Even FDR put American citizens into camps.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/allport/allport3.html

Perhaps this FDR is the second coming of Pericles and Solon the Lawgiver, but it is always good to have a plan ‘b’. The above link makes mention of huge detention camps built by Halliburton. The template for all this had been created by the Indian reservations.

Remember that many typical leftist types like artists, activists, union members, and socialists thought Mussolini was the be all and end all. Such types were the first to be purged by the Bolshevik revolution as well as the National Socialists. I have not heard Obama speak on the Halliburton prison camps.

I think as a protective measure every America, regardless of political viewpoint should stock up on beans and bullets. About 8 million Americans died from starvation during the Great Depression. We should be buying up dry bulk foodstuffs, and learning how to shoot a firearm at minimum. For good measure it would be good to stock up on spring water, and medical supplies. If you have medical problems and need medicine, you should think about stocking up on things such as blood pressure pills and thyroid supplements if you are so afflicted.

I appreciate your take, Paracelsus, but I think you’re wrong and that a very large group of progressives like Tom Hayden & Jim Hightower are right—that Obama does have the potential to be an FDR.  Obama’s position on Supreme Court appointments and re-invigorating workers rights to organize thoroughly undercut your take.  The evidence you rely upon to suggest that Obama is a “stealth candidate for a police state” is, at best, tenuous and less than convincing.

The important thing is to press forward with real Democracy—working with groups like PDA to elect progressive Dems to Congress and activism designed to continue grass roots pressure on Obama and Congress to effectuate meaningful change on a variety of issues across the board.  And, to the point of this piece, I think Prof. Chomsky’s take that the working class will fair better under Obama than McCain is unassailable.

“Paracelsus, I think a better and more accurate description than Obama as a “stealth” candidate for the police state is that he is, like far too many Dems, willing to engage in a purely political calculus that eliminated the daylight between Republicans and Democrats on National Security issues; that this is a temporary posture that he hopes to remedy upon election but that Obama, like many others, is willing to temporarily trade your liberty and mine so as to prevent the Republicans from attacking him on National Security until he is elected.”

I have seen that sort of thinking by dedicated liberals during the Cold War. To think that Obama is using a calculus of some sort is not something he would discourage, but it may purely be projection on part of the hopefuls ones. The results haven’t been in keeping with these expectations. Truman, LBJ, Carter and Clinton may have come in with expectations of some sort of peace dividend, but they have only kept these high war budgets in order to be agreeable to the agenda of the conservative anti-commie/90’s exceptionalist conservatives. There was the peace dividend expected from ‘89’s collapse of the USSR. Clinton’s administration put in place the freedom killing Omnibus Crimes Act after the OK City bombings. There are those who think the OK Murrah building bombings was a pre 9-11 inside job. We only have to look at the past to see how disappointing these politic Presidential Democrats have been. Urban Warrior was a martial law drill performed under Clinton’s watch. The USA Patriot Act came in as if it had been thought about many years in advance. There is an agenda and voting R or D doesn’t seem to alter it. We need new solutions.

On March 13, 2006, Senator Obama reacted to the passage of S3930 by stating: “And the reason it’s sloppy because we wished it to serve political purposes instead of taking the time to do the job right.”
Is this not the game before anyone attempting to wrest power in the political arena? Does this not explain why concerned rational citizens like Ralph Nader can’t get anywhere in the political process. Those “political purposes” that allow a supposed bona fide two party (mainstream) candidate to employ the cheapest mean spirited gimmicks to arouse misinformed voters, who announce that they too are Joe the plumber, when in fact, just like their namesake, they are not.
This is the playing field that Senator Obama has before him. Is it not remarkable that that the Governor of Alaska can sneer at Senator Obama’s supposed lack of accomplishments. Just click on the text link provided by Cyrena, and just try to imagine Mrs. Palin being able to say something like that. For those (including myself) who rail against Senator Obama’s inconsistencies, just consider the arena he is currently in.
In the realm of political integrity, having a “holier than thou” attitude is not very useful. Not very useful at all.

Paracelsus, I think a better and more accurate description than Obama as a “stealth” candidate for the police state is that he is, like far too many Dems, willing to engage in a purely political calculus that eliminated the daylight between Republicans and Democrats on National Security issues; that this is a temporary posture that he hopes to remedy upon election but that Obama, like many others, is willing to temporarily trade your liberty and mine so as to prevent the Republicans from attacking him on National Security until he is elected.

I don’t personally approve it.  In fact I think it cowardly and despicable, but I do believe that is the most accurate reason why Obama caved in on warrantless NSA surveillance.

Regardless, I see nothing in your post that even comes close to demonstrating that Obama is another V.I. Lenin.  To the contrary, if you read the recently published “Obamanomics” by a UCLA prof. of economics (forgot the name—loaned the book to a friend) I think you will find a significant case for concluding that Obama portends to become the next FDR—assuming the election is not stolen from under him, which remains a very distinct possibility.

By mpolzkill, October 23 at 2:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I think Paracelsus is saying we are in our own “Weimar”. We don’t yet know our own Hitler or Lenin until this “Weimar” government of today brings on critical-level crises.

~~~~~

Well, for once in a lifetime, paraclesus would be correct about being in our own “Weimer”. Thing is that’s been the case since the Judicial Coup of 2000 that put the Fascists in place. 9/11 topped it off.

If you think that the Military Commissions Act only affects foreign so-called illegal combatants, (a name that this regime created) then you should revist the language of what was in fact actually passed.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaTorture.htm

Meantime, OF COURSE we know our own Hitler. It’s Richard B Cheney, backed up by his ‘behind the scenes’ people like David Addington and the rest of his secret staff that run the whole flippin’ country.

This is damn near the EXACT same path that Hitler and Stalin used to establish their totalitarian regimes. Create an emergency that will allow for the overturning of the rule of law. Check, 9/11

Establish a covert duplicate government alongside the ostensible government, which means adding and duplicating multiple agencies and bureaus. Check, Dept. of Homeland Security, Transportations Sec Agency, (fill in a few jillion more blanks on that one).

Set up camps/detention facilities…check, FEMA has them everywhere.

Move to a military dictatorship. Check..for the first time in history, we have US combat troops stationed and ready for combat ON US soil.

Need a few dozen more similarities????

@cann4ing

I am using Wikipedia as a source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

Civil liberties

Obama voted in favor of the 2006 version of the USA PATRIOT Act.[251] He voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006[252] and later voted to restore habeas corpus to those detained by the U.S. (which had been stripped by the Military Commissions Act).[251] He has advocated closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but has not supported two specific bills that would have done so.[253] Obama still opposes the use of torture[254] and used to oppose warrantless domestic wiretaps by the U.S.[255] He voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2006, arguing that flag burning didn’t justify a constitutional amendment, but said that he would support a law banning flag burning on federal property.[256] As of August 8, 2008, the ACLU has given Obama a score of 80% on civil liberty issues for the 110th Congress U.S. Senate.[257]

[edit] USA PATRIOT Act

As noted above, Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, which extended the Act, but with some amendments. Such amendments would clarify the rights of an individual who has received FISA orders to challenge nondisclosure requirements and to refuse disclosure of the name of their attorney.

He voted against extending the USA PATRIOT Act’s Wiretap Provision on March 1, 2006. This bill would give the FBI the authority to conduct “roving wiretaps” and access to business records. Voting against this bill would prolong the debate, keeping the USA PATRIOT Act provisional whereas voting for this bill would extend the USA PATRIOT Act as permanent.[258]

[edit] Warrantless wiretaps

According to a July 2, 2008 article in The New York Times, although Obama had previously opposed legislation that granted legal immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the Bush administration to conduct wiretaps without warrants, after winning the primary, Obama has since announced that he now supports such legislation. [259]

[edit]

It could be argued that Obama is a stealth candidate for the police state, and he has muddied the waters to give liberal voters a sunny prospect for change. I would rather use the precautionary principle here, where the suspicion of harm precludes the benefit of the doubt.

Additionally his long standing opposition gun bearing rights causes me anxiety as a gun ban is the perfect way to implement a police state.

Also I would look into Obama connections to the establishment gargoyles.

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=4629

By Paracelsus, October 22 at 10:59 pm #

@cann4ing

We already have Homeland Security and suspension of habeus corpus for enemy noncombatants.

_________________________________

If you are trying to convince me that the current regime the nation has taken a giant step down the road to fascism, you need not.  In fact, I have no doubt that John McCain would complete the process.

But Barack Obama had nothing to do with passage of the laws that gave us Homeland Security or with the passage of the 2006 Military Commissions Act which “sought” to suspend habeas corpus—the Supreme Court ruled the suspension unconstitutional—a position that would be reversed if McCain is elected and appoints another radical in robes from the Federalist Society to join the four dissenters whereas Obama has made clear that he would not.

But how does any of this suggest that Barack Obama would be another V.I. Lenin?

Might it have been better if Noam had said THERE IS something WRONG with NOT picking the LESSER of two evils? If a person is unwilling to make small strides forward, their disengagement seems enough evil to impede any real progress possible.

@cann4ing

We already have Homeland Security and suspension of habeus corpus for enemy noncombatants. How bad does it have to get?

Surely, Paracelsus, you are not going to compare the choice between Obama and McCain as a choice between Lenin and Hitler, or are you?

Having heard Chomsky say “So what?” about criminal conspiracy in our government, I cannot accept anything he says on face value.

I do know that in 1933, the German people had a choice between two awful alternatives, Communist and National Socialist. For those who thought the German Communists were just wonderful for their time, I should remind them of the starvation of peasants Lenin had imposed early in new Soviet Union. Also I’m sure there was info leaking out from Stalin’s Russia regarding the starvation of Russian peasants in the steppes. I am sure this informed the thinking of the German people. Had I been a German citizen I would have voted for the Ralph Nader of that day. It is interesting to note that Weimar Republic had enacted anti-freedom laws that would later prove useful to Hitler.

“The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic’s gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.

In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution after Germany’s defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People’s Delegates on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender “immediately.”

Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by the American gun-control lobby.

The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition required a license to engage in any type of firearm business. A special license from the police was needed to either purchase or carry a firearm. The German police were granted complete discretion to deny licenses to criminals or individuals the police deemed untrustworthy. Unlimited police discretion over citizen gun acquisition is the foundation of the “Brady II” proposal introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., (now called the Brady Campaign) in 1994.

Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law’s requirements were more relaxed for firearms of a “hunting” or “sporting” type. Indeed, the Weimar statute was the world’s first gun law to create a formal distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. On the issues of home gun possession and sporting guns, the Weimar law was not as stringent as the current Massachusetts gun law, or some of modern proposals supported by American gun-control lobbyists.

Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel052203.asp

I do know that Chomsky is very approving of gun control laws.

By Gmonst, October 22 at 9:33 am #

“The beerdoctor said:

“Forgive this melodrama, but this election is not about ideology, it is about survival.”

“I think that is really the heart of the decision voters are facing in this election.  Now is not the time for symbolic actions of ideological purity…. Now is the time to be pragmatic and make a decision that will give a fighting chance in the future.”
_________________

Precisely, though I would add that the election of Barack Obama should be seen only as a starting point, not an end in itself.  Obama, himself, recognizes that fundamental change must come from the bottom up.  The most pragmatic course for progressives is to join with other progressives inside the Democratic Party, especially the PDA, to press for truly meaningful change, especially in the field of health care where, though Obama’s proposals are far superior to either McCain’s or the current state of affairs in which insurance carriers deny vital care through the excuse of “pre-existent conditions,” they nevertheless fall far short of a single-payer system which would eliminate the parasitic middle men (for-profit carriers & HMOs) that account for 31% of health care costs as compared to 1% to 2% in single-payer countries.

The U.S. is the “only” major industrialized nation that does not have some form of single-payer.  That should change.

By john doraemi, October 22 at 10:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

PS

“There’s plenty of proof of high treason concerning 9/11.  It doesn’t matter if bin Laden was involved or not.  The actions of CIA/FBI, the cover up of the Saudi intelligence, Pakistani intelligence and others is TREASON, nothing less.”

~~~~

Maybe so john…and????

That has WHAT to do with Chomsky and the 2008 Presidential election?

Those who reproach injustice do so because they are afraid not of doing it but of suffering it.
- Plato

The beerdoctor said:

Forgive this melodrama, but this election is not about ideology, it is about survival.

I think that is really the heart of the decision voters are facing in this election.  Now is not the time for symbolic actions of ideological purity.  There will be future elections for that.  Now is the time to be pragmatic and make a decision that will give a fighting chance in the future.  I believe if McCain wins there will likely be no future for progressive ideals in America.  Voting for a third party candidate will do nothing and prove nothing.  Its everyone’s right to vote for whomsoever they choose, and I respect that right.  However, from my perspective, voting for a third party candidate is like worrying about the comfort of amenities on sinking cruise ship.  It will matter little if the ship goes down.  Progressive ideals will matter little if McCain becomes president.

I just have to say I don’t think its the lesser of two evils to vote for a democrat or republican.  We toss around the term evil too casually in my opinion.  To me evil means and intent to do harm a desire for bad things to happen to good people.  I personally don’t think Obama or even McCain are evil people.  Obama in particular I feel really wants to help common people.  He didn’t create the corrupt corporate state we have nor could he, or anyone, get into power without playing the game a corporate state requires.  He might not be ideologically pure enough for some, but I have a belief in his inner goodness and desire to make The United States of America a better place for all its citizens.  I am aware enough to realize that no one could waltz into the DC establishment and shift it into a progressive dream.  Its a president whose powers are limited, not an autocratic kingship, the power of the position is tied into a system that has power of its own.  I think Obama is that right combination of ideological belief with pragmatic action to really shift things in this country toward a better collective future.  I don’t see anyone currently who seems better suited for the very difficult work ahead.  He in my mind is very far from an evil.

Going out on a limb, I don’t think that McCain is evil, or even Palin (she’s debatable).  I just think he is clinging to an ideology which is clearly failing and he doesn’t know what to do.  I don’t think he really wants to inflict harm on people or make their lives worse.  I don’t think he cares as much as Obama, but I do think that he cares some. What he has shown through his campaign is that the he is weak and easily swayed, he is prone to spontaneous decisions based on instinct, not rational thought.  He has outdated views about the world which have become dangerous to us.  His military upbringing has framed his world view in a victory and defeat mentality that sees conflict as the way to solve problems.  All that is very bad and would be very bad in a president.  He would be easily brought under the control of those forces that care nothing for the common good.  He is not his own man despite the maverick rhetoric.  All the being said, I don’t think that makes him evil.  Dangerous but not evil.

In my view its not the lesser of two evils, but the more perfect of two imperfects.  It just doesn’t sound as nice.

To quote Shakespear, my dear TRT, “Me thinks thou doth protest too much.”

cann4ing,

What heroics allow you to think so highly of yourself?

Fluency is not enough to qualify one as an intellectual dear cann4ing. You see, anyone with access to a dictionary is capable of selecting words that convey spite and arrogance.  Let yourself not be confused with the elementary action of word choice and the achievements that define an intellectual.

It is clear that you have some association with or benefit greatly from the “elites” you so dearly want to protect. How interesting it is that you support a socialist position that allows for such perversion.

Danger lies in the assumed superiority and arrogance common to many liberal elite. It is an arrogance that affords no credibility or respect to the popular voice, and a superiority position rendering others to servitude. Exposed for the Fraud you are.

The lesser of the two evils? Absolutely. For those who want to rant about Senator Obama’s shortcomings? That is yesterday’s news. I take no comfort in the thought of these interventionist Democrats pulling out our mercenary citizens in Iraq, only to drop them into the graveyard hell-fire known as Afghanistan. You think Barry can be shown the error of this proposed action?
But that is not really the point either. As a (sooner rather than later) aging observer, I have come to see the Military Industry’s stranglehold on this nation to be so strong that the President, whoever is elected, is at best an irritant to their unstoppable agenda. Historically I do believe that Lyndon Johnson could not have ended the involvement in southeast Asia, even if he wanted to. His famous remark about “not being the first U.S. President to lose a war”, sounds more and more, as time goes on, like the statement of a quarterback, falling on the sword for the sake of the team.
No, the real reason to vote for Barack Obama is that the elite that John McCain now panders to, is very dangerously insane. Just listen to the Governor of Alaska, who would be less than a breath’s step away, as she talks about Vice Presidential power, and how she is in charge of the Senate and of the “flexibility” to extend the powers of the office.
My god all of you brain numb cynics: this is a candidate that knows absolutely nothing about the Constitution. Her self-assured incompetence represents something even worse, if you can believe it, than George W. Bush.
John McCain’s bold expedient move to choose Governor Palin, reveals what total contempt the Arizona Senator truly has for the American people.
Forgive this melodrama, but this election is not about ideology, it is about survival. Does the Democratic party help the people in general, more than the Republicans? If you feel that Social Security, Medicare, and the Voting Rights Act have been useful, I think you know the answer to that question.

By johndoraemi, October 21 at 2:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This is completely in keeping with Chomsky’s acceptance of criminal US elite rule.
Chomsky accepts the obvious JFK assassination cover up and the even more blatant 9/11 cover up.  Chomsky has gone as far as to state:
“I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn’t have any significance.” -Noam Chomsky
Credibility gone.
By the way, is there anyone who agrees with Noam that 9/11 high treason would be insignificant?  Of no consequence?
Now’s your time to back up Chomsky, and his—let’s say—odd perspective on treason.
Ah jeeze. I’ll be so glad when we can get beyond these kooks that only come out during elections.
What doesn’t have any significance isn’t whether or not the Criminal Cabal was complicit in the events of 9/11, but that and the Chomsky take on the election and the huge life changing/saving(?) difference between Obama and the fascist geezer with one foot still in the grave, and the other one already in hell.
What the hell does Chomsky’s take on 9/11 have to do with this election? And why would such an intellectual giant like Chomsky need ‘defending’ just because he apparently believes the official lie of 9/11? I personally believe that the Cheney Cabal set it up, but I’m a minority in the academic community, and for practical reasons. Most academics acknowledge some holes in the official story, but they also have enough bona fide evidence to know that it COULD have been perpetrated by al-Qaeda, since OBL has made threats before, and similar acts HAVE been perpetrated by them. Meantime, there is no PROOF that the Cabal did it, so what the hell do you expect? Do YOU have proof/evidence that will hold up in a trial for treason? Of course not. It was all destroyed.
So how does that one stance on the part of Chomsky undo more than 40 years of excellent scholarship on his part? It doesn’t. And again, what the hell does that have to do with this election and the polar differences between Obama and McSame?

Nothing.

Gee cann4ing…

How’d you get so lucky to be targeted by TRT? This person sort of just came out of nowhere. (KDelphi was complaining about him/her a few days ago, suggesting that he/she had reported her to the webmaster).

The ‘handle’ is new to me, but not the writing style or the psychological profile. Sounds like a former poster (any number of them) with a new handle, and a bone to pick with just about anybody, but apparently you are somehow really ‘special’ to him. (I think it’s a him).

These very personal attacks remind me of so many from days gone by. And yeah, these types always distract from the urgency at hand, whatever that might be.

It’s not that I haven’t noticed your latest little diatribe, TRT.  I simply see it as so inane as to be unworthy of a further rejoinder.  Indeed, unless and until you provide a post that reveals some level of academic understanding, I do not intend to respond to further to your posts. 

I will say that it appears you have a fellow traveler.  DocReality’s suggestion that Prof. Chomsky is a “Zionist gatekeeper” is so profoundly at odds with reality that it actually made me laugh. 

Sad that TD has now attracted the uneducated.  Sort of puts a blight on the level of discourse.

Chumpsky is another elitist fraud masquerading as an ‘intellectual’. Another Zionist gatekeeper in cheap clothing.
This guy has gotten a free pass from the leftist blowhards for too long. Funny how this guy gets his check from MIT, specifically on the military complex end. Think hes going to bite the hand that strokes his ego and bank account?

By truther3, October 21 at 2:57 pm

“Obama got ten million Dollars from Wall St. and McCain got only seven million!!??
There is no difference between Obama and McCain.”

~~~~

Perfect example here of propaganda statistics. Ten and seven million (to the penny?) from “Wall Street.” 

Which corner of ‘Wall Street?’ Or, was it in the middle of the block? Or did they get all of it from the same place on Wall Street?

Most of us don’t bother believing these statistics unless they can be cited.

So, no disrespect intended, this is just propaganda unless you can come up with something else than ‘Wall Street’, since when you do, that begins to tell a different story.

For instance, my former employer gives political campaign contributions (and has for decades) to both parties. And yep…my former employer is a corporation. That makes them ‘Wall Street’.

Just a quick question: what difference does it make if I, a Rhode Islander, vote for Obama? He’s up by a huge amount last time I looked. So, why can’t I just vote for Nader?

I’m going to, of course, but I just ask. Loyalty to someone who I view as possibly marginally better than McCain is not reason to throw my views, whether you agree with them or not, over the side in a solidly Democratic state.

Doug, while I know it will drive our right wing friend, “the-real-truth,” right up the wall, I, for one, don’t think the New Deal went far enough.  While it did erect a regulatory structure that reined in the excesses of corporate greed, it left the forces devoted to the economic exploitation of life in a position to rise again, which they did with a vengeance with what Newt Gingrich dubbed the “Contract with America” but which is more aptly described as the Mob taking out a Contract on the working class.

I recently read a book called Obamanomics, by a UCLA prof. in economics—unfortunately I loaned it to a friend and do not recall the author’s name.  His sections explaining Obama’s bottom up approach to economics strongly implies a new New Deal.  I’d recommend a reading before you vote.

Doug, please vote for Obama if you want to see any real “change” happen in the near future. You have a right to vote for Nader, however I would ask you to stop and think about that vote…before you cast your ballot.

Thanks!

By Doug Tarnopol, October 21 at 1:52 pm

#“...an Obama administration would maintain the economic status quo, whereas a McCain administration would exacerbate income inequality.”

Doug, I as well cannot agree with your comment. There are in my estimation, clearly “huge” differences in an Obama administration vs. a McCain administration. These differences represent either a “different” future for the country, or a continuation of the same. A continuation of what has gone on since…..really the inception of this country. This time…again in my belief can be different.

Hey, cann4ing—Well, again, I’m in RI, so I’m happy to vote for Nader. That data is not mine but from the report Chomsky and Ira Chernus cite, extrapolated past that report to a likely Obama presidency, if you assume it will be more like Clinton’s than not. (Extrapolation from the last five years of Clinton’s presidency, that is, which is what the study did; I put Obama’s name to that 2004 extrapolation.)

Anyway, the financial crisis may loosen things up and encourage more social investment. Or it may be used, as it already is, as yet another reason not to make any social investment and to continue to redistribute wealth upwards. What Obama would do, I don’t know.

I wonder whether a) an Obama admin will suggest a serious Green Deal of some kind, along with all the other work that needs doing on healthcare, infrastructure, etc., and a restructured trade policy, and b) whether enough Democrats will go along, or will we have the usual DLC-GOP party voting against it?

Not sure, and this is a little off-topic, which is OK with me, especially since I’m the one going off-topic!

Look, I’m voting for Nader but would LOVE to be proven wrong by an Obama that rivals FDR at the end of the day. Believe me, I’d love to see that happen.

Thanks cann4ing and I concur with you! I hope the-real-truth is listening.

By Doug Tarnopol, October 21 at 1:52 pm #

“...an Obama administration would maintain the economic status quo, whereas a McCain administration would exacerbate income inequality.”
_____________________________

Doug, I’ve always thought highly of your posts, but I don’t believe the empirical data—as reflecting by Obama’s detailed posting, reflects a desire to maintain the economic status quo.  To the contrary, on tax policies, on regulatory practices, on the right of workers to organize and perhaps on trade, on its emphasis on the creation of 5 million new, skilled jobs pertaining to green technology and infrastructure, an Obama presidency portends to a fundamental reversal of the economic policies of the past eight years.  I do not see that as status quo.

I share some of your concerns about both Empire, and as stated earlier, I am not at all satisfied with his health care plan which though better than McCain does not come close to a single-payer system. 

As Chomsky observes, the vast majority of Americans favor a single payer system. 

I, for one, believe the more pragmatic approach for progressives is to be found in (a) voting for Obama, (b) joining Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and working with PDA to elect progressive Dems to Congress who, among other things, will join the 94 members already on board with single-payer.  Persistent grass roots efforts after the election will be required to effectuate meaningful change—especially much needed reform that restores the Fairness Doctrine and ends corporate America’s monopoly control of the public airwaves.

Voting for a third party candidate is an exercise in futility.

the-real-truth,I was not “attacking you”, I (like everyone else)wanted to be clear in my response to your remarks. You yet again validate my remarks by your latest blog….

“I know nothing about him but he is clearly trying to resolve some self created contradiction.” If you do not no anything about Mr. Chomsky, how can you logically refute his remarks, or what feedback we posted (cann4ing,Aegrus,WriterOnTheStorm,Doug Tarnopol,nrobi, etc.)as well.

Again, you sound angry and you have not come back with any other views that have any substance. “Hit a nerve”....hardly. Someone has to be paying you to post “your” remarks.

Doug, Chomsky may prefer proto-fascist, but I think American fascist, as that term was defined by former VP Henry Wallace in an April 9, 1944 New York Times op-ed, is appropriate.

“The American fascist would prefer not to use violence.  His method is to poison the channels of information.  With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power.”

“They claim to be superpatriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.  They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.  Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjugation.”

(continued….)

Whether to bluff, stick, or fold is an old debate in politics, regardless of ideological content, and it’s not going to be solved here. I’m in RI, and I’ve had enough. Obama’s reversal on FISA was my breaking point: you don’t fuck with what little is left of the Constitution, and if we get a nicer face for fascism, since Obama is certainly handsomer than McCain, that’s not enough. The founders warned against trusting anyone with dictatorial power. Kinda the point of the country, no? Let’s see whether Obama rolls back all the unconstitutional acts of the past years (not all Bush-related, I might add). If he doesn’t, let’s see whether Ira, et al, will still argue that it would have been worse, and whether anyone will care.

Were I in a swing state, I might think long and hard about it, since McPalin are (more) dangerous. But I might still vote for Nader in that situation.

One thing is more relevant and certain: had progressive media outlets given far more space and effort toward Nader’s campaign this year, the Democrats might have gotten scared and run left hard. I didn’t see that happen anywhere but on Democracy Now.

(Done!)

(continued….)

“Finally, Figure 2 also includes projections of the trend in inequality for the entire postwar period under Democratic and Republican administrations. (These are the fan-shaped pair of dotted lines in the figure, the upper line corresponding to continuous Republican rule and the lower line representing continuous Democratic rule.) These projections are also constructed on the basis of the statistical analysis reported in Table 3, but assuming continuous Democratic or continuous Republican control throughout the period. Taken literally, they suggest that continuous Democratic control would have produced a slight decrease in inequality over the past three decades, despite the technological, demographic, and global competitive forces emphasized in economists’ accounts of growing inequality – and that continuous Republican control would have produced a much sharper polarization between rich and poor than we have actually observed over the past thirty years, with the 80/20 income ratio growing more than 80 percent faster than it actually did. Of course, these projections are based on the rather unrealistic assumption that each party would do all the time what it in fact does half the time, and partly in response to the opposing party’s wrong-headed policies. It is by no means clear that either party would have the political will – or the political power – to produce economic redistribution of the cumulative magnitude suggested by these projections in the face of what would presumably be considerable opposition. Nevertheless, the cumulative differences in Figure 2 underline the fundamental significance of partisan politics in ameliorating or exacerbating the “natural” growth of inequality in the political economy of the contemporary U.S.”

So, one must assume that “the current economic environment” is somehow “natural”—at least the author puts that adjective in quotes!—and unrelated to partisan policies. “Global economic forces” that are somehow “naturally” driving income inequality must have some relation to neoliberal globalization, which, until recently (and so far in rhetoric only) has been a bipartisan sport.

Final conclusion? You just read it: most likely, an Obama administration would maintain the economic status quo, whereas a McCain administration would exacerbate income inequality. For pro-Obama folks here, that’s good enough. For anti-Obama, pro-Nader (or whomever) types, that’s not nearly enough. It’s clear that there is a difference, at least in economic policy and outcomes, holding as “natural” policy decisions in favor of neoliberal globalization. How much difference there is in foreign policy is also under dispute but seems to me indisputably less than on the domestic/economic front. The difference to me is near zero. The “advantage” is mostly what Ira [Chernus] said: we weak progressives must struggle to hold back the Red-State Tide. The key to the weakness in Ira’s argument is what is called “natural” here, and which stems entirely from the pro-business forces (corporations, lobbies, “think tanks”) that own and operate both parties. Unless and until neoliberal globalization is overthrown (or, reversed, or pick your own word), the best we can hope for is a Democratic administration that holds a line constantly ratcheted further to the right by successive Republican administrations.

That is, until the so-called left takes a page from the Christian right and literally frightens the Democrats into moving left, all “we” can do is hold a rightward moving line from time to time.

(continued….)

(continued…)

I live in RI, so I will happily vote for Nader. Were I in a swing state, I’d have to think long and hard about it, for all the reasons mentioned by myself and others on this site. I might not have ended up voting for Obama even then. Chomsky’s argument about small differences having large effects is clearly correct, but it works both ways. If an Obama health plan fails, which seems likely, as Krugman, I believe has pointed out, because it avoids the main problem of insurance companies, well, then voting for Obama doesn’t help anyone [in that regard, I should have written]. As for that study, past behavior (if true under Clinton) does not guarantee future performance. As for the notion that reality will shift Obama “leftward”—the FDR II theory—who’s to say it wouldn’t do the same for McCain? Rightwingers, like Nixon, do strangely unideological things when reality knocks. [I didn’t mention it, but Bush is fine with a large Keynesian stimulus package, e.g.]

Also, if Obama starts a war in or with Pakistan, or both, won’t that have huge effects? Not all wonderful? Will Peruvians, to say nothing of Americans, be helped by the Obama-supported free trade agreement? Will they by the tort “reform” he’s voted for? Can we all be sure that the net gain will be positive, or even less negative, under Obama as opposed to McCain? And so on.
 
It’s nowhere near as clear to me as it apparently is for Chomsky, whom I deeply respect but do not ape.
 
Chomsky cites the same study Chernus did, and I think I found it (http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf)

The concluding two paragraphs sum it all up:

“Politics and the Rise of Economic Inequality

The last four points in Figure 2 represent projections of the trend in income inequality through 2005 based on the statistical analysis reported in Table 3. The white circles, representing projections for the Bush presidency, show a return to the pattern of sharply growing inequality that marked the 1970s and 1980s. The black diamonds, representing projections of what might have been expected to occur under a Democratic president (given past historical patterns), show a continuation of the steady state [of income distribution and inequality] that characterized the last five years of the Clinton administration. In the current economic environment neither party could be expected to reduce income inequality significantly; but the choice between Gore and Bush was, by this account, a choice between the status quo and a significant further increase in economic inequality in the first years of the 21st century. While the Democratic projection is a mere might-have-been, the Republican projection seems emphatically supported by both the macroeconomic performance and the tax policy of the Bush administration in its first two years in office.”

(continued….)

TRT—You are obviously a very presumptuous young man (or woman).  You assume, incorrectly, that because my higher education began in 1969 I have not continued in my fields of study which are political science and law.

I will give you a friendly piece of advice.  It was one many of my profs suggested both during the time I was an undergraduate and a graduate student in political science.  Before you set out to criticize someone, actually take the time to read what it is that they have to say with a sympathetic eye.  Otherwise, instead of valid criticism, one offers only a closed mind.  You have to understand Chomsky before you can either agree or disagree with him.

Your posts suggest the profound level of ignorance that comes only from those who have been indoctrinated by the ruling class.  Take the time to actually read and understand Chomsky.  If you then want to return to level what you see as valid criticism, while others may not agree with you, they will not find your takes as emanating from ignorance.

I’ll repost comments on this I made at Common Dreams, as this interview is being posted by every pro-Obama site around. Sorry for the length! I had to break it up to post it here….

My take, which I posted on Common Dreams, in response to a post wondering when “Naderites” were going to start ripping Chomsky apart:

Nothing to rip him apart over. He has written that he sees McCain/Palin as proto-fascist—a term (“fascist”) that he uses advisedly, and which he has resisted in the past, probably since he saw real fascism.
 
These articles might clarify Chomsky’s stance for you: ‘The United States Has Essentially a One-Party System’ Noam Chomsky in Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,583454,00.html).
 
With this follow-up: Noam Chomsky: “If I were in a swing state, I’d vote for Obama” (http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/10/noam-chomsky-if.html).
 
So, yes, in the choice between fascism and center-right conservatism—i.e., non-fascism—if he were in a swing state he’d vote against McCain. That means, obviously, he’d've voted for any Democrat, not for Obama.
 
You may be interested to read these quotes, from Z’s sustainer forum, by Chomsky from this year:
 

1. On Obama and Israel-Palestine:
 
Reply from NC,
 
Obama’s position on Israel-Palestine has been “sickening” throughout. I wrote about it a few months ago, will come out soon in an updated edition of Perilous Power (with Gilbert Achcar and Stephen Shalom).
 
In the case you mention [AIPAC speech], he went overboard, even by his outrageous standards, and in fact a few days later backed off from the statement, if I recall. If elected, I don’t think he’ll stick by it [i.e., an undivided Israeli-controlled Jerusalem] just as earlier administrations didn’t, ignoring congressional resolutions that even their sponsors knew to be meaningless.
 
NC
 
2. On Obama:
 
Reply from NC,
 
I think he’s basically presenting himself as a blank slate, on which you can write your wishes. Hard to find much to be hopeful about. He is energizing a lot of young people, but I don’t see much reason to expect that for that reason his presidency would be more responsive to public pressure. Overwhelmingly, the public believes that the government should be responsive to public opinion. But that’s such an unpopular elite view that the press won’t even report the polls showing this. A more realistic possibility, perhaps, is that those who are energized by the candidacy will devote the energy to something constructive after the likely disillusionment.
 
NC
 

So, assuming you’ve read all of that, you now see that Chomsky recommends people in swing states think long and hard about whether or not to vote against McCain/Palin by voting for Obama, given that the former is a proto-fascist outfit. That proto-fascism trumps, for Chomsky, the essential truth of our one-party system, in this specific instance for those specific voters. We’re in a Popular Front situation, then, according to Chomsky. He may very well be right.
 
(continued….)

I think you have the blinders on. You were in school a long time ago. I just finished and having studied a number of government models, his ideas are flawed as proven by this video and as I stated below. You are attempting to predict the people’s needs and wants. It’s impossible and you will eventually resort to dictating those needs and wants.

You hold him in high regard based on some fantasy that has been proven to fail over and over again. Now you have some magic variation that you want to test on me. By adding the “democratic” edge - Yeah Right. Total scam. Socialism is Socialism is Socialism. It only exists in theory.

If you like Chavez and this dude so much, go to Venezuela. After all, Cuba is his real model and that was a beacon of success. But you don’t live there do you. No, you live here. Your choice speaks volumes already.

Fail.

Actually, WriterOnTheStorm, Chomsky does not use the words “lesser of two evils,” but he does clearly state that the working class is better off under Democrats than Republicans—a point you conveniently choose to ignore.  Try not to be so selective with your quotes.  It demeans your credibility.

It’s funny that whenever Chomsky seems to agree with the any given TD poster, his opinions are offered as absolute proof, yet when he veers too far to the left his equally thought out opinions are quickly vilified. In this case there are so many defending what they presume to be Chomsky’s opinion about lesser-of-two-evils voting that I have to wonder how many of you actually listened to what he said.

I’ll paraphrase what I think you might have missed: If you accept James Madison’s premise that the wealthy few are to be insulated from the faulty decision-making of the great unwashed masses, then the two party system is doing just what it is intended—namely, preventing a candidate who actually represents the interests of said unwashed from attaining power.

Chomsky is an academician. He is precise in his words. For him, it’s interesting from a purely intellectual point of view to entertain the question of the two party system as a theoretical model. That is the context of his answer.

Those of you who using this to claim that he favors voting lesser-of-two-evils in all circumstances are overreaching.

I would add, TRT, that if you don’t “know him” meaning Prof. Chomsky, you have obviously never read any of his solid academic works.  You might want to start with his latest work, “Failed States,” then perhaps read his classic, “Hegemony or Survival” which was held up and cited by President Hugo Chavez during his speech to the U.N.  Perhaps if you actually read what Chomsky has written you would acquire a sufficient knowledge base for understanding how foolish your attack on him to academics who have read and understand Prof. Chomsky’s erudite body of work.

Well read politicos may understand the distinction between a swing state and a safe one. A LOT of voters don’t and I know this from working for Kerry and Obama in the field and on the phone . People influence their peers and family more than they realize. It’s important to let everyone know that YOU are voting for Obama no matter what state you live in.  I should know, I voted for Nader in 2000 because I was in a “safe” state. Now after a bit of study in psychology and hypnosis I would have voted for the “lesser of two evils” . Keep your focus on Obama and he will be our next President. Otherwise it will be MCCAIN-PALIN not Kucinich, Nader or Ron Paul. Republicans seem to understand this. Why can’t progressives?

TRT—The ambiguity of your use of the pronoun, “you,” prevents me from ascertaining whether you were responding to me or to Rayven’s very thoughtful take.  I am reminded of something my freshman history prof. said that I found so profound that it has always stuck with me.  The year was 1969.  I had just returned from Vietnam.

The prof said:  “If the American right can always be criticized for its insensitivity to the human condition, the American left can always be criticized for its inability to count.”

If you want to engage in an exercise in futility by casting a vote for Nader or McKinney, that is your choice, but stop smearing others simply because they are more pragmatic than you. 

My own preference to our current economic system would be the replacement of the corporate security state with the only real form of democracy—Democratic Socialism.  Obama is by no means a Socialist.  His preference is for what is best described as a “mixed economy”—the type advanced by FDR’s New Deal and Keynesian economics.  While not the ideal, that is far preferable to allowing the final descent into fascism, which would be a near certainty if McCain were elected and then put in the position of appointing to the Supreme Court what Prof. Cass Sunstein aptly describes as “radicals in robes” from the Robert Bork-founded, Richard Mellon Scaife-funded Federalist Society, whose “Unitary Executive” theory is destructive to separation of powers and the rule of law.

Prof. Chomsky has recognized that which your ideological blinders prevents you from seeing—the working class fairs better under New Deal Democrats than it has under the American Fascist Party—aka the Republican Party.

You overlook the simplistic failure of his position and attempt to brush away the hypocrisy.

Attacking me does no good and I clearly hit a nerve by calling out a man you obviously worship. He is attempting to advocate one above the other within some imaginary constraint he developed. I know nothing about him but he is clearly trying to resolve some self created contradiction.

“They serve elites”. He is right on this. Next he attempts to frame the position as though one does so in a fashion that is better from the other. This is a complete fabrication.

They serve one group and not the other. That is the bottom line. The other group is either given the left over scrapes or the bare minimum to keep them at bay. Saying that one is more “charitable” than the other is insane. They are taking something that belongs to US and making the determination as to how much of it we deserve - keeping the rest for them.
And we are supposed to be satisfied with this? Perhaps you, but not me.

We are the government so stop playing this charade of D vs. R. It’s a fabricated argument that distracts from the real issue. Those currently running the government are a part of the elite circle and they have taken control.  What is really sad is that you are afraid of them and you are willing to accept what they tell you to accept.

You have no spine and deserve nothing.

I will say it again…to some “ignorance is bliss.” The-real-truth,commenting/blogging is the right of everyone, so in respecting your “opinion” I read your entire comment and not just the “first two sentences.” You cannot be serious…? Please “try” to refute even the “general” context of what Mr. Chomsky talked about during the interview. Your comments come across as “childish”, with out substance, and plain stupid. Need I waste time reiterating “some” of the things Mr.Chomsky has done in the realm of “education” no less….no please research it yourself.

Again you have the right to your comments, however as a fellow blogger, could you at least attempt to produce rational views with “some” substance? It is hard to take in that you in any way “foolishly” believe your response to this article. So why do you make such comments? Is it purposeful, meaning someone, a group, or organization is “paying you” to go to various sites and “spew” nonsense? Or have you simply taken a stand against “educating yourself, searching for “truth/facts” in every sector…..have you simply succeeded in creating an “ignorance shield?”

Whatever the case, I love the art of debate, as well as engaging discussions with people who “actually” want to discuss their views, not spew nonsense. Chomsky is 100% correct in that though the (P1) “dog and the wolf” are part of the canine family; yet there are distinct differences. (P2)Our country has always done better during “democratic administrations”, etc. Basically I concur with everything Mr.Chomsky said, but I wanted to emphasis these irrefutable points (1&2;)though. Listen to the other bloggers as well who have made comments about your remarks. ...I concur with them.

With all due respect, the-real-truth, your post typifies the idiocy of the ideological left which, though right on issues, lacks the ability to count and would prefer to throw away a vote on someone with absolutely no chance to get elected even if that delivers a third Bush term.

Is Obama’s policy on health care adequate?  Obviously not!  But an Obama presidency would be far more receptive to grass roots pressure for single-payer than a laissez faire ideologue like McCain.

That you would denounce an intellectual giant like Noam Chomsky as an “idiot” says more about you than it does about Chomsky.

TRT, Hold back some of that virulent passion. Chomsky is a very important progressive figurehead.

Democrats do help Americans over time. It may not be as fast as we all would like, but every major social initiative, civil liberty extension and improvement of labor rights in America has been pushed through by Democratic Candidates. Outside of abolishing slavory, the Republican party has never done anything but cut taxes and bungle military expansion.

Yes, the Democratic Party helps Americans regardless of what the armchair, do-nothing cynics believe. They do, however, need active citizenry to embolden their true progressive tendencies. That’s something the nay-sayers and nader-mobs never provide.

This is the biggest line of crap I have ever heard.

They both serve elites but over time the democrats help people. Bullcrap!

They are both greedy and will take all they can. They will only relinquish that which they absolutely must in order to prevent a full fledge revolt.

Just give the little man enough so he keeps quite is more like it. Both camps are corrupt and it’s this type of thinking that allows it to continue over and over again.

This guy is an idiot and he is enabling the corrupt elites. Truth Dig needs to fire him!

What a difference a true education and person makes.
Prof. Noam Chomsky vs. Sarah Palin, there is no comparison between the two.
Prof. Chomsky is his latest interview, gives sound reasoning for voting for Barack Obama, the lesser of two weasels. I for one could not in good conscience, and spirit and soul, vote for someone as erratic and irresponsible as John McCain. Yes, I understand the dilemma of voting for Barack Obama, he is in the pockets of the corporations, bought and paid for by the very corporations that have caused this economic meltdown.
Yet, for all intents and purposes, a vote for John McCain, would continue the policies of the last 8 years, bring an end to the first world status of America, and shove us unwillingly into a third world, debtor nation status, where China and India would dictate the domestic and foreign policy of America. 
One thing would be a direct cause of voting for John McCain-Sarah Palin, this country as we knew it would cease to exist, and be replaced by a fascist state, with the people having no rights and no power to approach the wealthy and political elite. There would be no redress through the court system, and little if any voice of the people rising up out of the muck and mire of the political situation to demand that the government listen to us.
Surely, this is enough reason to vote for the lesser of two weasels, (Thank you Scott Adams, wherever you are), the clearest choice we have is Barack Obama.
Now if only the American people would get there collective heads out of the sand, they could see the logic of this argument and continue a legacy for their children that would last generations and not force us, the people to be revolting to the point of overthrowing the current system and replacing it with one of relative responsiveness to the needs of the people.