By Manila Ryce
Published Friday, October 24th, 2008, 3:36 am
Filed under: Videos: Political, Videos, US Politics

11 Responses to “Davis Fleetwood - Lesser of Two Evils”

1. 

   I have to disagree with you here. I watched both Real News interviews with Zinn and Chomsky, and I wholly agreed with their perspective. They understand that the third parties will NOT have an impact on the current political system. Zinn had an excellent point when he stated that the current third party movements actually delegitimize themselves since they are so insignificant.

   I think Zinn and Chomsky both recognize that the system can’t really be changed from within; what is needed is complete revolution from without. Since the sleeping masses are evidently very far away from reaching the point of revolution, it is highly pragmatic to point out that an Obama presidency - while still terrible - would be much better for most people, and probably save a few million lives.

   And to be fair neither Chomsky or Zinn advocated voting for Obama; they simply recognized that doing so would be understandable in this bleak election cycle.

   Andy
   10/24/08 at 8:01 am
   
2. 

   Yeah, I strongly disagree here too. I think it’s completely dishonest to call Chomsky part of the “defeatist liberal intelligentsia,” when he’s spent much of his career fighting against the illusions of liberal intellectuals. His first major political essay, after all, was “Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship.”

   You really should’ve watched the videos that Fleetwood was referring to before denouncing Chomsky. If you had actually payed attention to what he said, I doubt you’d be so flippant in your dismissal.

   I think his point is that, since democratizing forces in the US are largely defunct, the only options left are to go for the lesser of two egregious evils. This is inherently unsatisfactory and dangerous, but that’s all there is. As for third parties, they mean nothing without democratic movements in the population.

   Just look at how the Green Party in Germany, the great hope of bourgeois Leftists, totally sold itself out when it won a substantial amount of seats in the German parliament.

   And to suggest that Chomsky somehow doesn’t support a democratic movement in the population is not only dishonest, it’s disrespectful to his life’s work.

   Bernie
   10/24/08 at 11:25 am
   
3. 

   @Andy and Bernie

   I did in fact watch the videos I was referring to Bernie. Thank you.

   What you see as a flippant dismissal I see as a legitimate disagreement in tactic. Chomsky correctly explains the system and our role within it, but then concedes that we must accept the false choices we are handed. For example, his support of a two-state solution is another topic in which I strongly disagree. It is the most possible solution at the moment, but this is partly due to the fact that scholars such as himself are not advocating and building support for a viable single-state. It’s rather obvious that Chomsky could be doing more as an organizer for such movements. To pretend otherwise is what’s dishonest.

   Were Chomsky and Zinn to come out in support of third party candidates at the beginning of the election cycle, then perhaps those candidates wouldn’t be so irrelevant by the time November rolls around. Inaction on their part until the final moments of the election cycle is trying to maintain neutrality on a moving train. Aside from some articles, only now have Noam and Howard finally spoken through the media about this election, and they did so in unison. You can’t sit by and watch these movements expectedly fizzle, then denounce them when they do. Both Zinn and Chomsky have refused to speak at our rallies.

   I believe Chomsky also failed to analyze why such movements have died in the past few months. In March of last year, during the anniversary of the Iraq War, there were tens of thousands of people in the streets. This year, there were a few hundred and the majority had Obama signs. The Democrats kill progressive movements by adopting and slowly strangling them. There is no anti-war movement, environmental movement, or single-payer movement anymore because they’ve all been hijacked by Obama.

   George Bush was actually the best thing that happened to leftist activism. We organized, grew, and took to the streets. An Obama presidency, just like the previous Clinton presidency, will anesthetize the Left. Anyone who’s actually bothered to attend a protest has already seen this. Democrats may be better than Republicans on some policy issues, but it’s not as simple as Chomsky made it seem. They are actually worse for the progressive movement.

   In 2000 and 2004, Chomsky endorsed Ralph Nader but encouraged people in swing-states to vote for the lesser of two evils. That’s a legitimate position, but his words this time around seemed to be more a tacit endorsement of Obama than a recommendation for swing-state voters only. He could have avoided this perception, intended or not, by likewise encouraging people in safe-states to vote for Nader or McKinney. He did not. Hence, he’s offered more legitimacy to the ruling elite with his interview than to the struggling movements fighting it. Zinn went even further by saying that he himself was voting for Obama, despite living in a safe state like Massachusetts.

   Manila Ryce
   10/24/08 at 12:17 pm
   
4. 

   It’s one thing to have a “legitimate disagreement in tactic,” as you say; it’s another thing to dishonestly label Chomsky as part of the “defeatist liberal intelligentsia.” I suggest you don’t mix the two.

   “Chomsky correctly explains the system and our role within it, but then concedes that we must accept the false choices we are handed.”

   Not true. He never says we must accept anything, especially something so egregious. He asks the question in his talk ‘The Political System in the USA’ (you can find it on YouTube), “Do you want to live in a Democratic society or not?”

   I think his skepticism is rather of third-party movements that are independent of a popular movement. While many of the issues that Nader proposes may have popular support (usually tacit popular support), there is no popular movement. I don’t doubt that if Nader and other Green-ish politicians were to become more successful in the political system on their own, they’d end up just like the German Green Party.

   “George Bush was actually the best thing that happened to leftist activism. We organized, grew, and took to the streets. An Obama presidency, just like the previous Clinton presidency, will anesthetize the Left. Anyone who’s actually bothered to attend a protest has already seen this. Democrats may be better than Republicans on some policy issues, but it’s not as simple as Chomsky made it seem. They are actually worse for the progressive movement.”

   This is only partially true. The Bush years have introduced the Patriot Act, which, as you know, has primarily been used to suppress environmental activism. And more generally, I think this whole climate of fear has a major dampening effect on popular movements of all sorts. I’m sure that a McCain presidency will continue these trends and further cut back civil liberties. And I agree that Obama has been dishonestly tapping in to much of the resentment of the American people, and this is detrimental. But I think that once he’s in office, he may be less likely to curtail civil liberties, which is good overall for activism.

   Also, if we were to push your argument to its logical extreme, we’d have to ask “do the most totalitarian states today have the highest levels of popular resistance in reaction?” The answer is, of course, no. Let’s also not forget that the Spanish Anarchist Revolution probably couldn’t have occurred if the Spanish Republic hadn’t been restored in 1931, thus allowing increased civil liberties which strengthened the Anarchist organizations.

   To be honest I don’t understand why Zinn is voting Obama either. That makes no sense to me, since he’s in a safe state. I’m glad he talked about direct action, though, because at least he offered a solution. It seems that Chomsky has become much more grim about the political system as a whole, which perhaps explains his increased reluctance to support third-parties. One can disagree with that attitude, and that’s fine, but that doesn’t merit dishonest labels.

   Bernie
   10/24/08 at 2:28 pm
   
5. 

   “It’s another thing to dishonestly label Chomsky as part of the ‘defeatist liberal intelligentsia.’”

   In this case I believe Chomsky has crossed the line to be accurately labeled as part of that crowd. I do not think that he can be written off as part of the liberal or bourgeois intelligentsia outright, but he does flirt with their frame here. I will concede that my initial wording could have been more accurate, and I take back that classification of his work outright but still feel it applies to this case specifically.

   As for third-parties being hijacked, I tend to agree. Even the Green Party in the US has been taken over by Democrats. Nader himself also sees this as a problem (he has never belonged to a party) and proposes direct democracy as a way to get around this obstacle of party politics. While I can see any progressive party being easily co-opted by monied interests, there are individuals like Kucinich, Gravel, and Nader who never will be. If Chomsky is skeptical of third-parties that’s still no reason for him to write off these individuals which he personally knows to be true and incorruptible leaders as part of that lost cause. His words carry a lot of weight. He could just as easily have sparked the movement he says is lacking.

   As for civil liberties being respected under an Obama presidency, I don’t see much in his record to suggest this is true. He voted for the reauthorization of The Patriot Act and for telecom immunity. George Bush wasn’t just some monster who came in and abolished our freedoms. He was simply the next logical progression from the Clinton administration. Neither Obama nor McCain is promising to be anything other than the next step towards a more totalitarian state. It is far too easy to claim that Obama will turn things around without more than a gut feeling as your proof.

   Zinn is correct in stating that we must put pressure on Obama, but surely he must know that this pressure will never come from Democrats who declared their unwavering support for their nominee before the primaries were even over. The same thing that happened during the Clinton years will happen now. In fact, it’s even more amplified today. The Democrats won’t budge unless they know you have the ability not to vote for them. Our vote is the only bargaining power we have today. Zinn, who lives in a safe state, says we must pressure Obama, then encourages everyone to vote for him. It’s really quite ridiculous.

   Manila Ryce
   10/24/08 at 3:49 pm
   
6. 

   “In this case I believe Chomsky has crossed the line to be accurately labeled as part of that crowd. I do not think that he can be written off as part of the liberal or bourgeois intelligentsia outright, but he does flirt with their frame here. I will concede that my initial wording could have been more accurate, and I take back that classification of his work outright but still feel it applies to this case specifically.”

   The reason I initially doubted you had watched the video was because I don’t think I can imagine a bourgeois liberal intellectual taking up half of the interview talking about how the US Constitution was intentionally framed to serve elite interests.

   You are correct in pointing out Obama’s support for the Patriot Act and telecom immunity. I don’t expect that he will be able to reverse these developments once he’s in office, even assuming that he wants to. Obama has tried to portray himself as making unwilling sacrifices, particularly with his support of telecom immunity. So at least there’s some chance that he may not want to further repeal civil liberties. With McCain, there is no ambiguity whatsoever. There is a 100% chance that McCain will further these policies.

   I agree with your comments about Zinn. As for Chomsky, I feel like your comments are only relevant if you look at this interview in isolation. He barely even mentioned the issue of third-parties and independent candidates (unlike Zinn, who outright dismissed them). The discussion was intentionally framed to only talk about “swing states.” Nor did he talk much about direct action and the like. So I don’t feel that the strong reaction is completely merited.

   I’m gonna throw in this extra question, because I have yet to find people who want to convince me either way. Nader or McKinney? (I don’t live in a swing state, so there’s no need to convince me away from Obama).

   Bernie
   10/24/08 at 4:24 pm
   

7. Here is how I see it. You cannot vote for revolution. The act of voting is the sole participatory act that this republic requires and because of this it receives attention as the lone method of expressing our voice. This creates a contradiction for the likes of Nader, Zinn and Chomsky. Nader, Zinn and Chomsky each encourage greater democratic participation while at the same time acknowledging the pointlessness of it. I think moderates and centrists should be forgiven for occassionally shaking their heads in disgust and refusing to participate in this. The reality is that voting will never change any aspect of the monetary system or the military industrial complex because these systems have been intentionally shielded from popular input through propaganda, national security directives, the federal reserve, the electoral college and good, old fashioned all american elitism. Changing these institutions presupposes their destruction which presupposes revolution. You can’t vote your way out of that.
   On the other hand, an Obama presidency may mean the difference between fighting covert wars in the Middle East and another one million dead arabs, so the stakes are kind of high.
   The solution: We in the progressive movement need to start working on two levels. Level A, or direct action and Level B, overwhelming participation in the corrupt political process. In some ways, Level A is easier because it is more familiar to us. We know how to march and demonstrate. We know how to strike. Level B, on the other hand, requires us swallowing a little hypocrisy in order to support the greater good. That’s is problematic, as this discussion thread reveals. The left tends to be in love with its intellectual honesty and subsequently we have developed a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That has to stop.
   The silver lining: This political season has seen an overwhelming quantity of popular participation. So much so that the local precincts in Florida and Ohio are unable to keep up with the demand which results in lines at the polls. This may be a good thing inasmuch as it reveals to the populace that their governors have been largely unconcerned with ensuring the efficacy of the voting system. I saw a recent video about this wherein the commentator candidly acknowledged the problem of long lines at the polls and then very frankly said “If voting is made harder by this, tough” or words to that effect. As the camera panned the outside of the building for one final shot, you could see a warning sign that read “Illegal parking: Violators will be towed at their own expense.” No doubt businesses in the surrounding area will have their parking lots efficiently cleared of any offending vehicles. That is an eye view into the priorities of the establishment: Keep businesses happy at the expense of the voters.
   Peace

   Paul M. Peterson
   10/24/08 at 5:31 pm
   
8. 

   Plus, Chomsky has repeatedly noted in his books that it is impossible to change the system through voting alone. Instead, he claims it is necessary to first dismantle the corporate structures that wield the real power in our society. It is foolish to think that corporations can be effectively dismantled through a political process that they control; the corporations have to be changed from outside the political process, which will then allow for meaningful political reform.

   I do think that Chomsky has a tendency to remain on the theoretical side of things and not actively participate in bringing about change. He is indeed an intellectual and not an activist, though I do give him credit for encouraging people to reach their own conclusions. Even in this interview, he never explicitly stated that people should vote for Obama; he simply said that it was not unreasonable to do so, and it was a decision that individuals would have to make on their own.

   Andy
   10/24/08 at 9:08 pm
   

9. Nader proposed Direct Democracy, but former Sen. Mike Gravel has by far the best project for it: http://Vote.org, where you can vote to ratify the National Initiative for Democracy, much as citizen ratified the Constitution.

   “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.” –George Washington

   Evan Ravitz
   10/25/08 at 8:19 am
   
10. 

    @Bernie

    As much as I respect Cynthia, I will not beat around the bush on this one. I’d suggest voting for Nader. I’m biased of course, but given our common distrust of political parties I’m sure you can understand where I’m coming from. McKinney’s run has been about building the Green Party and she’s made that clear before even getting the nomination. I do not trust the Green Party. They’re not organized enough to get a press banner printed out at Kinkos, let alone raise any money to pay for it. Ask anyone who’s ever been an organizer or official within the party and they’ll tell you it’s a joke. Cynthia couldn’t even get matching funds and struggled to even get the support of Greens in many states.

    Nader, on the other hand, has never belonged to a party and his run is purely about the issues. He was able to get on the ballot in 45 states this year (which is more than he’s ever been on) without having the strength of a national party behind him. After the election he plans on carrying over his support to a “congressional watchdog group”. He will shift his focus from the executive to the legislative branch. It’s about building a genuine movement to get our government back and not just about a particular party. I believe his cause is much more noble for this reason. Also, his knowledge of the issues and tenacity are simply unparalleled.

    Manila Ryce
    10/27/08 at 1:02 am
    

11. Manila,

    Your flippant dismissal of Chomsky is unreasonable. Worse, labeling an intellectual, such as Chomsky (with over 40 years of rigorously challenging social-political systems and conventions), as “defeatist” because he does not do exactly as you think he should be expected to, is totalitarian. Your insistence places those who agree with Chomsky’s long and detailed remarks under suspicion of being defeatists, a term popular under fascism.

    “There is no value in the writings of any intellectual, no matter how brilliant, if theory is never put to practice.”

    Umm…..Chomsky’s contribution to this world (yes, writing and speaking theory) of course does have value. This jejune statement makes the cliche and militant anti-intellectual point that action is something better than thinking, that theory is somehow separate from praxis. Writing, reading, discussion, debate, polemics…is praxis.

    erik
    10/27/08 at 1:32 am
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>