The Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil, namely the same old political bullshit, only this time piled higher and much deeper, yet the same old shit.
The Progressive Democrats of America is a political movement working within the context of the Democratic Party. During his campaign, Barack Obama called on the progressives to support him and for this reason we hold him accountable for his promises to us. However, we know that we're living in the real world. We were aware of the reality predicted by Norm Chomsky:
--------------start transcript------------------------
Jay: As the financial crisis and economic crisis deepens working people are asking how bad is it going to get and how will it affect me. To help answer those questions we're joined by Professor Noam Chomsky, who needs no introduction. Thanks for joining us.
Chomsky: Glad to be with you....
J: There's been sort of a traditional analysis on the Left: There's a section of the elite that's more connected to the military-industrial complex, a section of the elite that's more connected to domestic economy, needs a more vigorous domestic purchasing power, and certainly overlap. Does that analysis hold up, and if so, for ordinary people, is it better to have one section of the elite in power than the other? I mean, right now, if you're in a swing state, you're going to decide McCain or Obama. Is there a decision that matters to people and what would you suggest if you're in a swing state?
C: I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama, without illusions. Because, all the elevated rhetoric about “change” and “hope” and so on will dissolve into standard, centrist Democrat policies if he takes office. However, there is a difference, and it's been studied quite closely by political scientists. There's a strong difference, over time, you don't see it at any particular moment, but over time, the general population, a large majority of the population other than the very wealthy, tends to do considerably better under Democratic than Republican administrations. And the reason is, sort of what you said, they reflect different elite constituencies. And the differences are quite striking and their very noticeable. So if that's what matters to you, that's usually a pretty good guide for voting. It's not that the Democrats represent public opinion, they don't. In fact, like the Republicans, they're pretty well to the right of public opinion on a host of major issues, including those of most importance to the public. In fact what's happening now, it's interesting it's not being discussed, it's very striking, it tells you a lot about American democracy. For years, decades in fact, one of the leading concerns, if not the top concern of the public, has been the health care system, which is understandable, it's a total catastrophe. It has about twice the costs of other industrial countries and some of the worst outcomes. And it's painful for individuals. If you've ever spent a little time at an ER, watching people come for a bad cold, you can see what it's like. [emphasis mine- the Bear]
J: We've been doing work in various states, Northwest Indiana, Virginia, other places, it's all people wanna talk about is the health care system. Jobs or health care.
C: And there's good reason for it. It's a catastrophe, it's getting much worse. It's going to swamp the federal budget. And the fundamental reason for it is it's privatized. That introduces layer after layer of bureaucracy, cherry picking, supervision, paper work, and that's hundreds of millions of dollars of waste a year. Up until the 2004 election, it was just off the agenda. People mention the Clinton program, but that's a misunderstanding. What the public has wanted is very straightforward. They want a national health care system. Usually people pick Canada as the model, not because it's the best system, but because it's right there, you see it, you don't see the Australian system, which is better. But the public, by large majorities, has favored a national health care system, say Medicare Plus it's sometimes called, extended to the whole population, which would be far cheaper for efficiency.
J: But Obama does not go there.
C: Well see it's interesting, it's quite interesting to see what's happened. Up until 2004, nobody went there. So the last debate before the election in 2004 was on the domestic economy and concerns. Now 2008, is different. In 2008 both Democratic candidates, Clinton and Obama, did make proposals which as you say, were not what the public wants, but were approaching it. But happened between 2004 and 2008 to make it politically possible? Public opinion didn't change. What changed is that a major sector of concentrations of real power, namely manufacturing industry, they changed their position. So General Motors says that it costs them over a $1000 more to make a car in Detroit than across the border in Windsor, Canada because of the inefficient health care system. Well, when a large sector of concentrated capital, concentrated economic power, becomes interested in something, it becomes politically possible. So now it's moving to the political agenda, they're not getting there. What does that tell about the functioning of American democracy? It's very revealing, and it is doubly revealing that nobody comments on it.
J: In this segment of the interview, just to concentrate more on the politics of this election: What do you say to the third party candidates who say they are all the same, that we're locked in this dilemma they say, of one party or the other, the lesser of evils and such? What do you say to them when they say it really doesn't make any difference who wins?
C: To say it doesn't make any difference who wins is simply to express your contempt for the general population, because it does make a difference. A lot of what they say is correct. The two parties are effectively factions of one party, the Business party, but the factions are somewhat different. And as I mentioned, over time the differences show up in benefits, working conditions, wages, things that really matter to people. So yes, there's a difference. It's a narrow difference and the spectrum within the political system is well to the right of popular opinion. Incidentally the public is well aware of it. So 80% of the population say that the government is run by, I'm quoting, a few big interests looking out for themselves, not the population. And you can argue about the details, but the picture is essentially correct, and they don't like it. Nevertheless, there is some difference, and you have to make a choice. If you're in a swing state, you have to ask, is this difference enough for me to pick the lesser of the two evils, and there's nothing wrong with picking the lesser of two evils. The cliché makes it sound like you're doing something bad, but no, you're doing something good if you pick the lesser of two evils. So is it worth doing that, or is it worth trying to act to create a potential alternative? For example, should I vote Green, because maybe someday their party will be a real alternative? Should I express my disdain for the right wing orientation of both parties by not voting, or should I pick the lesser of the two evils, thereby helping people? OK, that's a decision people have to make.
-------------- end transcript -----------------------
Love.
First, do no harm.
Change starts within.
Think Global. Act Local.
No comments:
Post a Comment