Noam Chomsky criticizes the left...

[StageLeft]

I generally find Chomsky's political thoughts pretty meaningful and no exception here.

His part about business propaganda--those two paragraphs--was spot on. And it ties into something Zebo I think wrote recently about voting. People still vote in this country but ultimately they are choosing between two different corporate whores who will both be brow beaten and manhandled by lobbying dollars. What is really the point a lot of the time?

Give them an election not for a party but for referendums (i.e. constitutional amendments). Require a 2/3rd vote or something from the general populous for an amendment like "No corporate whores allowed in Washington". I bet you'll get a lot of Aye votes.

 

[mumedina]

Chomsky has always been one of my favorite speakers. I understand and agree with his sentiments here. I have never understood politics without rational thought. To adopt the view you party has simply for that reason always seemed absurd to me.

 

[Siddhartha]

The question I have for the Tea Bag group is where were you during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations? Why are you suddenly pissed off and not going to take it anymore?

 

[werepossum]

The question I have for the Tea Bag group is where were you during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations? Why are you suddenly pissed off and not going to take it anymore?

Not a Tea Partier (or a Tea Bagger, which is a different, rather Democrat-leaning group) but at a guess I'd say because those presidents didn't want to fundamentally change the country and these are people who actually love their country pretty much the way it is.

 

[Siddhartha]

Not a Tea Partier (or a Tea Bagger, which is a different, rather Democrat-leaning group) but at a guess I'd say because those presidents didn't want to fundamentally change the country and these are people who actually love their country pretty much the way it is.

Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II ran big deficits, really curtailed, Patriot Act, civil rights, tried to privatize Social Security, raised taxes, lower taxes for the wealthiest, broke the law by selling arms to the contras, etc. Those Republicans, particularly Reagan, changed the country. But no sign of protest from these people who are now protesting Obama.

Has the middle class taken it in the neck since Reagan was POTUS, I remember seeing a graph about this.

 

[DanDaManJC]

Not a Tea Partier (or a Tea Bagger, which is a different, rather Democrat-leaning group) but at a guess I'd say because those presidents didn't want to fundamentally change the country and these are people who actually love their country pretty much the way it is.

Bush and Raegon made some sweeping changes themselves. Just look at the patriot act. Bush Jr also had his own $700 billion bank bailout.

I think the reason the tea-baggers came out is because they're traditionally republican and had been holding out hope for bush and company... and now with obama around, they have someone to blame. That said, Chomsky addresses that exact question... just read his quote.

Also possum -- check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model. It's one of Chomsky's theories and should give you some background to the idea of why the "left" in America, supposedly, isn't "left enough"

 

[Zebo]

The question I have for the Tea Bag group is where were you during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations? Why are you suddenly pissed off and not going to take it anymore?

They never saw a war or prison they didn't like. They hate giving money to poor since they had to work for it (usually) and so should everyone else. I'm sure there is some racial politics but not near as much as left would like to claim. It's mainly I earned it, payed my dues, etc, you should to.

And lets not forget - government wasn't giving banks, the richest most rewarded institutions in the world, 2-3 trillion and a blank check for 24 trillion more either back then.

 

[Steeplerot]

Good lord, even Kucinich and Moore aren't left enough for you? Amazing that you can stand American politics at all and haven't left for some "moderate" nation like Cuba or North Korea, Communist China obviously being far too right wing for your tastes.

All nations listed are too far right for my tastes, yes.
Not a big fan of state capitalism.

 

[Zebo]

I'm with Mr. Chomsky - it will take great compromise and meeting at some commonn ground to have any chance at a populist revolution in this country which is now entirly bought and sold by top 1% or those with wealth above 18 million. Now they love it keeping us at each others throat while they walk out the back door with the bag of loot.

 

[Zebo]

Examples of conservative "new federalism" policies are strong military, anti-immigration, drug war, abortion, gay marriage, etc. All of these are policies that modern 'conservatives' want to see implemented on a federal level.

While your example to the contrary is silly. The federal govt has effectively been in control of health care in the US since WWII. All those pensioner teabaggers fighting health care 'reform' aren't doing it to fight socialism or the federal govt, but because they don't want their medicare and social security benefits affected.

Not sure new federalism was ever new. Republicans were born our of the Federalists and Wigs. Lincoln had his own new deal and Teddy the square deal and trust busting. In fact the only free market libertarian types I know of are Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul.

 

[werepossum]

Bush and Raegon made some sweeping changes themselves. Just look at the patriot act. Bush Jr also had his own $700 billion bank bailout.

I think the reason the tea-baggers came out is because they're traditionally republican and had been holding out hope for bush and company... and now with obama around, they have someone to blame. That said, Chomsky addresses that exact question... just read his quote.

Also possum -- check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model. It's one of Chomsky's theories and should give you some background to the idea of why the "left" in America, supposedly, isn't "left enough"

I'm familiar with Chomsky's theories, I simply reject them. The idea that the news media that consistently favors the left isn't favoring it enough and is therefore right wing is simply mind boggling. As for Reagan, he changed the country mainly by changing minds rather than by legislative fiat. This is my preferred way for politicians to change the country (executive fiat being my least favorite.) He also ran big deficits (well, small by today's standards) but his tax cuts roughly doubled revenue to the federal government; unfortunately Congress could not limit itself to a doubling of spending over eight years, so we had deficits. Bush II I agree was quite liberal and changed the country much as Obama wishes to change it; you are probably right that the Tea Partiers' sympathy to the Republican Party's professed (if not practiced) positions kept similar protests from breaking out.

Red, is there ANY nation today that you actually like and would hold up as a model? I'm assuming you believe in something above subsistence-level farming a la Cambodia - are you looking to make America a clone of the communist Soviet Union? And if so, why would you think communism would work this time to build wealth (as opposed to concentrating it into a very few hands) when communism as an economic system has never worked before?

 

[Steeplerot]

Red, is there ANY nation today that you actually like and would hold up as a model? I'm assuming you believe in something above subsistence-level farming a la Cambodia - are you looking to make America a clone of the communist Soviet Union? And if so, why would you think communism would work this time to build wealth (as opposed to concentrating it into a very few hands) when communism as an economic system has never worked before?

As I said, I do not support state capitalist societys. Neither does Chomsky or any other socialist I know.
Maoists are the only aspect of stalinists left and most other communists/anarchists/trotskyists/democratic socialists despise them and their stalinistic/closed society/authoritarian ways.
If Socialism is your big enemy you may want to learn a bit about it and what Socialists think. The Soviet Union was denounced by the left worldwide right after the October revolution by the 1918-1920 as it became a state capitalist craphole as Stalin gained power undemocratically bit by bit.

Even Lenin warned if Stalin was not stopped he would discredit socialism worldwide and the SU.

No offense, but you have a lot to learn. Your assumptions here make it quite obvious your views are mainstream US media from the post mccarthy culture that has sprung up.

 

[Blackjack200]

I'm familiar with Chomsky's theories, I simply reject them.

lol, you don't think most mainstream news passes through a corporate filter?

 

[Tab]

I try to lean toward my dad's way of thinking, but sometimes (especially when dealing with religious fundamentalists) I can't help but think my mom is a little bit right too...

Exactly.

How are you suppose to come to an understanding with some who thinks Obama wasn't born in America, is a Muslim and a fascist/communist/marxist/etc and believes in a very vengeful God?

 

[Genx87]

The question I have for the Tea Bag group is where were you during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations? Why are you suddenly pissed off and not going to take it anymore?

Who cares? So people are hypocrites? Welcome to life. Doesnt change the msg. We are spending more than we can afford.

 

[Craig234]

Excellent response to werepossum's nonsense, Blackjack200