Chomsky on the Difference Between Bush & Kerry

[livius drusus]

From a David Barsamian interview. (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0901-15.htm)

On domestic issues there could be a fairly significant difference–it’s not huge–but different in its outcomes. The group around Bush are real fanatics. They’re quite open. They’re not hiding it; you can’t accuse them of that. They want to destroy the whole array of progressive achievements of the past century. They’ve already more or less gotten rid of progressive income tax. They’re trying to destroy the limited medical care system. The new pharmaceutical bill is a step towards that. They’re going after Social Security. They probably will go after schools. They do not want a small government, any more than Reagan did. They want a huge government, and massively intrusive. They hate free markets. But they want it to work for the rich. The Kerry people will do something not fantastically different, but less so. They have a different constituency to appeal to, and they are much more likely to protect some limited form of benefits for the general population.

[D. Scarlatti]

I'm always amazed that when these deep thinkers are asked to differentiate between Kerry and Bush they never mention federal court appointments. They musn't have been paying attention to some of the wingnuts Bush has tried to get on there.

[livius drusus]

That's a good point, Scarlatti. Supreme Court appointments leap to mind as another potentially vast difference as well. Perhaps Chomsky folds judicial appointments into the differences in domestic agenda category.

[Petra]

I'm always amazed that when these deep thinkers are asked to differentiate between Kerry and Bush they never mention federal court appointments. They musn't have been paying attention to some of the wingnuts Bush has tried to get on there.

Perhaps that fits in with this:

The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they’re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you’ve got to make them think you’re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way.

Appointed wingnuts are the "red meat" Chomsky mentions.

[trendkill]

I'm not really surprised by this--what I am surprised by is that even after the last four years, there are still leftists agitating against the idea of voting for the "Republicrats". :doh: Good God, people. When Noam Chomsky can see the difference between two major-party candidates, it's time to rethink your "principled" stance.