When he spoke at ASU last month, Noam Chomsky had an interesting take on our current campaign cycle.
He explained Mitt Romney has been the chosen nominee this whole time, at least among Republican elites. In Chomsky’s view, "those elites," come from the highly corporatized top class of the super-rich, who long ago lost common ground with regular Americans. Because their interests have diverged so sharply from those of the larger pool of conservative American voters, these elites have also come to look for different things in presidential candidates. So their top choice, Romney, doesn’t really do it for the common folk.
Since Chomsky’s talk, Romney has really underscored that point with comments about Nascar teams his friends own, or his wife’s multiple Cadillacs. The guy does not embody down-to-earth normality.
What the super-rich love about Romney is his fiscal conservatism. Romney favors low taxation, especially for corporations, and that’s mainly what they’re looking for. In other ways, he’s no threat to their interests.
But as it shifted to a party for the super-rich, Chomsky contended today’s GOP also evolved into a party without a base. In a country with just one vote per person – and we’ll see how long that lasts now that corporations have free speech – the billionaires need more people to sign on for their candidates.
So they’ve been forced to go out looking for a broader base and found one in the tea party and its related philosophies.
This block of voters does lean toward fiscal conservatism. Everyone likes lower taxes and America’s working and middle class conservatives have taken big hits during these last few years of economic turmoil.
But as much as they like tax cuts, this group’s conservatism is much more social.
So the elites, Chomsky explained, are pandering by putting forward this year’s seemingly extraordinary crop of culture warriors.
One can imagine how this strategy would work. A large number of no-chance candidates run in the early months, each hyped up as a viable contender with his own extreme social platform.
After a short time in the spotlight, each front-runner goes down with the help of party leaders, who tap big money to replace him or her with the next big thing. For fringe voters, their candidate inevitably loses, but by then they have invested in the contest and its product.
Chomsky’s theory really seems to work with Rick Santorum. The man was never going to win in Arizona or in Michigan and even if he had, Romney would still be clearly leading. But for several weeks, the media built him up as the No. 1 threat, likely solidifying Romney’s win by motivating voters.
Chomsky’s theory sounds a little crazy and suggests an almighty cabal of corporate puppeteers running our country.
But as wealth and influence become increasingly consolidated, these things become increasingly plausible. Chomsky didn’t claim that these “elites” are in control. In fact, he emphasized that meddling the way they are, they are playing with fire – risking a burn to the whole country should someone besides Romney accidentally succeed.
Reach the columnist at john.a.gaylord@asu.edu
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
