RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "What state power does, and propaganda usually follows, is (to) find what will support a power interest. In these cases imperial policy. If it happens to be radical Islam that's fine. At the same time we might be fighting radical Islam somewhere else."

Noam Chomsky at Occupy Boston. (photo: Andrew Rusk/Flickr)
Noam Chomsky at Occupy Boston. (photo: Andrew Rusk/Flickr)


Noam Chomsky: The US Has a History of Supporting Muslim Extremists in the Middle East

By Daily Mirror

22 December 16

 

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Daily Mirror

he world’s leading public intellectual, Prof. Noam Chomsky in an exclusive interview with Daily Mirror, spoke on many issues that have pervaded the current political scenario. In the interview, he details the reasons behind the election victory of Donald Trump, his views on the rise of the ‘Right Wing’ and the causes that resulted in the people losing confidence in mainstream political establishments.

Noam Chomsky, one of the world’s most cited scholars, considered the ‘Father of modern linguistics’, a paradigm shifter in Human Sciences, Cognitive Scientist, Philosopher and the world’s leading political dissident, spoke to Daily Mirror on a wide array of topics at his study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Boston. Having written his first landmark work ‘Synctactic Structures’ laying the groundwork for the scientific study of language in 1957, he co-created the Universal Grammar theory and the Generative grammar theory among others.

Chomsky’s foray into political dissidence was during the Vietnam War when he penned down an anti-war essay titled ‘The Responsibility of Intellectuals’. His activism resulted in multiple arrests and was placed on consecutive watch lists by the Government of United States. He has since spearheaded thought through numerous books and publications, most of which are political in nature including ‘Manufacturing Consent’ (1988), ‘Understanding Power’ (2002), ‘Necessary Illusions’ (1989), ‘On Power and Ideology’ (1987), ‘Problems of Knowledge and Education’ (1971) ‘Propaganda and the Public Mind (2001) and ‘On Palestine’ (2015), among many others. Born on December 7, 1928 to Jewish parents in Philadelphia, Avram Noam Chomsky developed a keen and critical mind, questioning the existing institutional, academic and governance structures since his early teens. As an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) Chomsky studied philosophy, logic and languages after which he was named to the Society of Fellows at the Harvard University. Thereafter he commenced teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he currently continues to have ties with as a Professor Emeritus. He married Carol Doris in 1949 to whom he remained faithful until her death in 2008. He is the father of three children and currently resides in Boston. He shared the following:

Q: It is both a pleasure and a privilege to have you speak for the first to a Sri Lankan entity – The Daily Mirror. Since we are confined by time, I would appreciate if the answers are kept as brief as possible. To start off with, during the recent election of Donald Trump, we saw a kind of rise of racism and xenophobia, a phenomenon of right wing populism that we are seeing across the world including in Sri Lanka. What are your views on this?

A: There are many factors but there are some that are pretty common, certainly for the United States and Europe from which I have just returned, incidentally. One factor that is common and which is very significant is the Neo Liberal programme that was instituted globally, roughly around 35 years ago, around 1980 or a little before and picking up afterwards. These are programmes that were designed in such a way that they marginalize and cast aside a considerable majority of the population. So in the United States if you take a look at say the Trump voters, they are not the poorest people. They have homes, they have jobs, and they have small businesses. They may not have the jobs they like but they are not starving and are not living on US$ 2 a day. These are people who have been stuck for 30 years. Their history and their own image of life and history and the country is- that they have worked hard all their lives, they have done all the right things. They have families, they go to Church and they have done everything right just as their parents did. They’ve been moving forward, which they expected to continue: that their children would be better off than they are, but it hasn’t happened. It stopped. As if they are in a line, in which they were moving forward and it stopped. Ahead of them in the line are people who have just shot up into the stratosphere: that is Neo Liberalism. It concentrates wealth in tiny sectors. They don’t mind that, because part of the American mythology is that you work hard and you get rewards. It is not what happens but that fits the picture, the mythology. The people behind them are the ones they resent. This is not untypical; scapegoating. Blame your problems on those who are even worse off than you. And their conception is that the Federal Government is their enemy, which works for the people behind them. That the Federal Government gives Food Stamps to people who don’t want to work, that it gives welfare payments to women who drive in rich cars to welfare offices. (These are) images that Ronald Reagan concocted. Their thinking is that, ‘the Federal Government is helping to put them in line ahead of me, but nobody is working for me’. That picture is all over the West. A large part of it was behind the Brexit vote, in the United States they would blame Mexican immigrants, or Afro Americans, in the UK they would blame the Polish immigrants, in France the North Africans and in Austria the Syrian immigrants. The choice of target depends on the society, but the phenomenon is pretty similar. The general nature is pretty similar. There are streaks of racism, xenophobia, sexism, and opposition to gay rights and all sorts of things. And they coalesce when economic and social policies have been designed in such a way which essentially ignores these people and their concerns and doesn’t work for them — and seems to them to work against them.

Q: But don’t you think Professor, the notion of an isolationist imperial power, a non-intervening imperial interest that Donald Trump has promised, is something positive for countries like Sri Lanka and the third world at large?

A: Isolationist is a very funny word. Take Donald Trump’s recent appointments — the important appointments. The most important appointment is his National Strategy Advisor who is Michael Flynn. He is a radical Islamophobe. He thinks we should go to war with the whole Islamic world,– the whole Islamic world. And his view of Islam is not that of a religion, but that it’s a political ideology like fascism, and it is at war with us and that we should destroy it. Is that isolationism? Donald Trump’s position and that of Paul Ryan and other Right Wingers is that we should sharply build up the Pentagon. They talk about our depleted military forces. I mean you don’t know whether to laugh or not. The US spends almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. It is technologically far more advanced. No other country has hundreds of military bases all over the world, actually forces fighting all over the world. But ‘we are a depleted military force and everybody is about to attack us and we have to build the military more’, is that isolationist? We have to carry out economic war against other countries, is that isolationist? No of course not. This is vulgar imperialism masked by a fraudulent concern for the working people and the middle class. Is there any such concern apparent from his cabinet appointments? (they are) straight out of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. Take a look at the stock market, that tells you how people with power are evaluating his Presidency. (it) Shot up as soon as he was elected. The financial institutions zoomed. The world’s biggest Coal Company ‘Peabody’ which was in bankruptcy had its stock go up by about 50% within days of his election. The military industry, energy industries, pharmaceuticals..they are all going to the sky. Is that an illusion? No, it’s not. That’s the policy, the appeal is not so much the poor, but working people who have suffered, not suffered in the sense of real deep poverty, but suffered in the sense of a loss of status, a loss of dignity, and a loss of hope for the future. In the United States this is combined with an objective fact. That this country is built on extremist white supremacy, comparative measures of white supremacy across the world has put the United States way in the lead, even ahead of white South Africa, and now the white population is becoming a minority.

Q: You bring in two interesting points; one is on white supremacy and the other is on Islam and Islamophobia. Firstly though, this idea of supremacy, we have seen this even in parts of South Asia. If you see the rise of Narendra Modi, it was along the same populist lines and even in post war Sri Lanka we are seeing these same attitudes swelling up. So it is not something confined to the US. What do you think the real reason is for this?

A: Different reasons for different places. In India it’s the rise of Hindu nationalism, which is extremely dangerous. It looks like there is an alliance building up with these xenophobic Right Wing forces around the world. If you noticed, the reactions to Trumps election across the world, was great enthusiasm from the ultra-Right all over. In fact, his first contact was with Nigel Farage, the leader of the UKIP in England and it went on like that. There are common features, but different factors in different countries. In India, it is the Muslims, in the United States it’s Muslims too. But there were also Mexicans and so on. But I think throughout the world you see a similar failure of mainstream establishment institutions to deal with the people’s real problems.

Q: Aren’t these fears about the Muslims real? Even in Sri Lanka, there is this fear about the Muslims, along the lines of the fear prevailing in the West. Aren’t these fears about the Muslims real?

A: They are not unreal. Hitler’s fears about the Jews under the Nazis were not totally unreal. There were rich Jewish bankers, there were Jewish Bolsheviks. Any propaganda system, no matter how vulgar or disgraceful, can only succeed if there are at least small elements of truth. They may be small. While you are in Boston if you listen to ‘Talk Radio’ the main radio- all very Right Wing – you will hear people speaking about Syrian refugees and how they are being treated like princes. That they have been given all kinds of money, that they have been given health services, and education – ‘all kinds of things that we don’t have the Syrian refugees get’- How many Syrian refugees are there? A couple of thousand! They probably do get health services, so it is not totally false. But the typical history of scapegoating is to pick vulnerable people and find something that is not totally false about them- because you have to have some element of truth- and then build it up into a colossus which is about to overcome you. I mean there are states in the United States in the Midwest, where the legislature has passed laws banning Shari’a. How likely is Shari’a going to be imposed in Oklahoma? I mean you know it is not zero. You can find a woman somewhere who is wearing a veil, so there is something. But that’s the way it works. I think in Sri Lanka there is a pretty ugly history after all; I don’t have to recount it. You can find plenty of cases of massive atrocities and crimes and so on. A demagogic leader and the administration which is not working in the interest of the population but in the interest of wealth and power, almost reflexively is going to turn to attacks on the vulnerable with the support of the media and often the intellectual classes, and blow up small elements of truth into a massive attack. The United States is extremely interesting in this respect. It is the most safe and secure country in the world, but it is probably the most frightened country in the world. Do you know any other country where people feel that unless they take a gun to Church or a restaurant they might be attacked? I mean, does it happen in Sri Lanka? No! Does it happen anywhere else? but it happens in the United States of America. All over the United States people feel terrified — ‘they are coming after us’, and that goes way back in American history, and it has roots. There are historical roots.

Q: Going by what you just said Professor, Edward Said, one of your contemporaries and friends writing in the early 80’s in his seminal work ‘Orientalism’ and ‘Covering Islam’ points out that Islam has been portrayed by the West, as a monolithic entity. That the West ignored the different histories and different cultures and so on. Have the Muslims of today, 30 years on, bought into this propaganda and believe themselves that they are in fact a monolithic entity?

A: Take the US or the British policy towards Islam. It has been highly supportive of the most radical elements of Islam. That is true of the British and it’s true of the Americans after they took over from the British. So who is the leading US ally in the Islamic world? Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most extreme, radical, fundamentalist State in the world. But certainly in the Islamic world. And a missionary State, which uses its huge resources to sponsor its Wahabist extremism through Madrasas and so on. It is the main source of Jihadism. The main ally is that — monolithic. I mean what state power does, and propaganda usually follows, is (to) find what will support a power interest. In these cases imperial policy. If it happens to be radical Islam that’s fine. At the same time we might be fighting radical Islam somewhere else. The propaganda system would create images of Islamic terror seeking to destroy us when that turns out to be the plausible kind of scapegoating. So 9/11 happened and the Tamil Tigers atrocities happened. You can use those as ways of building up fear, anger, and anxiety to support the tendency to hide under the umbrella of power from these forces about to destroy us. Like Shari’a law in Oklahoma, got to protect ourselves!

Q: You spoke of a new shifting of the world order when you spoke of Nigel Farage and other Right wing elements shifting towards Donald Trump. Is there a shift in the international sphere, like we saw during the Cold War, where the world went into two different sides including the non-aligned? A kind of shift today that is happening, between the Right Wing nativists on the one hand and the Left wing internationalist on the other?

A: First of all, I don’t really agree with the conventional version of the Cold War. You take a look at the events of the Cold War. Not what intellectuals talk about, not the ideology. Take a look at the events. The events of the Cold War consisted of violent attacks by the US within its domains — which is most of the world. And Russian, violent attacks its much smaller domain, which was Eastern Europe. That was the Cold War. Each side used the alleged threat of the other as justification for its own internal repression. So the US had to support a terrorist war against Nicaragua because of the Russians, who were not anywhere nearby. The Russians had to invade Hungary because of the Americans. That was the Cold War. There was, in a way, you could describe it as a kind of tacit compact between the two imperial powers: The huge imperial power of the United States, the smaller imperial power of Russia. Kind of a tacit compact in which each side was authorized to carry out violence and repression in its own domains, for the US this means most of the world, without an actual conflict. Now there was a danger, always, a serious danger that an actual conflict might blow up in which case we’re finished. As soon as there is a major nuclear war, humans are done with. So there was always a fear, if there is a confrontation; but if you look at the events of the Cold War you get a very different picture. And it’s the events that matter, not the words.

Q: But is there a realignment across the world, Professor, between this Right-wing populist xenophobic elements and…

A: No, there is Left liberal populism too, take the United States.

Q: You gave me a good precursor to the next question. Isn’t the left liberal dead? I know you’ve had your differences with Slavoj Zizek but as he points out what Clinton personified and is a symbol of is that Left liberal position- a coalition which had you and also Alan Dershowitz, which had ‘Occupy Wall Street’ and Wall Street together. Isn’t this coalesce…

A: There is lack of comparison there. Alan Dershowitz speaks for the, it’s kind of a mixture, but the xenophobic extremist Right -he is all over the place. The Left liberal media, say NPR, he’s on it all the time, Right wing media he is on it all the time. Then there’s me. Am I on (them)? In fact, when you leave, take a photograph of one of my favourite front pages of a journal. I liked it so much I framed it. It’s the main Left liberal journal – ‘American Prospect’ – and it has a picture of two evil creatures who are threatening American liberalism, one is Dick Cheney and the other is me. That’s the parallel. And it indicates what’s in the mind of American liberals -“We’re being attacked by these monsters on both sides”- One of them who sits in an office and has no access to anything, the other- the guy who controls the biggest military machine in the world and is invading Iraq, those are the two forces. Same with the rest, ‘Occupy’ versus Wall Street, what’s the comparison? Actually, there is a comparison, but not what’s being described. ‘Occupy’ is very small, it doesn’t begin to compare with Wall Street. But the population does. And a lot of the population supports them (Occupy). In fact take the US election, in terms of numbers, Clinton won pretty easily. But more interestingly, if you look at younger voters, first of all Clinton won overwhelmingly, but Sanders won even more overwhelmingly. Here is somebody who came out of nowhere, no economic support, no rich supporters, no corporate support, 100% media opposition, basically unknown, talking about socialism, which is a bad word, and overwhelmingly won the youth support. Well, the constituency that supported him does not have money, power, corporate backing, and so on. So they are not considered popular, they are just kind of off the spectrum of discussion, but they are there. And they can change policies.

Q: Professor, since you spoke of the youth, we have watched you speaking about how Universities dumb down thinking or intellect. You are a person who, since your early teens, you have questioned the status quo, do you see that among the youth today? Are the youth questioning the status quo as much as they should?

A: Well, why did an overwhelming majority of young people support Bernie Sanders? That is the answer to your question. Yes, of course they are challenging the status quo. They don’t have wealth, military power, corporate backing, media backing, nor support from intellectuals; but sure, they are challenging the status quo. All the time.

Q: But across the globe, aren’t you also seeing them move toward the nativist nation state concept?

A: You are seeing that, but you are also seeing something like the Sanders phenomenon, Soy Podemos in Spain. I just happened to be in Barcelona, Barcelona is a major city, and the mayor who was just elected is a Left-wing activist. These things exist all over Europe. The Corbyn phenomenon in England, the Labour Party elite is bitterly opposed to it, of course the Tories kind of like it, because they want to see the Labour Party collapsing. But, it’s substantial. As soon as Corbyn opened a possibility for people, ordinary people, to participate, the Labour Party shot up. These are real opportunities. Take the Trump voters in the United States, many of them voted for Obama in 2008. Why? If you remember the campaign slogan, it was ‘hope’ and ‘change’ and they were voting for hope and change. They didn’t get any hope and they didn’t get any change, so they are disillusioned and now they are voting for someone else who is calling for hope and change.

Q: But don’t you see that happening even in South Asia? That it’s either Trump versus Corbyn? That the liberal middle ground, for which I use Hillary Clinton as a symbol is losing ground. That you need to pick a side, instead of staying in the centre?

A: Everywhere. Everywhere, the mainstream political organisations which are kind of centrist — centre Left or centre Right — are diminishing and collapsing. That is true of institutions too. There’s anger at institutions, contempt for them, hatred of them. Not just the political institutions, but the banks, the corporations, just about everything except the military. This, to go back to our original discussion, is a reflection, substantially, of the Neo Liberal policies of the past generation. It has harmed much of the population, offered nothing to them, given power and prestige to extreme wealth and professional elites who are protected. So, it leads to anger and resentment against the established institutions.

Q: Moving on, has the media changed landscape since you wrote ‘Manufacturing Consent’ in 1989? Is the media manufacturing consent now?

A: Well, we didn’t actually say that media is manufacturing consent; we said that -that is what they are trying to do. We discussed the nature of the media. There’s a separate question – to what extent is it effective? And that’s an interesting question, but we didn’t discuss it. They’re still doing it in the same way. In fact, dramatically. Take November 8, two things of critical significance happened on November 8. One of them was massively reported, the other, which was much more important, received no report – that was the Marrakesh Conference of two hundred countries that tried to implement the Paris programmes to try to save the human species from destruction. That’s a lot more important than what happened in the US election. And, in fact, it was undermined by the US election. What happened in Morocco is astounding if you look at it; one country was leading the way to try to save civilization from self-destruction. One country was way behind, trying to lead the way towards self-destruction, the first was China the second was the United States. That is a remarkable spectacle. Did you see a comment on it? Q: Nothing

A: That is manufacturing consent.

Q: Finally, you have come to the evening of your life after over half-a-century of being the epitome of pioneering thought and intellectual discourse, what are your views on religion? And what is your personal belief of life after death?

A: Personally, it means nothing to me, but if it means something to other people, that is fine. As long as they don’t bother others. I don’t ridicule it, I don’t have contempt for it, I have respect for their views, but they are not mine.

Q: And your views on religion, you were born into a Jewish family and raised…

A: Well, remember that Judaism is fundamentally a religion of practice, more than belief. So, say my grandfather, who was basically still living in the 17th century Eastern Europe was ultra religious. But if I had asked him, did you believe in God? He probably wouldn’t have known what I was talking about. Judaism means carrying out the practices. My father was basically secular, but deeply involved in Jewish life. If you go to a New England church on Sunday morning, you would find people who are deeply religious, but not believers. Religion to them means community, associations, helping each other, having some common values and so on. Religion could be all sorts of things. But to me, it doesn’t happen to be a value; if other people do, that is their business. (Hafeel Farisz)

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+5 # mashiguo 2016-12-22 19:56
INteresting.
Chomsky knew all along precisely what the problem was and still continued to shill for Hillary.
With her out of the way he seems to have his groove back.

Just more evidence of what an incredibly poor and divisive candidate she was.
 
 
+6 # Logic 2016-12-22 22:30
i am not sure Chomsky is back in the saddle. We will have to see.

George Lakoff said don’t say elephant unless you want people to visualize an elephant. Absent-Elepahnt is one aspect of Chomsky’s rhetoric. Currently, he does not connect the dots back to blame Our Leaders. Things just are, no one gets blamed.

for example
He discusses the Trump voters who have been ground down by neoliberalism without explaining how it happened to them. The reason? Eight years of Wall Street Dems. Neoliberalism has been a domestic policy of Obama and Hillary.

Trump supporters recognized that and voted for someone who was not-Obama, not-Hillary. Their vote was reasonable.

Likewise about fear of Islam. People fear Islam because the TV has taught them to fear it. Fear came about because the MSM preached the party line 24/7. But C does not say that part.

(Neoliberalism means make the public pay and give that money to banks and corporations. Turn the Interstate into a toll road. — Of course we have yet to see what Trump will actually do.)
 
 
+5 # kyzipster 2016-12-23 09:42
"Trump supporters recognized that and voted for someone who was not-Obama, not-Hillary. Their vote was reasonable."

That's just your opinion. It is undoubtedly true for some of the 60+ million voters but it does not negate the larger right-wing movement that Chomsky discusses along with the propaganda that feeds it. This election was as tribal as any other imo.

This is one of the first articles I've seen that even makes reference to the right-wing propaganda of AM radio and the rest. I find that disturbing that it's become so normalized over the last 30 years that we don't even discuss it anymore. I'm getting the impression that many don't even see it.

This election has taken it a step further as progressives are buying into a belief coming from the conservative side that Trump won because liberals are 'sensitive snowflakes'. If we bring up the racism and xenophobia of Trump's campaigning, other progressives are telling us that we're the problem. It's the latest bizarre turn of political correctness, 'don't hurt the feelings of Trump voters.' They're just 'reasonable' people who have had it with the establishment.

There's some truth in that and we need to stop dehumanizing half the population but it's far more complex and Trump's xenophobia and all the rest is a very dangerous trend. If a Trump voter feels insulted because of this truth, that doesn't change the truth or the fact that they supported it. Division is inevitable for now because we can't be silent.
 
 
+20 # Lloyd Wagner 2016-12-23 00:12
The US has a history of supporting Israel in the Middle East.
And Israel has the long tradition of disguising its worst actions to make them seem as though they were committed by "Muslim extremists". This goes back as far as the King David Hotel bombing in 1946, through 9/11, and right up to "ISIS", in Syria.
I do not for a second believe that Chomsky is ignorant of this.
 
 
+6 # dickbd 2016-12-23 14:03
Oh no, he is not ignorant of that. He has often criticized the actions of Israel and our support of them, as well as our arming them.

Even though he is of Jewish descent, he has often been banned from Israel as persona non grata.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-12-23 02:02
Not much new here but Professor Chomsky seems to be back, critical of neoliberalism though strangely silent about his own recent promotion of it. Maybe he's saving his intellectual honesty for an article. Maybe not. People tend to forget their own bad behavior. I know I do.

He defines a radical (my word) neoliberalism as starting with Reagan and Thatcher and continuing through the Bush and Clinton eras to the present, and in the discussion about the international reaction to its policies he warns that RW xenophobic alliances are occurring. This will undoubtedly accelerate with DT in office. Southern Poverty Law Center is a great place for information.

He descries our lack of knowledge about the world including Islam remarkably unaware that this is how Americans learn now. We go to war with a country, learn the geography and a little history, kill a bunch of people and then enjoy their restaurants.

Chomsky says we are the safest country and also the most frightened, but not that it's our leaders doing the scaring. Remember the Bush alerts?

He skirts around our complex and contradictory alliances in the ME but does not delve deeply and makes an interesting (if old) observation about our relationship with Russia: "Each side used the alleged threat of the other as justification for its own internal (hegemonic) repression."

Interesting but nothing new. I thought the most interesting things he said were about the Sanders movement.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-12-23 02:21
I thought Prof. Chomsky was most interesting on Sen. Sanders. He does admit there was 100% media opposition to the candidate but not his own part in that. He observes that the youth overwhelmingly supported Sanders, that they are challenging the status quo but they are ignored -- though 'they can change policies'. That seemed obliquely optimistic, if lacking in detail.

He said that youth doesn't have wealth or media, military or corporate support 'NOR SUPPORT FROM INTELLECTUALS'.

This seems to me to be a huge problem and an area where Chomsky might be able to help. The intelligentsia has been a force hostile to populism for decades, dismissive of people and popular movements generally. I would like to see academics like Chomsky examine their own prejudices and try to adjust their assessment of the people and the 'public good'.

I believe one major strategic change progressives need is to make a case to TPTB that their actions are counterproducti ve not only to US but to themselves.

We have no way to enforce better behavior in the oligarch class so we need to appeal to their interests .. and that is something the intellects can do .. rather than writing treatises on their own navels.

All hands on deck.
 
 
+4 # dickbd 2016-12-23 14:06
I don't understand any criticism of Chomsky. He has told the awful truth so much that he has been completely marginalized and ignored by the corporate media.
 
 
+11 # RLF 2016-12-23 07:41
Globalized free trade doesn't work without lots of cheap oil. Follow the money and one sees why we support what...it is all about making the rich richer!
 
 
+2 # kyzipster 2016-12-23 09:59
It will be interesting to see if gas goes up to $4 or more per gallon with Trump as it did during the Bush years, after very low prices at the end of Clinton's Presidency, just like today.

It wasn't talked about much but ask just about any small business owner. For many, sales dropped drastically when gas prices inflated. Food and other essentials experienced significant inflation, kept out of the media for the most part.

This led to the crash of 2008 indirectly. It would have happened anyway but I believe the gas prices set it in motion. We're experiencing another real estate and stock bubble. High gas prices could blow it up again. I don't know how much longer interest rates can be kept so low artificially, another major factor in our bubble economy.
 
 
+8 # Philothustra 2016-12-23 09:51
There is of course much that Chomsky doesn't touch upon with this interviewer: "Since we are confined by time, I would appreciate if the answers are kept as brief as possible." Its a little unfair to blame Chomsky for Sanders' failure to gain the nomination; Sanders' himself got on board with HRC to try to block the Trump disaster, and for no other reason.
The US is indeed an oligarchy now; S of S Rex Tillerson has a $500 billion oil project at stake in the Russian Arctic, and there is no discussion of conflict of interest perhaps he biggest in US political history?
The assmedia simply handed everything to Trump, hanging on his every tweet, but strangely silent about the Trump crime family and his cabinet's ties to the most evil and dangerous people in America. Not a single followup on Trump's promise to tell us "who really brought down the twin towers on 9/11.” I would venture there won't be any real press conferences or unscripted questions for the new king.
 
 
+5 # davehaze 2016-12-23 10:09
Did Chomsky "shill" for Clinton when he suggested that it was preferable that Trump still be defeated after Sanders lost the primary? Did he lose credibility because he wasn't "left" enough?
 
 
+2 # kyzipster 2016-12-23 10:25
I think it's interesting that Chomsky was insistent back in 2000 that there was no difference at all between the two main political parties. He sounded very different in this election year, losing credibility in the eyes of whatever this culture represents here at RSN. Even Nader conceded in a very round about way that there are some consequential differences after the Bush years played out in such a disastrous way.

I don't blame Trump on progressives who couldn't vote for Clinton but I will argue against a belief that there are no differences, the facts don't support it imo. I don't believe we will move forward easily with this new administration and Congress. This debate isn't about rehashing the recent past, it's about how to move forward.

If a Democrat like Obama keeps us stuck, it's preferable to the far right direction that Republicans achieve when they have the power.

I also believe the progressive movement did make gains during the Obama years. OWS, BLM, Standing Rock. Much more effective when protesting the Democratic establishment when they have some power. These movements have had a big impact on collective belief imo. Changing the debate slowly. Paving the way for Sanders-like candidates. With Trump it will be more partisan divisiveness, more 'us vs them'. There's no way to avoid it when confronted with right-wing extremism. It also empowers the Democratic establishment, they will be seen as saviors in 4 years, just like Obama and all of that hope.
 
 
+4 # dickbd 2016-12-23 14:16
I agree with much of what you say, as there definitely is some difference between the parties. Remember Gore Vidal? He said something to the effect that there is actually one party: the Commerce Party, and it had two wings, the Democrats and the Republicans.

I think there was much in what he said, but the Democrats lost credibility because they have become more hawkish, for one thing, selling out to the militray-indust rial complex.

Also, corporate interests have the Democrats in their pocket, too. None-the-less, there is a difference of degree. I can't help liking Obama, but he has certainly done a lot of bad things.

A good question is whether having Trump as president will bring the left to life. I'm hoping against hope that it will.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-12-23 18:03
It's true they, especially HRC have become much more hawkish. But I don't think the majority of voters understand that or if they understand, care. The ones who revolted seem to be focused on economic issues. Of course militarism gets in the way of having a robust economy that works for everyone, but people aren't focused on the root causes, just he effects on them.
 
 
+2 # dipierro4 2016-12-23 21:51
lfeuille said: :...[Dems] have become much more hawkish. But I don't think the majority of voters understand that...The ones who revolted seem to be focused on economic issues...."

I agree, but this election was so close that if so many progressives and young people hadn't gone 3d party, or just failed to vote, it might have made the difference.
 
 
+1 # kyzipster 2016-12-23 18:17
I agree with all of that. Democrats are a mess but I see value in working with them and certainly in challenging them to move in a better direction.

I think local politics are just as important and the differences can be stark, between Republican controlled states and states with a balance of power or liberal control. I live in one so it's impossible for me to see both parties as exactly alike. They're not even close on many issues.
 
 
+8 # danireland46 2016-12-23 12:23
Viva la Chomsky! It amazes me that most people's reaction when I refer to Chomsky is "Who?'
He is our National Treasure and his words are priceless in our increasingly stupefied world.
 
 
+5 # dickbd 2016-12-23 14:17
Yeah, and there is a reason most people say that. He has definitely been marginalized by the corporate media.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-12-23 18:07
I found it somewhat confusing that he kept talking about "left liberals" but what he was describing seemed to me to be centrists, not leftists.
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2016-12-24 05:20
As can be seen from the massive, excited number of comments here, Mr. Chomsky is a revered museum piece of what is called the Left in America. While I respect it, it has left us out in left field in the political game while the action has moved to the right-wing violence of the political ice hockey arena.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN