Re: A Reply to Noam Chomsky

[Victor Steinbok <victor.steinbok@verizon.net>]

At 10:31 AM 3/29/2004, Newdem@aol.com wrote:
> March 29, 2004
> Dear Noam:
> In "Voting 2004," posted on your blog on March 
> 25  (http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/), you claim that anyone who pursues the 
> course New Democracy is  recommending--MassRefusal to vote in the 
> presidential elections, 2004  (massrefusal.org)--is  ignoring the real 
> world and "undermining any hope of reaching any popular  constituency." 
> But this is untrue on the face of it. Half the eligible voters already do not
> vote....

> You also suggest that those calling for mass refusal are in effect saying 
> to  people: "I don't care whether you have a slightly better chance to 
> receive  health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there 
> will be a  physical environment in which your children might have a decent 
> life; or a world in  which children may escape destruction as a result of 
> the violence that is  inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. 
> crowd, which could become extreme;  and on, and on."
>
> I won't comment on the unfortunate nature of your claim here--that those 
> calling for an election boycott apparently don't care about people's 
> suffering. But I would like to examine the role of the political parties 
> in American life.
>
> The real difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is not 
> that one is "slightly better," as you seem to suggest. The parties play 
> different roles in managing the people. They both divide people and 
> provide an illusion of democracy. They cooperate to play good cop/bad cop. ...

It really doesn't feel as if it's been four years since the last time we 
confronted the choices between the boring bad, the really BAD and the man 
with dictatorial tendencies who is in love with self-promotion and has few 
real ideas on how he would run the government. Back in 2000, there were 
many calls for "none of the above", for a "vote of no confidence" to the 
"Republicrats", or, as an alternative, a vote for Nader. Some have 
attempted to send the message while preserving some sanity to their vote by 
trading votes for Nader to voters in the states where Al Gore had a virtual 
lock--from what I hear, many lied about their intentions and voted for 
Nader any way, even after "trading" their votes. In any case, Nader hardly 
sent a message nationally, even if his supporters might have helped to hand 
Florida to the Bush campaign (not that they needed much help in rigging the 
process in a handful of counties).

The argument four years ago was, "Don't vote for Gore--in fact, don't vote 
for Democrats at all! In four years, it will get so bad that people will 
HAVE to rise up and vote for a good candidate!" Well, it's four years 
later, the environment is being raped and pillaged, the civil rights--and 
all individual rights--are under attack, the country is at war, but still 
the outcome of the elections is anything but a foregone conclusion. Worse 
yet, if voter apathy remains at this level, we'll get four more years of 
the same administration--a far cry from what the self-proclaimed untra-left 
has been arguing.

Dave Stratman continues to argue that looking for differences between 
Democrats and Republicans is like comparing swamp to quicksand. If it works 
for him, let him stay home. I suppose, he will find little difference 
between goose-stepping and dragging one's feet. What troubles me the most 
is the Stratmans of the world finding fault in cooperative democracy. 
Apparently, his desire is for an administration that, if elected, would not 
even try to work with opposition--even if that opposition represents half 
the country or more. Such attitude has a name, but the name is too 
provocative to invoke here--I'll let them figure it out.

There is a real difference between what we are seeing between the political 
parties today in forty years ago. One only needs to pick up the books 
published in that era to find out what that difference is. For example, I 
came across a small paperback by Richard Dudman, Men Of the Far Right, 
published in 1962. What appeared to be rabid ultra-right propaganda in 1962 
is now mainstream conservative thought. The "center" might not have changed 
much over the years, which is what Stratman is trying to tell us, but the 
fringes certainly have regrouped. And given the choice of keeping the power 
in the "center" or letting a radical faction gain control for four more 
years, I'll choose the former, thank you very much.

If Stratman and the rest of MassRefusal want to stay home on election day, 
that's democracy at work. Somehow, I don't get the feeling that Stratman 
would return the favor had he been in a position to influence the election.

        VS-)