AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org,
The War and Peace Report.
I’m Amy Goodman, as we turn back to my interview
with world-renowned political dissident, linguist
and author Noam Chomsky, now at the University
of Arizona, Tucson.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to the upcoming midterm
elections and the increasing number of Democratic
Socialist candidates running, who raise the
issue of immigration as one of the top issues.
I recently sat down with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
the New York Democratic congressional candidate,
whose recent primary victory upended the 10-term
incumbent Congressman Joe Crowley, the fourth-ranking
Democrat in the House, who was being talked
about as the next House speaker to succeed
Pelosi.
And I began by asking her how she achieved
her staggering primary victory.
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: I do think that
the way that we won in New York 14 is a model
for how we can win almost anywhere.
I knew from the outset that—you know, I
had no misconceptions of the fact that the
New York political machine was not going to
be doing me any favors.
And so I didn’t—I tried to kind of come
in as clear-eyed as possible.
And I knew that if we were going to win, the
way that progressives win on an unapologetic
message is by expanding the electorate.
That’s the only way that we can win strategically.
It’s not by rushing to the center.
It’s not by trying to win spending all of
our energy winning over those who have other
opinions.
It’s by expanding the electorate, speaking
to those that feel disenchanted, dejected,
cynical about our politics, and letting them
know that we’re fighting for them.
So I knew that I had to build a broad-based
coalition that operates outside of the traditional
Democratic establishment, and that I had to
pursue kind of an uphill journey of convincing
activists that electoral politics is worthwhile.
AMY GOODMAN: And the issues you ran on?
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: And the issues I
ran on were very clear, and I think it was
an important part to us winning: improved
and expanded Medicare for all; tuition-free
public colleges and universities, as well
as trade schools; a Green New Deal; justice
for Puerto Rico; an unapologetic platform
of criminal justice reform and ending the
war on drugs; and also speaking truth to power
and speaking about money in politics not just
in general, but how it operates in New York
City.
AMY GOODMAN: In a moment, I’m going to play
her clip talking about immigration activism.
Yes, Alexandria Cortez—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
went to the border right before Election Day.
In fact, her plane was delayed.
I was concerned she wouldn’t be back in
New York for the Primary Day.
But if you could start by responding to this?
And then we’ll hear what she has to say
about immigration activism.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I think there’s—her
victory was a quite spectacular and significant
event.
I think what it points to is a split in the
Democratic Party between the—roughly speaking,
between the popular base and the party managers.
The popular base is increasingly, essentially,
social democratic, following, pursuing the—concerned
with the kinds of progressive objectives that
she outlined in those—in her remarks, which
should be directed not only to expanding the
electorate but to the general working-class,
poor population of the world, of the middle-class
population of the country, for whom these
ideals are quite significant.
They can be brought to that.
That’s one part of the party.
The other part of the party is the donor-oriented,
managerial part of the New Democrats, so-called,
the Clintonite Democrats, who are pretty much
what used to be called moderate Republicans.
The Republican Party itself has drifted so
far to the right that they’re almost off
the spectrum.
But the split within the Democratic Party
is significant, and it’s showing up in primary
after primary.
Will the party move in the direction of its
popular base, with a, essentially, social
democratic, New Deal-style programs, even
beyond?
Or will it continue to cater to the donor
class and be essentially a moderate wing—a
more moderate wing of the Republican Party?
And unless that issue is resolved, I don’t
think they have a very good chance in the
forthcoming elections.
I think she was right in saying that the policies
she’s outlined should have broad appeal
to a very large segment of the population.
We should bear in mind that, for now almost
40 years, since the neoliberal assault began,
taking off with Reagan, on from there, a large
majority of the population are living in conditions
of stagnation or decline.
Real wages are—for, say, male real wages—are
about what they were in the 1960s.
It’s been—there has been productivity
growth.
Hasn’t gone to working people.
It’s gone into the very few extremely overstuffed
pockets.
And that continues.
So, the Labor Department just came out with
its report for wages in the year ending May
2018.
Now, they actually slightly declined.
All sorts of talk—real wages, that is, wages
measured against inflation.
And it’s apparently continuing, with an
even further drop.
This is a time when a lot of crowing about
the marvelous economy, you know, full employment
and so on, but wages continue to stagnate.
And furthermore, it’s plainly going to get
worse.
The Republicans are on a binge of pursuing
the most savage form of class warfare.
The tax scam is a good example, the attacks
on workers’ rights, on—Public Citizen
just came out with a report on corporate impunity,
which is almost comical when you read it.
The administration has simply cut back radically
on any kind of dealing with corporate crimes.
And, of course, the EPA has practically stopped
working.
It’s as if grab whatever you can, stuff
it in your pocket, before—while you have
a chance.
Under those conditions, the kind of appeal
that she was talking about should mean a lot
to the general population.
Notice, as everybody’s well aware, the tax
scam was a purposeful effort not only to enrich
the super-rich and the corporate sector—corporate
profits, of course, are overflowing—but
it was also an effort to sharply increase
the deficit, which can be used—and Paul
Ryan and others kindly announced to us right
away what the plans were—the deficit could
be used to undermine any elements of government
structure which benefit the general population—Medicare,
Social Security, food for poor children.
Anything you can do to shaft the general population
more can now be justified under the argument
that we have a huge deficit, thanks to stuffing
the pockets of the rich.
This is an astonishing phenomenon.
And under those conditions, a properly designed
progressive program should appeal to a large
majority of the population.
But it has to be done correctly and not shaped
in ways which will appease the donor class.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go back to the interview
with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has really
upended the Democratic Party, and the kind
of message this candidate of Puerto Rican
descent in New York has sent to the entire
party, I think the Republican Party, as well.
But this is what she says about immigration.
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: We have to occupy
all of it.
We need to occupy every airport, we need to
occupy every border, we need to occupy every
ICE office, until those kids are back with
their parents, period.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, the right-wing media—for
example, Fox News and others—have kept—have
written about this over and over since she
made this comment about occupying airports.
Interestingly, her area of Queens and Bronx
include Rikers Island and LaGuardia Airport.
Noam Chomsky?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I think we just had a
very dramatic illustration of what courageous
opposition to these atrocious policies can
do—namely, the young Swedish woman who prevented
an airplane from taking off because it was
deporting an Afghan man to almost certain
murder.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, let me go to the young
Swedish woman, the student who you just raised,
who stood up—
NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: —on the plane, this flight
from Gothenburg, Sweden, to Istanbul, because
she understood that an Afghan refugee was
on the flight, as you pointed out, and she
live-streamed what she did next.
This is what Elin Ersson had to say.
ELIN ERSSON: I’m not going to sit down until
this person is off the plane, because he will
most likely get killed if he is on this plane
when it goes up.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Elin Ersson.
And when one of the angry passengers threatened
her, threatened to take her phone away, and
then a flight attendant grabbed it back, she
went on to say—when passengers talked about
being inconvenienced, she said, “They’re
not going to die.
He’s going to die.”
And there were many on the plane, actually,
who supported her in her protest, until the
Afghan refugee was removed from that flight
on orders of the pilot.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, that was a very inspiring
act and an indication of what could be achieved
by really large-scale civil disobedience.
Here’s one young woman standing up alone
to try to prevent a person from being killed
in difficult and hostile conditions.
Large-scale civil disobedience could achieve
a great deal more.
But I would again urge that we think in broader
terms.
We should be considering why people are fleeing
from their homes.
Not because they want to live in slums in
New York.
They’re fleeing from their homes because
their homes are unlivable, and they’re unlivable,
largely, because of things that we have done.
Overwhelmingly, that’s the reason.
That tells you right away what the solution
to the crisis is: rebuild what we’ve destroyed,
compensate for the atrocities that we’ve
carried out.
Then the flow of refugees will decline.
And for those who come with asylum pleas,
they should be accommodated in a humane and
civilized way.
Maybe it’s impossible to imagine that we
can reach the level of civilization of the
poor countries that are absorbing refugees.
But it doesn’t—it shouldn’t seem entirely
out of reach.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky is now linguistics
professor at the University of Arizona, speaking
to us from Tucson.
Clearly, resistance is in the air.
When we come back, we move from resistance
in airplanes to resistance on the air—that’s
on Fox, an unexpected interruption.
Noam Chomsky will respond.
Stay with us.
