Chomsky and Parenti: Buying into the Neoliberal Shell Game
Date: Wednesday, April 14 @ 13:53:59 UTC
by Kurt Nimmo, www.kurtnimmo.com
Remarkably, I still receive email from people who tell me it will be "irresponsible" to vote for Nader over Kerry, or to not vote at all because there is absolutely no choice, the race is rigged, it's a neoliberal shell game.
This "irresponsibility" charge is not only irritating, it displays a truly amazing degree of stupidity and, dare I say it, brainwashing. The ABB ("Anybody But Bush") folks have jettisoned their principles simply to get rid of Bush, a tragic mistake since Kerry will continue Bush's policies, especially his foreign policy.
The ABB crowd, unfortunately, includes Michael Parenti and Noam Chomsky, two individuals I respect and admire for their writing and activism. Since they will vote for Kerry, I take it Chomsky and Parenti support his policy on Iraq. (As for the ABB attitude of far too many leftists, see: Bush Can Be Stopped: A Letter to the Left.)
"The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops," Kerry wrote on April 13 in the Washington Post. "Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission."
Like Bush, Kerry is a liar. Certainly, the US wants stability in Iraq -- that is to say, it wants and end to the resistance -- but it is not interested in social pluralism. It does not give a whit about democracy. In fact, democracy is antithetical to what the US wants in Iraq -- a government hand-picked by the US, not elected by the Iraqi people, a government that will enforce neoliberal policies on the Iraqi people, that will allow Wall Street bankers and IMF rapists to drain the country of its wealth and resources, a government that will not oppose US bases and will recognize Israel.
"If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them," Kerry writes. As stated back in December, Kerry wants to send an additional 40,000 troops to Iraq. In this respect, he is more of a warmonger than Bush.
Kerry would "urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers," and continue the war against the people of Iraq, who want the US to leave and elect their own government.
In other words, the only difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry wants to internationalize the criminal war against the people of Iraq while Bush and the neoocns, on the other hand, want the US to go it alone. Essentially, the end result is the same -- the US, either with or without the UN, will continue to kill Iraqis, as they did recently in large numbers in and around Fallujah. For Kerry, killing Iraqis who resist occupation is "a matter of national honor and trust," not a crime against humanity as defined by Nuremberg and the Geneva Conventions.
Chomsky and Parenti apparently want to continue the brutal occupation of Iraq. If they are opposed to the occupation, they won't vote for Kerry. How is it possible to vote for somebody who said:
"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend."
In short, there was nothing criminal about killing two million Vietnamese or using chemical weapons against them (Agent Orange). Moreover, people against the war were "vicarious" and had no reason to oppose it since their opposition was based on "ideology and legend," not on principle.
This is the John Kerry Chomsky and Parenti want in the White House.
"The anti-war activists should not harbor any illusions about John Kerry and the Democrats," writes Abu Spinoza. "The goal of anti-war activists should be the liberation of Iraq from the illegal Anglo-American occupation and its deadly consequences. It does not take a belief in determinism to figure out that the occupation can end under either Bush or Kerry if the economic and political costs become prohibitive for the financiers, the transnational corporations, the politicians and the military."
"[I]t doesn't make a whole lot of sense to back a candidate who must, and will, carry on in the tradition of the monopoly (to use Parenti's words), with policies as grim, reactionary and aggressive, or more so, than those of the current occupant of the White House," writes Stephen Gowans. "At best, voting for Kerry is a pointless act, and at worst, a backward act, to the extent it fosters the illusion that change can be achieved by changing the name plate on the Oval Office desk. Contrary to the reigning mythology, doing something pointless is not better than doing nothing, where nothing means refusing to cast a ballot for either Thing One or Thing Two. And calling Emperor Moore's, Parenti's and Chomsky's strutting about without their clothes on, what it is, can't hurt either."