Chomsky,and others, will be fine , no matter what. It is each individuals decision.

An important part of Chomsky's methodology is to use a clear-headed analysis to strip away illusions. The US government gains "legitimacy" through the consent of the governed, even though we are allowed only minimal democratic forms for influencing government policy. This limited democracy is not simply something forced upon the ruling class due to mass action, it is also useful in measuring public support or opposition to policies. Support for imperialism in our foreign policy and extreme inequality in our domestic policies can only be maintained through continuous PR campaigns, which foster illusions necessary for the relatively unobstructed rule of capital. Direct fascism, which suppresses speech and feedback, is actually a weaker form of government than our current government.

Our struggle against imperialism and corporate domination requires that we NOT adopt our own comforting illusions as we throw off those of the ruling class. Whether we call our outlook "Green," "anarchist," "progressive," "left," etc., there is always the temptation for assuming we speak for the mass of the people, or for the peoples of the world, or for "Justice" or, following the Lorax, "for the trees."

It is also an illusion to assume our views would become widely adopted if the "dominant paradigm," or "the State," the "capitalist system," or the "two-party duopoly" were just overthrown or were to collapse from: a) an economic crisis, b) a political crisis, c) an environmental crisis or d) all of the above.

Obama is not an anti-capitalist, nor an anti-imperialist and his energy policy, relying upon "Clean Coal" and nuclear power, SUCKS. But an Obama administration would represent a return to RATIONAL capitalism and RATIONAL imperialism, as opposed to a Bush, McCain or HEAVEN FORBID Palin administration. We would be allowed to argue on the basis of science, not creationism and climate change denial. The imperial overreach of the Bush years would yield to a more multi-lateral approach, still trying to leverage American pre-eminence within a G7 controlled United Nations as the means for dominating the world, but it would be much more consultative, cooperative and co-optive than the GOP model.

Some revolutionary wannabes might embrace the "worse is better" hope that clumsy mis-leadership of imperialism will get us to the Promised Land of crisis, collapse and revolution quicker, which strikes me as an argument for McCain-Palin more than a feel good vote for McKinney or Nader.

I sense that much of the "left" refusal to vote for Obama comes from a distrust of democracy. Not just of the atrophied, minimal "democracy" present in the US, but of the kind of coalition and consensus-building necessary to come to collective, broad-based agreements. The means and the ends are inter-twined. It takes patient dialogue and outreach to our neighbors in order to build the kind of movement which leads to the kind of society where we can have community-wide dialogues and collectively determine a better(?) future.

The defeat of MCain and election of Obama will create a climate where that dialogue can take place and on a broader basis than in our deep blue or deep green college towns and art colony utopian enclaves.

I agree with Noam, who I consider a deeper, humbler and and more honest critic of American society. Vote for Obama to defeat McCain, but have no illusions that the election of Obama will mean we can stop struggling. It will just create conditions more favorable for continuing the struggle.

Nothing to rip him apart over. He has written that he sees McCain/Palin as proto-fascist -- a term ("fascist") that he uses advisedly, and which he has resisted in the past, probably since he saw real fascism.

These articles might clarify Chomsky's stance for you: 'The United States Has Essentially a One-Party System' Noam Chomsky in Der Spiegel.

With this follow-up: Noam Chomsky: "If I were in a swing state, I'd vote for Obama".

So, yes, in the choice between fascism and center-right conservatism -- i.e., non-fascism -- if he were in a swing state he'd vote against McCain. That means, obviously, he'd've voted for any Democrat, not for Obama.

You may be interested to read these quotes, from Z's sustainer forum, by Chomsky from this year:

1. On Obama and Israel-Palestine:

Reply from NC,

Obama's position on Israel-Palestine has been "sickening" throughout. I wrote about it a few months ago, will come out soon in an updated edition of Perilous Power (with Gilbert Achcar and Stephen Shalom).

In the case you mention [AIPAC speech], he went overboard, even by his outrageous standards, and in fact a few days later backed off from the statement, if I recall. If elected, I don't think he'll stick by it [i.e., an undivided Israeli-controlled Jerusalem] just as earlier administrations didn't, ignoring congressional resolutions that even their sponsors knew to be meaningless.

NC

2. On Obama:

Reply from NC,

I think he's basically presenting himself as a blank slate, on which you can write your wishes. Hard to find much to be hopeful about. He is energizing a lot of young people, but I don't see much reason to expect that for that reason his presidency would be more responsive to public pressure. Overwhelmingly, the public believes that the government should be responsive to public opinion. But that's such an unpopular elite view that the press won't even report the polls showing this. A more realistic possibility, perhaps, is that those who are energized by the candidacy will devote the energy to something constructive after the likely disillusionment.

NC

So, assuming you've read all of that, you now see that Chomsky recommends people in swing states think long and hard about whether or not to vote against McCain/Palin by voting for Obama, given that the former is a proto-fascist outfit. That proto-fascism trumps, for Chomsky, the essential truth of our one-party system, in this specific instance for those specific voters. We're in a Popular Front situation, then, according to Chomsky. He may very well be right.

I live in RI, so I will happily vote for Nader. Were I in a swing state, I'd have to think long and hard about it, for all the reasons mentioned by myself and others on this site. I might not have ended up voting for Obama even then. Chomsky's argument about small differences having large effects is clearly correct, but it works both ways. If an Obama health plan fails, which seems likely, as Krugman, I believe has pointed out, because it avoids the main problem of insurance companies, well, then voting for Obama doesn't help anyone. As for that study, past behavior (if true under Clinton) does not guarantee future performance. As for the notion that reality will shift Obama "leftward" -- the FDR II theory -- who's to say it wouldn't do the same for McCain? Rightwingers, like Nixon, do strangely unideological things when reality knocks.

Also, if Obama starts a war in or with Pakistan, or both, won't that have huge effects? Not all wonderful? Will Peruvians, to say nothing of Americans, be helped by the Obama-supported free trade agreement? Will they by the tort "reform" he's voted for? Can we all be sure that the net gain will be positive, or even less negative, under Obama as opposed to McCain? And so on.

It's nowhere near as clear to me as it apparently is for Chomsky, whom I deeply respect but do not ape.

Chomsky cites the same study Chernus did, which I'm looking for, as I have the same question about it: does it apply to the Clinton administration? In any event, if anyone can find it, please post the link here or e-mail me at tarnopol@cox.net.

I've already started. See above.

Norm Chomsky. Useless as tits on a boar hog.

Absolutely false.

You should read the text with comprehension and you will readily admit that the man endorses nothing, he is merely stating the obvious to those inclined to either:

"vote for the lesser evil"
"vote for an Opposition Party candidate"

depending on how they themselves see their vote as making any kind of difference at all when it comes to change from the rampant criminality we have now, with corporate criminal rule.

The worn out rag that "a new leader" represents is bogus from the start. We don´t need another corporate representative with a nice twist. We need JUSTICE NOW.

"This sounds like Chomsky endorsing Obama."

Because it is ... to the Naderbots however it sounds like the whirring sound of a cattle-prod just before insertion.

Exactly, It reads that way to me also.

Well said!

As someone who likes Nader (and voted for him in 2000), I'm voting for Obama this time.

Why? Because W. was far worse, far far worse than Gore.

McCain would be far, far worse than Obama.

(And I voted for Kucinich in the primaries, too.)

What makes echoexist think that Chomsky is for Nader? Noam can't even say the word "Nader". He does mention the Green Party--but their candidate is Cynthia McKinney. Chomsky says says there is only one party--the business party--with two factions. He insists that 'over time' it is clear that the Democrats are the best for the working people. Yes, that has been true in the past---but in the last three decades it is not. The last Democrat elected got us into the mess we have now. Clinton got NAFTA and we lost our jobs. Clinton got us 'the end of welfare' and we get homeless people in tent cities all over our nation. Clinton broke the wall separating the speculative banks from the fiscally prudent banks and we get the collapse of Wall Street. And the current business class party with the two small heads and big guts gets us to the massive bail out of the crooks. Chronsky admits that 75% of the people think the government is not acting in the interests of the working people of this nation---and he advises us to vote for Obama? What, for more of the same? Not me. I can not only say NADER, I can and will vote for him and I advise you to listen to me and not the timid Mr. Noam Chomsky.

"Obama voters are the sort of people who argue that if you are in a pit the best thing to do is keep digging but just a little bit slower."

Yes. Very well said. I think of all these people in a pit where they just keep digging and now Obama has come along and said, "C'mon! Let's have hope! Dig up!" But, they're still in a pit and they can no more dig up than they can dig out.

AMEN and BRAVO!

It is not just the RIGHT of the people to bring about the end of an economy that no longer serves them, it is their responsibility!

I laughed at the thought of switching speeches, until I realized that a very good analysis of that has already been done.

http://wagelaborer.blogspot.com/2008/10/choice-we-can-believe-in.html

Also, remember that "socialist" was the epithet used to terrorize the American people before "terrorist" was. Like Pavlov's dogs, Americans recoil from anything that smacks of socialism, including the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule, (when presented to them in an untitled form).