Hullabaloo

Monday, October 01, 2012

 
A point to taking part

by digby

Alternet is featuring an interview by Matthew Filipowicz with the always fascinating Noam Chomsky. You can listen to it here.



It's a long conversation about activism and tactics which many of you will find interesting, I'm sure. But I must take a moment to just point this one thing out:

We discussed many aspects of activism including how he felt activists and progressives should approach two party politics and specifically the 2012 election.

Chomsky stated, "I think they should spend five or ten minutes on it. Seeing if there’s a point in taking part in the carefully orchestrated electoral extravaganza. And my own judgment, for what it’s worth, is, yes, there’s a point to taking a part.”

Professor Chomsky said he will probably vote for Jill Stein for president in effort to push a genuine electoral alternative, but that if he lived in a swing state he would vote “against Romney-Ryan, which means voting for Obama.”

I took boatloads of heat (and still am) for quoting Chomsky on this from 2008, in which he said, "of course you can vote for the lesser of two evils. You get less evil." I was told that it had no application to this cycle and have generally been vilified by lefties for my own view that our two party system means that we are often forced to weigh the options with an eye toward mitigating as much harm as we can rather than standing on principle.

I recognize that many of you don't agree with me, that you believe as a matter of conscience that you cannot vote for a candidate who offends you sense of morality and I respect that. One of the great things about democracy is that you can express yourself by both voting and not voting. (Or voting with your feet, for that matter.)

On the other hand, if your view is that these leaders need to fail in order to learn a lesson, my reading of human nature is that they don't necessarily learn the lesson you think they will. And people shouldn't be used as pawns to make a point. So I disagree with that argument on the merits. Basically, I take a utilitarian approach to voting. I certainly see all the similarities in the candidates and wish there was a chance that someone different could win. I have no hope that any of them will deliver the kind of government I wish we had. But if, on the margins where the differences between the candidates do lie, the election of one of the candidates will result in less suffering for actual human beings, I will choose that candidate. ("You get less evil.")

I've been told that I'm a hack and a sell-out for abandoning my principles in taking that position, especially since I have demonstrated a strong commitment to civil liberties in my writing. But since I don't believe that civil liberties will be improved in any way by voting for Mitt Romney --- indeed, I think it's likely they will be much worse, since he's advocated a return to torture --- I see no value in electing him on that issue (or any other.) As for lessening the suffering of real humans, I believe that President Obama's policies, while hardly the best he could do, will be on balance, kinder to more people.

I know that is unsatisfying. It's not easy for me either. But given the system we have, I've made the choice to push as hard as I can for principles I believe in every single day and support politicians who believe as I do with my money and labor. But when it comes to election day, I take the position that I can only try to do as little harm as possible. And it would seem that old sell-out Noam Chomsky still agrees with me.

Update: Howie Klein wrote a post on this recently in which he agrees with Chomsky's assessment. He puts it in his own inimitable way:

[T]here's a threat that Pete Peterson and his minions' nonstop lobbying for a toxic Grand Bargain that will destroy the Democratic Party brand is exactly what Obama intends to do after he's reelected. Except reading what's he's been saying about his willingness-- if no eagerness-- to compromise with the adamantly Austerian Republicans, I'd say there's a lot bigger chance of a horrid Grand Bargain after November 6 than there ever was that Hope and Change would lead to anything aside from the requisite election results last cycle.

So, yes, if you read DWT you know with which utter contempt I hold Republicans and conservatives and corporate whores and you know I agree with all that horrifying stuff Nick Kristof claimed about the Republican war against women in his NY Times column yesterday. Would it be catastrophic if Obama were to lose and Romney win in November? Yes. And if I lived in Ohio or Florida or Colorado or Wisconsin or any other swing state, I might even hold my nose and vote for Obama. But I live in California and I care barely wait to go to the polls and not vote for him.

Read on to find out what he really thinks.

Update II: My Bad for forgetting to credit Matthew Filipowicz for the interview with Chomsky. So, fixed.

.
digby 10/01/2012 01:30:00 PM