The New Democrat Online

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Boston University: Noam Chomsky on Leftist Disillusionment With Barack Obama & An Uninformed American Populace

Source: Boston University- Professor Noam Chomsky-
Source: Boston University: Professor Noam Chomsky on Leftist Disillusionment With Barack Obama & An Uninformed American Populace

As a Liberal Democrat, but in the classic sense (if not real sense) and not today's popular definition of what Progressive is supposed to be, I have my own issues with President Obama, as they relate to social issues, civil liberties, etc. Things like indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs. All things that President Obama seems to be in favor of and hasn't changed from President Bush. If anything has advanced some of President Bush's policies in these key areas. But I can't really claim to be disappointed with President Obama in these areas. Because I didn't vote for then Candidate Obama back in the 2008 Democratic primary. I voted for then Candidate Clinton, even though Bill Richardson was my first choice. But he was out of the race by the time of the Maryland primary. I didn't vote for Senator Obama, because by the way he was running his presidential campaign in the Democratic primaries. He looked to me like the 2008 version of George McGovern, someone who was running way to the left of the country. Social Democrats dream candidate and someone Republicans would have no problem labeling as a Socialist and making that stick.

Senator Obama wasn't running as far to the left of Dennis Kucinich, which is almost impossible to do. Who as it turns out would've been the Far-Left's  dream candidate. But Barack Obama was smart enough to know that if he beats Kucinich to his base, he would win the Democratic nomination. And then moderate in the general election and run as a Moderate Liberal. Which if you look at his core and he does have one, that's where he is on the political spectrum. I call him a Moderate Liberal, because of where he is on social issues. If you're a Liberal, you should have no issues with same-sex marriage. You should hate the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act and indefinite detention. Because you believe in things like civil liberties and freedom of choice. Little annoying things for Neoconservatives and big government statists on the Far-Left. Barack Obama's liberal credentials relate to his views on economic and foreign policy. Where they are solid and where I've tended to agree with the President. He believes in the notion of an Opportunity Society and ending government dependence and things like that. As well as infrastructure investment and renewable energy.

Social Democrats (lets call them) if they are as smart, well-informed and open-minded as they claim to be, would've done more research on Barack Obama in 2008. And have discovered he's not one of them, but shares similar goals, but wouldn't go as far and as fast to solve them. And would've learned Barack is not their guy and they should look at Dennis Kucinich and have backed him instead. They do that, Hillary Clinton probably wins the Democratic nomination and chances are she's President right now. But at least they would've backed their guy. American voters can never credibly blame the person they voted for. You can't even blame slick politicians who run one way and govern another, especially in the information age of new technology. Because everyone has a record who is running for office and if people just did their homework they would know everything they need to know to make good informed political decisions about who to vote for. They way to blame bad politicians and public officials is to fire them after they're in office. Which is what elections are for. 

Santarchy: Professor Noam Chomsky's 1997 Lecture at Northeastern University- The Myth of The Free Market


Source: Santarchy- Professor Noam Chomsky-
Source: Santarchy: Professor Noam Chomsky's 1997 Lecture at Northeastern University- Free Market

Anyone who tells you they believe in free markets and a complete private economy, unless they are a classical Libertarian, like a Ron Paul, you should be highly skeptical. Because there's no such thing. The United States having one of the largest if not largest private sectors in the World, that's made our economy the largest in the world, with millions of people immigrating to America every year, has a significant public sector with a significant safety net. And regulates the private economy as well, with a lot of strong regulations. The United States Federal budget is around 3.7T$, our Federal budget is larger than most economies in the world. And in my opinion and a lot of others it's too big, but if our Federal budget was an economy it would be the fifth largest economy in the world. Unless you believe in things like child labor, or slave labor, or unsafe working conditions, employers being allowed to discriminate against their workers based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc, or at least you don't believe those things should be illegal, then you don't believe in free market economics. That the state has a role in the economy.

What the United States and the rest of the developed world has, are private markets. We have private sectors, we all have large private sectors. All producing in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars or more each and every year. But there not free in the sense that they can do whatever they want to do. They are all subjected to regulations and taxes. The only question is, to what degree do you regulate and tax them. And each of these countries have their own approach to this. With Europe being similar, but different from America and even Canada. Actually a lot of the developing world now has significant private sectors as well. And have moved away from state ownership (or Marxism) like China, India, Brazil, Russia, Mexico and others. All these countries are very large and all have an economy of a trillion dollars or more. China a Communist Republic now has the 2nd largest economy in the world.

The question when you're talking about capitalist economies, is not whether they are free, or not. But to what extent their markets are private. And to what extent does the state play a role in their economy. How much does it tax and regulate and to what degree do they have a welfare state, or safety net. But they aren't free, but they are private which is different. A true free market which is what Professor Ayn Rand called for, would be an economy with no regulations and taxes. Business's would be able to operate at will without having to follow government laws and regulations. Which is what a lot of Libertarians argue for today. But in a true free market there wouldn't be a government or taxpayer funded subsidies either. Everyone and every business would have to make it on their own and wouldn't be eligible for subsidies and bailouts when they run into financial trouble. If you run your business into the ground, unless you can get a bank, or private loans from individuals, you'll go out of business. Because government won't be there to bail you out. And that type of economy and economic system simply don't exist anywhere.