http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/0-0&fd=R&url=http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/06/2008624202053652281.html&cid=0&ei=MsZhSLq1HZ_K8ASTwOD4Bg&usg=AFQjCNEg82yZMXunCjLRhOJKbkNTqIsimQChomsky: US public irrelevant
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Chomsky says the US can learn something from Bolivia's
democracy
Noam Chomsky, the renowned US academic, author and
political activist, speaks to Avi Lewis on Al
Jazeera's Inside USA.
They discuss whether the US election this year will
bring real change, the ongoing conflict in Iraq and
why Americans should look to their Southern American
counterparts for political inspiration.
Avi Lewis: I'd like to start by talking about the US
presidential campaign. In writing about the last
election in 2004, you called America's system a "fake
democracy" in which the public is hardly more than an
irrelevant onlooker, and you've been arguing in your
work in the last year or so that the candidates this
time around are considerably to the right of public
opinion on all major issues.
So, the question is, do Americans have any legitimate
hope of change this time around? And what is the
difference in dynamic between America's presidential
"cup" in 2008 compared to 2004 and 2000?
Noam Chomsky: There's some differences, and the
differences are quite enlightening. I should say,
however, that I'm expressing a very conventional
thought ? 80 per cent of the population thinks, if you
read the words of the polls, that the government is
run by a few big interests looking out for themselves
not for the population [and] 95 per cent of the public
thinks that the government ought to pay attention to
public opinion but it doesn't.
As far as the elections are concerned, I forget the
exact figure but by about three to one people wish
that the elections were about issues, not about
marginal character qualities and so on. So I'm right
in the mainstream.
There's some interesting differences between 2004 and
2008 and they're very revealing, it's kind of striking
that the commentators don't pick that up because it's
so transparent.
The main domestic issue for years ? is the health
system - which is understandable as it's a total
disaster.
The last election debate in 2004 was on domestic
issues ... and the New York Times the next day had an
accurate description of it. It said that [former
Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry did not
bring up any hint of government involvement in
healthcare because it has so little political support,
just [the support of] the large majority of the
population.
But what he meant was it was not supported by the
pharmaceutical industry and wasn't supported by the
financial institutions and so on.
In this election the Democratic candidates all have
[health] programmes that are not what the public are
asking for but are approaching it and could even turn
into it, so what happened between 2004 and 2008?
It's not a shift in public opinion - that's the same
as before, what happened is a big segment of US
corporate power is being so harmed by the healthcare
system that they want it changed, namely the
manufacturing industry.
So, for example, [car manufacturer] General Motors
says that it costs them maybe $1,500 more to produce a
car in Detroit then across the border in Windsor,
Canada, just because they have a more sensible
healthcare system there.
Well, when a big segment of corporate America shifts
its position, then it becomes politically possible and
has political support. So, therefore, you can begin to
talk about it.
Avi Lewis: But those aren't changes coming from
pressure from below?
No, the public is the same, it's been saying the same
for decades, but the public is irrelevant, is
understood to be irrelevant. What matters is a few big
interests looking after themselves and that's exactly
what the public sees.
Avi Lewis: And yet, you can see people agitating
against the official story, even within the electoral
process. There is definitely a new mood in the US, a
restlessness among populations who are going to
political rallies in unprecedented numbers.
What do you make of this well branded phenomenon of
hope - which is obviously part marketing - but is it
not also part something else?
Well that's Barack Obama. He has his way, he presents
himself - or the way his handlers present him - as
basically a kind of blank slate on which you can write
whatever you like and there are a few slogans: Hope,
unity ?
Avi Lewis: Change?
Noam Chomsky: Change. And it does arouse enthusiasm
and you can understand why. Again 80 per cent of the
population thinks the county is going the wrong way.
For most people in the US the past 30 years have been
pretty grim. Now, it's a rich country, so it's not
like living in southern Africa, but for the majority
of the population real wages have stagnated or
declined for the past 30 years, there's been growth
but it's going to the wealthy and into very few
pockets, benefits which were never really great have
declined, work hours have greatly increased and there
isn't really much to show for it other than staying
afloat.
And there is tremendous dissatisfaction with
institutions, there's a lot of talk about Bush's very
low poll ratings, which is correct, but people
sometimes overlook the fact that congress's poll
ratings are even lower.
In fact all institutions are just not trusted but
disliked, there's a sense that everything is going
wrong.
So when somebody says "hope, change and unity" and
kind of talks eloquently and is a nice looking guy and
so on then, fine.
Avi Lewis: If the elite strategy for managing the
electorate is to ignore the will of the people as you
interpret it through polling data essentially, what is
an actual progressive vision of changing the US
electoral system? Is it election finance, is it third
party activism?
Noam Chomsky: We have models right in front of us.
Like pick, say, Bolivia, the poorest county in South
America. They had a democratic election a couple of
years ago that you can't even dream about in the US.
It's kind of interesting it's not discussed; it's a
real democratic election.
A large majority of the population became organised
and active for the first time in history and elected
someone from their own ranks on crucial issues that
everyone knew about ? control of resource, cultural
rights, issues of justice, you know, really serious
issues.
And, furthermore, they didn't just do it on election
day by pushing a button, they've been struggling about
these things for years.
A couple of years before this they managed to drive
Bechtel and the World Bank out of the country when
they were trying to privatise the war. It was a pretty
harsh struggle and a lot of people were killed.
Well, they reached a point where they finally could
manifest this through the electoral system - they
didn't have to change the electoral laws, they had to
change the way the public acts. And that's the poorest
country in South America.
Actually if we look at the poorest country in the
hemisphere ? Haiti - the same thing happened in 1990.
You know, if peasants in Bolivia and Haiti can do
this, it's ridiculous to say we can't.
Avi Lewis: The Democrats in this election campaign
have been talking a lot, maybe less so more recently,
about withdrawing from Iraq.
What are the chances that a new president will
significantly change course on the occupation and
might there be any change for the people of Iraq as a
result of the electoral moment in the US?
Noam Chomsky: Well, one of the few journalists who
really covers Iraq intimately from inside is Nir
Rosen, who speaks Arabic and passes for Arab, gets
through society, has been there for five or six years
and has done wonderful reporting. His conclusion,
recently published, as he puts it, is there are no
solutions.
This has been worse than the Mongol invasions of the
13th century - you can only look for the least bad
solution but the country is destroyed.
And it has in fact been catastrophic. The Democrats
are now silenced because of the supposed success of
the surge which itself is interesting, it reflects the
fact that there's no principled criticism of the war ?
so if it turns out that your gaining your goals, well,
then it was OK.
We didn't act that way when the Russians invaded
Chechnya and, as it happens, they're doing much better
than the US in Iraq.
In fact what's actually happening in Iraq is kind of
ironic. The Iraqi government, the al-Maliki
government, is the sector of Iraqi society most
supported by Iran, the so-called army - just another
militia - is largely based on the Badr brigade which
is trained in Iran, fought on the Iranian side during
the Iran-Iraq war, was part of the hated Revolutionary
Guard, it didn't intervene when Saddam was massacring
Shiites with US approval after the first Gulf war,
that's the core of the army.
The figure who is most disliked by the Iranians is of
course Muqtada al-Sadr, for the same reason he's
disliked by the Americans ? he's independent.
If you read the American press, you'd think his first
name was renegade or something, it's always the
"renegade cleric" or the "radical cleric" or something
- that's the phrase that means he's independent, he
has popular support and he doesn't favour occupation.
Well, the Iranian government doesn't like him for the
same reason. So, they [Iran] are perfectly happy to
see the US institute a government that's receptive to
their influence and for the Iraqi people it's a
disaster.
And it'll become a worse disaster once the effects of
the warlordism and tribalism and sectarianism sink in
more deeply.
