There are many people who think that the outcome of the presidential election matters: many Americans think so, and many outside America think so too. Not Noam Chomsky:
Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party.
Of course, if a political system with two major parties is essentially a one-party system, it's easy to get to thinking that it doesn't make much difference whether you actually have a one-party system or not. Anyway, the key to Chomsky's penetrating insight follows close upon the insight itself.
Let us look at the "differences" more closely, and we recognize how limited and cynical they are. The hawks say, if we continue we can win. The doves say, it is costing us too much. But try to find an American politician who says frankly that this aggression is a crime: the issue is not whether we win or not, whether it is expensive or not.
It's not a real difference, you understand, because it's not the difference that he, Chomsky, has with both hawks and doves. Chomsky, it is worth pointing out, has come to this from - earlier in the same interview - lauding the US for its protection of free speech. But if you don't agree with him, then it's essentially a one-party system - probably also because consumerism and intellectual conformism are rampant.
In the book I'm in the middle of at the moment, a woman regrets having missed what might have been her last chance to make love to her husband on account of she was reading Noam Chomsky.