Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn Plan to Vote for Ralph Nader
By GREG BATES
<snip>
Chomsky also made clear how he views the election in the context of other efforts for change: "Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist."
[...]
==========
Of course, no one should change their view simply because Chomsky's and Zinn's may differ but this does add an intriguing bit of new color to the debate.
It's interesting to note how the statement quoted above seems, as I interpret it, to echo things Chuck0's written about the essential irrelevance of elections to activists with the long view - considering the present societal framework - and also mirrors the POV of those who might be called 'strategic voters' (that is, not true believers in the goodness of Kerry as opposed to Bush but determined to vote to create a space for damage control).
More than one idea can be sustained at a time; some (in 'safe' states) can, with clear conscience, vote for Nader to demonstrate displeasure with Dems and Repubs and build third party alternatives, others (in 'battleground states') should vote for Kerry to defeat Dubya and still others (serious, full time activists) can ignore the process altogether and continue working in various ways towards change.
A logical division of labor, even if one disagrees with the underlying assessment informing the idea.
Really, I don't think Chomsky and Zinn's Nader vote seems that contradictory or surprising all things considered (which would include Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalist analysis of the state).
.d.