs to 'the system'.

Rigged election is a problem but it is a symptom of something that goes much deeper then rigging elections.


re Chomsky's Ivory Tower

Chomsky is a political activist, and he does get his feet wet.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistanobserver/18-2-02-tky-examines-chomsky-remarks.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1817598.stm

[TruthIsAll]

11. My bad. I just read the post, not the full article. Good that he said it.

tia

[bvar22]

13. This is also the reason that more than 1/2...

...of the electorate doesn't bother to vote. They literally have things to do that are more important.

[PATRICK]

5. This sounds like

optimism in search of hope. After all the round about and in the final conclusions what is lacking is anything practical to reverse the losses.
Power in the political arena. Gone. Power in democracy. Gone. National forums where people can share those desires and beliefs that are progressive, possibly increasing. Worse than gone, they are corrupt.
Day to day engagement in determining policies. Easily ignored even if 100% accurate. Engagement in the stock market where the people's pensions and monies have been sucked in. Less possible every day.

Something oddly crazy about this diatribe, seeing into the glass darkly.

What I personally don't like is that this is yet another progressive thinker who seems to looking a bit askance at the very activists who would in effect CHANGE the system that curiously buries all the fine ideas and all the positive consensus of the masses. The media has dissipated and largely abandoned huge portions of its job along with the truth. An alternate media should COMPETE with the largest niches that can't hack reality. the same with regards to so-called political parties.
The same with regards to unaddreesed issues left practically speaking, discarded on the ground. Grass roots coalitions need not simply rally behind a party standard bearer for perennial rigged contests. They should organizer as a movement for action within and against the system that excludes them and so much that is real and desired. The idiotic parties are caving in for wackos and crooks? Who COULDN'T do better and get truly massive and talented coalitions together merely for self-survival.

We need not even parse liberal and progressive when it comes down to sanity, taking back civil government, restoring voice and vote, building a real national forum, etc. We need to DO it. Large groups like Move On and many other need not spin off in defeat to separate grousing until 2008. They need to unite for real barnstorming pressure against the needless decline of America to nuts and thieves. there is not a news network or a think tank or a government entity that seems capable of matching or engaging the organized public on truth and real issues.

Unbury the public and write your books across the psyche of an enjoined revolution.

[rman]

6. link...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=6751

zmag / chomsky don't appear to be very concerend about copyright

[malatesta1137]

8. thanks rman

[Kid_A]

10. Wow, this Chomsky fellow sounds pretty smart!

So why haven't I ever seen him interviewed by the hard-hitting journalists on CNN and Fox?

[rman]

12. a number of reasons

Chomsky is anti-establishment, where the establishment includes the mainstream media. The establishment tends not to critisize itself.

The structure in which the media present topics does not lend itself to expression of unconventional ideas;

"The technical structure of the media virtually
compels adherence to conventional thoughts;
nothing else can be expressed between two
commercials, or in seven hundred words,
without the appearance of absurdity that is
difficult to avoid when one is challenging
familiar doctrine with no opportunity to develop
facts or argument."

from
A quick guide to the ‘propaganda model’
http://www-trees.slu.se/newsl/40/40etc.pdf

very briefly, the five media filters:

1: Concentration of ownership and profit orientation of the mass media

2: The advertising licence to do business

3: The dependence on sources

4: 'Flak' and the enforcers

5: Uncritical belief in market liberalism/ anti-communism as control mechanism

[Kid_A]

15. I was being sarcastic. Though I'd love to see O'Reilly or Matthews try to

go up against Noam Chomsky in an interview, it will probably never happen.

[rman]

16. actually...

It's not Chomsky vs O'Reilly but it comes pretty close;

In the documentary "Manufacturing Consent" that accompanies the book by the same title, there's a segment about a public debate between Chomsky and a Dutch R-W politician. Suffice to say the politician now regrets having ever invited Chomsky. He ended the debate prematurely by accusing Chomsky of being a conspiracy theorist, and claimed he had to leave in order to catch the train. For reference, the politicians name: Frits Bolkestein.

[dummy-du1]

14. It's Manufacturing Consent

I think this is best explained by his and Professor Herman's propaganda
model, described in their book "Manufacturing Consent". I think it's the most important book to understand the role of mass media in the world.

[Marnieworld]

21. Well clearly it's because he's completely unknown without any body of work

NOT!

[milkyway]

17. Great article. Chomsky remains the best.

[DownNotOut]

18. I wish Chomsky

would run for Presedent in 2008. He is so smart I think he could figure out how to win!


DownNotOut

[jpgray]

19. Chomsky gets it wrong again here:

"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."

I'd really like to believe in this fairy tale, but that 75% wasn't and isn't waiting in noble desperation for a real candidate with real values. That's what Nader was for in 2000, and what Kucinich (or to a lesser extent Dean) was for this past year. According to Chomsky's logic, these candidates who lacked rich contributors, party managers, PR grooming, meaningless phrases et al should have galvanized and mobilized these non voters. But they didn't. The non voters did what they always do--they didn't vote. Not because they have carefully weighed the corporate domination of politics and are humbly protesting through inaction, but because they don't pay attention, and they don't care.

[IrateCitizen]

20. I think you're missing a glaring connection inherent here...

That connection being between the way that most Americans view Presidential elections largely as a contest between competing elites, and the effect of the advertising/marketing industry on this process.

Most Americans don't care enough about politics to search things out largely on their own, as many of us here do. However, that doesn't mean that they don't care at all. Theoretically, to a subscriber of Jeffersonian notions of democracy, the press should exist as a diverse lot, independent of the state, whose primary purpose is to provide a myriad of viewpoints along with honest discussion of events, with the goal of fostering an involved citizenry. When one subjects our mainstream media, particularly TV media, to this standard, one finds them woefully inadequate.

Furthermore, you cannot discount the overall effect of the advertising industry on our national discourse. Deceit is used to peddle everything from children's cereals to alcohol to automobiles to pharmaceuticals -- and everything in between. Given this vein of our national consciousness, why should politics really be any different?

Taking this a step further, how on earth should any of these "disaffecteds" move toward someone like Kucinich or Nader when they are largely invisible within the controlled national discourse? Under our current system, it is impossible for a candidate to come "out of nowhere" and challenge the conventional wisdom. Many people long for such a thing to occur -- but when it does, the media either ignores them or relentlessly attacks them, and the people gleefully join in on the feeding frenzy.

I'll agree with you that many people don't care, and that many of them never really will. But I think you're wrong when you present a scenario that sticks to that line -- because I also think that there's a bunch of people who are only peripherally involved in the process, and if given a discourse that actually served to inform and enlighten rather than reduce everything to a lowest common denominator of falsehood and exaggeration, we might actually see a shift in the way our nation approaches politics.

[info being]

22. Good point.

Its like Nader saying that Kerry should be "landsliding" Bush. The logical next question is: if Nader knew how to do this, why was he doing so poorly himself?