Noam Chomsky gave a lecture at Washington State University this past Friday. I, and four thousand of my closest friends, went to see this lecture. I know that he is seen as a polarizing figure, but I really respect his cogent, thoughtful analysis and linguistic perspectives on political discourse.
I tried to stay as close to the intent and spirit of his words, but it has gone through the filter of my scrawled notes. I have put in quotes the phrases that I am pretty sure are direct quotes. That said, here is my synopsis of the lecture:
(flip)
Intro:
"Human affairs are harder than science, because science can be obscure, but not intentionally so." You have to dismantle the barriers erected by propaganda, doctrinal systems, and concentration of power in order to understand human affairs..
Demons:
"Professions of benign intent by politicians are universal and predictable, and therefore contain no information." In the buildup to the Iraq war, the rationale that was emphasized was stopping the spread of WMD. After it became clear that this was not a valid reason, because there were no WMD, the whole explanation changed, and it became about democratization. The issue of WMD, and any mention of it in the media, just plain disappeared. It's gone down the memory hole. A sort of messianic role has been ascribed to many world leaders, and any pronouncement by them must be true. The problem with this is that these pronouncements- professions of benign intent- are meaningless.
Ronald Reagan declared a War on Terror in the early 1980's. Did you know that? That was the casus belli his administration was using to justify intervention in Central America (result: 200,000 dead). State Terror was the operative demon at that time. This was the first War on Terror, but historical accounts of this have been suppressed by constraints on political and media discourse. Chomsky mentions "interesting historical correlations that we are trained to ignore" in this context. Systems of power suppress their own crimes, and this phenomenon is particularly interesting in free countries like the USA. In countries like North Korea the suppression is official policy; brutal, and systematic; whereas in free countries like the USA, other mechanisms must be employed (short of, ahem, changing the rules to eliminate all that pesky freedom), such as creation of demons to manipulate the discourse and maintain control. Bush's nomination of Negroponte, Reagan's man running the operations in Nicaragua out of bases in Honduras, is essentially "appointment of an international terrorist to be terror czar of the United States."
State Terror was not working so well as a demon, so the concept has been fine-tuned, and other related demons have been invoked, such as States that Support Terror, Rogue States, and Failed States. We see unprecedented fear, hatred, and resentment of the US in other countries, leaving the US viewed, in a sense, as a rogue state.
Imminent Crises:
The three crises Chomsky sees are the environment, nuclear war, and democratic deficit. Democratic deficit is defined as the exclusion of the population from informed decision-making and power by the nexus of government and big-money/corporate influence. The environmental points centered on the disconnect between government policy and general awareness in the populace. The PIPA survey from September 2004 showed that 51% of Bush voters thought that Bush was in favor of Kyoto, because many of the Bush voters were in favor of Kyoto. This survey got only passing coverage, and very little in the way of exploration of the bizarre disconnect between Republican voters and Republican politicians.
Regarding nuclear war, I (Primordial Ooze, not Chomsky) was actually a little surprised to see this mentioned as one of the three. I tend to think that mass death by biological agent is more likely, and potentially even more deadly. Chomsky makes some interesting points, though, and I would be interested to hear what you think of this. Nuclear war could "end biology's experiment with higher intelligence, which sometimes appears to be a bit of a mistake." It is in our power to massively cut down the number of available nuclear weapons, but the country must overcome its democratic deficit in order to make such a major, and hugely popular, change.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the foundation of hope for progress here. If the NPT fails, then it greatly increases the probability of a nightmare scenario developing. The current US government is the primary roadblock to progress under the NPT. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed by President Clinton in 1996, rejected by the Republican Senate in 1999 and effectively rescinded by president George W. Bush (see also a small pdf from thememoryhole for some more background). The Fissile Materials Ban was voted on in the UN. The vote was 147 in favor to 1 opposed. The UK abstained because it was a "divisive issue" (divided 147-1), and Israel abstained too. Of course, it was the USA that opposed. "This opposition constituted a double-veto; it was voted down, and it was banished from the general historical record."
Sam Nunn was quoted as saying that Russia is moving back to a hair-trigger nuclear posture (fire on warning without confirmation). This is a US policy that is effectively leading us to rely on the integrity of Russia's Soviet-era warning systems for our own survival. Chomsky also cites a Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Daedalus) article as stating that there was an "appreciable risk of ultimate doom", and that the existence of this democratic "form without substance" may lead to the (perceived) threat of the US acting as a rogue nation potentially being balanced by a coalition of (perceived) peaceful nations, potentially led by China. Allowing this to happen would be an abdication of our responsibility to lead by example and reap the benefits of cooperation. The Bush administration's push for militarization of space, and talk of developing new nuclear weapons has led the Russians to build up its active nuclear arsenal, and move towards a "launch on warning" posture. This could lead to adoption of similar postures in China, India, Pakistan, and other nations with nuclear capabilities.
Iraq is only the most striking example of this adminstration's disregard for serious long-term consequences. Before invading Iraq, intelligence sources were nearly unanimous that this action would increase the risk of terrorist attacks worldwide, and create a new training area for terrorists. The disgraceful lack of planning, and consequent systematic looting of 1980's weapon program equipment and newer conventional munitions, have provided terrorists with all of the equipment they need to carry out all kinds of terorist attacks against the interests of the USA. Unfortunately, terrorism is not and has never been a high priority in this administration compared to energy control. The current US government agenda competely fails to take into account long-term survival, and is completely focused on short-term wealth. Cooperative security was moving forward through much of the 20th century, but current policy is tearing the fabric of cooperation to threads.
Deception:
Regarding the contention that "informed consumers make rational choices", Chomsky notes that "Adam Smith, who we are tought to revere, but not to read" states that merchants suppress and deceive the population. The US-Australia trade deal, for example, is attempting to remove the stipulation in Australian law that states that medical advertising needs to be evidence based. All elections are run by PR firms, so all politics is run as advertising. Candidates use deceit to undermine democracy, and great care is taken to focus on qualities rather than realities. The whole concept of "moral issues" should not be about abortion and gay marriage, but about real moral issues like healthcare, poverty, justice, and greed. In order to see what the someone's real operative moral values are, look at their actions, and ask two questions: "Who gains? Who pays?"
Many US politicians and pundits denounced Spain for withdrawal from the "coalition" because Spain wanted control of the occupation to be handed to the United Nations, but that pesky PIPA survey showed that 70% of the US population felt that control should be handed to the UN. The democratic deficit leads to no coverage of these surveys because the results are outside the "bipartisan consensus" that constrains dialog. There is support for the UN, the International Criminal Court, the removal of veto power on the UN Security Council, and for government social programs. A March 7 2005 survey [tiny pdf] shows that the majority of the US population favors decreased military spending, increased social, education, and health spending, and would support repeal of the Bush tax cuts to accomplish these goals.
Questions:
I could only stay for a few of the questions, as the talk had run late, but I will summarize what I caught. The first question was about fascism in the USA. Chomsky responded with a fairly optimistic assessment, in which he stated that the country now is not as bad as during the Red Scare, and he doesn't think that the US will go "as far as the White House would like it to" along the road to fascism. I was heartened to see that he felt that we would be able to turn this country around before the wingnuts grab all the levers.
From the next question, we get that local organization is the key to defeating the separation and isolation of people that destroys democracy. Here he dropped a quote that sums it all up: "You and your TV- the ideal social unit." Wages are not keeping pace with inflation, and incomes are only keeping up because of increased work hours, and the people that are working these long hours have no time or energy to get involved in local activities, political or otherwise.
After that, we get to Nader. Chomsky responds with (from memory) "Contrary to what you may read on Nader's web site, I did not endorse Nader in 2000, and my position has been the same in 2000 and 2004. I advocated the swing state strategy, because the Democratic ticket was the only rational choice in both elections." We have elections in which less than 60% of the people vote, and the election is just a choice between"two pampered rich white guys", and which would not be considered a credible election if it were held in a developing country. Brazil held an election that wasn't perfect, but if you can have a candidate that emerges from the people by popular support, like Lula, then clearly there is less of a democratic deficit in such a country than we have here in the USA.
Finally, regarding broken electoral systems and third parties, he stated that an electoral system that did not disenfranchise third parties would be wonderful. However, there is much that can be done without such reform. I read that as an endorsement of active local participation in the Democratic Party, and encouraging people to see instances of the democracy deficit in their daily lives. He concluded that response with: "do something every day" and "act, don't watch".
I hope this was interesting to you. I look forward to some discussion on the points introduced by Professor Chomsky.