Those Who Failed to Recognize Trump as 'Greater Evil' Made a 'Bad Mistake': Chomsky
"I didn't like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump's on every issue I can think of"
Leftist scholar Noam Chomsky has a message for voters who refused to cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton to prevent Donald Trump from winning the White House: You made a "bad mistake."
On both moral and practical levels, Chomsky told Al Jazeera's Medhi Hasan, the choice was clear.
"Do you vote against the greater evil if you don't happen to like the other candidate?" asked Chomsky, who spoke out during the election against Trump's candidacy--and in fact predicted his rise six years ago. "The answer to that is yes."
With an argument similar to the one made by political scientist Adolph Reed prior to the election, Chomsky insists that voters did not have to ignore Clinton's serious shortcomings in order to recognize Trump as the much more serious threat.
"I didn't like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump's on every issue I can think of," the professor emeritus of linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) told Hasan. Chomsky supported Bernie Sanders during the Democratic presidential primary.
Watch:
Chomsky also objected to philosopher Slavoj Zizek's post-election argument that Trump's victory would "shake up" status quo. "Terrible point," Chomsky said of Zizek's take. "It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early 30s."
"He'll 'shake up the system' in bad ways," Chomsky said of the president-elect. "What it means is now the left--if Clinton had won, she had some progressive programs. The left could have been organized, to keeping her feet to the fire. What it will be doing now is trying to protect rights...gains that have been achieved, from being destroyed. That's completely regressive."
Indeed, Chomsky further warned in the aftermath of the election: "The outcome placed total control of the government--executive, Congress, the Supreme Court--in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history."
The GOP "is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Leftist scholar Noam Chomsky has a message for voters who refused to cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton to prevent Donald Trump from winning the White House: You made a "bad mistake."
On both moral and practical levels, Chomsky told Al Jazeera's Medhi Hasan, the choice was clear.
"Do you vote against the greater evil if you don't happen to like the other candidate?" asked Chomsky, who spoke out during the election against Trump's candidacy--and in fact predicted his rise six years ago. "The answer to that is yes."
With an argument similar to the one made by political scientist Adolph Reed prior to the election, Chomsky insists that voters did not have to ignore Clinton's serious shortcomings in order to recognize Trump as the much more serious threat.
"I didn't like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump's on every issue I can think of," the professor emeritus of linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) told Hasan. Chomsky supported Bernie Sanders during the Democratic presidential primary.
Watch:
Chomsky also objected to philosopher Slavoj Zizek's post-election argument that Trump's victory would "shake up" status quo. "Terrible point," Chomsky said of Zizek's take. "It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early 30s."
"He'll 'shake up the system' in bad ways," Chomsky said of the president-elect. "What it means is now the left--if Clinton had won, she had some progressive programs. The left could have been organized, to keeping her feet to the fire. What it will be doing now is trying to protect rights...gains that have been achieved, from being destroyed. That's completely regressive."
Indeed, Chomsky further warned in the aftermath of the election: "The outcome placed total control of the government--executive, Congress, the Supreme Court--in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history."
The GOP "is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand."
Leftist scholar Noam Chomsky has a message for voters who refused to cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton to prevent Donald Trump from winning the White House: You made a "bad mistake."
On both moral and practical levels, Chomsky told Al Jazeera's Medhi Hasan, the choice was clear.
"Do you vote against the greater evil if you don't happen to like the other candidate?" asked Chomsky, who spoke out during the election against Trump's candidacy--and in fact predicted his rise six years ago. "The answer to that is yes."
With an argument similar to the one made by political scientist Adolph Reed prior to the election, Chomsky insists that voters did not have to ignore Clinton's serious shortcomings in order to recognize Trump as the much more serious threat.
"I didn't like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump's on every issue I can think of," the professor emeritus of linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) told Hasan. Chomsky supported Bernie Sanders during the Democratic presidential primary.
Watch:
Chomsky also objected to philosopher Slavoj Zizek's post-election argument that Trump's victory would "shake up" status quo. "Terrible point," Chomsky said of Zizek's take. "It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early 30s."
"He'll 'shake up the system' in bad ways," Chomsky said of the president-elect. "What it means is now the left--if Clinton had won, she had some progressive programs. The left could have been organized, to keeping her feet to the fire. What it will be doing now is trying to protect rights...gains that have been achieved, from being destroyed. That's completely regressive."
Indeed, Chomsky further warned in the aftermath of the election: "The outcome placed total control of the government--executive, Congress, the Supreme Court--in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history."
The GOP "is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand."