I actually wasn't going to talk about this today because my priority, as many of you
know, is bringing the left together to defeat Donald Trump.
And I thought over the weekend when I saw this story that talking about it might be
divisive, but now that I'm seeing some of the reactions, I'm realizing that I have to
talk about it to try to stop the divisiveness.
So let's get right into it.
In my mind, Noam Chomsky has never made more sense than he has made in the last six months
in terms of the urgency and the importance of voting and of removing Donald Trump.
And he's spoken really astutely and poignantly to the anti Biden left to the never Biden
left to people who in 2016 thought there was no practical difference between Donald Trump
and Hillary Clinton.
And he recently said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that while you might be frustrated that
you would have to lobby Biden to be more left, that under Trump, your city might just be
underwater.
And it's hard to be an activist for anything you care about if your city is under water.
And this was metaphorical in nature, but it lines up 110 percent with what I've been saying
to everybody for years now.
So Noam Chomsky was interviewed on a podcast by Briona Joy Gray, who was Previously on
The Bernie Campaign, and a guy named Virgil, Texas, who I'm not familiar with.
But I understand he's on the Chapo podcast, which I've never seen, actually, but I believe
is is sort of prominent in some parts of the left.
And they argued with him about approaches to the election.
And after the interview, all sorts of divisive leftist takes came out.
Same Chomsky lost this debate and people should not vote for Joe Biden.
And it's really been depressing to see.
So let's look at the first clip and talk about it.
What are the long term consequences of everybody on the broad left?
Democrats, liberals, everyone saying that under any circumstances we will vote for a
Democratic candidate as long as they are incrementally better than the Republican candidate.
Does that way of thinking contribute to the rightward shift of the Democratic Party over
years?
And what mechanism will ever stop that shift?
If we're not willing to ever, under any circumstances, leverage our votes?
What you're saying, if you think it's through, is we should help Trump win because maybe
in the long run that'll affect the Democratic Party.
That's a terrible choice.
So this is merely dressed up acceleration ism.
It's taking a lame dry cookie and putting good frosting on it, so to speak.
It's the idea that by punishing the Democratic Party and the country, mind you, since you're
conceding, it would be incrementally better to have Biden, but you're choosing something
else.
You're saying punish the country, punish people, the planet.
So that may be at some future point.
Things get so bad that then it really moves to the left in the United States.
It hasn't worked in history.
And Noam Chomsky lays it out here.
Helping Trump win as your Hosn would mean four more years.
Those destruction of the environment goehring possibly tipping points, which would be irreversible,
certainly making any deal with it very cool.
It would mean starting this year with young ultra right lawyers.
Top to bottom so that nothing would be possibly done for a generation.
And I can go home.
No, I don't think that's a wise choice.
Just on the hope that maybe sometime in the long term the Democratic Party will pay attention
to the fact that you're almost 60 percent of what Noam Chomsky is talking about or the
irreversible damages, irreversible climate damage, not irreversible, but at least irreversible
for decades, rightward shifts in the judiciary by giving Trump more judges in a second term.
There are millions and millions of Americans who can't afford that.
And, you know, I've said before, this isn't about me.
I could easily say, sure, put Trump in another four years.
It'll be wacky.
It'll be entertaining.
My show will do better.
And then we'll finally go super left in 2024, because the truth is, I'm fine.
Either way, I'll get more clicks if Trump is president.
I live in Massachusetts where I'm protected from some, but not all of this stuff.
Not the climate stuff for sure.
That would be outrageously self-centered for me to do.
And Noam Chomsky points that out.
The damage to the population from climate and judges alone makes this idea immoral.
Let's look at a little more of this here.
Here's Chumped Chomsky really distilling this very clearly.
No, we have a simple question.
Do you want your.
Grandchildren to survive.
I think the people you're talking to say, yes, I want my grandchildren, so many people's
grandchildren are already not surviving.
Yes, that's the issue, to ensure that they'll live under water or have a chance to see so
many people aren't thinking about living under water because they are incarcerated or there
are unharmed.
And as an activist, your goal is to make get them to think about it, because that is what
is at stake.
Again, crystal clear and pitch perfect is Noam Chomsky truly.
This is the most sense Chomsky has made in a long time.
Here's one other clip with the other hosts, Virgil, Texas and Chomsky, again explaining
the urgency of the situation and the absurdity that another four years of Trump might bring
some socialist takeover in the next decades.
If these institutions, if these capitalist institutions result in recurring ecological
crises and existential ones as they do.
That isn't the real fight against those institutions instead of a reform that maybe gets us over
the hump in 30 years.
If it were possible to lobby those in power through activisms, some kind of brokering
those who are beholden to the profit motive, even if it destroys the environment, we have
maybe a decade or two to deal with the environmental crisis.
Is there the remotest chance that within a decade or two we'll overthrow capitalism?
So if in a dream.
OK.
So the quest with a point that you're raising is basically irrelevant.
Of course, let's work to try to overthrow capitalism.
It's not going to happen like that.
A lot of work involved.
Meanwhile, we have an imminent question.
Are we going to preserve the possibility for organized human society to survive?
Are we going to preserve the possibility for us to work to overthrow capitalist institutions?
Or are we going to say it's hopeless?
Let's quit.
Through the first, you're going from the second, so Chomsky is just spot on.
And unfortunately, people that are proclaiming that Chomsky was defeated here.
It's created a second round of cheerleading, of people feeling better
about not
voting Biden.