Noam Chomsky (and his antidote)

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Do you read Noam Chomsky's political books? If so, what do you think--is he on target? Too extreme? Full of crap?

I like reading both sides of political arguments, so would like to know who might be a more moderate counterpoint to Chomsky. (And no, I'm not going to listen to Rush Limbaugh). Thanks.

[Todd]

Chomsky has offered informed, unsentimental, left wing (or libertarian socialist) analysis and commentary, primarily on foreign policy, for decades, and he is very good at it.  When Chomsky ventures into more purely economic or social matters, I find him less compelling.  I wouldn't say that he is or was full of crap, or even that he is necessarily too extreme, but rather he can be too rigid.  His opposition to American hegemony is understandable, but at times it has led him to turn a blind eye, or at least downplay, just how vile some of the folks the US has opposed or gone to war with were or are, and some of the benefits of the Pax Americana, if one wants to use that phrase, or American imperial domination if one prefers that.  He also tends to overstate American power, though he gleefully discusses its decline.  He has also taken to rather too freely (and lazily in my view) comparing contemporary conservative politics in the US and Europe to Nazism, either outright or in (barely) more veiled references to the last days of the Weimar Republic.  Sure, Golden Dawn has the whiff of jackboot thuggery about it, and there are some other troubling groups and individual politicians all around western countries, and these types need to be watched closely, but, at least right here and now, true fascism is not a real threat.  That written, the troubling rise in economic nationalism all over the world and the mounting anti-immigration sentiment in various countries (as in Switzerland) certainly deserve more critical commentary and policy responses. 

As to Chomsky's works, I have tended to read his op-eds and listen to his speeches more than read his books - I only read part of Manufacturing Consent in college - and I can't say that there is necessarily an "antidote".  There are multiple opposing views.  There's an old video on YouTube of him debating William F Buckley that's pretty entertaining, and both men are civil.  More contemporary foreign policy types who act as a more disciplined antithesis or at least alternative to Chomsky would include folks like Robert Kagan, if you go for neocons, or Thomas P.M. Barnett from an analytical standpoint, or David Rothkopf from a liberal interventionist standpoint.  Then, of course, there are non-interventionists and isolationists – there are big differences between the two groups – on the right who will agree on some foreign policy choices with Chomsky, though for entirely different reasons.  It's harder to find contemporary writers or speakers of note who subscribe to this outlook.  Ron Paul and Rand Paul are leading proponents of non-interventionism now, though more principled and serious arguments were offered in the past by Robert Taft.  True isolationists are rare.  Unless you want to read opinions of US senators and representatives from the 30s and earlier, it's hard to think of anything to read.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I agree with much of what Todd says above. Chomsky has a very good BS detector and does a good job cutting through the nonsense and deception in official pronouncements and mainstream media. However, he is excessively rigid and self-righteous, and I find his "propaganda model" of media too simplistic. Also, the cult that surrounds him (particularly on college campuses) is annoying.

[Florestan]

His opposition to American hegemony is understandable,

What American hegemony, if I may ask? BRIC countries account, in terms of territory and population, for much more than USA would ever hope to exercise their influence on.

but at times it has led him to turn a blind eye, or at least downplay, just how vile some of the folks the US has opposed or gone to war with were or are,

Wisdom!

and some of the benefits of the Pax Americana, if one wants to use that phrase, or American imperial domination if one prefers that. 

I am not the one to worship indiscriminately anything USA-ish, and Todd here is especially qualified to attest to it. 

But I'd rather have Pax Americana over Pax Rusica or Pax Sinica any day and night. 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

What American hegemony, if I may ask? BRIC countries account, in terms of territory and population, for much more than USA would ever hope to exercise their influence on.

Territory and population does not equal strength. In any case, BRIC is not a unified bloc.

But I'd rather have Pax Americana over Pax Rusica or Pax Sinica any day and night. 

Sure, but it's all relative. If you lived in Latin America or the Middle East, you might think differently 

[Florestan]

Territory and population does not equal strength. In any case, BRIC is not a unified bloc.

It certainly isn't, but it also certainly rejects most, if not all, "American" values, institutions and practices.

Sure, but it's all relative. If you lived in Latin America or the Middle East, you might think differently 

From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were—I have not seen
As others saw—I could not bring
My passions from a common spring—
From the same source I have not taken
My sorrow—I could not awaken
My heart to joy at the same tone—
And all I lov'd—I lov'd alone—

Now, you are of course right. I might have thought differently --- but I praise God Almighty for being born in a culture and civilization that can be said, many a qualification and reservation notwithstanding, to belong to the Western civilization. 

[Todd]

What American hegemony, if I may ask? BRIC countries account, in terms of territory and population, for much more than USA would ever hope to exercise their influence on.

As Noam Chomsky and his ilk present the world, the US dominates, or at least attempts to dominate, the world.  There is more than a grain of truth to that assertion.  The global political and economic institutions that most nations belong to are dominated by the US, or at best from a non-American perspective, deadlocked (the UN).  The primary global reserve currency is the US dollar.  The navy that defends freedom of the seas is the US Navy.  The US has the capacity to inflict damage, or benefits, much more freely than any other country currently does. 

In practice, the US is nowhere near as powerful as some critics and boosters claim, but it is still the single most powerful country in the world, and other countries often formulate their foreign policy with possible US responses in mind.  The policy response of BRICs, while important to some countries, aren't as important to all countries.  And how many countries formulate foreign policy with, say, Peru's response in mind?  The US is closer to being a global suzerain than hegemon, but even that vastly overstates its true power.

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Thanks for your insights folks! Very interesting.

[drogulus]

     I take a more historical view of how hegemonic liberalism operates. It got off to a bad start with Athens. I read Walter Russell Mead, and Robert Kaplan for a geo-military perspective. He's really a heavily armed travel writer, I suppose. I start with the supposition that many of the wars fought in the name of liberal values are mistakes poorly chosen or poorly fought or both. We are fat lazy corrupt cops, but we are also cops, which we need to be because unlike most everyone else we can be and see it as our job, which means it is. Chomsky seems to be confused on the point of whether we are doing it wrong or there is no "it" to do. It's a little like the conservative "alternative" to the liberal state which consists for the most part of everything history has ruled decisively against. It's the romance of the lost cause, attractive as well to pseudo-leftists like the late ungreat Gore Vidal.

[Florestan]

     I take a more historical view of how hegemonic liberalism operates.

.

That is an oxymoron. Liberalism properly understood stands for the widest possible freedom, while hegemony is the exact opposite of freedom for those over whom it is exercised.

like the conservative "alternative" to the liberal state which consists for the most part of everything history has ruled decisively against.

And just what has history "ruled decisively against"?

[Todd]

Liberalism properly understood stands for the widest possible freedom, while hegemony is the exact opposite of freedom for those over whom it is exercised.

It's Jefferson's concept of Empire of Liberty, another oxymoron.  Some thinkers and writers have offered the idea that the US has attempted, more successfully than other revolutionary regimes, most notably France in the examples I've read, to export its revolution through wars of aggression.  This wasn't so much of a problem in the 19th Century as far as most of the world was concerned since the US mostly trampled on and murdered native peoples, with occasional forays into other regions (the Barbary Coast early in the century, an outright land-grab from Mexico in mid-century, Japan and Korea later in the century), but then it became more properly internationalized in 1898.  So complete and successful is the idea of Empire of Liberty, of American Exceptionalism, of Manifest Destiny, or just plain old cultural chauvinism, that many Americans fail to see historical or current actions as aggressive, as attempts at conquering others, instead defending militarism in warmer, cozier language involving ideas like keeping the world "safe for democracy", or human rights, or whatever the Big Idea of the day is.  (World police is so small in scale.) 

As an American, I see no particular reason to apologize for America's history of violence since it's no worse than, indeed it's not as fearsome as, Europe's beastly past, for instance, but I see no reason to portray it is as something other than the expansionist, imperialist behavior it was - and is.  The key question now is, does the US continue on its post-war path of addiction to militarism, or does it approach the world differently, perhaps even finally embracing effective international institutions and an effective international rule of law which it could help enforce, or does the US retreat, either a little or a lot, from the world, at least in military terms? 

[snyprrr]

How does everyone here feel about those things you hold in your hand that go 'pew pew pew'?

Could someone explain in baby talk the difference between 'Fascism' and 'Communism'?

Is one allowed to have an ideologically integrated country without threat of usurpation by rootless amoral interest collecting cosmopolistan-istas who want to control even things they are not interested in? They've got the whooole world- in their hands, they've got the whooole world- in their hands...

Perhaps members of the government shouldn't be allowed to have dual citizenship with only one country, hm?

I know, it's only noon and I'm already wasted ,... one haldol for my friend here...

[Todd]

Perhaps members of the government shouldn't be allowed to have dual citizenship with only one country, hm?

Don't be so hard on Ted Cruz.  What's your beef with Canada, anyway?

[Cato]

Could someone explain in baby talk the difference between 'Fascism' and 'Communism'?

One begins with "fasc-" and the other with "commun-."   0:)

Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, etc. etc. etc.

Dictatorships - despite their outward trappings - are similar: the body count may vary, but there is still a body count and lack of freedom.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

So complete and successful is the idea of Empire of Liberty, of American Exceptionalism, of Manifest Destiny, or just plain old cultural chauvinism, that many Americans fail to see historical or current actions as aggressive, as attempts at conquering others, instead defending militarism in warmer, cozier language involving ideas like keeping the world "safe for democracy", or human rights, or whatever the Big Idea of the day is.  (World police is so small in scale.) 

While I agree with this, it should also be noted that there is another American tradition of wishing to mind our own business, and this tradition has roots that are at least as deep as the other. Fine examples are to be found in George Washington's Farewell Address, and John Quincy Adams' famous warning not to go abroad "in search of monsters to destroy."

[Todd]

While I agree with this, it should also be noted that there is another American tradition of wishing to mind our own business, and this tradition has roots that are at least as deep as the other. Fine examples are to be found in George Washington's Farewell Address, and John Quincy Adams' famous warning not to go abroad "in search of monsters to destroy."

True, though such thoughts were (properly) informed by the political reality of the times: ie, the US was weak and European nations were strong, so engaging them would be disastrous.  Still, it took less than two decades from the official establishment of the United States before the US sent its small navy and marine forces to Tripoli, and only a few years after that until the US was invading Canada (though, of course, this was more complicated).  And of course, native peoples were being overrun aggressively the whole time, but they didn't really matter to pretty much any leaders at the time; they were obstacles to be overcome.  William Henry Harrison and Andrew Jackson earned their reputations fighting native tribes, and Jackson took the opportunity to engage in the first land grab from the Spanish while not exactly being censured by Monroe, and none other than John Quincy Adams seized on the gains in his contemporaneous negotiations with the Spanish.  The US has never really been shy about seizing territory.

[Florestan]

Could someone explain in baby talk the difference between 'Fascism' and 'Communism'?

Sure. When it comes to personal freedom (which is to be distinguished from political freedom) and private property, Fascism (a specifically Italian phenomenon, mind you) has a slightly better record than Communism. 

[Todd]

Sure. When it comes to personal freedom (which is to be distinguished from political freedom) and private property, Fascism (a specifically Italian phenomenon, mind you) has a slightly better record than Communism.

Isn't this a bit like saying chlamydia is slightly better than gonorrhea.

[snyprrr]

Don't be so hard on Ted Cruz.  What's your beef with Canada, anyway?
[/quote

oh, sorry, chortle, I meant the jews