Noam Chomsky: Moral Depravity Defines US Politics

[truthout.org]

(One positive feature of the midterms was the success of a diverse group of young progressive candidates, mostly women — a tribute to the popular activism of recent years, and a hopeful sign for the future, if it can expand and flourish.)

Positive? Success? Progressive? Noam Chomsky, the Bernie Sanders of political theory. This is my gripe about Chomsky. He's again, in the above, essentially stated something that he spend the whole interview contradicting. At this time no one can claim any success. At this time there actually seems to be good reason to see if anything, that the establishment dems are already attempting to put brakes on anything these progressives do. I use progressive quite lightly for now until I see the evidence! Unlike Chomsky. I've noticed this about Chomsky on other occasions. Great work. Political theory for progressives is brilliant. Problem? Always refers back to the same party that is creating the problem as the same party to fix it. I see him as a tool towards giving supporters of the party a false hope in the party. And boy ole boy do I catch hell on social media from democratic supporters when I make that statement.

Many moons ago there was this show on MSNBC called Scarborough Country with Joe Scarborough. You probably know him with his morning show now. Towards the end of GWB first administration he breaks out the debt meter at the beginning one of his shows. Spent a little over half of the hour just ragging on the Bush administration and how the debt was climbing, other flaws after bringing in Pat Buchanan, a regular on that show with him. Goes to a commercial break, what do we get when he comes back out? If you said a new book, you're right. Joe has himself a new book explaining how the Bush administration can get back on track and only the republicans can run the country in the right direction. And he spent the last 15 minutes of the show on it. Same god dam strategy!

Lets help kill a potential threat

(To develop a basis for a third party would require a serious and sustained effort in popular mobilization — not impossible, but not now on the horizon. There do seem to be possibilities to shift the character of the Democratic Party, at least back to its modern New Deal origins, and beyond (it already is considerably beyond in some respects as a result of the civilizing effect of the activism of the ‘60s and its aftermath).

We already have a third party. Hell, we have many third parties. Hell, we have 2 third parties I would consider being serious and popularly mobilized. 1 of them I find to be just another strong arm of corporatism at the expense of social programs. But it's there. The other, although quite low in support, has a platform that most supporters of the democratic party and independents would support if they could get out of the shadows of a elaborate illusion, ridding themselves of cognitive dissonance and the perception management they are engulfed in. Chomsky isn't helping in that realm of politics. He actually seems to be attempting to strengthen the same flawed system by subliminally suggesting it can change. Is this not a contradiction to all his work and writings against the party? The only reason these 2 parties aren't on a meter of popularity to Chomsky's spoken scale is because the system has done everything it can to suppress them. Especially the Green Party! I see the above from the article as a measure to further suppress. Over an actual concern towards change he could actually be writing about. When you think about it, why is it we have all these progressive theorist and independent sources all speaking out against the system, yet it seems none of them will stand up to any action towards that system by rallying behind a means to take out that corrupt system?