Chomsky: In Swing States, Vote Obama -- Without Illusions

In an interview with The Real News Network Noam Chomsky says that people should vote against McCain and for Obama - but without illusions.

The question posed by ABC's George Stefanopolous "is not whether elites should rule, but which elite should rule?" It's a candid question that reflects the disillusioned reality of the looming American election. In an interview with The Real News, the renowned professor urges the voters in swing states to vote against McCain, therefore for Obama, while maintaining realistic expectations about the Democratic candidate.

Critics of American political options argue that the two prevailing parties are two halves of the same whole. Chomsky explains that there lies some merit in this belief, as the Democrats and Republicans formulate the "larger business party". This reality is highlighted as both parties hold to-the-right stances of public opinion on a host of issues, such as healthcare. For said reasons, it is imperative that the voting public sets attainable expectations for an Obama administration, while recognizing that the elevated 'change' rhetoric will dissolve into standard Democratic policy.

Americans are concerned about healthcare. In recent polls 95% of voters demonstrated an interest in the issue. Interestingly enough, the healthcare issue only surfaced in the public political agenda in 2004. In 2008, we witnessed both Democratic candidates approach the issue. Chomsky illustrates that this shift in focus is not a result of changing Democratic ideals, but a response to the emphasis of healthcare concerns from economic heavy hitters, such as the manufacturing industry.

Chomsky states that there is no shame in voting for the lesser of two evils, if one feel that the issues are reduced to this. The responsibility lies on the shoulders of the swing state voters to ask themselves, if the change they want to see will be achieved through voting for Obama or alternative political parties in order to strengthen their future political presence. At the end of the day, he reminds voters to keep illusions in check as they head off to the polls in November.

To see more stories from The Real News, and to view part two of this interview later this week, visit TheRealNews.com

Follow The Real News on Twitter: www.twitter.com/therealnews

Comments

[FCBarca]

Fortunately, I am not in a swing state otherwise, yes, I'd vote for Obama...As it is, it's Nader

[NoSillyName]

This is only the second election in which I will NOT be voting for the lesser of two evils since 1972 and it is a great feeling, even better than the first time.

[leftLibertarian]

If he is for Obama b/c he is the 'lesser of two evil' and one may vote for him 'w/o illusion,' then what is the point of him pointing out year after year that 'The United States Has Essentially a One-Party System?'

[RoloTomassi]

What is the point??? The point is that it's the TRUTH. I will vote for Obama and hope for the best outcome from his administration if he wins, but if you doubt that democrats as well as republicans always consider business interests over popular issues, then you have your head in the sand.

Chomsky's point is to encourage us to remain engaged politically if for any rason we become disillusioned by Obama's actual performance; the changes we want will not likely happen in 4 or 8 years, and a persistent progressive agenda and movement is essential if we want to succeed in the end.

Obama's healthcare plan is likely an improvement over the current situation [the proof is in the pudding], but what we need is a UHC system, and it is folly to believe that Obama will deliver such a system. We can still make it happen, but only if we remain politically engaged and push for what we want...which may eventually mean supoorting a grassroots, 3rd party candidate.

Before this election, I have said that a 3rd party candidate having any real chance at getting elected or even close enough to have serious clout was impossible; Barack Obama & Ron Paul have shown us the way forward on the financial aspect, and the rest will be up to us.

[aussiechick]

The Lesser of two evils? Is, OBAMA/BIDEN!!

[proreality]

Chomsky has long been vilified by those who are incapable of comprehending his arguments and reasoning. It is no surprise that he would advocate for Obama while warning not to expect anything different than what the Democratic party has endorsed for decades. This is not about changing the system because the system is not broken, it is simply changing the self interest that has fouled the system and advocating for the greater interest.

[ScreenName05]

Chomsky is saying what he has always said. He has always been wrong and has always been marginalized because he has refused to fight in the only ring provided. The reality is that you cannot change the political realities from the outside. The decline in the economy has done more to change this country then anything Chomsky has ever said. The debacle of the health care system is going to do more to change the health care system then anything Chomsky or Nader are saying. This is a pleasant distraction, but ultimately irrelevant.

[RoloTomassi]

Your take on Chomsky is the most irrelevant thing I've seen on this page; your understanding of what he promotes is marginal, at best.

[reverendadam]

Chomsky's thoughtful, well articulated position is what Nader's should have been in 2000 - especially the message to swing state voters. Instead, we have the Iraq War (and its attendant profiteering), the current economic mess, and a diminished America around the world. Chomsky has no real use for the two major parties but he's clearly capable of making a rational distinction about the ramifications of allowing the more destructive of two evils take power. God bless Chomsky - and thanks a load, Ralph.

[WorkingClass]

The Supreme Court and the Republican party gave us George Bush and the Neo-Cons. George Bush and the Neo-Cons gave us the Iraq war etc. You know this. Yet you hold Nader responsible for the sins of other people. Why?

[reverendadam]

For the same reason I hold McCain's campaign responsible for the hatred coming from its rallies: you reap what you sow. Had Nader seen the writing on the wall as the campaign drew to a close and thrown his support to Gore... well, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have needed to become involved and there never would've been a Bush v. Gore. I don't need to hold Nader responsible for the sins of other people... he has plenty of his own to be blamed for.

[Brokenkey001]

this is such an insightful interview. I think The Real News has done a great job with this interview. Kudos to the team on getting Chomsky..